View Full Version : Would you pay for software?

Pages : 1 [2]

Jay Car
March 30th, 2010, 09:48 AM
I didn't pay for my Ubuntu. If I had to pay for it, I would probably just use windows.

Isn't that a bit like saying: "If I had to pay for fresh air, I'd probably just breathe carbon monoxide." ??

V for Vincent
March 30th, 2010, 12:23 PM
Yes, if it's good. I hate windows ecosystem, where you have crappy 10 shareware apps for just about every little problem, but as long as we're talking quality software developed by a company that doesn't try to patent, say, certain letters in the alphabet... sure.

March 30th, 2010, 01:07 PM
I would pay for Linux software if it was good and useful to me. Not to mention if I get it in physical form like a CD.

March 30th, 2010, 01:15 PM
I wouldn't mind paying for the software if it was still open source and i could changed it as i wish.

March 30th, 2010, 02:27 PM
Isn't that a bit like saying: "If I had to pay for fresh air, I'd probably just breathe carbon monoxide." ??

I won't die if I use windows, that's an exaggerated comparison.
I still dual-boot windows because I'm still very inexperienced in Linux, and there are some applications that I don't have on Ubuntu.

Maybe some day I'll turn 100% Ubuntu, but until them I probably wouldn't pay for it. That's my honest answer.

March 30th, 2010, 04:22 PM
i might pay if it really worth of paying

March 30th, 2010, 06:50 PM
the open source is free. Its ok if not over price but all price will increase after sometime because it's been the trend. Better to donate than pay. and beside, it is "open source"

March 30th, 2010, 06:54 PM

March 30th, 2010, 07:54 PM
me has no money. no money: no software. no software: no happy.

March 30th, 2010, 08:43 PM
I actually HAVE paid for Linux software (mostly games). I think videogames are the main category where people WOULD be willing, since you can't just 'have a suitable alternative' to a game without breeching intellectual property. A lot of it is the novelty of the game's story and characters, so there really is no way to substitute it.

When it comes to Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, we always have GIMP, Kompozer, Synfig, and a limitless supply of other software to fix the commercial software problem. I mean, other than After Effects and Premiere, you can do the same stuff for free- I think this is a big part of the reason commercial vendors don't make stuff for Linux, since they fear we wouldn't buy it since we already have our needs satisfied, and the people that it WOULD bring over to Linux would realize they didn't need it in the first place.

I mean, GIMP can open PSD files and .xcf files. Photoshop doesn't support .xcf files. MS Office is just starting to support ODF. We're already at feature parity, but with more extensibility and integration than is available in commercial tools.

So when you can get, not only a similar product, but a BETTER product for free, I think this threatens commercial vendors quite a bit. The frightening thing is that open source is being used more commonly on Windows and OS X these days, so these people will have to lower their prices quite a bit to be real competition. 200 dollars for the whole Adobe CS Suite is what I see in the future, when their notoriety won't save their business.

Anyway, went off on a rant there- yes, I would, and I do, but pretty much only for gaming.

August 21st, 2010, 03:02 PM
Sure I would pay for Linux Software, just s I pay for windows Software.

As long as it is good, better than its freeware conterparts yes I would.

Dont take me wrong, I starting to love Linux but its apps are quite lacking in comparition to paid software for production and games.

If you want to a) play games or b) do multimedia production (music/websites/...) you really will want the paid apps/games.

Frogs Hair
August 21st, 2010, 03:42 PM
If there was a program I needed that was not free I would buy it .

August 21st, 2010, 04:18 PM
In the poll I voted that I might do but I honestly can't think of any software that I would need to but. Everything I could need is available either in the software centre or can be downloaded free from somewhere else. I don't play games on my computers so I wouldn't pay for those.


August 21st, 2010, 04:20 PM
Games, yes, other software, probably not.

I have no problems supporting game developers, especially indie developers, by buying games. I don't believe the open-source model works for games as it does for other software.

August 22nd, 2010, 11:49 AM
I would gladly pay for Protools and/or Propellerhead software and compatible hardware to function within a Linux environment. Without being forced to run VM or sacrificing preferred versions of said software for Wine compatibility. Like being stuck using 2.5 when you want 5.0.1 for example. Yes there are open source alternatives & they are fairly good. I must admit that these software titles are a little over priced. But what I am getting at is the fact that it would be nice to have the option. Linux is often forgotten by many software companies. The thing that drives me craziest is these software companies that claim their product to be cross-platform compatible. Yet they fail to mention that they mean Winblows/OSX only.

Actually no... The thing that drives me craziest is piracy. Piracy takes away from open source. Rationalize your actions how ever you want, I don't care. Think about it for just a moment. For example, say I chose to steal Microshaft Office. Had I done so. I would not have used Open Office. Nor would I have sent them a donation. Why steal a paid application when you have the alternative Freedom of Open Source?!?! Considering the alternative is often better than the paid software to begin with. :mad:

Sorry I got a little off topic & ranty there...

August 22nd, 2010, 10:36 PM
I'd happily pay for high-quality games, but for just about anything else, I'd look for a free alternative.

Rahbee Kannuhn
August 22nd, 2010, 10:41 PM
I have payed, and would pay again for Linux software.
Particularly games. But I have bought Nero, Transgaming, and Crossover in the past, as well as a Silver Subscription to Mandriva many years ago.

August 22nd, 2010, 10:52 PM
If it's worth the price of admission. In my day to day use haven't found much that I wanted to do that I couldn't for free

August 22nd, 2010, 10:57 PM
I would pay for open source software if it wasnt so over priced? Have you seen the cost of photoshop? There is no way in hell I am paying that.

I would pay a reasonable amount of money however, especially for games. I think games is the one area where I wouldnt mind paying but only if its native. If I have to run it on wine then I would be less likely to want to pay for a physical disk, especially if they expect me to dual boot.

August 22nd, 2010, 10:59 PM
I have paid for Linux software.

August 31st, 2010, 12:28 AM
If the need for the software is their yes.

August 31st, 2010, 12:31 AM
games, Dreamweaver

August 31st, 2010, 12:33 AM
If it was good software that I needed and the price was fair, then yeah...

August 31st, 2010, 12:36 AM
Yes, I have paid for Linux software. I upgraded my Windows Beyond Compare license to a multi-platform license as I could not find any other program that had BC's capabilities.

Spice Weasel
August 31st, 2010, 01:13 AM
I'd pay if, but only if:

The program is also open source. I don't mind closed source programs, but I'm not paying for them.
There are no free alternatives.
There is good, free support (included with the package)
I really need it. I would pay for a game, but otherwise it would have to be for work purposes.

September 20th, 2010, 03:33 AM
I'd pay if, but only if:

The program is also open source. I don't mind closed source programs, but I'm not paying for them.
There are no free alternatives.
There is good, free support (included with the package)
I really need it. I would pay for a game, but otherwise it would have to be for work purposes.

I'm much the same way, but things like PhotoShop CS being $600... for what? I don't mind donating something to people who make things like GIMP or Aleph One possible, but would I be content to spend $600 in an environ where no low-cost alternatives forced Adobe to create Essentials? It's mostly hubris, and more than a little ridiculous for a corporation that size to behave that way. I'll give my money to those who need it. So I suppose mine would be chalked up as "Other", under the subheading "conditional Yes."