PDA

View Full Version : Will Linux users pay for good apps?



bigbearomaha
August 26th, 2007, 05:17 AM
The goal of the poll is to get an idea of whether Linux users will support app development that would provide higher quality software but allow the developer/business to make a living at making solid apps.

Fonon
August 26th, 2007, 05:19 AM
I myself believe that high quality software should be allowed to be sold. However, it does have to be very good software, and i do think the source code should be available with it.

selda
August 26th, 2007, 05:46 AM
I have no problems with paying for software, but I always look for free alternatives first

Chilli Bob
August 26th, 2007, 05:48 AM
I voted for the first option. It surprises me that programs like Word Perfect and Quatro Pro have never tried to port over to Linux (This may well be impossible, I'm no programmer). It seems to me that there is a market out there for people seeking a non-windows environment but for whatever reason don't like open-source apps.

Personaly I would stick with Abiword and Gnumeric, but would happily pay for a decent propietory video editor.

bigbearomaha
August 26th, 2007, 05:49 AM
I work with a business oriented version of Linux and this is an issue that comes up with remarkable intensity.

Many of the requests we get to find apps to include in the business version of Linux are essentially asking for apps that are equivalent to many " professional" and pay for apps. Is it "fair" to programmers to demand such quality for no cost, they do have families to feed also.

On the same token, I don't think there is any one who wants Linux to become a big money bonanza for development where companies and strike it rich programmers are simply trying to make a bang whiz app they can charge an arm and a leg for to get rich overnight either.

The solution lies, as usual, somewhere in the middle.

Big Bear

st33med
August 26th, 2007, 05:56 AM
Well, if you aren't being invested by a company, say, Canonical, or don't rely on stocks, then you will want some money out of it... if you don't have a job.

However, if it is a really good quality program, and you went through blood, sweat, and tears to make it, charge some money, like, say $5-$15.

Suicidal
August 26th, 2007, 06:03 AM
I would, the problem with most Linux apps so far is that they are
targeted at a specific distro. I myself want the freedom to install on any
distro be it ubuntu, gentoo, etc.. I am buying an application, not an
application for my current distribution of choice.

The second biggest problem with proprietary Linux apps is the so called
"Linux appliance" companies that make these think that they do not
need to keep it current in regards to bug fixes or security patches.

Not to mention most Linux appliances are so locked down if you do have
a serious problem say with samba you can't even upgrade to a version
that fixes your problem.

So in my experience most people and most enterprises are wanting good
Linux apps but very few proprietary companies do a good job in support.

dasunst3r
August 26th, 2007, 06:11 AM
If I have good use for it, I would pay for it. I rarely use Windows, but I still pay for it out of fairness.

some_random_noob
August 26th, 2007, 06:21 AM
I have no problems with paying for software, but I always look for free alternatives first
Agreed.

I have nothing against proprietary software and I don't mind paying for it. The only time I hate proprietary software is when that "software" is an operating system - such as Windows. Proprietary applications are fine and yes I'd pay for them - but only if it's a good company :) Linux needs proprietary software to help its growth.

Proprietary software=ok.
Proprietary operating systems=too much power over the user.

aysiu
August 26th, 2007, 07:13 AM
Your poll options make no sense.

IF the apps were of a high quality, marketable value, Would you pay...?
The price was reasonable but the licence was proprietary
The price is high but the license was opensource
The price is "fair" and the license is a type of opensource to stop theft/allow modification
Never. All Linux apps should be Free as in Free Beer and opensource.

If the license is open source, the price can't stay high for long.

Let's say someone tried to charge $2000 for an open source piece of software. People would say, "That's ridiculous. I'll just recompile the source and distribute it for $50... or for free."

You can charge for open source, but because it's open source, you don't have a monopoly on the code and thus can't effectively charge exhorbitant prices for the software.

The currently non-existent option I'd vote for would be The price is reasonable and the license is open source.

Dimitriid
August 26th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Equating a price to good applications is a fundamental sign of bourgeoisie alienation: an application is as good as the time and effort invested in it, period. Whenever or not people gets remunerated for their work is independent from the outcome if they work and produce quality goods nonetheless. You can't simply expect Linux users to "pay up!" when the entire system historically was build largely on volunteer work and manager to equal and surpass similar commercial OSes on several aspects.

