Discussion on:

Proprietary Linux software: A big dilemma for many Linux users

> Why are so many so unwilling to accept
> good software that has a price and
> closed source [code]?

Free Software moves so fast that its hard for closed companies to keep up. Ever try keeping VMware Player running on a Debian Sid box? It breaks with every kernel upgrade. I'd imagine VPN software needs similar kernel hooks; will this closed app continue to function after I update my software? I know VirtualBox will work after an update, but I don't have as much faith in VMware, especially after experience has taught me otherwise.

Also, a GNU/Linux distro includes all FLOSS app upgrades with one upgrade command (or a few mouse clicks). Will aptitude (or whatever) be able to pull in the closed-source updates? Is the vendor providing repos for their software? Is the vendor creating software versions for every useful distro out there? Because with FLOSS, the vendor doesn't need to make the versions, the distro maintainers do this (using their access to the source code).

A good GNU/Linux distro makes it so easy to install what I want and keep it all integrated and updated. This is a huge draw over OSX and Windows (one of many draws, for me). Closed-source apps remove this attractive aspect for GNU/Linux.

Making the GPL decision isn't easy to do. I made that decision, as a Linux developer, back in 1998. The reason is quite simple. It was to provide as much assistance as possible to the open source community in their attempt to reduce M$ control over our development efforts. The job is not yet completed and will be hindered by closed source Linux developers. I am very willing to "donate" to worthy GPLed projects. But I'm not willing to admit that I use software that someone actually owns. I designed a T-Shirt that says, "Intellectual Property is an Oxymoron. Even the most original ideas are gifts from God".

Arthur Baldwin

I play music, I go out to hear live music, and I don't go to ballets with recorded music or patronize DJs. That doesn't mean I would refuse a wedding invitation if the reception had a DJ. Likewise, I like the concept of Open Source, but I'm not going to run an inferior video driver when I can get a good one from the vendor, nor am I going to pretend GIMP can do what Photoshop can.

I'm in business to help my clients operate their businesses efficiently - to help maximize sales and minimize costs. That could mean running Drupal on a LAMP server running Ubuntu or CentOS, all free both as in speech and as in beer. Or it could be Microsoft Office, QuickBooks, or AutoCAD because Open/LibreOffice is very good but not necessarily as productive as Microsoft Office and not quite compatible with business partners' .doc(x) and .xls(x) files; and nothing Open Source can hold a candle to QuickBooks or AutoCAD.

I'm not sure when Google will actually release the Linux version of SketchUp, but the Windows version beats AutoCAD very easily since the drawing methods are already in 3D and can be input with real world measurements. As for QuickBooks, well maybe Grisbi doesn't have as many Tax related features, but I sure love it far better than QuickBooks overall.

The only reason I still use Windows at work is for the benefit of MS Access...but that will soon change, when Hobo 1.3 is released. I believe that someday nearly all website design will be database centric and will be done with hobo and ruby on rails.

Sincerely,

Arthur

SketchUp can do a lot, but I support machines that translate AutoCAD files to their own control programs to make parts.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software Grisbi is for personal finance. Does it support purchase orders, sales orders, invoices, statements, and apply partial payments to invoices?

> I'm in business to help my clients operate
> their businesses efficiently ? to help ...
> minimize costs.

I agree, which is what makes FLOSS so compelling ? you never have the costs of a supplier going out of business, or of a document format becoming unreadable, or of the license terms or prices becoming unreasonable.

There are many excellent packages on Windows and Mac that you will never see on Linux. These are programs of a size and scope that you will will not see an equal developed in open source.

Those of us who need these packages would rather pay for a Linux version than a Windows version, but we will never get a chance if the purists of the world continually raise a storm and harass companies and users who choose proprietary software.

And this is a key reason why many corporations that would like to move their desktops to Linux can't. They need proprietary packages that aren't being ported because of the hostility received by a vocal minority.

They don't choose to develop under the GPL because they believe they can't make enough money doing it. In some cases, this might be true. But I have found the opposite is true. There are many, many apps for Linux that are GPLed that you will never have equaled in Windows!

I'm not aware of "many, many" apps that can't be equaled in Windows. If you tell us what they are we can start porting them.

Most of these already have a Windows and Mac version. Blender, the very best movie quality animation software in existence. OpenCV SDK, a toolkit for "Computer Vision" for teaching cars to "see and drive themselves". (has a Windows and Mac version). Grisbi accounting software...IMHO better than QuickBooks. Ruby, Ruby on Rails, Hobo, all used together for website design of database centric websites.
Soon there will be a new scheduler for all versions of Linux in the 2.6.38 kernel that will far outperform any version of Windows that now exists and probably will ever exist!

