Do you think that trying to sell software in 10.10 MM will work?

[josephellengar]

Personally, I think it will fail miserably. We are a community of people used to getting free software with an excellent free alternative for almost every paid application out there. Perhaps the only things that will sell in Maverick are crossover (for the wine-impaired) and Matlab.

[MasterNetra]

It really depends upon the software being sold. If what's sold is software thats better then or has no free alternative, then sure those with the money & want it will buy it. Just stuffing a bunch of random junk on the other hand might cause failure. But I think Linux Community has potential.

[Islington]

Personally, I think it will fail miserably. We are a community of people used to getting free software with an excellent free alternative for almost every paid application out there. Perhaps the only things that will sell in Maverick are crossover (for the wine-impaired) and Matlab.

I would buy games.

[chriswyatt]

I don't think it'll be a problem, I can't see it killing FOSS.

If the model works it might encourage more companies to make their software for Linux, that can only be a good thing I think.

The thing with free open-source software is that it isn't likely that they'll suddenly turn into products people have to pay for, and if they did I reckon the community would just create their own branch of the software.

[josephellengar]

I already pay for Matlab, but only because I have to for school. The only other useful application out there is crossover, but that's just a pimped-up version of Wine. I don't see a developer community growing (except for games) over one distro with an application store. But for the sake of the deeply in-debt Canonical, I hope it succeeds.

[foxxxy]

Most people mistake the term "free software" as in software that has no price tag. "free software" is software that gives you complete freedom for using the software. That being said, I would gladly buy free programs through the Software Center, helps development too.

[YuiDaoren]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Or, some nice developers get to make a little cash. Who can tell?

[Dustin2128]

I'd buy games and I'd buy free software. That's it.

[saulgoode]

I believe it will fail in the sense that any revenue accrued will be insufficient to compensate for the loss in quantity and in quality of the volunteerism supporting Ubuntu.

[TNT1]

Most people mistake the term "free software" as in software that has no price tag. "free software" is software that gives you complete freedom for using the software. That being said, I would gladly buy free programs through the Software Center, helps development too.

Exactly. I use linux/ubuntu, cause it's free, as in I can fiddle the source anytime I want, and cause it's the best OS I have used. I've said many times here before, that I would pay for my Ubuntu OS anytime, so paying for software for it is a no brainer.

[josephellengar]

bump. Any other opinions?

[Simian Man]

You can't sell free software. You can accept donations though.

[kevin11951]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Or, some nice developers get to make a little cash. Who can tell?

+9(9^9) (A really big number)

[NCLI]

You can't sell free software. You can accept donations though.

Tell that to Red Hat.

[Simian Man]

Tell that to Red Hat.

You can sell support, but you can't sell free software. Imagine if Red Hat offered no support for RHEL. How many people would buy it vs. how many people would download CentOS?

[NCLI]

You can sell support, but you can't sell free software. Imagine if Red Hat offered no support for RHEL. How many people would buy it vs. how many people would download CentOS?

They don't just sell you support like Canonical, they sell you a license for a product, and just like Microsoft, support is naturally included.

[Simian Man]

They don't just sell you support like Canonical, they sell you a license for a product, and just like Microsoft, support is naturally included.

Right, but if there wasn't support included, nobody would buy the product. They'd get the exact same thing for free from CentOS. Ergo Red Hat is not selling a product, they are giving the product away for free and selling support.

[Swarms]

I think it will be great. People will bash it for not offering enough, but eventually it will have games and other software. Some people in here make it sound like the Ubuntu userbase is a bunch of freeloaders. I am sure that many will pay for software if it's better than its free equivalent.

[ssam]

You can't sell free software.

you can. but you have to give the source code along with it, and you can stop your customer from selling it and undercutting you.

lots of people buy expensive bottled water, even though they have could get it from their tap at home for almost nothing (mains water in the UK is usually metered, and sometimes included in rent).

anyway i suspect this will be used mostly for non free software. it lets canonical do the packaging, so that software vendors don't have to worry.

[Simian Man]

you can. but you have to give the source code along with it, and you can stop your customer from selling it and undercutting you.
I'm assuming you meant can't stop people from undercutting you and that is the point. If you can get one product for a cost and the same product for a fee (legally), then anything you pay for it is simply a charity.


lots of people buy expensive bottled water, even though they have could get it from their tap at home for almost nothing (mains water in the UK is usually metered, and sometimes included in rent).
Well there are two differences. Firstly you can buy bottled water in some situations where it is more convenient than tap. Secondly there is some pretense that the bottled water is of higher quality. Most people know that's BS, but a lot don't. Neither of these apply to the situation where you can get exactly the same product either for free or for a charge.


anyway i suspect this will be used mostly for non free software. it lets canonical do the packaging, so that software vendors don't have to worry.
I'm sure that's the idea. People just were saying that they would be selling open source programs, which is not feasible.

[beew]

I am just curious what would be for sale. It is probably just more packaged and slightly enhanced versions of something already freely available with some added proprietary features, like crossover for wine, etc. So why would I pay for that?

Some people seem to be thinking that brand name softwares such as Photoshop or a lot of games will suddenly be available magically. Well the thing is many paid softwares are not available in Linux not because they can't be put the repository of some Linux distro, but because the vendors don't support Linux, that is not going to change even if Ubuntu has a repository for paid softwares. You can always pay for the software you want if 1) it supports Linux and 2) You have the $$ and don't mind paying. I really don't see a lot of point in this and it probably will cost them more to set it up than it will pay off. There may probably be some damage to Ubuntu's reputation in the FOSS community as well,--it doesn't bother me personally, just to be clear.