I say free as in free of capitalists value judgments.

samjh
August 26th, 2007, 07:21 AM
I believe in the rights of developers to create products and get paid for their efforts without having their work nicked by others. So the obvious option for me is #1.

revford
August 26th, 2007, 07:55 AM
It surprises me that programs like Word Perfect and Quatro Pro have never tried to port over to Linux (This may well be impossible, I'm no programmer).


WordPerfect was ported to Linux, long before we had OpenOffice.

Very few people bought it and so it was dropped.

Any paid-for software would have to be very, very special to get my money.

That said I did buy a load from Loki Games while they were in business. It seems their rise and fall has frightened off any other potential for pay Linux developers and porters in favour of the free-software-paid-service model.

Chilli Bob
August 26th, 2007, 08:01 AM
WordPerfect was ported to Linux, long before we had OpenOffice.

Very few people bought it and so it was dropped.



In the old days of Linux that doesn't surprise me. Now, with the enterprise versions of SUSE and Red Hat being more common, it may be time to try again.

HotShotDJ
August 26th, 2007, 08:09 AM
The currently non-existent option I'd vote for would be The price is reasonable and the license is open source.I agree with this as well. I will resort to proprietary software ONLY if there are no other options AND the software is of exceptional quality AND it is sold at a reasonable price AND it is devoid of "phone-home" anti-piracy schemes such as Microsoft's famous WGA program.

revford
August 26th, 2007, 08:10 AM
I just don't see what WordPerfect could offer that OpenOffice doesn't?

OO is free and updates are free forever, support is good from both vendors and the community.

The only thing WP had going for it was name value, and that vanished five years ago.

It's the same up and down the board now, for most users, OO replaces MS Office, GIMP replaces Photoshop, Firefox replaces IE, Evolution replaces Outlook, Pidgin replaces all those IM clients and so on.

I'm not sure there is a corner of the market, other than games, for a commercial software company to fill.

I'd choose Free Software first, it's just safer in the long run.

Chilli Bob
August 26th, 2007, 08:28 AM
I'm not suggesting that Wordperfect can offer anything that OO can't, just that some people would buy it because they put more trust in something that costs money than something that comes for free. If Microsoft released Office for Linux it would sell too. People are like that, alas.

revford
August 26th, 2007, 08:46 AM
Strange that isn't it? That people would trust non-free software over free.

I guess people don't grasp the freedom aspect at first and only see the no cost part.

MS Office for Linux would sell, it's just no one really needs it.

The only people who buy it would be companies who have a manager who still can't see what Free Software is really all about and people who get scammed into buying it thinking its needed to read MS Office files.

Seems almost cruel.

aysiu
August 26th, 2007, 09:04 AM
MS Office for Linux would sell, it's just no one really needs it.

The only people who buy it would be companies who have a manager who still can't see what Free Software is really all about and people who get scammed into buying it thinking its needed to read MS Office files. MS Office for Linux would be great, actually. There are things MS Office can do that OpenOffice cannot (even little things like grammar checking or changing case to sentence or title case instead of just upper or lower case). And OpenOffice can edit MS Office files, but the compatibility isn't 100%, and when it comes to business, 100% compatibility is a necessity.

I think most home users would be fine with OpenOffice, but it's ridiculous to say that no one needs MS Office.

DjBones
August 26th, 2007, 09:14 AM
Although it seems obvious that people would want "high quality" for their business's and such. The poll was asking if i would personally spend money on software, my gut answer is no, i would not spend money on software ((unless for some unexplicable reason i direly needed it)).
Its my personal belief that open source is a superior way of producing software.. if weve gotten this far with a handful of developers and a miniscule market share, think how in the near future these "professional" programs will compare to the advancing open source alternatives haha

revford
August 26th, 2007, 10:02 AM
I think most home users would be fine with OpenOffice, but it's ridiculous to say that no one needs MS Office.


Sorry.

I stand corrected, very few people need it, rather than no one.

There is still a business case to be made for keeping MS Office around while you transition to Open Document.

Once people start moving to the Open Document Format, the need for MS Office compatibility will be a thing of the past, vanishing along with the need for WordPerfect and Lotus 123 compatibility that were once so important.

