Are closed source applications "welcomed" in the Linux community?

Question

I'm developing several closed source applications for Mac OS X and Windows. I'm considering adding Linux to the list of supported platforms.

These applications manage content on a web site and manage and monitor the servers that host the content. For each application, there is a web based XHTML front end as well as rich GUI front ends for Mac OS X, Windows, and smart phones (Apple's iPhone). Each application has a specific focus, such as managing text books, assignments, and records for high school students and teachers.

I'm not sure how well received closed source applications are, in general, by the Linux community. Are closed source applications "welcomed" in the Linux community?

I don't have any customers who are Linux users. Nevertheless, I don't want to miss out on a potential market. Provided, of course, that Linux is a potential market.

Answer 1

Free software zealots will never like non-free software and they tend to make a lot of noise but those are also the people who are never going to pay for your software anyway.

Linus Torvald's (the Linux creator) view of the issue is that he will use the best tool for the job whether it is free software or not but in the long run free software will always be better than non-free since more people has a chance to contribute. I believe this is the view most Linux users share today.

Personally I'm a Linux user since '98 and I have bought several non-free softwares and have no problem with that.

Answer 2

They welcome it like any other OS, there's a lot os closed source apps for linux, so, no problem doing it. Just remember that different linux distros, have different package managers.

Answer 3

Remember Kylix?

Answer 4

The way software typically makes it onto a linux desktop is by first being added to the list used by whatever package management system is included with the particular linux distribution for that desktop. For many users, especially the less technical, if the software isn't in that list it doesn't exist.

For various reasons, distributions have real problems adding non-free software to their package management systems. Part of that is the systems just aren't built to accommodate software you also need to pay for. Part of it is the purists will raise a lot of complaints if there is any non-free (as in speech) software referenced anywhere on the system.

This doesn't mean you can't do it or that it wouldn't be welcomed- just that the forces at work would mean your software will be a 2nd class citizen in the linux world. If the software is compelling enough (Flash and Acrobat come to mind) it can still be very successful.

Answer 5

Under Windows I have becomed accustomed to the feeling of helplessness caused by closed-source applications which fail and will not tell me why or give me the chance to fix it.

With Linux, part of the reason I like it so well is that most everything is open source. If an application does not give me enough debugging information, I can add my own, then fix the problem once I discover it.

This usually takes far less time than calling the closed-source vendor's tech support, going through the level 1 stupid questions phase, waiting for a real problem solver to respond, sending them the log data, waiting for them to add to necessary debugging, running the test version, etc...

Oh yes, the question. The answer is No, I do not welcome closed-source applications on Linux, Solaris, BSD, or OS X. Not even on Windows, really.

Answer 6

The original Netscape browser was closed source, and we BEGGED for it for Linux.

At a guess, I'd say there are two or three apps on my Linux box that I paid for, and a couple more that are closed source but free. If Photoshop or Quicken came out for Linux, I'd buy it.

Answer 7

i don't see any problem with closed source apps on Linux; but i certainly hate when developers just test an app on Wine and call it 'available on Linux'. at the very least, link the app with the wine libraries and deliver an ELF executable, not an .exe

also, I personally don't consider mono to be an acceptable platform. but that's just me.

but, your apps are web-based, right? then those issues don't apply to you. simply support real standards and you'll be golden. that is, no moonlight.

of course, requiring windows for the server won't pass on most linux-oriented places.

Answer 8

I would probably guess that to most regular users of Linux, being able to run an application natively under Linux, is better than having to use dual-boot/virtual computer/wine (wich some of your customers may allready be doing).

(Of course we would love to have it opensourced too, remember opensource doesn't mean you can't make money.)

Answer 9

In general, the answer is no, if you are going to try to get it in a distro.

If you offer it as standard "shrinkwrap" software, I don't think people would be Zealously Unhappy.

Answer 10

My experience with Linux is that most "ISV"s don't get the level of integration that a linux distribution provides and thus already fail to deliver the expectations on the installation front.

If at all possible, the software should come in the native packaging format of the user's distribution (that is at least RPM and DEB) and should either use the currently released native libraries (a regularily updated devel version is a big plus for those running the next version) or statically link against all needed libraries (security support!).

Other points include using the user's proxy settings from the desktop environment, using the desktopenvironment's native toolkit, etc.

Answer 11

As a Linux user I am happy to pay for good software. You will find that Linux users are more demanding customers and you cannot just put out any crud and expect to get paid for it. It has to be software that solves a non-trivial problem and does it better than any alternatives (IntelliJ IDEA comes to mind). It will also have to be more responsive to bug reports than Windows and Mac only programs because we are used to hacking at problems as they arise. That being said, you are likely to get much more useful feedback from Linux users on bugs.
I have paid for many pieces of software, but they were all well worth it. There is some software I would love to see and would be happy to pay for that I don't have yet -- Photoshop (gimp is great but Photoshop is still better), 3dSmax (again, blender is great but 3dSmax beats it out) and I know quite a few that would love to have AutoCAD etc, etc.

