People still think they need to pay for good software

[aysiu]

Even though many free and open source applications are available for Windows, most Windows users believe they have to pay to get good software or certain functionality.

I used to be one of these not too long ago. I thought you had to pay (or use a trial version) for CD burning applications. I thought you had to pay to get a functioning office suite. I thought you had to pay to get an imaging program more sophisticated than MS Paint.

Now, Danny Gorog from The Herald Sun tells us (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19370124%255E11869,00.html):
If you are using a Mac, you can already create PDF files from any application provided it supports the "print" command.

An easier and cheaper way to create PDF files is to use the online converter available at Adobe. Visit createpdf.adobe.com and you can create up to five PDF files free.

Or you can sign up to create an unlimited number for about $14 a month. How about just using OpenOffice? They make it for Windows, too.

[benplaut]

actually, i'd say it's easier to use the print...

i'm disappointed - i was expecting another great ayisu article :D

[aysiu]

i'm disappointed - i was expecting another great ayisu article :D It must be my off-day today. Sorry!

[Kilz]

Even though many free and open source applications are available for Windows, most Windows users believe they have to pay to get good software or certain functionality.

I used to be one of these not too long ago. I thought you had to pay (or use a trial version) for CD burning applications. I thought you had to pay to get a functioning office suite. I thought you had to pay to get an imaging program more sophisticated than MS Paint.

Now, Danny Gorog from The Herald Sun tells us (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19370124%255E11869,00.html): How about just using OpenOffice? They make it for Windows, too.

I think that most people have the idea that if something is free there is either a catch or it is of poor quality because that's what they normally get for free. So they would rather pay for something that they think is better quality ( they paid for it after all , it has value, it cost something)
Also if they have any problems they can complain if they paid money and get help.

[B0rsuk]

I understand your concern about that, and you're right for most part. But one thing that bothers me: there are pretty much no good opensource games. People like games, a lot. At the moment, unless you like Linley's Dungeon Crawl (crawl in repositories; I love it) you usually have to pay for good games. Ok, so there's Wolf:ET and a few others, but they're very few compared to windows world.
If you want more games, cedega collects microsoft tax from you, and you end up paying more just because you use free OS. Wine can't run most games. http://appdb.winehq.org/
What's worse, is that DOS-era games are typically of much better quality and depth than your typical OpenSource games. http://www.the-underdogs.info/ And we all know how old DOS games are.

I understand creating an opensource game is different than creating a new browser, and takes different kind of effort, but still.
----------------

One more thing. I'd say most people actually think they don't have to pay for good software. This is because they don't, and they pirate it. This is suprisingly big problem for Open Source programs, because they're always compared to commercial products and price is rarely a factor.
Microsoft would DIE as soon as they implemented perfect copy-protection countermeasures. They know that. Users who pirate windows often wouldn't buy it anyway, but they could be doing something immoral, like running Linux ! MS doesn't want that.

[rado_london]

Microsoft would DIE as soon as they implemented perfect copy-protection countermeasures. They know that. Users who pirate windows often wouldn't buy it anyway, but they could be doing something immoral, like running Linux ! MS doesn't want that.
Once MS do that they will make more money than before. Just because people will buy it rather steeling it.

[bruce89]

My sister has to buy Minitab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitab), as she is a Biologist, which would cost nearly $1200, wheras Gnumeric seems to do some of the functions for nothing. She recently had to renew her licence, as it ran out, even though she had never used it. Thankfully she gets an educational discount/gets it paid by the university. She actually tried to get a crack for it!

[prizrak]

I dont' think games could ever really be open source. There is way too much non programming stuff involved in games. There is also the issue of open source games being too open. You might not know that a new GTA is comming out until it is announced and when it is you have no clue what is in it till the demo comes out or you are lucky enough to be a beta. With FOSS it is way too easy to gain that information making it less interesting to wait for the game. I think another issue is creativity and comming up with cool ideas for games, not to say that FOSS people are not creative but artistic creativity is a lot more of a random talent than programming creativity. At the very least when designing Linux memory management or an office suit the assignment is clear. In gaming one person with a great idea might have trouble assembling a team needed to accomplish the task. As we all know good artists are not plentiful in the FOSS world.

There is also a problem of selling something, Ubuntu is free for the end user but the developers get paid and when it comes to Canonical (Ubuntu dev company) they can make money on paid support. In games such a venue is almost impossible might as well just pay up front. One thing I can see FOSS being great at would be MMO games that require a subscription in order to use it. However there is the issue of being able to cheat more easily with the source exposed. Another issue would be that gaming companies tend to make good money of licensing their technology, which has to remain closed otherwise there would be no way charge. There are of course some groups that just create a game or a program for free just because but alot of FOSS developers are actually working for companies that pay them a salary and I don't mean having one job while working on FOSS I mean something like RedHat or Canonical where the product is FOSS but the company is very much for profit. Lets face it the best software comes from a coordinated effort (no matter how it is achieved) and that is what companies are for.

