Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

joven · 2010-10-01 10:09:34

I have been using Linux forever. I love it. One of the things that I love about the Linux culture is almost anything you need can be installed open source. However, except in rare cases like vim, gimp, firefox, eclipse etc, using open source software means dealing with perpetual alpha releases. Sometimes I just want an app that works really well and is stable and ... I am more than willing to pay for it. It frustrates me that a lot of commercial software companies ignore Linux as a platform, lathering their attention on Windows and Mac OS. I have a theory that I would love to hear opinions on: there are other Linux users who would be willing to pay for software too. So, is anyone out there running commercial software? If there was a commercial application for Linux in domain [insert whatever it is that you do], would you be willing to pay for it?

Ashren · 2010-10-01 10:32:48

Pay for Linux software?

Games yes.
Apps no.

Why?

Application wise I can do what I need to do with FOSS applications.

Games I don't mind paying for since in my experience commercial games for Linux are higher quality than the FOSS ones. They're generally cheap as well.

evot · 2010-10-01 10:50:20

It would be nice to have option to buy certain commercial application for linux platform.

Something like games and professional audio/video/picture editing software.
That brings more users and developers for linux who would't use linux without change to use thouse applications or develop some commercial game/app.
It would be nice to see that both free and commercial applications available for linux in large variety.

Personally i use linux as much as possible.
For games and virtual instruments i have to use windows.
If i have had choise to buy these games and instruments for linux then i would do so.

joven · 2010-10-01 10:55:34

evot wrote:

That brings more users and developers for linux who would't use linux without change to use thouse applications or develop some commercial game/app.

I agree. I can think of countless times I've seen people post about how they would be using Linux 100% if it weren't for application X. I used to be that way with Photoshop years ago.

Last edited by joven (2010-10-01 10:57:05)

phoenigs · 2010-10-01 10:56:29

Just using slickedit as my ide for developement.

lotuskip · 2010-10-01 11:07:26

I have used Maple and Mathematica on Linux, but I didn't pay for them; my university did. I found them both bulky, slow, and complicated. Very un-UNIX in philosophy. (And it bothers me that SAGE is trying to imitate them, but let me not digress there.)

Can't see myself using anything commercial anymore. Commercial software as a concept just doesn't make sense to me. That business is running on peoples' ignorance.

About stability. It improves by user contributions and feedback. Don't ever decide not to use some great-looking software because it is as of yet unstable. You don't get quality just with money. In commercial software development stability is often achieved in a great rush by adding unnecessary bloat, and not because commercial code would be of better quality than open source.

And about features (cf. e.g. GIMP vs. Photoshop). I prefer easy&free expandability to a rich feature set. But the ignorant people don't even realise the possibility: they just see "built-in feature" vs. "no feature".

karol · 2010-10-01 11:33:47

There are / were many professional apps for Linux, like Apple Shake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_(software)

I've used to play some UT2k4 natively and Starcraft/Broodwar in wine.

ewaller · 2010-10-01 17:11:26

Would I be willing to pay: Yes.
Do I at home? Almost Never. It is a hobby.
Do I at work? Yes. IFF there is a good business case (My time is expensive and our product is not software)

Do I use commercial software? Yes. (VirtualBox and Wireless firmware for example).
I do not violate copyrights (At least not willfully -- I don't study every EULA)
The only commercial software for which I have paid is Windows XP Pro. (See VirtualBox above)

On a more pragmatic level, do we not all use proprietary software for which we have paid each and every day? Think of your BIOS, or the engine control computer in your car, or the embedded software in your microwave oven, or your cell phone, your ipod, or your television?

Inxsible · 2010-10-01 18:09:45

I wouldn't mind paying for certain software. especially tax software. I already pay for it when I use it in windows (the only reason its even there). Infact, I would be happier paying for a linux version than I am for the windows version.

