The one point that I agree with the author on is that it is exceedingly hard to write a non-trivial closed-source application that is easy to install and works on all Linux distributions (or even just the major ones like RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Gentoo, Mint, Mandriva, CentOS, Xandros, and Slackware).
The app would have to support at least Gnome and KDE, and ideally should work with XFCE, Enlightenment, and [flux/black]box. And then you have to deal with the nightmare that is linux audio (oss, alsa, esound, arts, jack, gstreamer, phonon, etc).
I mean, static linking, autoconf, etc. all help, but it's still a lot of work. But testing each release on every (even major) combination of distribution, CPU-type, Window Manager, graphics tool-kit, and audio framework quickly becomes untenable. The return on investment for this sort of testing for a software author is staggeringly small.
And this is from someone who uses Linux (Debian/Ubuntu) as their primary OS.
Server-Users need commercial applications. That's just the way it is. The extra ten percent of features that makes an app usable for your average Server-User are the 10% that every developer hates; those features are hard and boring to develop, and implementing them is just no fun. You need to pay developers to implement them.
Do you really think that something like INFORMIX-ONLINE is going to be created by the community? My coworker, who manages our customer service group, shelled out 1500 deutschmarks for INFORMIX. He does not regret it, even though installation is a PITA. Why? It just works: it works with our network; he gets results fast; there are a bunch of skilled DBAs and books available, etc.
In Linux we are stuck with mSQL. Sorry, but no cigar! INFORMIX calibre software will NOT be created by the community. It just takes TOO much manpower, TOO much work. No one is coding that in his spare-time.
This kind of software will also not be created by an open-source company. There is no business-model that would supports the effort. Just imagine if INFORMIX released INFORMIX-ONLINE as open-source - you think that people would still shell out 1500DM for a boxed-version? Nope, people would just copy it. There are some exceptions. For example, Cygnus receives their money from chip manufacturers not from their users.
For every argument that states that something will "Never" happen there will always be exceptions to blow their theories out of the water.
Here is one such case.
In the 3D modelling software world, Maya by Autodesk is arguably the "best" 3D modelling program out there for the Film and Gaming industries. It also ranks as one of the most expensive (the base version costs about $2k, and the complete is around $7k)
It comes in a linux flavour.
That's not to say theres no good alternative open source solution - Blender is one. While it doesn't have the depth of features that Maya has, producing animations in Blender is typically a faster process due to its unique nature.
I've also (due to the nature of the open source of linux/blender) been able to integrate Amazon's EC2 directly with my computer so that it becomes a virtual render farm which I can dedicate as many machines to rendering meshes/animations as I like, quickly and easily with little outlay in capital.
This is just too damn difficult to do under the other OS's (I will be attempting it under OSX soonish though)
All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Consult your pineal gland! →←
Indeed. VMWare server is another closed source Linux application that even requires a kernel module and manages to run pretty much anywhere I've tried. Granted it might not run on some esoteric distros but you're very definitely asking for that when you hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributio... and start browsing for something quaint.
People do pay for linux, and sometimes more than other OS's. So yes, you do get what you pay for.
Most commercial applications run just fine on linux.
This is because most commercial applications are written for the web these days. Most of these web applications work fine on linux.
You can't compare the 20,000+ included, and free applications that linux comes with out of the box to a bunch of crappy legacy windows commercial desktop applications.
"Linux supports more different types of devices than any other operating system ever has in the history of computing." -- Microsoft even agrees with this statement, and MS research confirmed it.
Linux has way more drivers than windows. Out of the box, it includes many more drivers... and going forward, many of the drivers will still be available in 2-5 years than with windows. You often don't need to search random websites for your drivers either... they come with linux.
This article reads like troll bait. Should this be on Hacker News? The author (whoever it is) talks more about the problems with free software rather than the "two major problems that Linux faces concerning its spread on the desktop". The rant itself seems a bit too incoherent.
> Desktop-Users need commercial applications...
Umm... no. Different users have different needs. The vast amount of free software available should be able to cover most of this need. For example, the default Ubuntu installation includes an Office Suite, a browser, media players, and more. OpenOffice is free. Firefox is free. MPlayer is free. If these applications are free and people use them, why would you need their commercial counter-parts?
