Why Is There No Software For Linux!!! DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Jeff
I think the fact that GPLed software can't feasibly be sold actually constitutes a -bug- in the GPL. The explicit allowance of sharing the software should perhaps be limited to only those who have bought a license (this would have to be worded in such a way that redistribution through distro package managers was clearly allowed). The other freedoms the FSF defines could all still be protected in a copyleft manner, and the license could automatically -convert- to full GPL after a set amount of time (initial suggestion: 10 years, though it would probably vary depending on the software). I think it's a reasonable compromise between the freedom of the end user and the need to pay for the development. We could call it something like -user serviceable software.- It might catch on among more open-minded commercial software creators.
You could also implement license-reminder systems, which, unlike DRM, wouldn't be designed to control what you can do, but just to help prevent accidental violation of the license, by requiring the user to make an actual action signifying that they believe the system is in error and they actually have a license in order to override it. (This would also be important if it was distributed through distro package managers, since users could easily mistake it for free software if they weren't paying attention)
Somewhere in this set of ideas I think we can get a solution that actually works for the whole society. Right now, open source software developers are giving their talents away as a kind of charity, and I don't think that's a viable way for software in general to work for the whole society, but we should have a path that is, and is also ethical in regards to how it treats the end user.
reply
I think the fact that GPLed software can't feasibly be sold actually constitutes a -bug- in the GPL. The explicit allowance of sharing the software should perhaps be limited to only those who have bought a license (this would have to be worded in such a way that redistribution through distro package managers was clearly allowed). The other freedoms the FSF defines could all still be protected in a copyleft manner, and the license could automatically -convert- to full GPL after a set amount of time (initial suggestion: 10 years, though it would probably vary depending on the software). I think it's a reasonable compromise between the freedom of the end user and the need to pay for the development. We could call it something like -user serviceable software.- It might catch on among more open-minded commercial software creators.
You could also implement license-reminder systems, which, unlike DRM, wouldn't be designed to control what you can do, but just to help prevent accidental violation of the license, by requiring the user to make an actual action signifying that they believe the system is in error and they actually have a license in order to override it. (This would also be important if it was distributed through distro package managers, since users could easily mistake it for free software if they weren't paying attention)
Somewhere in this set of ideas I think we can get a solution that actually works for the whole society. Right now, open source software developers are giving their talents away as a kind of charity, and I don't think that's a viable way for software in general to work for the whole society, but we should have a path that is, and is also ethical in regards to how it treats the end user.
reply
HickoryDickory86
I would much prefer to have the Serif Affinity suite on Linux over the Adobe Creative Cloud. One-time purchase and you're done; no subscription. I have tried to persuade them, even informed them about Flatpaks since the many different kernels and distros was an issue they cited, but still no bite. Despite the efforts of myself and many others, they remain vehemently opposed to a Linux port unless, of course, a wealthy Linux fan funds the effort. Serif fears the loss of the money it would cost to develop the ports with no guarantee of recouping it in sales on Linux.
Ignoring the fact that that's literally the risk for all proprietary software period, regardless of target platform, I think they're missing the much bigger picture. Were Serif to bite the bullet and make that move, Affinity could well outpace Adobe and become the new industry standard, what with all the people who are in the DP industry who prefer Linux, and who desperately want a professional suite on their preferred platform. They ask for Adobe, but if they get Affinity instead, I think the creatives and even publishers and corporations would switch in a heartbeat. And that, especially if they account for the massive reduction in costs when they no longer have to pump pools of money out to the door to Adobe to maintain their ludicrous number of subscriptions.
reply
I would much prefer to have the Serif Affinity suite on Linux over the Adobe Creative Cloud. One-time purchase and you're done; no subscription. I have tried to persuade them, even informed them about Flatpaks since the many different kernels and distros was an issue they cited, but still no bite. Despite the efforts of myself and many others, they remain vehemently opposed to a Linux port unless, of course, a wealthy Linux fan funds the effort. Serif fears the loss of the money it would cost to develop the ports with no guarantee of recouping it in sales on Linux.