There are many reasons for FOSS games sucking or just plain not being there.

@ the OP,
I believe that is a feature of a capitalistic society, people feel a sense of entitlement when they pay for something. Many times when someone is trashing Ubuntu on the forums he/she is met with a "it's free stop complaining" response. When someone pays $200 to MS they feel like it gives them some kind of an entitlement to help and support (which as we all know is not true) with anything free no such sense is achieved. It's true for more than just software, it works for just about everything.

[andrecasteliano]

I would pay for a specific software like AutoCAD or even Blender. Well, maybe not thousands of dollars ... but I would do that.
I would pay for a linux-distro too. I´ve bought Red Hat, Conectiva (now Mandriva) and 'official debian CD´s' and certainly would pay for a Ubuntu CD (I know its free, and will be forever). If they are shiping me something that solves my problems, something that makes my work a lot mot easier, I see no problem in pay for that.

Speaking about games, I think this is an area where Open Source will suffer until people learn it: some softwares must be closed source.

Open source softwares and Closed sources softwares should coexist!

[]´s

André Casteliano

[G Morgan]

I think one way gaming could be done is via an open source effort to build the game engine then a closed source proprietry effort with the artwork. This has the advantage of making the game portable because the engine source is open. At the same time the game can still make money because you're selling the content.

It could take a lot of financial pressure off of companies because they would no longer have to develop a game engine (or license it). Sure they would modify it but that takes a lot less effort than building one from scratch and also has the benefit to us of the extra work being returned to the community.

[rcarring]

I had a long conversation once with an engineer in the development area of Microsoft and he said the reason that Microsoft have to charge what they do for their products is tied up more in the technical support they have to give. He explained that if a package cost $400, about 10% is attributable to the software media/packaging and the balance is for the support they have to give.

[xtacocorex]

Even though many free and open source applications are available for Windows, most Windows users believe they have to pay to get good software or certain functionality.

I think that some Windows users are wary of free software because most of the stuff that can damage their system is 'free' software. They also don't want to listen to the people who attempt to explain that open source programs are safe because of the control process of their releases that is able to catch damaging code.

[Rumor]

There was recently (maybe 2 months ago) a long discussion in alt.comp.freeware under the subject heading "Do you still pay for software?"

Several issues were raised in that discussion, such as: Do you get better support from retail software than from freeware / open source software? and Are there programs for which there are no free alternatives?

I posted that IMO the support you receive from freeware / oss is usually better than what you get from retail software. Many of the big retail programs farm out their support to tech support people who may know less about the program than the user who is calling them with an issue. If the problem does not fit certain criteria on their little flow chart or script, then they don't know how to deal with it.

It has been my experience that when I have had issues with a free or open source program (e.g. pan) I can usualy get a response to my question from the author of the program. The author certainly knows more about the program than Joe-the-phone-support-guy. One of the biggest attractions of free programs to me is that they are (generally) much more well supported, be it by a communiy such as the ubuntu forums, or a mailing list or by direct contact with the author.

The only software I will purchase are games.

[Footissimo]

My sister has to buy Minitab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitab), as she is a Biologist, which would cost nearly $1200, wheras Gnumeric seems to do some of the functions for nothing. She recently had to renew her licence, as it ran out, even though she had never used it. Thankfully she gets an educational discount/gets it paid by the university. She actually tried to get a crack for it!

Minitab / SPSS etc are specialist statistics applications - you can do simple stats (like a generic t-test or whatever) on Excel and presumably Gnumeric...but more complex stuff needs specialist apps. I was doing stuff on a DOS based version of SPSS in 1994 that you can't do in Excel now.

[kadymae]

I think one way gaming could be done is via an open source effort to build the game engine then a closed source proprietry effort with the artwork. This has the advantage of making the game portable because the engine source is open. At the same time the game can still make money because you're selling the content.

It could take a lot of financial pressure off of companies because they would no longer have to develop a game engine (or license it). Sure they would modify it but that takes a lot less effort than building one from scratch and also has the benefit to us of the extra work being returned to the community.


The problem is, how can you gurantee that the people coding the stuff in their spare time out of the goodness of their hearts are going to hit their deadlines? Where's the stick and carrot?

And then there's the ugly fact that this code will then be taken into projects and sold and the people doing the non graphics coding will not see any money while the artist(s) and the people who write the code to put the artist's design over the game are going to get paid handsomely.

There could also be problems with part of the code being open source and part being closed.

Finally, I happen to personally know Brian Wood (designed the look of GTA) and John VanFleet (designed the look of the Alias game and several others). I'm not sure about Wood's contract, but I remember that a recent one of VanFleet's stipulated that he could not sell (or even display) his original art until the game had been released.

And if the game is delayed because multiple missed deadlines ... an artist could be sitting on art sales for a long time. Not to mention cause problems with gallery displays, or portfolios of work.