Answer 12

GNU/Linux distributions are becoming a mainstream desktop OS nowadays. If you think that users of this OS do not matter, they are quite likely to return the favour.

edit: Since two people found it worthwhile to downvote this post, I will elaborate my point:

By "becoming mainstream" I mean that you cannot put all users of GNU/Linux into one drawer anymore. There are many users nowadays that just use Ubuntu, Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice as a drop-in replacement for Windows, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Microsoft Office. Their buying behaviour does not differ much from the stereotypical Windows user, except that they have a huge (really huge) amount of free software just a few clicks away. Can your application compete with the tools available from that? If yes, then you are denying yourself a growing market -- no one will install a different operating system just to use your software. If no, then you will have a hard time, because the users of a good GNU/Linux distribution are just too well informed about available options.

Answer 13

I'm a GNU/Linux user and a Free Software supporter (one of those most people would call a fanatic).

There's a lot of closed source software on GNU/Linux distributions. In my case, if there's a free software alternative to your application, I wouldn't doubt using it. But if I really needed it (for my job for example), and your app is the only alternative, then I'd have to use it.

Hardcore GNU/Linux users and free software supporters wouldn't welcome your app. But most users don't have a clue about software freedom, open source, etc. They get the "free as in free beer" concept out of it. It depends on who your software is aimed at.

Linus Torvalds is a good example for this question, he developed the free kernel the distros use, and thinks the best tool for the job must be used, whether free software or not.

As Harleqin says, it's very important to note if you ignore GNU/Linux users, they will ignore you as well.

Answer 14

I think it's dangerous to ask questions about "The Linux Community" as if it's homogenous.

Sure, there's a large base of Linux users who would always prefer to use free software: My own choice would usually be to pick an open source product that's "good enough" over a closed source product with more features - because I've never experienced paid customer support that's as good as the support you get from a community that can read the source code).

However there are plenty of companies who are standardizing their datacentres on Linux. These people have no qualms about running closed-source software on those Linux boxes. If you think you have something to offer these people, then sell a Linux version of your server app.

Answer 15

In general, the answer is no, and the problem mostly comes down to the fact that to get working software packages under Linux, you need to get one for your specific distribution. You can't just release a "Linux version" and expect it to work on Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, ... (ad infinitum). More than any ideological reasons, that's why the best supported packages are the open source ones - they can just be recompiled for the target platform, and distributions are free to include them as they wish.

That said, ideological issues are important as well, and there are a significant number of people who will look down on packages that are not under an open source license.

There are some specific packages which have been the exception to the rule over the years. Examples include Netscape, the Flash plugin, VMware, and a few others. These packages tend to fulfil a specific need that is not satisfied by any open source package. It doesn't sound to me like your package fulfils such a need.

Answer 16

I think that most sensible Linux users generally accept that companies will want to release closed source software - a lot of the stuff we rely on (server management tools etc) is closed-source.

What is not considered to be good or clever by "the community" is:

• Stuff which violates the GPL, either in letter or spirit
• Badly packaged software which hacks around with a distribution in a nonstandard way
• Re-implementing things already provided by the distribution

A closed-source application should integrate with the system neatly; it should use existing system facilities (e.g. packaging, logging, aspects of configuration) where appropriate, and it should not violate others' licences.

Answer 17

I don't buy an awful lot of software -- mostly games, some utilities, and the occasional major application. If I need what your program does, and it has a definite advantage over the competition, I'll buy it. And, if I'm going to buy a commercial program, I'd much rather get it for Linux than have to reboot into Windows every time I want to use it.

Is "welcome" even the right question? A stereotypical free software enthusiast might say closed source is unwelcome, but in the real world, if he has no choice, he'll buy it and use it. And, other things being equal, a pragmatic man prefers free stuff to expensive stuff, but he'll pay for quality if it's not available on the cheap. Is the result really that different?

[edit: yes, I know, gratis != libre. Both the flexibility to modify the code if necessary, and avoiding the hassle of trying to track down and buy "licenses" at the worst possible time, may be more valuable (especially to large customers) than any upfront cost savings. But, if you need Mathematica, you gotta talk to Wolfram...]

Probably, a bigger problem is that Linux users are more likely to be aware of whatever open source alternatives there are to your program, and to have the technical chops to adapt them to their needs. And, seriously -- there are probably people around that fit whatever stereotype you care to hold, but that's not most Linux users.

Answer 18

Aside from the philosophical issues, there are also technical problems. Most notably that you can't simply build a single binary and expect it to work a few years on all Linuxes.

A linux distribution is an infinitely complex versioning matrix that is slowly permutating, and for the open source packages this is held together by the packagers of the distro.

However if you are closed source, you'll face these challenges alone (unless you become extremely popular like something like adobe reader or skype)