PDA

View Full Version : Would you/do you use non-free software?



themissinglink1
September 23rd, 2008, 04:23 PM
I know many people have their own preferences but personally if software like the Adobe suite (i know that will never happen but roll with it :D) were available for Ubuntu/Linux I would pay for it despite it not being open source. So essentially would you pay for software for Ubuntu made by commercial companies.(Im pretty sure though that these would never be included in Ubuntu as "it will always be free") Opinions?

I feel this will become more of an issue as the user base gets larger and commercial companies see a market, what do you think?

damis648
September 23rd, 2008, 04:25 PM
Only if I seriously need it or I have to use it. I greatly prefer FOSS.

Ms_Angel_D
September 23rd, 2008, 04:28 PM
It depends on the software really. For Games Abosolutly

qstraza
September 23rd, 2008, 04:29 PM
Well usually u get better sw for free.

hardyn
September 23rd, 2008, 04:33 PM
Isn't this a recurring discussion?

Yes, i try to use f/oss whenever possible; however, for work, there arn't any f/oss alternatives. There are only few (1 or 2) linux alternatives.

jrusso2
September 23rd, 2008, 04:34 PM
Well its necessary to have the option to use both. Free Software is not always best because companies have patents and own commercial IP.

Canis familiaris
September 23rd, 2008, 04:37 PM
Yes I use lot of non-free software. I use Opera, ATI drivers, codecs, and also few games in WINE as well.

linux5uper
September 23rd, 2008, 04:43 PM
I surely hope the day will come when we'll have all commercial software available for ubuntu too. A little competition and more options can only be a good thing.

billgoldberg
September 23rd, 2008, 04:45 PM
I know many people have their own preferences but personally if software like the Adobe suite (i know that will never happen but roll with it :D) were available for Ubuntu/Linux I would pay for it despite it not being open source. So essentially would you pay for software for Ubuntu made by commercial companies.(Im pretty sure though that these would never be included in Ubuntu as "it will always be free") Opinions?

I feel this will become more of an issue as the user base gets larger and commercial companies see a market, what do you think?

I would much rater pay for Open Source software than for Closed Source software.

I sometimes use Opera. That is Closed Source software. And I have some other Closed Source things on my pc, like flash player, mp3, divx, dvd codecs, ...

themissinglink1
September 23rd, 2008, 04:54 PM
Isn't this a recurring discussion?

sorry if it is.:confused:

I just think there may be a few FOSS fanatics if you know what I mean (don't mean to offend).... who won't use software unless its open-source. I can understand this and support open-source software myself but personally(my opinion only :D) if ubuntu and linux is going to be viable to the masses there needs to be software with brands that people recognize. (it may not be better software but its more recognizable) For example Gimp is a fantastic photo editor comparable with Photoshop but which will most people be more comfortable using coming from Windows/Mac. (another adobe reference but you get the idea; commercial software better advertising and users may feel more comfortable). What do you think?

TwiceOver
September 23rd, 2008, 04:55 PM
If they ported Microsoft Money over to Linux I would gladly pay for it. Something tells me that isn't going to happen soon though.

ReddogOne
September 23rd, 2008, 05:05 PM
If I got a good investment on my purchase then I would.

If someone does something really unique and puts a lot of work into it then I can't see a problem with them benefiting from it.

In a commercial situations that by payment. In an open source situation that by getting something done because you got help with it from the community or it being a good thing for your CV or by getting a warm and fussy feeling by having lots of people think you are the bees knees.

Some software engineers actually have feed themselves!

RiceMonster
September 23rd, 2008, 05:10 PM
I prefer foss, but I have no problem using closed source software. On linux though, there isn't much closed source stuff that I want to use, just codes, flash player, etc. Of course on Windows though, I use a lot of closed source stuff like foobar2000 (my favourite audio player) and closed source games.

linux5uper
September 23rd, 2008, 05:12 PM
If I got a good investment on my purchase then I would.

If someone does something really unique and puts a lot of work into it then I can't see a problem with them benefiting from it.

