PDA

View Full Version : Would Ubuntu/Linux Users Buy Non-Open Source, Non-Free Software?



Luigi239
December 1st, 2007, 02:09 AM
A question I was pondering the other day, do you think that most Ubuntu/Linux users would ever pay for software? For example, if Adobe suddenly embraced Linux and sold Photoshop for Linux at 600$, how many people wouldn't buy it, based on principal alone?

Another scenario would be if a small new developer created a new app, like say an alternative to gimp/photoshop, but cost a much more modest price of 20$. Again, would most Linux users buy it, even though it was closed source, and non-free?

What do you think?

pyro_xp2k
December 1st, 2007, 02:28 AM
[gets the picket signs ready]

Heh, kidding.
I'm sure people won't mind.
But if 50% of Windows users would be willing to buy it, then probably only 15-20% of Linux users would...

gsiliceo
December 1st, 2007, 02:29 AM
I'd buy CS3 so i can finally give up windows.

McTek
December 1st, 2007, 02:31 AM
Yes I would. If I need it and the price is right why not. $600 for Photo Shop is out of the question. If any programer has the time look at Clipmate, Glipper on steroids. I'd plunk down my $49.95 right now for a program half as good as Clipmate. Been using Clipmate since Win95 when it was shareware.

-grubby
December 1st, 2007, 02:33 AM
yes, but I certainly wouldn't buy a $600 photo-editor. . . .

bruce89
December 1st, 2007, 02:34 AM
I'd only buy something if it didn't have a reasonable FOSS alternative.

lyceum
December 1st, 2007, 02:38 AM
I would say yes, check out this thread...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=575958

It does not speak for everyone. I would rather use FOSS, and would pay for it if it was well made, but there are some things that FOSS does not do and I will always be catching up with, provided there are people that feel the need to remake something that already works and has been up graded (Gnash vs. Flash).

Wharf Rat
December 1st, 2007, 02:40 AM
I would be more than willing to pay for software. SInce I don't use Photoshop - a $600 version doesn't impress me.

I little better version of Evolution, a good personal finance manager (aka Quicken), a commercial bookkeeping package.

The price I am willing to pay corresponds to the quality and ease of migration.

sr20ve
December 1st, 2007, 02:48 AM
I bought Quake Wars for the linux client.

SaltyCrak
December 1st, 2007, 02:58 AM
i would definitely buy the new adobe (macromedia) studio.

dreamwaever, fireworks and flash make me happy :KS

Lostincyberspace
December 1st, 2007, 02:59 AM
i would definitely buy the new adobe (macromedia) studio.

dreamwaever, fireworks and flash make me happy :KS

True dat.

SunnyRabbiera
December 1st, 2007, 03:21 AM
Well yes, if it was offered at a resonable price of course.
If adobe came out with a photoshop that was only $200 and worked I would pay for it.
$600 for a program... ugh I can buy a new computer for that... hell I can buy a apple for that much!

fedex1993
December 1st, 2007, 03:23 AM
ummm i might but i can sort of live without photoshop but i can still deal with Vista or xp since thats about all i run on it

Scruffynerf
December 1st, 2007, 03:32 AM
I'd pay the same amount for games of the same quality as what's on windows.

I'd also pay the same amount for certain items of business related software that doesn't have a comparable quality FOSS version - eg: Crystal Reports

sajro
December 1st, 2007, 05:53 AM
The only non-free software I would worry about is Mac OS. If I had the money and didn't love Linux so much I'd get a Macbook. As for other things (Adobe, Visual Studio (lol like they'd make a Linux version), etc.) I wouldn't buy.

aysiu
December 1st, 2007, 06:21 AM
Considering most Ubuntu/Linux users have at least one non-free packaged installed, I don't see why this is shocking.

Further reading:
Which is Freer--OS or applications? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=455387)
how free is your ubuntu? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=95718)

Tundro Walker
December 1st, 2007, 07:45 AM
I'm going to start by answering this from a totally over-the-top extreme...

Let's assume I use Linux because I'm either rabid about open-source or I'm a cheap-skate (maybe both). I've come to expect all my software to be free and open-source as long as I'm using Linux. And, you know what, now I expect my car, my house, my dog, my groceries to also be free and open-source. Linux has totally changed the way I think of things, and I DEMAND everything has to now be free and open-source as long as I'm using Linux!

Ok, see how stupid it sounds when you look at it like that?

