I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more business savy.
An interesting business question.
I'm also not saying people should pay for bad software in hopes that it will become good. I'm saying that we need to make it easier to pay for software so that software that good that already exists can be purchased.
Android is an example of how Linux and payments can work. An open source operating system with many free pieces of software, but an App store where products can still be purchased.
So, have you? If so, how much? I've spent $300 on software for my Windows computer in the last year, and another $100 on software for my Mac.
> So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways.
Granted, but I think far fewer people would if Linux wasn't completely free. If Linux distros were able to enforce a charge of $5 per download, I suspect consumer adoption would halve or worse.
> Android is an example
I'm not sure that's the best example considering the trouble many developers are having making money on Android. But even if we go with that, there are probably already far more people carrying Android handsets than are using Linux on the desktop.
More than that, there's a question about what type of people and for what motivation people buy Android phones. Notice how I said "buy Android phones," not "install Android". People buy Android phones explicitly because you can easily buy desirable apps on them, unlike so many other phone OSes. But the operating system is not free like beer in the sense that it is easily downloaded and installed on a device people already have on hand. You still in most cases have to go out and buy the device. So it does not suffer (as much) from the selection effect I described earlier. (The evidence I've seen so far does suggest that its demographics with respect to paying for software deviate significantly from those of the iPhone.)
I'd happily pay Dag Wieers for RHEL/Fedora repo access if he asked for cash too.
Serious Linux users use it because it's the only thing that fits the way they work. Linux has all the interface and programs I'm used to, so of course I'd be more likely to buy software for it than any other OS. What holds me back is that there isn't any software I need that I don't have...
One problem that I do have is that if I pay Canonical, for example, to make the whole OS better, it would mostly still crap out because I made the mistake of buying at AMD/ATI graphics card. Not sure who to blame at that point. The Ubuntu people say its from ATI/AMD and ATI/AMD say that there's not enough money in the market to justify better work on the driver(that or technical problems with the differences between distros). So what then? It would still have the same result.
But, in general, I do vote with my dollars.
Well, I'd be interested in one of the following apps: a desktop wiki, an email client, a contact management app, a feed reader, a music player, a scalable image editor, a layout app, a recording app, a guitar effect app, a GIT client, and probably some more.
Of course, for each of these, there's some free app somewhere. But each of these free ones have something I don't like.
I admit, my willingness-to-pay is quite low. That's partially due to some free apps being available. The better reason, however, is that installing proprietary apps sucks under Linux. I also fear, the regular distro updates will break apps I've payed for.
In other words: If there's a way to conveniently download an app from a store or homepage, and to get security and "distro upgrade" updates (maybe, by registering the app automatically with APT during installation), my willingness-to-pay would be quite a bit higher!
> The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer).
How do you know? Any empirical studies I'm not aware of? Or just the Biased Sample fallacy?
> It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good.
Dunno. There's a lot of applications that were not 'good' when they were first released. People still bought it.
no one is aware of the cost of their operating system anyway.
Basic macroeconomics suggests this is unlikely.
We buy our linux-based office software (we do NOT use OpenOffice). There should be more paid-for apps that are of much better quality than what's available.
I believe that Linux (or some distro) should incorporate licensing/DRM into the OS itself - which you have the freedom to turn on or off. More or less, it means an app store, but indie developers will not have to worry about building licensing into their software.
The license is extremely liberal.
What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway
The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which Linux inherently has. Dont we _already_ have an app store in Linux?
Only, there is no way for a developer to make money off Apt or Yum.
Since that didn't work out, it looks like the next best alternative is something like Steam. It seems highly possible that Steam will be released for Linux (a port already exists). Valve could be persuaded by enough software developers to add non-game software to their system.
Neither system required/requires DRM to be integrated into the OS.
If you were an app maker, why would you prefer a closed source DRM, than an open-source security model in the OS ?
I just dont get it: everyone likes Steam, but they dont like DRM in the OS - is it something so distasteful that a computer gets tainted by built in DRM ? And then you will find someone who gets pissed off with Steam, goes looking for alternatives... and the consumer ends up with 10 different kinds of app-store software (on Windows, I have Direct2Drive, Steam and StarForce for different games)
I dont know how it can be managed with a built-in DRM, but I suspect something like a PPA (Personal Package Archives) would enable everyone to self-publish their software, yet still be part of a web-of-trust model.
DRM especially should be in as high a layer as possible, or ideally not present at all, so that its casualties are minimal if the authentication servers disappear or the company holding the keys becomes malevolent.