[TNT1]

You can't sell free software. You can accept donations though.


Ummm

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

A significant distinction, I think...

[RiceMonster]

Ummm

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

A significant distinction, I think...

Ummm

That's not what Simian Man meant at all. Simian Man didn't mean "you aren't allowed to sell free software", but rather "you won't make any money selling free software".

A significant distinction, I think...

[tgm4883]

Personally, I think it will fail miserably. We are a community of people used to getting free software with an excellent free alternative for almost every paid application out there. Perhaps the only things that will sell in Maverick are crossover (for the wine-impaired) and Matlab.


free != Free

[rjbl]

1. GNU/Linux is an Operating System. It is free. It imposes no obligations upon its users only to use free or to use commercial applications. It imposes no obligations upon its users whatsoever. It never has done.

2. A very large bunch of free applications have been published which run, native, in the GNU/Linux environment.

3. A significant number of commercial products have been ported to GNU/Linux.

4. A significant number of industrial GNU/Linux-native applications have been commercially produced - eg a number of significant CAD systems are available.

5. A rather large number of European corporates and public bodies adopted GNU/Linux as their corporate platform more than a decade ago - about the time that the English speaking countries went Microsoft. Most European Linux using corporates (etc) have been happily using mixtures of freeware and commercial ware for more than a decade now.

6. Not an issue

rjbl

[limestone]

I think it's a great idea that will succeed. "Free software" means actually free as in open source and freedom, not free of charge. And there will still be tons of free "gratis" software so don't worry if you want cheep software.

[TNT1]

Ummm

That's not what Simian Man meant at all. Simian Man didn't mean "you aren't allowed to sell free software", but rather "you won't make any money selling free software".

A significant distinction, I think...


Ok, well, then I still disagree. You can and should make money from selling free software. Of course you must understand that my understanding of free software in the context of an ubuntu world, has very little to do with money. I understand it to be free in the true sense of ubuntu, the African philosophy.

[ubunterooster]

There would be some things that I always will pay for but for the most part I have become a cheapskate.

[Simian Man]

Ok, well, then I still disagree. You can and should make money from selling free software. Of course you must understand that my understanding of free software in the context of an ubuntu world, has very little to do with money. I understand it to be free in the true sense of ubuntu, the African philosophy.

Please pass the Kool-Aid.

[JDShu]

Ok, well, then I still disagree. You can and should make money from selling free software. Of course you must understand that my understanding of free software in the context of an ubuntu world, has very little to do with money. I understand it to be free in the true sense of ubuntu, the African philosophy.

What they mean is that there is no way people are going to buy your product if they can get the exact same thing for free (as in beer) somewhere else.

[TNT1]

What they mean is that there is no way people are going to buy your product if they can get the exact same thing for free (as in beer) somewhere else.

I understand that. It's not a sustainable philosophy. It's the same polarised thinking that made your stupid economy collapse the other day, just coming at it from the other side. There is a sustainable medium, you just have to apply yourself to reach it.

[blur xc]

Poll Options ---> FAIL

Wow- my thoughts exactly.

Well- it works in the iphone app store. There are free apps, and there are pay apps.

I'd pay for free (libre) apps as was as proprietary apps. My big one right now is Bibble- and I would LOVE it if I could install it from an ubuntu repository. I would also love it if I could install bibble plug-ins from there as well. Getting regular updates w/o having to install individual .deb files would be fantastic...

I personally HATE installing from .deb files, and would rather go through the repositories, for pay and free apps.

BM

[JDShu]

I understand that. It's not a sustainable philosophy. It's the same polarised thinking that made your stupid economy collapse the other day, just coming at it from the other side. There is a sustainable medium, you just have to apply yourself to reach it.

Can you explain how one would sell Free software? Sustainably?

[tgm4883]

Can you explain how one would sell Free software? Sustainably?

I would assume that may include software as a service and/or support.

[TNT1]

Look at it this way, the whole world use windows, and spends a butt load of money on using it. If everyone stops doing that, it kinda leaves a hole? The same applies to most, if not all, commodities, and an OS is just that.

Karl Marx had a theory, much maligned, mostly misunderstood, but his theory was not to stop producing and spending, but what to do with the surplus.

Free, as in paid for but open, software, makes it possible to re-distribute the surplus. The trick is that you have to keep on making a surplus, otherwise there is nothing to redistribute = sustainable.

There's a bigger picture at work here that some dude in frogballs arkansas sitting in front of his pc - but we need him for all of us to get ahead. Get it?

[KiwiNZ]

You can't sell free software. You can accept donations though.

Mandriva has sold for a long time , its just that the company is very very badly run.

[beew]

How do you make money by selling free software? You may sell the initial copy and if it is good it will be shared and/or an open and free as beer version will appear if it sucks then no one will bother anymore. If I am not mistaken people make most money by selling supports and services for the free softwares but not the softwares themselves. There are also projects witch have a pay version (like OpenOffice.org v.s OpenOffice aka StarOffice) but the pay version is closed.

I am also not sure how you get closed, commercial softwares into the repository system unless the vendors do the packaging themselves. In that case why don't they just set up ppas with pay subscriptions? If that is too much work for them (as oppose to simply throwing you a tar ball or not supporting Linux at all since it may not worth the effort) why do you think they will package for Ubuntu's repository?

No one addresses the question I asked earlier. What do you think will be on sale and why do you think enough people would be interested in the first place?

[CraigPaleo]

Does this confusion only arise in the English language because of the homonym "free"?

The licenses ensure freedom and liberty. They don't forbid selling. As someone posted earlier, selling is actually encouraged.

[JDShu]

I would assume that may include software as a service and/or support.