Getting back to sanity...

I fully think folks would buy closed-source games, photoshop, etc if software companies started cranking them out for Linux. A lot of folks using Linux have come to expect lots of good, free-to-use software, but that doesn't mean they won't pay for something if they want it.

Take the gamers for instance. A lot of them dual-boot to Windows so they can play the latest games. But, other than that, they do everything else in Linux. They still go spend $ on the games. So, if a Linux version was made, they'd just spend that same $ on the Linux version, and as a side benefit, be able to use Linux full-time and stop dual-booting to Windows.

Of course, every time this discussion starts up again, folks go off on the tangent about how Linux users have come to expect free software and/or open-source software because Linux revolves more around it, and thus will just resort to getting warez or hacking the code of something to try to reverse-engineer an open-source version of it.

I personally think that's a separate discussion, one regarding morality rather than enterprise. There will always be folks who want to take the path of least resistance (in this case, the no-cost path), and will get warez, but I don't think that's tied to what OS they use. They'll be cheap-skates regardless of using Linux or Windows or Mac. That's like asking if folks who drive Foreign Cars are more likely to rob banks than folks who drive Domestic. It's non-sequitar... one doesn't necessarily play into the other.

I personally believe a lot of folks have switched over to using Linux because it was just a smarter decision, not because they're cheap-skates. Yes, price factors in, because a lot of Linux software is low-to-no cost. But that doesn't mean folks are cheap, it just means they're smart. Why would you pay for milk when you can get it for free? It doesn't make sense. But just because you're getting your milk for free doesn't mean you'll start stealing bread. Linux, for some, has a greater ROI than Windows, price considerations included, so these folks are just smart, not cheap.

You could look at this debate this way. Just because we use Linux, do we expect our hardware to be free? No. We go out and purchase hardware just like Windows folks do. But, if we found some company that created free, open-source hard-ware, that was more reliable and easy to use...why the heck would you NOT use it? It doesn't mean your cheap by using it, it just means you're smart. That's money you no longer have to spend on hardware that you can put away for retirement, your child's college fund, donate to a charity, buy a new car, etc, etc. But, after getting free hardware, if you found some device a company made that was really cool and worth-while, and cost $300...folks would pay the $300 to get it. Just because they're getting free hardware doesn't mean they expect everyone to hand over everything for free with a copy of the schematics so they can recreate it in their garage.

Crashmaxx
December 1st, 2007, 07:55 AM
I would buy a student version of SolidWorks for Linux if I could.

Photoshop is a bad example here. Most people using it either have an illegal copy, or have it paid for by there employer because that is part of their job. Very few people actually pay $600 of their own money for it.

SunnyRabbiera
December 1st, 2007, 08:22 AM
Considering most Ubuntu/Linux users have at least one non-free packaged installed, I don't see why this is shocking.

Further reading:
Which is Freer--OS or applications? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=455387)
how free is your ubuntu? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=95718)

well yes i too use proprietary stuff, flash, IE via wine for those annoying IE only pages, Opera (for cross browsing testing as I do have some web pages that I give out to folks), crossover, photoshop via wine and yes microsoft office (but only because open office runs like a slug for me, once i get more memory I may dump MS office but that is yet to be determined)
Personally I would gladly pay to get things working on linux, give me itunes, give me shockwave... take your stinkin money just give us support you morons!
there are things that cheese me off about certain things, like adobe for one... they can do much better and yet they dont.
apple, ehh I dont care if itunes or quicktime are supported under linux but would like them to make a itunes for linux for those itunes buffs out there who dont like the stuff we have.

baxterdog
December 1st, 2007, 09:01 AM
Agree with Crashmaxx. If I could get a version of my pcb software to run really well in Linux then it would be definitely well worth paying for. Have had no luck yet getting the hardware license dongle (real word) to work yet but will post if I can get it to work through wine or vmware.

So far, my work desktop as being paid for, must remain a MS machine.

Also, who actually uses the features in photoshop enough as a general user to substantiate such a large drop of dough?

--Fully spending 50-60 US$ on new PS games though--

SomeGuyDude
December 1st, 2007, 09:04 AM
If it's amazing and is something I absolutely need? Sure.

popch
December 1st, 2007, 11:00 AM
Very few people actually pay $600 of their own money for it.

I can not put a figure on it, but there must be quite a few freelancers who bought their own computers and software and things.