Ignoring the fact that that's literally the risk for all proprietary software period, regardless of target platform, I think they're missing the much bigger picture. Were Serif to bite the bullet and make that move, Affinity could well outpace Adobe and become the new industry standard, what with all the people who are in the DP industry who prefer Linux, and who desperately want a professional suite on their preferred platform. They ask for Adobe, but if they get Affinity instead, I think the creatives and even publishers and corporations would switch in a heartbeat. And that, especially if they account for the massive reduction in costs when they no longer have to pump pools of money out to the door to Adobe to maintain their ludicrous number of subscriptions.
reply
William
Random idea, what if somoene who has a good amount of money makes a true Not for profit (Non profit) Corperation LLC who specializes in FOSS/ Linux/ BSD software. Hire IT Software engineers and sell support and training, and software that is for Linux, but don't charge -typical- amounts for it, thus paying everyone well, paying the monthly bills, taxes, etc, just don't charge more than what is needed to say in the Not for profit business model. Side jobs could be for the programmers to help contribute to FOSS projects like The Gimp/ KDEN Live, Inscape, VLC, etc on the job as just part of their duties. Part of the training would be to help new users umm.. Switch To Linux ;) (Hi Tom)
Everyone gets paid, and FOSS/ Linux has a company in it's interests.
reply
Random idea, what if somoene who has a good amount of money makes a true Not for profit (Non profit) Corperation LLC who specializes in FOSS/ Linux/ BSD software. Hire IT Software engineers and sell support and training, and software that is for Linux, but don't charge -typical- amounts for it, thus paying everyone well, paying the monthly bills, taxes, etc, just don't charge more than what is needed to say in the Not for profit business model. Side jobs could be for the programmers to help contribute to FOSS projects like The Gimp/ KDEN Live, Inscape, VLC, etc on the job as just part of their duties. Part of the training would be to help new users umm.. Switch To Linux ;) (Hi Tom)
Everyone gets paid, and FOSS/ Linux has a company in it's interests.
reply
Zablon
Are you out of your mind, do you think that someone will pay tons of money for developers to make a product for months sometimes years and then sell training while providing the product for free. As a developer this sounds like crazy talk. What we should do is make opensource software quality on par with the paid proprietary software, we've seen the open source community is very toxic for developers that provide their time to make some of the most useful code that some opensource developers quit contributing to opensource. Opensource code is getting stolen and contributors are getting insulted for the hard work they are putting in. The way I see it, the community is taking these contributions for-granted.
reply
Are you out of your mind, do you think that someone will pay tons of money for developers to make a product for months sometimes years and then sell training while providing the product for free. As a developer this sounds like crazy talk. What we should do is make opensource software quality on par with the paid proprietary software, we've seen the open source community is very toxic for developers that provide their time to make some of the most useful code that some opensource developers quit contributing to opensource. Opensource code is getting stolen and contributors are getting insulted for the hard work they are putting in. The way I see it, the community is taking these contributions for-granted.
reply
Tech
Companies only built their empires using floss software because it's free and a cost saving measure, but then they're proprietary software gets popular because it has a big company behind it. So the issue isn't proprietary software, it's money. Linux will never go anywhere without a company behind it, that's why Red hat exists and that's why valve is pushing linux. But until then, Linux not having software that supports the formats people actually work with is a problem regardless of who's to blame, whether you wanna admit it or not, and that problem needs to be fixed.
reply
Companies only built their empires using floss software because it's free and a cost saving measure, but then they're proprietary software gets popular because it has a big company behind it. So the issue isn't proprietary software, it's money. Linux will never go anywhere without a company behind it, that's why Red hat exists and that's why valve is pushing linux. But until then, Linux not having software that supports the formats people actually work with is a problem regardless of who's to blame, whether you wanna admit it or not, and that problem needs to be fixed.
reply
Arno
thx for the tube
there's a fact and most don't know about.