The trouble I guess you'd have with a Linux version is the same that the Mac version suffered for many years, that it was 100% compatible and feature balanced with the Windows version, to encourage you to migrate.

hessiess
August 26th, 2007, 10:38 AM
i dont mind buying softwere, but there curently isent any. prpiatry softwere alwase seems to be less stable than the opensorce option, on windows anyway

daverich
August 26th, 2007, 12:06 PM
I don't care what the licence is as i'm not a programmer so would never be able to change/modify anything anyway ;)

I do know that there aren't any decent audio apps on linux yet and if there were then i would buy them

Kind regards

Dave Rich

Dark Star
August 26th, 2007, 12:08 PM
I am not having any problem paying for good s/w just waiting for a Comprehensive s/w like PS to launch for Linux too :D

Phreaker
August 26th, 2007, 12:31 PM
I strongly believe that linux apps should all be free
Otherwise in poor countries people will start to pirate Linux apps and It will become another Windows

diffuze
August 26th, 2007, 12:39 PM
I don't know what to vote for, but my stand is this:
the only apps I miss in linux are games. New games. Regarding other apps I have linux alternatives that fits all my needs.
I'd pay the same price for a game made for linux that I do for the windowsversion. License for these games are unimportant.
Gaming is the only reason I dualboot so .. :)

BOBSONATOR
August 26th, 2007, 01:18 PM
No,

I will pirate it if so.

meindian523
August 26th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Would pay if the price is worth the functionality it provides but the source code needs to be available........

:::
August 26th, 2007, 01:37 PM
If Adobe sold such a thing, I would instantly buy Photoshop for linux (or even the whole creative suite, for that matter). Even if it was the same price (= expensive) and license (= proprietary, no source) as the windows / Mac -Version.

Why? Because there is no free alternative at the moment. When I weight the pros (lot's of features, usability) against the cons (proprietary license, expensive) Photoshop still comes out better than Gimp. (that is - at least for me. It's all about what features you really want/need - so if gimp has all the features you need, you don't need to buy Photoshop)

So: Yes, I would buy propiretary software for linux. As long as it is notably better than any free alternative availiable.

happysmileman
August 26th, 2007, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't pay for anything except games. All useful software should be free and open-source, this includes OS, everything people use day to day, office programs, photoshop etc...

Games however are only used for recreation so I don't think they need to be free or open source, though they should definitely be multiplatform, obviously having OSS games would be good, but not feasible.

R_U_Q_R_U
August 26th, 2007, 01:38 PM
For critical personal applications, like Quicken, I would pay, just I have paid for the Windows version.

happysmileman
August 26th, 2007, 01:39 PM
No,

I will pirate it if so.

And it's people like you that stop companies developing for Linux

revford
August 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Games however are only used for recreation so I don't think they need to be free or open source, though they should definitely be multiplatform, obviously having OSS games would be good, but not feasible.


There are plenty of Open Source games, have a look here:

http://happypenguin.org/
http://www.linux-gamers.net/
http://icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php

Erunno
August 26th, 2007, 02:05 PM
Yes, I'd pay for applications even if they are released under an OSS license like GPL. I already make it a habit of donating 10 Euros per month to a random project I use regularly. As long as people are not willing to pay for OSS software a comparable price they would pay for closed source software many developers will always be dependent on a day job on CSS applications to make a living.

SeanHodges
August 26th, 2007, 02:15 PM
I picked "The price is high but the license was opensource"

I would be willing to pay a sum of money for software that I want. If the software was of high quality, and I had a need for it, I would pay for it.

I don't feel I have the right to tell a company whether or not they are allowed to sell a product, or for how much... but I do feel strongly against being leased software and being told that I have bought it, only to find I am only allowed to run it on a single machine, and that everything I produce with it can only be accessed with the same software. Don't even get me started on DRM :(

Having said that, I do think that general-purpose software is more suitably distributed at no cost, while software tailored for a client is more profitable when sold. Assuming in both cases they are distributed with the source-code, and not tangled in restrictive legislation.

Example: MySQL should be distributed at no cost, with various chargeable support services offered; a video rental system built for Blockbuster Video on a MySQL database with included source-code and documentation should be sold, possibly at a high price if Blockbuster are prepared to pay it.