On topic: yes, I would and did buy non-free software to be used in Linux, some even from Microsoft. I also keep a virtual Windows machine.

blueturtl
December 1st, 2007, 11:22 AM
I can see you've limited the question to Ubuntu/Linux users. While it's understandable (most of us here are Ubuntu users) I can't help but feel maybe you have the idea that Windows or OS X users are more likely to pay for commercial software since that's what they're used to. I would like to point out that most Windows users I know don't buy software, they download if for free, regardless of if the software is legally available that way or not.

In light of this, I might have instead asked if home computer users in general are willing to pay for non-open source non-free software. Since however you posed the question in the manner you did, I'm going to leave it at that and answer on my own behalf:

I most certainly would pay for and use non-open source non-free software given that the software would be something I really need or like, and that the price was compelling. Saving the cost of a Windows license leaves me more money to spend on software that actually does something useful (I consider the operating system vital for the operation of the computer, and thus paying some 300+ euros for it does not seem reasonable to me).

SlayerMan
December 1st, 2007, 11:34 AM
I would do so, and already did in the past. My latest buy was MuPAD from SciFace, an excellent maths program.

Kowalski_GT-R
December 1st, 2007, 11:49 AM
a $600 photo-editor

I guess this price originates from a long-time acquired leadership in the market.
Given a viable alternative, a customer can make choices, and market prices would change accordingly.

It's a rule of life since Neanderthal that if man need something, they usually end-up paying the one which fullfills the need.


...hell.....I just described prostitution :)


BTW, i would pay, there's just no such application at the moment for me.

Mateo
December 1st, 2007, 02:32 PM
I'd say "yes" on a technicality, but it would be very unlikely. Not because of some religious/philosophical stance, just because I don't think software is worth money, for the most part. Unless there reallly isn't an alternative at all.

I think the last piece of software (besides games) that I purchased was RealPlayer, and that was version 3 or 4 (can't remember, it was when there was still a scrolling list of video/audio feeds on the left side). That was many many years ago.

userundefine
December 1st, 2007, 06:12 PM
For what it's worth, I bought a license to use Moneydance because I didn't care for the Linux alternatives and I like the program and listened to the dev talk about it on the Linux Link Tech Show (it was originally an open source project). Their licensing is far fairer than other companies'.

FFred
December 1st, 2007, 06:13 PM
While I probably wouldn't buy Photoshop (especially with the insane European prices), I have so far bought a few commercial Linux apps : a few games, ApplixWare (office suite) a loooong time ago, Bibble Pro (RAW image processing tool), Antidote (French dictionary/grammar tool).

I don't see a problem with this as long as the apps are well behaved and properly written (Applix wasn't).

hartl_vienna
December 2nd, 2007, 04:36 PM
Im really missing Outlook and a working sync solution for my Treo 680, which is comparable to Active Sync. And yes, I would pay for it!

wert613
December 2nd, 2007, 05:05 PM
I really have no dislike for closed source programs, if I could get a linux photoshop I would.

lyceum
December 2nd, 2007, 07:45 PM
Im really missing Outlook and a working sync solution for my Treo 680, which is comparable to Active Sync. And yes, I would pay for it!

You can run MS Office 2003 with WINE. I use to like Outlook, but I am really getting into Thunderbird. Now that you can add a calendar, and link it to Google calendar, Thunderbird is awesome!

:popcorn:

prodigalson666
December 2nd, 2007, 07:51 PM
I'd buy something if it didn't have a FOSS. Photoshop definently, my wife is a professional photographer and ps is indespensible, nothing else out there compares, I've had her try all the open source programs I could reasonably find. But the price would hgave to be reasonable as well! Problem what determines a reasonable price?

happysmileman
December 2nd, 2007, 08:04 PM
Yeah, but frankl;y I don't think I'd buy anything other than games. I haven't seen any piece of software that was better than a free or open source alternative, except for games and Photoshop (and I don't do image-editing).

If a company wanted be to buy something they better make it worth the money, because despite Windows users buying it over FOSS because they honestly believe that "You get what you pay for", Linux users tend to actually want good programs that are worth the money.

DarKnyht
June 21st, 2008, 11:13 PM
I already have purchased non-open source, non-free software. Moneydance was absolutely worth the purchase price because the free versions did not work easily, or work like I am used to. I would do the same to with any other software (such as LinDVD, if they would ever sell it).

stinger30au
June 21st, 2008, 11:31 PM
if the program was better then the linux open source program i wanted to use then yes i would buy it

TerminusEst
June 22nd, 2008, 12:28 AM
I would pirate it.

