Have we gotten so used to free (as in price) software to the point that it's become inconceivable for us to buy native linux applications ?<p>Do you think this prevents developers from building good looking, easy to use applications on the platform ? I'm curious to know your thoughts
I've paid for IntelliJ, GoLand, and KSP, and I know many others that have, too. I don't use Linux because I'm just too cheap to pay for an OS, I use it because I tried paying for Windows and thought it sucked. I'll pay for good stuff, unless it's doing obvious things to lock me in, if there's high risk because of DRM features, etc.
If you're talking about superficial visual stuff then no, absolutely not. I would actually prefer it if people spent less time talking about the latest Ubuntu desktop wallpaper or whatever.<p>However I do really appreciate the amount of effort that's gone into improving the usability of Blender and Gimp in recent years, and have given both projects money. I hope they use my money to focus on functionality, reliability, usability etc - I don't care what they look like.
Maybe I haven't been following Linux closely enough?<p>I'd happily pay for a Linux-based laptop that's on par with a Mac. If it had an app store, I'd <i>consider</i> buying some applications.<p>The thing is, on a day-to-day basis, almost all desktop software that I use is either free, or has a good enough community version. I very rarely come across something that's useful enough that I pay for it.<p>FYI: What do I pay for? MakeMKV, TurboTax, VMware Fusion, and a disk recovery application.<p>Here's the challenge: When I think of Linux, I just assume that everything is 100% open-source (and thus free beer) because I assume that every Linux user is a GNU fanboy and wants to compile their own software by rubbing two sticks together. Maybe my biases are outdated or wrong?<p>Anyway, when your users plan to compile their own software from source, half of the value of paid software is gone! (Commercial software is more than the source code, BTW)<p>Again, I'd happily pay for a Linux-based laptop on par with Mac.
I would pay for its development but the end result must be free software. If we don't then I think we're being disrespectful to the developers who's work we're building upon but I might be alone in that opinion. I hold that opinion for Linux but not the web. It feels somewhat hypocritical though.
As someone who has bought applications for Mac and iOS, and also donates to FOSS projects, I would certainly buy software applications on Linux if they looked better and had a good user experience. I really don’t want to deal with hand editing config files and running shell commands to get things to work, because while I can do those, I cannot have a sustainable system I can pass on to others who’re just non-technical common users of software.<p>I think Linux itself, and many applications on it, don’t look great because the developers behind those are highly technical and ideological people who can, and do, cater to other technical and ideological people. They seem to think of UI and UX as wasteful things over mere, and many a times complex, functionality (they probably also believe they’re good designers who don’t need help from UI/UX experts). Even larger projects don’t spend enough time or money to use better fonts, design better layouts, use nicer color schemes, design better user experiences, etc. (one glaring example of this is LibreOffice).<p>Stepping outside Linux while remaining on free software, Matrix is spending time and money on improving UX because the people behind it realize the importance of it. Within the Linux world, the attitude seems to be more of users being expected to qualify to use the system - “the users are capable and will figure it out” seems to be the background thinking.<p>Distributions like ElementaryOS have tried to charge (or accept, depending on how you see the website) money for more beautifully designed systems than you could get out of the box elsewhere. If larger companies take such an approach or even adopt some of the niceties from such distributions, the Linux world would be much better off.
It depends who is your target audience. For me, TUI interfaces (Text UI like Weechat, Neomutt, Cmus, ...) are beautiful and easy to use. They are straight to the point, keyboard based, extremely fast, low on resource usage, ... I'm so much more productive on this kind of interface than GUI/mouse based ones.<p>GUI tends to be slow, buggy, unresponsive, less configurable, heavy on resources, ... So much code required to manage GUI interface compared to code doing real business stuff. So much wasted clock cycles.<p>I have a laptop with 64GB of RAM but I don't want to waste this RAM to display "beautiful" GUI apps. I need it for things more useful like VMs, processing big files, ...<p>I want to be productive. Not wasting my time with the latest UX "experts" enlightenment on what a "modern/futuristic" interface should look like.<p>BTW, Get off my lawn :P<p>EDIT: For your question...
Would I pay for a more beautiful app? No. Would I pay for a software that have features I need that are not already available in software I use? Yes (don't care about how beautiful it is).
I feel like I've been burned by too much for-pay software on linux being super fragile, hard to get running outside of a very specific system configuration, incompatible with the rest of the ecosystem, impossible to integrate into normal workflows, etc. Speaking extra cynically, on linux, "good looking" seems inversely correlated with "actually works", too.<p>I suspect the incentives in software sales just don't support what makes linux environments actually worthwhile to use.<p>I'm also cheap as hell, ymmv.
I'll pay for software that solves a problem I have, and that's functional. Ideally it uses the platform GUI toolkit (GTK/Qt), isn't a webapp, and isn't a subscription.
"beautifully designed", "good looking", and "easy to use" are three very different things.<p>"Beautifully designed" is not important to most users unless they get the source code and need to make changes or enhancements.<p>"Good looking" is nice, but hard to define depending on what kind of application it is, especially on Linux. What does it mean for a server daemon to be "good looking"? What does it mean for a command line tool to be "good looking"?<p>"Easy to use" is very important to most users, but is also rather subjective depending on individual user preferences and experience level. For example, I think vim and emacs are both "easy to use" because I have years of experience using both for various tasks. YMMV.<p>Most users value utility, "easy to use", and "good price" when it comes to paid software:<p>1) Utility is essential because if the sofware is not useful then what is it good for?<p>2) "Easy to use" is important, but subjective. Know your intended audience and design to meet their needs. Seek user feedback early and often to tailor your design to match the user's expected ideas of "easy to use".<p>3) "Good price" varies based on the user expectation and the value proposition that you offer. If the software is extremely useful (high utility) and easy enough to use, users will pay for it.<p>Ask yourself "What does my software offer that is worth paying for?"