SeanHodges
August 26th, 2007, 02:18 PM
And it's people like you that stop companies developing for Linux

Who said he was a Linux user? I know plenty of Windows/Mac users who feel that way. In fact, I know far more Windows users than Linux users who are prepared to pirate proprietary software!

Wharf Rat
August 26th, 2007, 02:25 PM
I have bought shareware for years. To me, it does not matter about the license if the product is good. I like being able to try a product before buying it.

Also, my hat is off to all those people that have brought us the vast array of fine products in the public domain. Thank you.

If I can find a good bookkeeping package like Quickbooks (ugh) or Peachtree, and Outlook (hey, we use it with a Linix server on the backend), I would be moving my business to Linux. My house and home business would be moved before the sun sets.

zach12
August 26th, 2007, 02:31 PM
I have no problems with paying for software, but I always look for free alternatives first yes when apple makes itunes for linux i would buy that

revford
August 26th, 2007, 02:50 PM
I can't really see Apple porting iTunes to Linux right now. iTunes and Safari for Windows are all about turning Windows users into Mac users.

If the DRM free tracks work out well for Apple and if Linux continues to make gains on the desktop, also if Apple think they can turn Linux users into Mac users, maybe we'll see iTunes for Linux one day.

But I just don't see why it would help Apple to release software for Linux, they want people to give up on Windows and come to Mac.

Matakoo
August 26th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Who said he was a Linux user? I know plenty of Windows/Mac users who feel that way. In fact, I know far more Windows users than Linux users who are prepared to pirate proprietary software!

Small wonder that...since most Windows users pirate their OS as well.

And I have a feeling that sooner or later (probably sooner) most Linux users won't care what license is used for the software they're using. Linux is, after all, becoming more and more used outside of geek-circles. As such, they are more interested in having the computer do what they want it to rather than being interested in the political/ethical side of things. In fact, I suspect we are already there. The free-software-only people may already be a minority, albeit a very vocal one.

Still, considering the high quality of most open source apps and how many there are an application would have to be extremely well written and do things open source equivalents can not do for it to be worthwhile. For instance, I wouldn't even consider buying Nero Linux since K3B is available and superior. I still have it, since it was bundled with my DVD-writer...so in a way I guess I payed for it.

For other apps, I'd pay instantly for ImageFX (http://www.novadesign.com) if it was available for Linux, or the x86 architecture for that matter...relatively cheap (and excellent!) but I'm not buying another computer to run it. And I would buy Photogenics if I could afford it. Unfortunately, $699 is a bit too much for my budget...

I really doubt the time will come when someone tries to make money out of say a commercial/shareware archiver a la winzip, or an animated wallpaper, or a utility that extends KDE/Gnome in some way. Things windows users seems to have no problem paying for.

hessiess
August 26th, 2007, 03:52 PM
i do abit of modaling for games, there is curently no good modal viewers for linux witch support pixel shaders, and a viriaty of file formats, this makes testing files imposoble

Sunflower1970
August 26th, 2007, 03:52 PM
I have no problems with paying for software, but I always look for free alternatives first

Another agree with this.

popch
August 26th, 2007, 03:55 PM
Did buy and will buy applications whenever I think I am getting the best of breed for the job to be done.

If it handles copyright in a sensible manner which ensures that the software will remain available and is being updated even after the demise of the original vendor, so much the better.

Software titles I bought include MS Access, XML Spy, StarOffice. I use them in Linux, mostly.

reiki
August 26th, 2007, 04:02 PM
I'm one of those people that likes free stuff (don't we all) but if I find an app that works well and for which the author would like a little something for their efforts, I send along some money. ESPECIALLY the ones who don't DEMAND it!
I have absolutely no qualms at all about contributing some monetary support to someone who is making my life easier.

forrestcupp
August 26th, 2007, 08:15 PM
WordPerfect was ported to Linux, long before we had OpenOffice.

Very few people bought it and so it was dropped.

Actually, for a while, Corel offered the Linux version of Wordperfect for free of charge. It wasn't long before they dropped it all together. I wish you could still get an old version of it somewhere.


I just don't see what WordPerfect could offer that OpenOffice doesn't?

OO is free and updates are free forever, support is good from both vendors and the community.

The only thing WP had going for it was name value, and that vanished five years ago.
Not true. Wordperfect was prettier than OpenOffice. Wordperfect also has a great grammar check. Other than format compatibility and maybe some advanced things that I wouldn't use, I liked Wordperfect better than MS Office.