Did I just say that out loud? :)

Seriously though, after having gotten used to Gimp's GUI I find it alot easier to work with than PS, so I guess I'd do fine without it.

zmjjmz
June 22nd, 2008, 12:32 AM
I would pirate it.


Only if the FOSS alternative isn't sufficient.
(This happened to me with QFlash, so I "borrowed" Flash 5 [which is Abandonware anyways, so meh])

Methuselah
June 22nd, 2008, 01:42 AM
I don't have a huge problem with buying software. If it does what I need and is reasonable in usage terms I'll buy.

However, there are ground rules:

1. Shouldn't be something critical to computer function. The maker of that can hold my hardware and other programs hostage. Windows can shutoff and prevent me from using things that have nothing to do with microsoft.

2. Productivity applications should have the option to save in open formats. I don't want my data to be viewable by software created only by one company.

3. Shouldn't imstall spyware, junkware, nagware, intrusive DRM like starforce.
[Incidentally, Vista is ruled out in both points 1 and 3]

If those principles aren't violated I might buy.

jeremy1138
June 22nd, 2008, 01:49 AM
I personally don't buy any software, not for Linux, not for Windows. If I can't find a free alternative to some piece of software that I think would be handy, I'll just do without. The only exception to this rule that I can think of is that I guess I technically bought Windows when I bought my computer. Even then I don't use the version of windows that came with my computer; I use Windows XP Pro that I got from college for free.

FFred
June 22nd, 2008, 12:46 PM
I personally believe a lot of folks have switched over to using Linux because it was just a smarter decision, not because they're cheap-skates. Yes, price factors in, because a lot of Linux software is low-to-no cost. But that doesn't mean folks are cheap, it just means they're smart. Why would you pay for milk when you can get it for free? It doesn't make sense. But just because you're getting your milk for free doesn't mean you'll start stealing bread.
This has been my experience as well.

What's more, Linux users often end up being more sensitive to software copyright issues through exposure to the GPL and its voilations. Almost none of those I know would consider copying commercial software without buying it.

Now some are rabidly open source and won't even consider anything commercial and closed-source. This is mostly a minority (like the few that won't use anything but a terminal and screen because anythng else, notably X11, spoils the purity of the system).

In my case, I'll consider buying software when it works, when it won't lock me in (open formats, or when the format doesn't matter such as in games) and when there is no open source equivalent.

eragon100
June 22nd, 2008, 01:23 PM
Well, yes, but only linux-native games (the more they sell, the more will come), I will just pirate any other software, if I never need/want a non-free (as in 0 $) program other than a game, which has never been the case.

I have bought:

- ballistics from tuxgames

- northland from tuxgames

- heretic 2 from tuxgames

- enemy territory Quake wars, the retail (=windows) disk from retail, then installed the linux version with that disk. :)

Open/closed source isn't a consideration ):P

hellion0
June 22nd, 2008, 03:05 PM
I wouldn't buy ANYTHING for an exorbitant price like that. If Adobe did release a Linux version of Photoshop for $600, I'd tell them to stick it. Besides, I'm comfortable enough with the GIMP that I use it on my Linux and Windows machines.

Open source, closed source, free, non-free, I don't care. I'm just looking for the most bang for my buck. In 99.9% of cases, FLOSS is the biggest value, even with a closed-source/pay-to-use equivalent having more features.

Chame_Wizard
June 22nd, 2008, 08:33 PM
I only use OSS/free software :lolflag:

days_of_ruin
June 22nd, 2008, 09:39 PM
I bought Quake Wars for the linux client.
same here.

maniacmusician
June 22nd, 2008, 11:54 PM
It would really depend on many things. I don't play many games, so that cuts out a significant amount of available software. I would consider the following before making a purchase;

- Is it a true native build that works well in Linux? This means that the icons look nice and pretty, it integrates with one of the common toolkits, and some thought is actually put into its UI. It should also be something that has the same available developer resources it would on other platforms; I'm not going to pay for something that's twice as buggy and that much more useless than on other platforms.
- Will I be using it often?
- Is there an equivalent FOSS alternative that has the functionality that I need?
- Will I get bug fixes and updates for free or at a reduced price like I would on Windows?