I also use other commercial software like skype but and wouldn't mind if I had to pay for their call to phone services etc.

karol · 2010-10-01 18:12:09

Inxsible wrote:

I wouldn't mind paying for certain software. especially tax software. I already pay for it when I use it in windows (the only reason its even there). Infact, I would be happier paying for a linux version than I am for the windows version.
I also use other commercial software like skype but and wouldn't mind if I had to pay for their call to phone services etc.

Not to go into OT, but is it legal to force taxpayers to buy Windows to pay the taxes? Or do you use that app because it's easier than the alternatives?

Inxsible · 2010-10-01 18:26:08

you dont have to buy windows. You can always go to "tax professional" to get your taxes done.

But the thing is so easy, that I don't feel like paying the "tax professionals" $200+ for it. There are also "free" online tax softwares, but they are very basic and do not allow for adding ownership of a house or any other type of income like stocks, gambling profits and so on and so forth.

karol · 2010-10-01 18:44:12

Inxsible wrote:

you dont have to buy windows. You can always go to "tax professional" to get your taxes done.
But the thing is so easy, that I don't feel like paying the "tax professionals" $200+ for it. There are also "free" online tax softwares, but they are very basic and do not allow for adding ownership of a house or any other type of income like stocks, gambling profits and so on and so forth.

Ah, OK, so that app gives you tangible benefits: it's cheaper or more featurefull than the alternatives.

If you need just basic functionality, FLOSS / freeware is often enough, but for many state-of-the art solutions you have to pay (see Ashren's post).

It's all about money. You pay for
1. Hardware
2. Software
3. Electricity
4. Network
5. Time

If that app allows me to utilize the hardware I bought or I can buy cheaper / more power-efficient hardware or use a cheaper networking solution (if applicable) or I can do it myself instead of paying a pro / tell my 12yo son to do it instead of doing it myself - yeah, I can pay for it :-)

Many people are OS-agnostic (and with SaaS / moving to the cloud we'll be seeing it more often), they pick whatever solution suits them: is the fastest, cheapest, most versatile.

Companies want to make easy money. Linux people are accustomed to getting things for free and (let's assume) are more educated, so selling them sh*t for top bucks won't be easy.

codycarey · 2010-10-01 18:57:01

I tend to agree with most people about using FOSS alternatives for almost everything. But when I come across a piece of software I really like I'll gladly buy a license. (HHD Hex Editor Neo and WingIDE are two examples of quality software in my opinion.)

urist · 2010-10-01 19:26:48

I'm not against commercial software, I just haven't run across anything I can't do just as well or better with free alternatives. I've got a free copy of Office 07 from my university, but OpenOffice and LaTeX suit my needs. I bought a cheap XP disk from the campus computer store (even though they told us it was free... But that's another story) that I could use in VirtualBox on the rare event that I need to do something that Linux or Wine can't do. As of right now, that particular vdi is blank except for XP itself.

fsckd · 2010-10-01 20:05:10

lotuskip stated my sentiments exactly. I'm going to have to buy a copy of MATLAB because I use it so much. Yet it is SO expensive!

broch · 2010-10-02 01:11:10

why not if I am getting better quality than for free software?
I don't mind paying for software, this was not my reason to use linux in the first place. I prefer quality over "free". If comercial is better than free then why not?

I use Lightzone. In past I also had WordPerfect for linux (commercial version)

apefish · 2010-10-02 02:16:52

I do not use proprietary software. Apart from the ethical concerns, on purely practical grounds I really apreciate and make use of the freedom and customisability available to free software (I use dwm and friends for this reason). Even without the nice freedom aspects, I've found that proprietary software is generally garbage. It's all focused on getting crap out the door and making a quick buck or oppressing and locking in the user.