In a commercial situations that by payment. In an open source situation that by getting something done because you got help with it from the community or it being a good thing for your CV or by getting a warm and fussy feeling by having lots of people think you are the bees knees.

Some software engineers actually have feed themselves!

Free (as in beer) software is most desirable for users. The problem with paid software however is not that it costs, but that it's usually overpriced (in the eyes of users).

Dragonbite
September 23rd, 2008, 06:02 PM
I see no problem with paying for software I need or want. Like the original poster used as an example, Adobe Suite.

I think if traditional application developers sold their wares like they do for Windows and Apple but to Linux then Linux adoption would be on the rise, especially in the enterprise. There would be less reason to stick with the operating system if you want to change.

Adobe seems to be warming up to the idea some, as it (I think recently) offers AIR for Linux and even Flexbuilder (for Fedora, but hey, it's a start).

Since Adobe is a heavy of the Apple world, it would really be great if they figured out or re-aligned their code to streamline porting from Apple's Unix to Linux. That way they could have another revenue source (Linux users) without a lot of output (development time/$$ in porting).

On the other hand, Cloud computing allows such cross-platform capabilities to be easily implemented.

karellen
September 23rd, 2008, 06:13 PM
only if I need to (as for my work)

god0fgod
September 23rd, 2008, 06:30 PM
If I had money to burn, then yes.

themissinglink1
September 23rd, 2008, 06:31 PM
I think if traditional application developers sold their wares like they do for Windows and Apple but to Linux then Linux adoption would be on the rise, especially in the enterprise. There would be less reason to stick with the operating system if you want to change.

Yeah thats exactly the way I see linux expanding massively in the future. Why would a business for example use windows or mac osx if they could use all their applications that the currently use in linux (which is free :D) coupled with the support from canonical :popcorn:

Greyed
September 23rd, 2008, 06:36 PM
Free as in beer or free as in speech?

I use both though I prefer free in both senses of the word. On the other hand I am a pragmatist. I use what works best and it happens that FOSS is what works best for me most of the time. However if it is a commercial or non-FOSS (but free as in beer) piece of software that is what I use. Simple as that.

An excellent example is VirtualBox. There are two versions. VirtualBox Open-Source Edition (OSE) and VirtualBox Personal End-User License (PUEL). I use PUEL even though OSE exists because I use it on a WinXP host. There were no convenient OSE binaries for Windows when I looked into using VBox and since learning the differences even if one were made available I probably would not use it. The PUEL suits my needs perfectly even if it isn't FOSS free.

Dragonbite
September 23rd, 2008, 07:21 PM
Yeah thats exactly the way I see linux expanding massively in the future. Why would a business for example use windows or mac osx if they could use all their applications that the currently use in linux (which is free :D) coupled with the support from canonical :popcorn:

Even if it wasn't free, it would be more open, customizable and stable. It would FORCE Microsoft to improve their products!

Canonical, Red Hat and Novell would all benefit I think and more than just the enterprise market. I can see consumers purchasing Linux computers with one year free tech support just like they find when buying a Windows computer (those support calls aren't forever, are they?)

themissinglink1
September 23rd, 2008, 07:32 PM
Even if it wasn't free, it would be more open, customizable and stable. It would FORCE Microsoft to improve their products!

Competition would only lead to better products; the consumers benefit from a wealth of applications that can be used on all OS's. Innovation, stability and ease of use is encouraged and better products all round are produced :D theoretically it sounds brilliant but the current monopoly of the OS market and Apple/Microsoft's dislike of Linux makes it unlikely this would happen despite it benefitting all consumers. Money talks and MS and Apple have plenty of it. Until Ubuntu/linux market share is so big that the big corporations can't afford not to cater for it I cannot see MS/Apple allowing products that are such a big portion of their OS's appeal to be ported to linux easily. But you never know [-o< Here's hoping

bashveank
September 23rd, 2008, 07:56 PM
Yes, I use whatever gets the job done most efficiently, free or non-free.