On the whole, I would definitely prefer to use open-source software. Since I'm a normal person with budgetary complaints, even if I'm looking at proprietary applications, I'd still rather get freeware if it has the functionality I need. But if I encounter a project that offers software I need, and really puts some effort into their Linux client to make it look good and function well, then I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for it.

Although, I doubt I'll ever need any piece of software enough to pay $600 for it. That sort of a purchase is really only warranted for professionals who rely on it for their work. Or people rolling in money that can afford to do it on a whim.

FFighter
June 23rd, 2008, 12:01 AM
Of course. I don't have anything against non-free, closed-source software as long as they are good (Adobe suite, for example).

Lostincyberspace
June 23rd, 2008, 12:05 AM
Absolutely yes if I can walk down to the local soft ware store pick up a disk and do it that way.

FranMichaels
June 23rd, 2008, 12:10 AM
Depends. I do if you count gamecube, gba, DS, wii, and ps2. With all the money saved on PC software for the past 8 years or so... I can :) That and I'm confident I'll get to keep using the games even after the consoles are gone (yay emulation!)
So I feel in that sense it's an um, good investment. :)

There are certain proprietary things I can't stand on my machine (closed source drivers) and I'm usually annoyed if something only has a 32-bit release (I like software to be a tad more future proof and portable (64-bit and/or PPC too) even though I'm on a core duo 32-bit only...)

And regarding the GIMP, barring people on this board who use Photoshop and have paid for it... Every complaint I heard from PS users in real life about the GIMP, never forked over the money for it...

So all in all, as users are users. People like to um, share :) Just decide if you really like the product, and you want the company or dev to keep working on it (this assumes the product is still for sale of course.) Then pay for it. If not use something else. We running Ubuntu have loads of alternatives right in the repos :guitar:

doorknob60
June 23rd, 2008, 02:13 AM
I would. I can't live without some games, and I use Windows when I have to even. I'm certainly buying Spore whether it works in Wine or not. I wouldn't buy Photoshop though, I don't even know what 80% of the things in GIMP do :D

sharkinfested
June 23rd, 2008, 02:25 AM
Absolutely YES on buying software but no on Photoshop, I still use Photoshop 6 Im squeezing every cent out of that purchase! It will be a long time before I upgrade Photoshop.

cardinals_fan
June 23rd, 2008, 02:43 AM
The only thing I would buy is Big Kahuna Reef. Apart from chess, it's the only game that I'm truly addicted to. Running it in WINE is painful.

Afkpuz
June 24th, 2008, 09:47 PM
I'm sure alot of gamers would jump to buy games that were specifically designed to run on windows. I'm a gamer at heart, but not technical enough to get games working if they don't already work in wine. If some company started making solid linux games and sold them in a store, I would buy them and I think alot of others would too. I don't want to downplay the work that free and open source games have done, but I see a big difference between them and commercial games. Granted, that's to be expected since the devs are usually volunteering their time to work on free games, but I would shell out $$ for high quality games for linux.

linuxology
June 24th, 2008, 09:57 PM
If Quicken was on Linux I would buy it. That's about it though.

Mateo
June 24th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Doubt I would buy software of an kind. Open, closed, whatever. Doesn't matter. Just can't see paying for something that runs on something else that I had to pay for.

straxus
June 27th, 2008, 07:40 PM
I already buy software for Linux. I've purchased Darwinia, Penny Arcade Adventures, and multiple versions of Crossover. I plan on picking up VMWare Workstation 6.5 when it releases for the 3D Acceleration and Unity features.

wrtpeeps
June 27th, 2008, 07:52 PM
If the paid version was a lot better than the free version, I'd buy it no problem.

Corfy
June 30th, 2008, 02:35 AM
I would be willing to pay for non-open source software on Linux. However, it would have to be a program that I think would be worth the price by either having features that I need that open-source software can't handle, or by being that much better than what is available. Off hand, I can't think of any programs that fit that bill. Your example of Photoshop, for instance, is a definite "no" for me, because I'm a GIMP user in both Windows and Linux, and I don't see what's there is in Photoshop that I want to do but can't in GIMP (I know GIMP can't save as CMYK, but I don't use CMYK, so that isn't a problem for me... maybe if I did need CMYK, the $600 would be justified).

basenvironment
June 30th, 2008, 05:10 AM
nope! not me
No need to purchase something when I am satisfied with what I have!