Which is different from selling from a software store like the Ubuntu Software Center. I agree you can sell support, but not the software itself.


Look at it this way, the whole world use windows, and spends a butt load of money on using it. If everyone stops doing that, it kinda leaves a hole? The same applies to most, if not all, commodities, and an OS is just that.

Karl Marx had a theory, much maligned, mostly misunderstood, but his theory was not to stop producing and spending, but what to do with the surplus.

Free, as in paid for but open, software, makes it possible to re-distribute the surplus. The trick is that you have to keep on making a surplus, otherwise there is nothing to redistribute = sustainable.

There's a bigger picture at work here that some dude in frogballs arkansas sitting in front of his pc - but we need him for all of us to get ahead. Get it?

No I don't get it because I have no idea what you're trying to say. But I'll try.

It seems as though you're delving into political economy for some reason: The idea that after civilization develops beyond subsistence farming, we now have a surplus that needs to be managed somehow. Karl Marx's theory was one of many about how to manage that surplus. In fact, this is what modern economics boils down to. We want to provide for people's wants and needs with our limited resources (our surplus being part of that).

On the other hand, what you're calling the surplus that's "being spent" on Windows, it appears that you are referring to the producer surplus that monopolies are able to capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly), being the only producer in the market. What happens is that as opposed to in perfect competition, monopolies are able to capture the consumer surplus. This makes the monopolies better off and the consumers worse off. If people no longer need to buy windows, then the consumer surplus simply returns to them (in practice, we have money to buy other things). Consumers are better off.

So, with all that said, what does that have to do with selling foss software? You say keep producing surplus. So does that mean you want people to keep writing software and selling it once with the GPL?

What is true is that a huge part of the computer industry is not the software that we sell on shelves, but contractual work within companies. Is that what you mean? This would again be off topic from whether you can sell on Ubuntu Software Center however - since that IS off the shelf.

[Calash]

Don't really like the options in the poll. Too black and white with overlapping.

Personally I think that if the available apps are done right it will be a huge hit.

[icechen1]

Succeed. Linux users are an untapped community. As long prices are reasonable, I don't see why would it fail.

[cpmman]

Anyone from business to gamers who has a need which is unmet will happily pay for a satisfaction of that need.

[beew]

calash


Personally I think that if the available apps are done right it will be a huge hit.That has been my question , what do you think should be the right applications and why do you think they will be available to you with the paid repository but not now? What will change with the paid repository in relation to the availability of softwares?

I think nothing. If you need an app and it is available for Linux and you don't mind paying for it you will be able to find it online or in the store; if there is no Linux version having a paid repository won't change it.

The one click convenience of a paid repository will just make some compulsive spenders to incur more credit card debts.

cpmman


Anyone from business to gamers who has a need which is unmet will happily pay for a satisfaction of that need.How so? I really don't follow the logic.

Gamers whine about windows games are not being ported to Linux and business bitch about things like MS Office, how is this going to change?

[JDShu]

Gamers whine about windows games are not being ported to Linux and business bitch about things like MS Office, how is this going to change?

There are many indie games for Linux that can make an appearance in the software center. It takes a bit of effort to find out which games are available for Linux, so I think the studios could really benefit.

[cpmman]

cpmman[/B]

How so? I really don't follow the logic.

Gamers whine about windows games are not being ported to Linux and business bitch about things like MS Office, how is this going to change?

The companies who produce the popular programmes will happily produce versions for Linux if they believe they can make a profit from so doing.

[beew]

The companies who produce the popular programmes will happily produce versions for Linux if they believe they can make a profit from so doing.They always know, why do they think WINE exists? (Legally speaking you still need a legit copy to run in WINE) I am sure they get letters and emails from users too. Do you think the game companies will go through the troubles of developing a Linux version and package their products (since they are closed source they have to do the packaging themselves) just to ship them in Maverick? If they have the incentive why don't they even give you a tar ball to download from their website with pay subscription?

It is not like they don't know it will make many Linux gamers happy and they will pay for things like WOW if there is a Linux version.The point is whether the sales they make will justify the developmental costs. Many companies just don't take Linux users seriously enough, how often do you hear news that such and such a program has a Linux version and it turns out to be a much stripped down and buggy version of the ******* cousin and after a few months or a year they just quietly kill it?

Do you know this http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6100424493.html? You can't even find it in their homepage anymore, only the ******* and Mac version are up to date. The Linux version for the Foxit PDF reader apparently is also dead.

[cpmman]

Some people think the glass is half empty.

I think it's half full.

[beew]

JDShu

There are many indie games for Linux that can make an appearance in the software center. It takes a bit of effort to find out which games are available for Linux, so I think the studios could really benefit.
I don't disagree with you if it can be used as an advertising venue for indie games, but then I am not sure why people would pay for them while judging from many posts they are expecting something commercial and polished. You can already get many Indie games for Linux free (as beer and freedom)

[JDShu]

JDShu
I don't disagree with you if it can be used as an advertising venue for indie games, but then I am not sure why people would pay for them while judging from many posts they are expecting something commercial and polished. You can already get many Indie games for Linux free (as beer and freedom)

Indie games these days are pretty high quality and polished :D

World Of Goo, And Yet It Moves, Aquaria, Amnesia, etc. etc.

Also games don't completely replace each other. Whereas you can switch from MS Office to Open Office, people don't buy one game to play their whole lives. And as we saw from the Humble Indie Bundle, Linux users are clearly willing not only to pay for stuff, but also to pay more than Windows and Mac users. That's why I voted for "its an untapped market".