> The extra ten percent of features that makes an app usable for your average Desktop-User are the 10% that every developer hates; those features are hard and boring to develop, and implementing them is just no fun. You need to pay developers to implement them.
This is simply not true! Even though many projects have "hard and boring parts to develop", that doesn't mean that a programmer would absolutely refuse to code those parts without compensation. For example, the Linux kernel is made from a "labor of love". People wanted to actually develop this, for free even! I am sure that there are many parts in the kernel that have "hard and boring parts", but that doesn't mean that programmers will not do it without pay.
> PE calibre software will NOT be created by the community. It just takes TOO much manpower, TOO much work. No one is coding that in his spare-time.
GIMP, as the author stated before, is an alternative. The author dismisses GIMP as inferior without stating why. GIMP is a perfectly decent alternative for people who don't want to shell out money for Photoshop.
More generally to the author's last argument, lots of things require a lot of manpower and work. Just because it is hard work does not necessarily mean that no one will do it. Some people might have a surprising amount of determination.
> This kind of software will also not be created by an open-source company. There is no business-model that would supports the effort. Just imagine if Adobe released PE as open-source - you think that people would still shell out 70€ for a boxed-version? Nope, people would just copy it. There are some exceptions. For example, Mozilla receives their money from Google not from their users.
First off: yes, it has! How has the open source community survived so long? Secondly, not everything must be a business. Peope do create things out of pure volition.
Thirdly, the real world isn't zero-sum. For every gain, there is not an equal loss. If Adobe open-sources its products, it doesn't mean that no one would buy it. A comparable example to this is the music industry's pirating problem. Even though many people use torrents to get their music for free, there exists this "sampling effect" that actually encourages people to buy music. Relating this to the author's suggestion that people wouldn't "shell out 70 euros for a boxed version", yes some would.
> See? That is another typical example of the difference between open and closed source software. Will a great spell-checker be created by hobbyists in their spare time? No! It is a repetitive, boring task, and coding skill alone does not suffice. You also need language experts. Will they work for free? No! Then who will pay them?
Um... yes. A great free spellchecker has been created before. It is called Aspell (and others exist, also). Secondly, a spell checker doesn't require a "language expert", it simply requires a dictionary (or word list). Granted, there are funky grammar rules in some languages like conjugation, but they can be directly inserted into the dictionary. If you do need a "language expert", ask your friends to help (or if you are attending college, ask a foreign-language professor). Would they necessarily demand payment for their services? Of course, there are exeptions...
> For each of the software programs mentioned, there is a half-assed open source clone.
That is very rude! Programming for free is a labor of love! Why would a programmer "half-ass" something as hard as a clone of another program. If the programmer has no interest, then he or she would not even bother with creating the clone! Again, that is a very insulting remark.
Regarding the second half of the author's rant, people create their own resources for drivers. If it isn't there, make it! For example, open-source wireless drivers. There are a lot of different kinds of wireless cards available. Not all have a driver for Linux provided by the company. Therefore, people create their own, like MadWifi. If you need a specific driver, chances are that someone else probably already made it, especially the more popular products.
No one environment suits everyone perfectly. MS Windows works for some, OS X works for others, and some prefer Linux. Please, do not generalize and say that Linux is not right for everyone.
"GIMP is a perfectly decent alternative for people who don't want to shell out money for Photoshop"
It _can_. It really depends on the features that you need. I can hardly imagine myself doing some professional Webdesign with Gimp. Im a Photoshop user and i tried hard to learn Gimp to do some serious work on it. I think that it may not suit every Designer's needs. But for Illustrator, i think there is a valid alternative: InkScape. I think it's one of the most promising piece of open-source software for graphic designers. I liked it. But i dont use it since im more comfortable with Illustrator. ;)
The app would have to support at least Gnome and KDE, and ideally should work with XFCE, Enlightenment, and [flux/black]box. And then you have to deal with the nightmare that is linux audio (oss, alsa, esound, arts, jack, gstreamer, phonon, etc).
I mean, static linking, autoconf, etc. all help, but it's still a lot of work. But testing each release on every (even major) combination of distribution, CPU-type, Window Manager, graphics tool-kit, and audio framework quickly becomes untenable. The return on investment for this sort of testing for a software author is staggeringly small.
And this is from someone who uses Linux (Debian/Ubuntu) as their primary OS.