Kratos
June 30th, 2008, 06:27 AM
If the application offers functionality that I wouldn't find anywhere else and can't be aquired by other means (*cough*) then I could justify $20 to $40 for said application.

Not Cedega, though...

gsiliceo
June 30th, 2008, 06:31 AM
Right now i'd pay for an app that would migrate my rhythmbox ratings and playcounts to an itunes library.

d3drocks
June 30th, 2008, 06:54 AM
as a musician, there isn't much way to go but closed source software. sure linux has 1 or 2 Great audio apps, but they dont outweigh the intuitiveness of the proprietary software i use. (FL-Studio 8. i will have an album out soon done with it alone).

EdThaSlayer
June 30th, 2008, 10:15 AM
I would gladly buy a good ol' linux game. :)
Lets just say Linux doesn't do too well in the gaming sector at the moment. :(

AgentZ86
July 4th, 2008, 12:26 AM
Or course, they would.

I'm shopping for some games now, however found this zero ballistics beta game and it's free. But I'm google searching all the time for linux games.

And they are out there, I'm noticing more and more are sprouting up. Good ones too.

Ioky
July 4th, 2008, 04:01 AM
I will 100% will, and most of the company will, if the software is what they need like photoship, AutoCAD. and etc. Really, I really don't see the use of windows at all, if software can run without OS. Windows is useless. But it is not true to Linux. The only reason why I would use mac, is for their super powerful hardware. But windows? WTH? what is the use of it? of course that is if we get the same software in Linux.

SirThom
July 4th, 2008, 06:03 AM
I have the commercial version of Mathematica. I use a lot of the different free math software for nix but I also use mathematica.

jkid
July 4th, 2008, 06:06 AM
i would to spport the linux community so they can make better and better apps:KS that a yes

Lord Xeb
July 4th, 2008, 06:14 AM
It all depends on what its use is and how much better it is than the open-source software. I know I woul go for VMware >_>

basenvironment
July 4th, 2008, 07:47 AM
no way...

joninkrakow
July 4th, 2008, 10:05 AM
a good personal finance manager (aka Quicken)

There's MoneyDance. It's on Linux, and costs about $30, IIRC

-Jon

P.S. I didn't read this entire thread to see if anybody had commented on this, so I hope nobody else has mentioned this before me. ;-)

23meg
July 4th, 2008, 10:18 AM
For me, the answer is no. I don't want to feed the last century industry that I'm working to displace / replace.

I will happily pay for free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software).

Canis familiaris
July 4th, 2008, 12:15 PM
A question I was pondering the other day, do you think that most Ubuntu/Linux users would ever pay for software? For example, if Adobe suddenly embraced Linux and sold Photoshop for Linux at 600$, how many people wouldn't buy it, based on principal alone?

Another scenario would be if a small new developer created a new app, like say an alternative to gimp/photoshop, but cost a much more modest price of 20$. Again, would most Linux users buy it, even though it was closed source, and non-free?

What do you think?
Only if I require for Work or if they are Games. Though many companies release free express/limited editions. I'm sure those would be populare eg. the free edition of Maya

Canis familiaris
July 4th, 2008, 12:16 PM
I would gladly buy a good ol' linux game. :)
Lets just say Linux doesn't do too well in the gaming sector at the moment. :(
OR Games do not too well in Linux sector. ;)

Wharf Rat
July 4th, 2008, 03:00 PM
If Quicken was on Linux I would buy it. That's about it though.

I would happily pay for an older version of Quicken that was native to Linux. Not the newer bloated stuff.

So far, Moneydance is OK but has a long way to go before being in Quicken's class.

DarKnyht
November 5th, 2008, 06:13 AM
Well, I have paid for software. I've bought Moneydance because the free offerings were jokes to me (horrible interfaces, bad documentation, confusing layouts). I also run Picasa, Flash, Adobe Air (although their lack of full support irritates), Acrobat Reader, Google Earth, Opera, Skype for the same reason. I did download Crossover Office and Games for free when they offered it the other day, but I really haven't used them except to play around with them (and will probably be uninstalling them soon).

I also recently purchased PowerDVD Linux and probably will purchase the codecs when I can afford it. I want to have something I know works and does not come with a "it may be illegal where you live label on it".

The point is yes there are those like me that are willing to purchase or use non-free software if it provides functionality reliability beyond what free/open-source software can provide.