MS and Apple burns year by year tons of dollars away for companies like Adobe and co.
there is no reason else, for Adobe, cause unix-linux binds more shared codebase the MS and apples cocoaFW to MS. so what?! Microsoft is the evil and cheating in this game. ppl have to go more behind.
why MS was started coopbuiz with canonical and ubuntu?
for real a subsys in Windows is fine. for real this will give us a badend, because its rolling! snap is the next step. since years opensource and yet snap !
reply
thx for the tube
there's a fact and most don't know about.
MS and Apple burns year by year tons of dollars away for companies like Adobe and co.
there is no reason else, for Adobe, cause unix-linux binds more shared codebase the MS and apples cocoaFW to MS. so what?! Microsoft is the evil and cheating in this game. ppl have to go more behind.
why MS was started coopbuiz with canonical and ubuntu?
for real a subsys in Windows is fine. for real this will give us a badend, because its rolling! snap is the next step. since years opensource and yet snap !
reply
wsippel
For niche software, it very much depends on the specific niche. Linux has more than 60% market share in the visual effects industry for example, so all the high end commercial tools are on Linux. Autodesk is a pretty good example: Fusion isn't on Linux because the CAD market uses Windows, Flame on the other hand isn't on Windows because the big post production houses that need (and can afford) Flame use Linux. And then they also make Smoke, which is Mac only. Autodesk has no bias, they just follow the money.
reply
For niche software, it very much depends on the specific niche. Linux has more than 60% market share in the visual effects industry for example, so all the high end commercial tools are on Linux. Autodesk is a pretty good example: Fusion isn't on Linux because the CAD market uses Windows, Flame on the other hand isn't on Windows because the big post production houses that need (and can afford) Flame use Linux. And then they also make Smoke, which is Mac only. Autodesk has no bias, they just follow the money.
reply
Randy
Not really concerned with companies whose business is proprietary software. That's how they make $$, and that's fine. What aggravates me is companies who make their $$ selling HARDWARE, but refuse to release their utility/setup/control programs in open source/Linux to control their hardware. If you are selling mice/keyboards/printers, there is not a market for your software beyond the sale of your hardware device. One need only look at libratbag and openrgb to see what a mess exists in this area.
reply
Not really concerned with companies whose business is proprietary software. That's how they make $$, and that's fine. What aggravates me is companies who make their $$ selling HARDWARE, but refuse to release their utility/setup/control programs in open source/Linux to control their hardware. If you are selling mice/keyboards/printers, there is not a market for your software beyond the sale of your hardware device. One need only look at libratbag and openrgb to see what a mess exists in this area.
reply
cpuccino
The problem with your argument about monetisation of open sourced vs proprietary software, is the fact that with proprietary software you can do both (sell the software and sell the support).
There-s also the fact that some softwares, don-t really need support at all.
Also, it-s very hard to monetise free software, people / companies will not pay if there-s a way to get something for free. You also need to remember that developers needs to get paid. We need to pay for rent, bills etc.
reply
The problem with your argument about monetisation of open sourced vs proprietary software, is the fact that with proprietary software you can do both (sell the software and sell the support).
There-s also the fact that some softwares, don-t really need support at all.
Also, it-s very hard to monetise free software, people / companies will not pay if there-s a way to get something for free. You also need to remember that developers needs to get paid. We need to pay for rent, bills etc.
reply
Murphy
Since most of Linux software is written as free and open source, quality control is poor to be generous and non exist to be honest. Its a great learning ground but I would not want anyone except masochist like myself to go through this pain. For most people plug and play is the best thing. Never had to install bluetooth using command line in my life till now !
reply
Since most of Linux software is written as free and open source, quality control is poor to be generous and non exist to be honest. Its a great learning ground but I would not want anyone except masochist like myself to go through this pain. For most people plug and play is the best thing. Never had to install bluetooth using command line in my life till now !
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