[beew]

JDShu

I am not a big game player so I wouldn't know (however I would suspect that there probably are quality indie games for Linux comparable or better than those you mention and they are free). But as a general observation I would say for better or for worse, FOSS is the most reliable friend of Linux. From a commercial perspective there is little reason to go through the troubles to develop something for such a small demographic while making softwares for Windows makes a lot more financial sense. I would say that money is probably not the main motivator for many devs who write softwares for Linux. Now I don't have an aversion to commercial softwares, I use Matlab myself (along with Octave), just stating a fact as I see it.

Of course that is just a general picture, it may change in specific markets. For example, all high end mathematical and scientific softwares like Matlab and Mathematica have Linux versions and this is because, these products target a very small and specialized market which happens to have a disproportionally high concentration of Linux users (so in scientific computing there is actually better support and more options for Linux than windows and Mac) and there may be a few other niche markets like that, I just don't think that would be the popular things that people are talking about such as games, but I can be wrong.

[jerenept]

I would buy games like "world of goo"
That game is really awesome, and i like it. I am more than happy to pay for it.http://www.worldofgoo.com/

[uRock]

I don't see a problem with making people pay for access to the repos where they have software that they have coded to make sure it works with Ubuntu. After all, you would be paying for a secure, trusted source to install software.

If they were to get a Linux version of Photoshop or MS Office, then I would see no reason for them to sell the software. The problem would be with blocking people from copying the applications over to another install, which we know would happen quickly.

Edit: I was looking to vote, but almost all the options appear to be written in a trollish manner. Every option seems to say that, "if it isn't free, then it isn't right."

[beew]

Just downloaded a demo for world of goo, it looks interesting. :)

[jerenept]

Just downloaded a demo for world of goo, it looks interesting. :)

I know, rite? totally worth it.

[tgm4883]

:EDIT:

Wrong tab. Fail :(

[simpleblue]

I'd buy games and I'd buy free software. That's it.
I'd buy games as well. And I would be happy if the money went into programming for Linux-based software.

I think a great way for Linux to go about it would be to make it seem more like a 'donation' then a charge. I know that might be a challenge. Or they could sell 'bonus' products. Like extra themes and wallpapers and maybe a cool menu. But I would not recommend Ubuntu trying to sell necessities like DVD decoding scripts. People might be quite upset.

As well, look at Opensuse. People were so happy when they became opensource, though that deal with Microsoft damaged them, so they must be REALLY careful not to let the commercialism thing get to them.

I'm not sure that's possible. But then again, if lets say Ubuntu had no choice but to sell to remain alive then yes. It would have to be done, and I'd understand.

How much FREE stuff do we think we can continue to get? Canonical is breaking even (possibly even losing money) as we speak. Does anyone care about this? They are what makes Ubuntu possible and people think they can just continue to ride them for free.

Sorry for the guilt trip. It's just that I can imagine how tuff it would be for Canonical to keep afloat and it's just about the ONLY company that I respect.

[JDShu]

How much FREE stuff do we think we can continue to get? Canonical is breaking even (possibly even losing money) as we speak. Does anyone care about this? They are what makes Ubuntu possible and people think they can just continue to ride them for free.

Sorry for the guilt trip. It's just that I can imagine how tuff it would be for Canonical to keep afloat and it's just about the ONLY company that I respect.

Well.. it's really Canonical as a company that has to figure out how to earn money. They are not a charity. It's not up to us to keep them afloat out of goodwill but up to them as a corporation to figure out how not to go bankrupt.

[Simian Man]

How much FREE stuff do we think we can continue to get? Canonical is breaking even (possibly even losing money) as we speak. Does anyone care about this? They are what makes Ubuntu possible and people think they can just continue to ride them for free.

Actually Red Hat is the company that most makes Ubuntu, and every other Linux distro, possible. And luckily they are doing just fine :).

[Khakilang]

To me a business or any business could go either way. Here we are trying to predict how it turns out. You will not know the result if you don't try.

[Johnsie]

If I like a piece of software and if I use it alot then I'm happy to pay a small fee for that. Alot of hard work goes into programming and I think that work should be rewarded sometimes. Sometimes freeloaders need to pay their way. If people just take, take, take then there will be no investment in products, quality will be bad and things will not get done. A programmer will do what he enjoys for free, but often they wont do what they don't want to do unless they are given a financial incentive. Carrot and stick is necessary to get detailed quality assurance.

[jshepherd]

I'd certainly buy decent software. Stuff that's quality and polished like you (generally) get with the other two main platforms. Even better if the the big boys start porting their stuff over to Linux because they can see some profit in it. Whilst I love OOo et al I would pay for M$ office to use on my favourite platform.

[Denis Krajnc]

It's funny how newcomers think that free of charge is what makes Ubuntu so awesome.

[jshepherd]

It's funny how newcomers think that free of charge is what makes Ubuntu so awesome.

Well free of charge is what attracts many to Ubuntu in the 1st place. I personally have been using Ubuntu since 7.10 so find many other things 'awesome' as you put it. As I said I would happily pay for quality software. Just standing by the principle of FOSS doesn't mean I cannot crave the polish of paid for software and for one thing I could dump Window$ for good. But, just as I wouldn't do in any other area of life, I won't pay good money for crap or work in progress stuff.

[blur xc]

How so? I really don't follow the logic.

Gamers whine about windows games are not being ported to Linux and business bitch about things like MS Office, how is this going to change?

I'm neither a gamer nor a businessman, but I happily shelled out $200 for Bibble- because it filled a need that I had. I used to be a Microsoft user, and was heavily invested in Photoshop and Lightroom, but I made the decision to go with Ubuntu. Now I had a hole that needed filling, so for a while it was either dual booting or running windows in a vm, and both solutions sucked. Once I found out Bibble was around, it was a no brainer. In some ways, it's not as nice as Lightroom, but in others it's better... I'm a happy camper.