DoctorMO
August 26th, 2007, 09:19 PM
I don't care what the licence is as i'm not a programmer so would never be able to change/modify anything anyway

What a great way to say: "I'm stupid, alone and so disconnected with the world that no one would ever lend me a hand to help me in my time of need even if I offered them money" - and you know what, I find that so sad that you would believe that open source only directly benifits a programmer directly. since one of the gnu main points has been that it benifits users because as a user you can ask anyone to help you fix things or built better things; you are not alone!


Many of the requests we get to find apps to include in the business version of Linux are essentially asking for apps that are equivalent to many " professional" and pay for apps. Is it "fair" to programmers to demand such quality for no cost, they do have families to feed also.

I think mostly people are still confused about what the open source and free software models really are here; most people know that in order for development to be stable and long lasting you need to be able to pay the developer for his time, yet you can't really ask for money for open source programs.

The thing is you _can_ ask for money when it comes to improving the software, fixing bugs and moving the software forwards for everyone. you can ask anyone to do this but mostly you'll want to pay the original developer both because he'll be more experienced and because you want to say thank you anyway.

Those that are happy with the tools as they stand don't have to pay because there is no more work to do.

It's really the proprietary model that is uncertain and not very well thought out for a developer; there is never any guarantee of making money and normally you need to hide and obsvicate so much you end up waging war against your own customers.... never a good thing.

As for the grammar checker, there is a pay for grammar checker you can buy for open office; go buy it if you want it, it looks better than the MSOffice one. I also know there is a command line tool that could be integrated into open office but some of you guys would need to help fund it if you wanted that development to take place.

As a conclusion, I just want to blame Banks and Financial institutions for making is so difficult to move small amounts of money around. Those guys really hurt the development of micro-payment business models.

happysmileman
August 26th, 2007, 10:31 PM
There are plenty of Open Source games, have a look here:

http://happypenguin.org/
http://www.linux-gamers.net/
http://icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php

I know, and that's good, but very few on that list can compare to commercially made games (Battle for Wesnoth can in terms of gameplay, but most people who look at it jump to conclusions about it being 2d and stuff).

In general if you want to get a Windows user to switch to Linux, their games will be a big part of it, not because they're a serious gamer or anything, just because they spent a lot of money on them, and personally I don't see a problem with paying for games because they are worth the money, however having to pay for office software or photoshop or anything is like asking people to pay to be able to do their job (and in many cases that's exactly what is happening)

WanderingKnight
August 26th, 2007, 10:34 PM
The currently non-existent option I'd vote for would be The price is reasonable and the license is open source.

I'd vote for this one, too.

euler_fan
August 26th, 2007, 10:38 PM
I think there is definitely room for purchase or paid support of software. For instance, paid add-ons to an otherwise open source package and paid support services would be things I would pay for depending on my use.

But for base packages which contain most of the functionality, I would not want to pay unless it is a donation to the development of the software.

Also, I would be willing to do something like the Linux Credit Card and instead of getting points get to support open source projects.

AndyCooll
August 27th, 2007, 12:18 AM
I have no problems with paying for software, but I always look for free alternatives first

This is my viewpoint too.

:cool:

nowshining
August 27th, 2007, 12:23 AM
I am neither a slave to GNU or proprietary both are in itself the same True freedom is not choosing what do add here and here - when you find tree freedom, you will know what it is & it is not a fun place place to be - it is a lonely place with a strict mind. Very Few of this world know what true freedom is and true freedom is a battle to the death..

eljoeb
August 27th, 2007, 01:28 AM
I would absolutely pay. Judging by the responses this thread has gotten, I guess this will never happen on a bigger scale.

revford
August 27th, 2007, 02:53 AM
Actually, for a while, Corel offered the Linux version of Wordperfect for free of charge. It wasn't long before they dropped it all together. I wish you could still get an old version of it somewhere.

I remember, I used it for a while, the Linux version was not up to par, it seemed like a sloppy port done quickly using WINE.



Not true. Wordperfect was prettier than OpenOffice. Wordperfect also has a great grammar check. Other than format compatibility and maybe some advanced things that I wouldn't use, I liked Wordperfect better than MS Office.