Time to start investigating!

Arthur

You stated that these will never be equaled in a Windows app, then you go and say that they've been ported to Windows. So, which is it? You're telling us that an app that is a Windows app won't be equaled in Windows? You're confusing the hell out of me.

Industrial Light & Magic's Offering for CG Rendering.

Nix only and as far as I have seen it will never be ported to Windows as there currently isn't a Windows System at a reasonable price capable of running it in the same time frame a a Nix Base.

I've seen this used with a 6K CPU Blade and it takes several days to render 30 seconds of Video the last estimate that I heard for a Windows system of compatible power was 3 weeks for the same thing.

The Licensing for SUSE which as used on that Blade is Zilch the Licensing for Windows is too Scary to Contemplate and the Support Costs are about the Same.

Which system would you chose if there was a version for each OS?

Col

I think you're confused, I wasn't saying that there weren't items out there that don't have a comparable Windows version. I was trying to get my head around the obvious contradiction of the poster stating that there would never be software that equals Linux software and then going on to state several examples of ports that are out there.

As to the ILM software, why should I care in the least what OS they're using? I don't have anything against Linux, it just isn't an OS that I'm going to use because the one I use now does everything that I need it to and I'm willing to pay to get that functionality. Would a Linux user say the same? According to this article I'd say probably not.

"would a Linux user say the same"

Yes. "Linux users" are normal people and would pay money for software provided it's benefits over competitive alternatives justified the price difference. For example, when Adobe tried to sell a Linux native Photoshop it flopped; the price asked for Photoshop did not justify the few things that alternative software didn't do.

For me personally, I'd have dropped money for VMware Workstation if VMware delivered it for Debian 6 (Debian is not obscure enough for third parties to ignore supporting). I'd also drop money on games if they shipped with a *nix native install. Having to stop everything I'm doing and reboot to Windows is the primary reason I do far less gaming now. I have time to pop open a game if it'll leave the rest of my *nix stuff chugging away but the game developers don't seem to have any interest in my money.

The difference between a "Linux User" and "Windows User" (used in the most generalized of meanings) is not if they will purchase software or not. The *nix user simply has a larger choice of already available software with which retail software can't or chooses not to compete with.

Rumour is that Adobe actually produced a *nix native Photoshop years ago. It sold for, well, the price of Photoshop. They then discontinued it claiming that there was not enough interest; it didn't sell cause those FOSS users won't pay for software.

What Adobe didn't bother to mention was that the feature difference between Photoshop and other competitive software did not justify cost difference.

It's not just companies with hurt feelings because of a vocal minority of "code free or die" types. I'd like to see more cases of proprietary software succeeding or failing and why though; the few I've seen, like the Adobe example, failed due to the vendor rather than the FOSS community.

The same can be said for Nero-Linux .. costly and compared to the already free alternatives like K3B a pile of junk. Proprietary software needs more than just it's name to sell it to open source users. I for one don't really care so much about the open source nature of an application as long as it works and has a feature advantage over the free competition.. and theres the problem.. the proprietary competition expects to release junk (for real money) and that savvy users will buy it because of their name.. of course what do we do? .. we grab cracked versions and test it out.. find that it's rubbish and warn everybody else off.
They have to get over themselves and start producing good products if they want us to pay for them.. (we will pay, but it has to be at least as good as the competition, or the windoze version, if not better) just because windows users are brainwashed into paying for rubbish doesn't mean FOSS users are.. in fact we aren't.. I don't even pay for proprietary software for my one and only windoze box..
Bottom line.. if it's good and has features nothing else has that I need then I will pay for it.. if not then it deserves what it gets... ignored and left to die out.

What does K3B lack that your getting from Nero? I'd actually gone the other way and hadn't thought of Nero since using K3B; my needs are pretty humble though and mostly in the disk to file rather than file to disk direction.

the next time there is an outraged mob raising a storm and harassing companies and users who choose proprietary software. I'd like to be there to see it.

I hate to confess my ignorance, I haven't been able to install and run Ubuntu to install on my computer. It makes me hesitate to pay for the CD or DVD Rom.

[Intel Pentium 4, 2266 MHz (17 x 133)
Dell OptiPlex GX260
Intel Brookdale-G i845G
1024 MB (PC2100 DDR SDRAM)
BIOS Phoenix (09/24/02)]

You just need a little help from a Linux enthusiast. You can download the ISO image from the Internet, burn a CD, and install. The only cost is for Internet service and the blank CDR.

Sincerely,

Arthur