BM

[beew]

I'd certainly buy decent software. Stuff that's quality and polished like you (generally) get with the other two main platforms. Even better if the the big boys start porting their stuff over to Linux because they can see some profit in it. Whilst I love OOo et al I would pay for M$ office to use on my favourite platform.

Yeah great so that M$ can become a complete monopoly with their closed formats.

[beew]

I'm neither a gamer nor a businessman, but I happily shelled out $200 for Bibble- because it filled a need that I had. I used to be a Microsoft user, and was heavily invested in Photoshop and Lightroom, but I made the decision to go with Ubuntu. Now I had a hole that needed filling, so for a while it was either dual booting or running windows in a vm, and both solutions sucked. Once I found out Bibble was around, it was a no brainer. In some ways, it's not as nice as Lightroom, but in others it's better... I'm a happy camper.

BM

Sorry, with due respect I think this is a bit naive and kind of typical.


My point was that these things aren't available because they don't have Linux versions. I don't see how that will magically change if you have a paid repository in Ubuntu. It costs them to develop a Linux version (it is not easy to port hugely complex programs like Photoshop to Linux, it is a big project on its own) and they figure it isn't worth it while most users for these softwares happily stay with Windows while those with Linux are busting their a** trying to get them to work on WINE (you still have to buy from them unless you use pirated copies) If PS develops a Linux version it will cost them a lot more than the Windows version and it is not like they can charge you double for it.

It is not going to change with the pay repo. If they are interested in the small Linux market,--for which most people who use these softwares have options like dual booting,-- and it can be easily done on their end it would have been done already. They could have set up ppas with paid subscription, but they wouldn't even throw you a tarball.


Even if Adobe comes up with a Linux version for PS it is probably going to be a buggy beta for a while with only limited functionalities comparing to the Windows version,--and of course you will pay the same price. You can't just make a Linux clone by waving a magic wand for something that big.

If you have a spare dime, contribute to FOSS instead. In the long run it is the only reliable friend for Linux (because moneywise it doesn't make sense to spend the time and money to go for the tiny Linux market where there is a strong ethos for "do it yourself" and free alternative for everything) I would rather see more resources going to open source developers than commercial, closed softwares which you may not really need, or only offers some small advantages over the free versions.

[blur xc]

Sorry, with due respect I think this is a bit naive and kind of typical.


My point was that these things aren't available because they don't have Linux versions. I don't see how that will magically change if you have a paid repository in Ubuntu. It costs them to develop a Linux version (it is not easy to port hugely complex programs like Photoshop to Linux, it is a big project on its own) and they figure it isn't worth it while most users for these softwares happily stay with Windows while those with Linux are busting their a** trying to get them to work on WINE (you still have to buy from them unless you use pirated copies) If PS develops a Linux version it will cost them a lot more than the Windows version and it is not like they can charge you double for it.

It is not going to change with the pay repo. If they are interested in the small Linux market,--for which most people who use these softwares have options like dual booting,-- and it can be easily done on their end it would have been done already. They could have set up ppas with paid subscription, but they wouldn't even throw you a tarball.


Even if Adobe comes up with a Linux version for PS it is probably going to be a buggy beta for a while with only limited functionalities comparing to the Windows version,--and of course you will pay the same price. You can't just make a Linux clone by waving a magic wand for something that big.

If you have a spare dime, contribute to FOSS instead. In the long run it is the only reliable friend for Linux (because moneywise it doesn't make sense to spend the time and money to go for the tiny Linux market where there is a strong ethos for "do it yourself" and free alternative for everything) I would rather see more resources going to open source developers than commercial, closed softwares which you may not really need, or only offers some small advantages over the free versions.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, and maybe that's because you don't understand fully what I am saying.

I am a amateur hobbyist photographer. I used to run Windows and used Lightroom for my RAW work flow, and ps for more in-depth image manipulation.

I made the conscious decision to run Linux full time on my new pc, knowing well the difficulties this will create for my hobby. For the time being, until a better solution came along, I dual booted or ran Windows in a VM to run the Adobe software I needed. But then I found Bibble which comes in a NATIVE Linux version. It costs $200 for the pro version, which I happily paid. Now I use Bibble and Gimp for my hobby. If Bibble came in a paid Ubuntu repository, I would be just that much happier, and Cannonical could take a cut of the software sales, which would be a bonus, and I'd get regular Bibble updates- so to me, that's a win-win.

There's a learning curve and some drawbacks using Bibble and Gimp compared to Lightroom and PS, but it's worth it. And in the end, the community has one more Linux user. And the more Linux users there are, the more worthwhile it becomes fore developers to write native Linux apps. I can't code- so that's my contribution.

Proprietary paid software in a repository system is a proven successful business model- see Apple App Store.

BM

[beew]

Sorry, indeed I misunderstood you, I have no idea what Bibble is :). But I just can't see why it is necessary for a Ubuntu repo. You can just go and buy it and they can set up a ppa for paid subscription.

I just cannot see what would be gain by that. If Canonical is going to take a cut I think most people would simply go to get it from the store, so it wouldn't even necessarily pay off for Canonical. They may as well invest some resources in improving Ubuntu's functionalities.