I don't think that the pressures of making money lead to quality software, it's too easy to just legally entangle the user instead, or sell and hide. At school we have to use matlab, commercial CADs and microsoft visual studio. These are the apps usually considered to be the 'good' ones but I am consistently disgusted by how little effort they put into making the software work flexibly with other software, even to the point that they deliberately complicate or restrict the capabilities of the software specifically so that it can only be used with itself and a small group of friends. Why would I pay money and freedom for software where a significant portion of the effort went to things that make it less useful? I want my software to help me get the job done, not waste time confirming licences and formatting my work into its own stupid project format (msvc pissed me off today). /rant

That said, sometimes certain proprietary apps are the only way to get the job done, in those cases, I use them. I haven't had to for my own work; I don't run any proprietary stuff (excluding bios). I'm afraid that I'm spoiled by the amazing usability of free software.

Last edited by apefish (2010-10-02 02:18:27)

anonymous_user · 2010-10-03 17:15:53

Most of the commercial software I use are games which I run in Windows. However if said games were to become Linux-native, then I'd gladly run them under Linux.

Awebb · 2010-10-03 20:10:44

The only commercial (if "commercial" reads "closed source") software I have on my linux boxes are firmwares, some drivers, Opera, and maybe some java apps, wich I download and run without caring about license. I also run the closed version of java and flash.

Well, sometimes a game in an emulator, but let's say that doesn't count

Pank · 2010-10-03 20:26:15

Speaking of commercial software, have anybody gotten SAS -- the statistical software -- running on Arch? I am not allowed to use R this semester

olive · 2010-10-03 21:56:13

I do use a few free (as in beer) proprietary software: googleearth, flash plugin for firefox, drivers for my printers. I use one paid for software: "The Robert and Collins French/English English/French dictionary" It is a windows sotware that mostly works in Wine. I have not been able to find a good bilingual (French/English) that run natively on Linux (I mean a good one, explaining which translation to use, etc...). If someone know one.

karol · 2010-10-03 22:00:44

olive wrote:

I have not been able to find a good bilingual (French/English) that run natively on Linux (I mean a good one, explaining which translation to use, etc...). If someone know one.

There are many decent online ones: http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/cat

skottish · 2010-10-04 00:42:56

I run all sorts of commercial software. Linux for instance. There's billions of dollars every day that are spent on the tools that we get for free. Without commercial backing, the Linux kernel would be many, many years behind where it is today. Without commercial backing, projects like x264 and FFmpeg/Mplayer wouldn't be the same. Gnome, KDE, webkit, OpenOffice... it's all financed. Don't confuse personally handing over cash for not being 'commercial'. The core of FOSS and professional tools are driven heavily by their return.

combuster · 2010-10-04 00:46:34

No, not a single commercial software or any binary blob that I'm aware of...

ewaller · 2010-10-04 01:21:43

combuster wrote:

No, not a single commercial software or any binary blob that I'm aware of...

Which BIOS do you use?

Arch Linux

#1 2010-10-01 10:09:34

Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#2 2010-10-01 10:32:48

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#3 2010-10-01 10:50:20

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#4 2010-10-01 10:55:34

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#5 2010-10-01 10:56:29

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#6 2010-10-01 11:07:26

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#7 2010-10-01 11:33:47

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#8 2010-10-01 17:11:26

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#9 2010-10-01 18:09:45

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#10 2010-10-01 18:12:09

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#11 2010-10-01 18:26:08

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#12 2010-10-01 18:44:12

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#13 2010-10-01 18:57:01

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#14 2010-10-01 19:26:48

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#15 2010-10-01 20:05:10

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#16 2010-10-02 01:11:10

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#17 2010-10-02 02:16:52

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#18 2010-10-03 17:15:53

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#19 2010-10-03 20:10:44

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#20 2010-10-03 20:26:15

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#21 2010-10-03 21:56:13

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#22 2010-10-03 22:00:44

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#23 2010-10-04 00:42:56

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#24 2010-10-04 00:46:34

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

#25 2010-10-04 01:21:43

Re: Do You Run Commercial Software on Linux?

Board footer