The Linux version wasn't very pretty at all, it didn't integrate with other apps at all well.

They moved to a model where it was part of Corel Linux if I remember, then there was a big fuss as it was a top name commercial software product for Linux available in boxes at PC World, that's where I lost track of it.

I'm surprised that there isn't an open source word processor with a grammar check, it's not something I've ever wanted so didn't know OO.org, Abiword and KOffice are all lacking one.



In general if you want to get a Windows user to switch to Linux, their games will be a big part of it, not because they're a serious gamer or anything, just because they spent a lot of money on them, and personally I don't see a problem with paying for games because they are worth the money

True, I paid for plenty of games when good ones were available for Linux from Loki Games.

Linux Game Publishing are bringing out games, but it's not the same first class titles Loki ported.

Really I was just making the point that there are great games under the GPL, Wesnoth being a great example.

Also the good people at Id provide one generation old game engines under the GPL, so we have Wolf 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake II and Quake III and free-as-in-beer binaries of current engines for Linux and Windows. Often Mac too.

All you are buying from Id is the game content, so it's a good example of mix of free and commercial product.

SeanHodges
August 27th, 2007, 11:42 AM
I am neither a slave to GNU or proprietary both are in itself the same True freedom is not choosing what do add here and here - when you find tree freedom, you will know what it is & it is not a fun place place to be - it is a lonely place with a strict mind. Very Few of this world know what true freedom is and true freedom is a battle to the death..

God, who's this guy?

I'm locking myself in the basement, lol

daverich
August 27th, 2007, 12:18 PM
What a great way to say: "I'm stupid, alone and so disconnected with the world that no one would ever lend me a hand to help me in my time of need even if I offered them money" - and you know what, I find that so sad that you would believe that open source only directly benifits a programmer directly. since one of the gnu main points has been that it benifits users because as a user you can ask anyone to help you fix things or built better things; you are not alone!

heh.

Great i'm not alone, wonderful - so where is the app i need on linux?

I understand your point, but the fact is it hasn't panned out like that and if it does then that's great and I'd be all for that.

If I can't work on linux, then I still need windows.

;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich

revford
August 27th, 2007, 12:23 PM
Great i'm not alone, wonderful - so where is the app i need on linux?

What do you need? Maybe it's out there somewhere already.

Matakoo
August 27th, 2007, 12:37 PM
What do you need? Maybe it's out there somewhere already.

If someone could find a good Linux equivalent of http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/ I'd be eternally grateful! And no, running it using wine is not an option since it doesn't run using wine. Well, okay. It starts...but too much of what it can do do not work or not well enough.

bowens44
August 27th, 2007, 12:46 PM
I would gladly pay for any reasonably priced app that would allow mne to finally break completely away from widows.

Right now , I can't find a graphics app comparable to photoshop, a photo management app comparable to IMatch, an IPod manager comparable to ITunes and there are others.

forrestcupp
August 27th, 2007, 01:05 PM
I remember, I used it for a while, the Linux version was not up to par, it seemed like a sloppy port done quickly using WINE.
I didn't realize the Linux version was so bad. I only used it in Windows.

Also the good people at Id provide one generation old game engines under the GPL, so we have Wolf 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake II and Quake III and free-as-in-beer binaries of current engines for Linux and Windows. Often Mac too.
Last night I just found the game World of Padman. It runs on the Quake 3 engine and it is free of charge. It's a great game and they actually have a Linux version. I'd give this game 5 stars for originality. I've never seen anything like it.

revford
August 27th, 2007, 04:54 PM
If someone could find a good Linux equivalent of http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/ I'd be eternally grateful! And no, running it using wine is not an option since it doesn't run using wine. Well, okay. It starts...but too much of what it can do do not work or not well enough.

As I don't really understand what Wordsmith is or does, I did some quick googling for Lexical analysis software and came up with this:

http://flex.sourceforge.net/

I get the feeling it may not be what you're after. But I don't know. I know what you mean about Wine, it's not really a good solution for everyday use tools, but can come in handy.



Right now , I can't find a graphics app comparable to photoshop, a photo management app comparable to IMatch, an IPod manager comparable to ITunes and there are others.

I use The GIMP for all my image editing needs, it covers anything I'd need for web dev and photo editing.