Proprietary paid software in a repository system is a proven successful business model- see Apple App Store.
Yeah, but Apple is a different story all together. It is all about marketing hype being trendy. Why would any otherwise sane person buy music from the Apple Store with all the DRM crap while there are cheaper and better legal (and illegal) alternatives? I don't understand at all, maybe I am just not cool. :)

[JDShu]

Yeah, but Apple is a different story all together. It is all about marketing hype being trendy. Why would any otherwise sane person buy music from the Apple Store with all the DRM crap while there are cheaper and better legal (and illegal) alternatives? I don't understand at all, maybe I am just not cool. :)

Part of what Apple is capturing is consumer demand for an easy way to find software and music. Many people don't want to have to search and find out what software/music is available across the internet. When everything is in one store, then its easier to match the right product for the right consumer.

[blur xc]

Yeah, but Apple is a different story all together. It is all about marketing hype being trendy. Why would any otherwise sane person buy music from the Apple Store with all the DRM crap while there are cheaper and better legal (and illegal) alternatives? I don't understand at all, maybe I am just not cool. :)

yeah- I also have no idea why you'd buy music from them. or any music all drm'd to hell (napster, rapsody, etc..). Just give me clean mp3's- ripped from a CD I own is the best...

But as far as applications go, the model works real well. You advertise it, and the user knows right where to get it- a couple taps of the screen, $5 charged to your itunes account, and your on your way. No googling, no adding ppa's, piece of cake... There's no physical packaging, no shipping and distribution hassles...

BM

[beew]

Part of what Apple is capturing is consumer demand for an easy way to find software and music. Many people don't want to have to search and find out what software/music is available across the internet. When everything is in one store, then its easier to match the right product for the right consumer.


That's true. But then the Mac experience appeals to users who want to be even more spoon fed than Windows users, I am not sure that approach will work for the Linux demographic though.:p Googling and searching for stuffs is an integral part and a basic survival skill for using Linux.

[beew]

yeah- I also have no idea why you'd buy music from them. or any music all drm'd to hell (napster, rapsody, etc..). Just give me clean mp3's- ripped from a CD I own is the best...

But as far as applications go, the model works real well. You advertise it, and the user knows right where to get it- a couple taps of the screen, $5 charged to your itunes account, and your on your way. No googling, no adding ppa's, piece of cake... There's no physical packaging, no shipping and distribution hassles...

BM

Maybe hassles are part of the appeal to Linux. :p

[jshepherd]

Yeah great so that M$ can become a complete monopoly with their closed formats.

Or.. So we can all benefit from choice. The best way to break the M$ monopoly is for it (M$) to have serious competition. Any business that doesn't have competition is, by default, a monopoly. Like it or not (and I don't btw) the world is run by market forces and if M$ sells what the market wants the it gains. If Lotus Symphony 3 is better than OOo then I'll give that a try. Oh no wait, I've read on these forums and elsewhere that IBM has a dubious past too. Where to turn next?? Sadly, my employer uses exclusively Microsoft - I have NO chance of persuading them otherwise, it is local government, which means if I want to work at home I have to use Windows or suffer compatibility issues particularly with spreadsheets.

[NCLI]

Right, but if there wasn't support included, nobody would buy the product. They'd get the exact same thing for free from CentOS. Ergo Red Hat is not selling a product, they are giving the product away for free and selling support.
No, they are not. Whether a formality or not, the fact is that you need a license to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and you have to pay for that license.

[JDShu]

That's true. But then the Mac experience appeals to users who want to be even more spoon fed than Windows users, I am not sure that approach will work for the Linux demographic though.:p Googling and searching for stuffs is an integral part and a basic survival skill for using Linux.

Wouldn't it be great though, if searching was not required ? It might even help with Bug #1 ;)

[beew]

Or.. So we can all benefit from choice. The best way to break the M$ monopoly is for it (M$) to have serious competition.

What is "better"? A main yardstick for "better" by many people (not all) who whine about the alternatives is compatibility with M$ closed formats. How is that a fair standard and how can you beat M$ when the game is rigged like that? (Though OOO actually has better compatibility with current Office formats than older versions of Office)

Let's face it, most people don't need the bells and whistles in MS Office,--and extras like visio are not even included in the basic suite. The vast majority (90+ %) of MS users don't program VBA macros or import big database into EXCEL. So the free alternatives ARE better ALREADY for the actual functionality they need and 10000 time more competitive cost wise.

So what is stopping them from using the free alternatives? Compatibility with M$ proprietary formats. How is wasting time and manpower to "compete" for better reversely engineering M$ formats a productive use of resources? All compatibility problems will go away if the world dumps M$'s closed format and devs can spend their time on actually improving productive functionalities. It is only then that you have real competition for the better.

I have NO chance of persuading them otherwise, it is local government, which means if I want to work at home I have to use Windows or suffer compatibility issues particularly with spreadsheetsYeah, that really gets my angry. Business can choose whatever they use, but governments should not assume that everyone has access to expensive office suite. If they insist on using closed formats that costs quite a bit as a prerequisite to access the government they should either give out free copies of M$ office or legalize pirating.

[JDShu]

Or.. So we can all benefit from choice. The best way to break the M$ monopoly is for it (M$) to have serious competition. Any business that doesn't have competition is, by default, a monopoly. Like it or not (and I don't btw) the world is run by market forces and if M$ sells what the market wants the it gains. If Lotus Symphony 3 is better than OOo then I'll give that a try. Oh no wait, I've read on these forums and elsewhere that IBM has a dubious past too. Where to turn next?? Sadly, my employer uses exclusively Microsoft - I have NO chance of persuading them otherwise, it is local government, which means if I want to work at home I have to use Windows or suffer compatibility issues particularly with spreadsheets.

Monopolies are an example of markets failing.

[postenga]

I want good games and good apps. I would pay or that. Sell programs will encourage more developers to create quality programs attracting more people to Linux platform. Good free programs will continue its development in parallel. Do not worry about the free software...they will never end. Sorry may bad english

[jshepherd]

I know I may sound as though I'm a Microsoft advocate but if you were to speak to my friends and relatives you'd hear them tell you how much I bore them trying to get them to use linux, and Ubuntu more precisely, with some success too. My wife uses Ubuntu - when she got a new netbook the other week she nagged me to dump XP and put Ubuntu on it (not NBR). My kids use it on our home PC, in fact I installed XP Pro on it because that's what their school uses and as soon as it was booted they complained!! However, we should also guard against being closed minded just like the M$ and Mac lot. You only have to look at the rages on the OOo Renaissance site against the proposed ribbon interface. Personally I like it. My personal computing Utopia is to see my Ubuntu (or any other distro) laptop competing and even showing the overpriced closed source boys how it can be done.

[jerenept]

Let's face it, most people don't need the bells and whistles in MS Office,--and extras like visio are not even included in the basic suite. The vast majority (90+ %) of MS users don't program VBA macros or import big database into EXCEL. So the free alternatives ARE better ALREADY for the actual functionality they need and 10000 time more competitive cost wise.



Have you EVER used OpenOffice to save a .ppt or .pptx presentation?

Like it or not, these are the standards, and there is little we can actually do to change it.

BTW, Office Open XML is the standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML


jshepherd, i like the ribbon. it makes things quicker and easier imho than menus.

[giddyup306]

I think it could go either way. It doesn't make any difference to me. I'm using 10.10 and the software center (at least as of now) looks just like Lucid. I installed one program from the Software Center just to have a peek at at.

If I like a program, I wouldn't mind throwing a few dollars that way.

[beew]

Have you EVER used OpenOffice to save a .ppt or .pptx presentation?This is my whole point. Compatibility with MS shouldn't even be something to strive for if there is fair competition, the only reason you would care is because M$ is running a quasi monopoly and everyone has to play by its rules. People shouldn't need to be competing to be more M$ friendly if there is a healthy market.

[KiwiNZ]

This is my whole point. Compatibility with MS shouldn't even be something to strive for if there is fair competition, the only reason you would care is because M$ is running a quasi monopoly and everyone has to play by its rules. People shouldn't need to be competing to be more M$ friendly if there is a healthy market.

You don't have to have compatibility with MS , but if you don't you will fail due to market forces.

[Madspyman]

The only way it'll succeed is if the paid apps, are better than the foss ones, or are apps that currently have no foss alternative.

Existing Linux compatible paid apps will probably be well received as long as they meet the above criteria. However new apps might beg the question "would this have been open sourced otherwise?"

I doubt it'll effect the freedom Ubuntu users currently enjoy. It might cause a bit of tension amongst the development community though.

[tgm4883]

The only way it'll succeed is if the paid apps, are better than the foss ones, or are apps that currently have no foss alternative.

Existing Linux compatible paid apps will probably be well received as long as they meet the above criteria. However new apps might beg the question "would this have been open sourced otherwise?"

I doubt it'll effect the freedom Ubuntu users currently enjoy. It might cause a bit of tension amongst the development community though.

Just because something is a paid app, doesn't mean that isn't open source. Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Madspyman]

Just because something is a paid app, doesn't mean that isn't open source. Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

Right, but isn't selling open source source software contrary to the philosophy of a great deal of oss developers? Also couldn't said app be easily forked making it less likely (nearly pointless) to be purchased?

[JDShu]

Right, but isn't selling open source source software contrary to the philosophy of a great deal of oss developers? Also couldn't said app be easily forked making it less likely (nearly pointless) to be purchased?

Selling open source software is not contrary to the philosophy of all or even a majority of oss developers. But yes, selling apps oss the traditional way ("off the shelf") is pointless.

[Madspyman]

Selling open source software is not contrary to the philosophy of all or even a majority of oss developers. But yes, selling apps oss the traditional way ("off the shelf") is pointless.

Perhaps I'm confusing oss with foss. So its possible to sell software with the source code made open, but sans permission to fork and redistribute?

[JDShu]

Perhaps I'm confusing oss with foss. So its possible to sell software with the source code made open, but sans permission to fork and redistribute?

I think we're all getting confused about what everyone is saying hahaha.

All I'm saying is that you are allowed to sell foss (oss, whatever, same thing to me) software as long as you include the source code with it. This is completely in the spirit of open source. Doing so is impractical though because its only a matter of time before somebody you sold to recompiles from the source and gives it away for free.

[beew]

You don't have to have compatibility with MS , but if you don't you will fail due to market forces.

So what is your point?

As long as the market is dominated by an almost monopoly, there will be no genuine healthy competition, as long as everyone is wasting time and resources in reversely engineering M$ formats and that compatibility with MSO is used as the most important criterion to judge competing Office suites the game is rigged.

Please say something more insightful than just spewing platitude.

[murderslastcrow]

I bought tons of music from the Music Store in Lucid. Who's to say I won't buy a few games, too? :D World of Goo is one of my favorites, and it'd be awesome to see it featured there.

[FuturePilot]

Perhaps I'm confusing oss with foss. So its possible to sell software with the source code made open, but sans permission to fork and redistribute?

The GPL explicitly states that you can charge for the software. It doesn't go against any philosophy.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.


I think we're all getting confused about what everyone is saying hahaha.

All I'm saying is that you are allowed to sell foss (oss, whatever, same thing to me) software as long as you include the source code with it. This is completely in the spirit of open source. Doing so is impractical though because its only a matter of time before somebody you sold to recompiles from the source and gives it away for free.

Xchat on Windows is a good example of that.

[blueturtl]

If they garner up a good selection of pay-for software, I think it could actually work really well. For starters, most people don't even know of a lot of commercial Linux software options.