A friend who is a Photographer tried it and found he still needed Photoshop, something to do with superior RAW image format support I think, it was all above my head.

I don't have an iPod but my Wife's iPod shuffle works great with Rhythmbox, maybe another iPod user can recommend something there, either a tool for iPods or an music player that works well with free software?

As to IMatch, I've never heard of it so I'm not sure what features it has that something like F-Spot is lacking.


I didn't realize the Linux version was so bad. I only used it in Windows.

Yep, it was dire.


Last night I just found the game World of Padman. It runs on the Quake 3 engine and it is free of charge. It's a great game and they actually have a Linux version. I'd give this game 5 stars for originality. I've never seen anything like it.

Cheers for that one, I'll go take a look.

Matakoo
August 28th, 2007, 08:20 PM
As I don't really understand what Wordsmith is or does, I did some quick googling for Lexical analysis software and came up with this:

http://flex.sourceforge.net/

I get the feeling it may not be what you're after. But I don't know. I know what you mean about Wine, it's not really a good solution for everyday use tools, but can come in handy.

I'm not surprised you don't know what it does...if you've never done research in corpus linguistics or studied it, you're not likely to have even heard of the program really.

Unfortunately, the program you found seems to only be useful for people interested in writing lexical analysis software. But thanks a lot for trying!

The annoying thing is that there are good Linux programs and/or scripts for some of what Wordsmith offers, but nothing as thorough and complete. Kinda odd having to rely on a windows program for something that Linux should excel at: manipulating text in various ways. Then again, I'm no master in writing bash or perlscripts, or using awk/sed/grep either.

Still, now it don't matter anymore. I've finally managed to get VirtualBox and rdesktop to run Wordsmith seamlessly. Okay, my desktop looks rather strange with wordsmith running like that...one program with the default XP-look and the rest with my tweaked KDE-look. But hey, it works! And that's what matters!

revford
August 29th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Perl is great for text manipulation, I use it to generate HTML all the time.

If it's text anaysis and manipulation, perl could be just what you want. But it can have a fairly steep learning curve if you've never done any scripting or programming before.

UI-Freak
August 29th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Free software like all the version 0.1 or even 0.5 of this and that utility while Windows users drown in choice and quality... face it, development of professional software is expensive. Someone has to pay. You do. The free software you use is inferior to many Windows programs and updates are rare and with tiny improvements. I simply cannot do my work in Linux software. An OS without software is like a glass without beer. Hooray.

aysiu
August 30th, 2007, 02:23 AM
The free software you use is inferior to many Windows programs and updates are rare and with tiny improvements. I think you're using the wrong pronoun there. You cannot say the software I (aysiu) use is inferior. You can only say that the software you (UI-Freak) use is inferior.

I have used many free (open source and/or cost-free closed source) programs that are better than their pay-for counterparts: FileZilla, Firefox, Kolourpaint, Scribus (not as good as InDesign, but much better than Microsoft Publisher), Thunderbird (yes, it's better than Outlook--sorry, MS fans). Nothing has made this clearer to me than my new job, where using MS Publisher, MS Exchange, and Outlook is part of regular operations. I see no clear advantage in pay-for software as a whole. Yes, specific pay-for programs are better than their cost-free counterparts, but vice versa is also true in other cases.

And a lot of "free" (to the consumer) software is paid for, actually. IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, and even our own Mark Shuttleworth pay for "free" software all the time. MySQL can be cost-free, and it is open source, but if you're a serious business using MySQL, you may pay money for MySQL Enterprise, just as a serious business would pay for business or enterprise versions of RHEL or SuSE.

Chymera
August 30th, 2007, 02:32 AM
I believe that selling software, by any means, gets in the way of open source development.
1)Why would you work for nothing when you could work for money?
2)Why would you distribute the source, when that actually helps the competitors, who may not be so kind as to share the code back.
And voilą, 50% percent of all open source contributors will be swallowed up by such ideas.


ALL software should be free. However if you do want to make a living out of coding, i believe technical support for big companies, or making custom-fit products for ppl who request them, is the way to do so.

revford
August 30th, 2007, 05:25 PM
2)Why would you distribute the source, when that actually helps the competitors, who may not be so kind as to share the code back.

That's what the GPL is all about, it means you can view, change and reuse the code, but that code must always remain free and so must derivative works.