I didn't know there was an alternative to OpenOffice.org with better Word interoperability (SoftMaker Office) that is also available for just 30 euros for students!

If these hidden gems can be found and are used to complement the already excellent selection of free tools available, there is no reason it couldn't benefit all parties involved.

[Madspyman]

I think we're all getting confused about what everyone is saying hahaha.

All I'm saying is that you are allowed to sell foss (oss, whatever, same thing to me) software as long as you include the source code with it. This is completely in the spirit of open source. Doing so is impractical though because its only a matter of time before somebody you sold to recompiles from the source and gives it away for free.

Ok so my point stands,


Couldn't said app be easily forked making it less likely (nearly pointless) to be purchased?

I was under the impression that selling open source software is a futile effort as it doesn't remain profitable after the code is forked/redistributed. Going on this notion I assumed all the apps in the store would be of a closed source nature.

[jerenept]

Ok so my point stands,



I was under the impression that selling open source software is a futile effort as it doesn't remain profitable after the code is forked/redistributed. Going on this notion I assumed all the apps in the store would be of a closed source nature.

opensource companies like RedHat and Canonical don't sell the software, they sell support.

[Madspyman]

opensource companies like RedHat and Canonical don't sell the software, they sell support.

I'm aware of that. The software is still free. However I'm responding to the Ubuntu software store and the apps they might sell.


The only way it'll succeed is if the paid apps, are better than the foss ones, or are apps that currently have no foss alternative.

Existing Linux compatible paid apps will probably be well received as long as they meet the above criteria. However new apps might beg the question "would this have been open sourced otherwise?"

I doubt it'll effect the freedom Ubuntu users currently enjoy. It might cause a bit of tension amongst the development community though.


Just because something is a paid app, doesn't mean that isn't open source. Those terms are not mutually exclusive.


Right, but isn't selling open source source software contrary to the philosophy of a great deal of oss developers? Also couldn't said app be easily forked making it less likely (nearly pointless) to be purchased?


Selling open source software is not contrary to the philosophy of all or even a majority of oss developers. But yes, selling apps oss the traditional way ("off the shelf") is pointless.


All I'm saying is that you are allowed to sell foss (oss, whatever, same thing to me) software as long as you include the source code with it. This is completely in the spirit of open source. Doing so is impractical though because its only a matter of time before somebody you sold to recompiles from the source and gives it away for free.


Ok so my point stands,
I was under the impression that selling open source software is a futile effort as it doesn't remain profitable after the code is forked/redistributed. Going on this notion I assumed all the apps in the store would be of a closed source nature.

Are you suggesting support for foss will be offered in Ubuntu software store?

[jerenept]

What is the problem with closed-source software in the Software Center?

[KiwiNZ]

What is the problem with closed-source software in the Software Center? (apart from conspiracy theories)

There is nothing wrong with closed source as such after all Ubuntu One is . But in keeping with the Ubuntu Desktop philosophy it is appropriate that a Ubuntu Software Centre for the Desktop be for Open Source.

Maybe a Separate closed source could be run as well.

Now as for the conspiracy comment , please dont , that was superfluous to this discussion.

[Madspyman]

What is the problem with closed-source software in the Software Center?

Nothing. I think trying to sell open source software would be a problem though.

[JDShu]

Ok so my point stands,
I was under the impression that selling open source software is a futile effort as it doesn't remain profitable after the code is forked/redistributed. Going on this notion I assumed all the apps in the store would be of a closed source nature.

I agree, I was just clarifying that it has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with practicality.



Are you suggesting support for foss will be offered in Ubuntu software store?

Hmmm, now that's an idea. It might work but would have to be pulled off correctly.

[gognos]

Nothing. I think trying to sell open source software would be a problem though. Really? looked around the net lately ?

There are hundreds of open source software that comes at a price

In fact several OS licenses allow for this


When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish) Straight from the gplv3 doc

You could also have dual licensing to stop folk redistributing/selling the code they can read.

Personally id love to see more games come to linux. However this will also need game developers to start using openGL instead of writing them solely for directX. Gaming though WINE sux

Free linux games are like playing a commodore 64 game compared to a playstation 3 .

Good commercial linux games are to hard to come by and usually ported months if not years after initial release



One can dream

[josephellengar]

Really? looked around the net lately ?

There are hundreds of open source software that comes at a price

In fact several OS licenses allow for this

Straight from the gplv3 doc

You could also have dual licensing to stop folk redistributing/selling the code they can read.

Personally id love to see more games come to linux. However this will also need game developers to start using openGL instead of writing them solely for directX. Gaming though WINE sux

Free linux games are like playing a commodore 64 game compared to a playstation 3 .

Good commercial linux games are to hard to come by and usually ported months if not years after initial release



One can dream

Yeah. I agree. We could use some more games. But really, it's not going to happen. There just aren't enough Linux users to justify porting the games to this platform.

[98cwitr]

Fail. The for-sale applications will get lost among the free.

[josephellengar]

It seems strange that nobody things that people just won't develop for Linux. Only 3 votes so far.

[leef]

I really hope that it does work but I get the feeling that it wont :(. I would just like at least the option to buy software.

[Primefalcon]

I think it will succeed though there were no options for me so I chose not to vote....

Here's the way I think it'll happen, you'll need to be able to submit software android/apple style. Once developers sell some software, some of the big players like adobe may start offering dreamweaver through it....

Once you get those offered, you'll see a huge up swell of users come in which will drag more developers and so such.

They'll need to offer more than 1 bloody application though, and they'll need it open to submission, and actually keep up to date with the submissions