I haven't thought about this before, so it might be my thoughts would evolve further if I thought about it more. But after I considered it for a moment, I would pay for it if I got the source with it, and a license to publish that source under a BSD-Like License if support for it was going to end.<p>As others have mentioned, the idea of it getting dumped when it turns out it isn't worth the effort, would put me off.<p>If the price was low enough, and the software simple enough, I might be willing to relax some of those conditions. For example, I have payed a couple of bucks for a simple pixel graphics editor, for which I was ok with the prospect that this is a toy I play with a little and then would likely drop.
Where does this misconception come from where people think Linux users don't pay for things? If you provide a decent tool that kills pain and doesn't cost an arm an a leg, we will pay the money. Especially if there's no good alternative out there. I've yet to come across a good mail/calendar/combo that works well. Gnome calendar/contacts/Geary is getting there but it's still far off. Same with office suite. If Microsoft released Office for Linux without charging me over a million pound per second of usage, I'll gladly shell out the extra money to have decent office suite.
While I’m sure there are exceptions, I think it’s accurate to say that Linux users would prefer function over form. I’m not sure you can make a generalization about what Linux users will buy: some use Linux because they cannot afford anything else; some use it because they believe that non-free software is immoral. On the whole I would say that the macOS and iPhone users place a premium on the aesthetics of an application more than Windows, Linux, and the dozen or so FreeBSD users combined.
Define "beautifully designed". I pay for software that is useful. It doesn't have to be beautiful. I'm not worried who might be looking over my shoulder.<p>Let's take an example. Calibre is considered by most who use it a <i>very</i> handy tool. It is also considered by most who use it to be ... not very good to look at. I donate to Calibre because it is useful. Would I donate (or pay) for an app that wasn't quite as useful but was better to look at? Nope.
I would definitely pay. I paid for sublime and intellij.
I mostly use Linux, and wish they had some of the beautiful apps that the Mac did. To me beauty is worth paying for.
The people who use Linux are the ones for whom Linux does what they need. So would current Linux users be willing to pay? Probably not. But...if there was a Linux ecosystem with nice paid apps, Linux users would be the ones using nice paid apps. There's an assumption behind your question that we're assigned randomly to the OS.<p>In case you're wondering whether that would really happen, Android is evidence that it works. The underlying OS is irrelevant.
No but that's not how I use my computers. I use Vim and Firefox. There are two graphical applications I use that aren't web based. One I use a lot (a music app) and the other I use infrequently (gimp). I pay for a couple web based applications. I can't imagine anything that someone could sell me that I would need to actually run from my computer.<p>ps- I make a small monthly donation to Slackware because that's where this all started for me.
Yes I would purchase something that solves an issue I am facing.<p>I think the lack of a standard way of doing things hurt for-profit development rather than the resistance to pay. For example, it is hard enough to make an application work well with one DE and in Linux there is plenty.<p>That is why I believe web apps such as VSCode, Discord etc are the saviour for linux desktop. With that, creating a cross platform environment is rather easy.
I would not.<p>I would worry that the pool of other people paying for it would be so small that unless the application also worked on Windows or OSX, the development team would not be able to sustain itself. Thus, I wouldn't be willing to pay the more substantial cost: spending my time learning to use it and integrate it into my workflows.<p>(This is a big part of the reason I moved to OSX when I left uni.)
I'd prefer a well-designed (not necessarily pretty) cross-platform application. Not so much because I think the Linux version would be unsustainable, but because I'm an OS polyglot. The Jetbrains editors are a good example of this.<p>Cross-platform electron apps would also apply, but generally I'd prefer more native applications, just for performance reasons.
I would pay, but I have a hard time figuring an application that I am currently missing.<p>It is also not completely clear to me what you mean by "beautifully designed". For instance, I run Ubuntu wih Gnome 3, and most (all?) of my applications are based on GTK+3. If you were to make an application that is very beautiful in itself, but is not written in GTK, it will stick out. This is going to make the application - in context - uglier than if it was GTK based. Now, if you use GTK, I think the application is going to look like all other GTK application, which nowadays is pretty nice.<p>In short the answer is: yes, I would pay for an application that solves me a problem, but I may consider not buying it if it is made with a custom toolkit instead of GTK.<p>EDIT: also, it has to be a one off payment, not recurrent, and I expect it to integrate with the OS (for instance, update by providing a PPA instead of running a custom updater)
Definitely. I already pay for a few. Some JetBrains products and Insync. I've purchased Insync multiple times for different accounts. Would definitely pay if the products solve a real problem. I'd actually love to have an amazing native email client and calendar app. I don't really care for a native app but so far every electron app I've tried has been a massive resource hog which is very undesirable especially for apps that keep running all the time in the background. If someone could make electron work, I'd have no problem paying for it. Also, it being open-source would definitely increase my chances of funding or paying for the project.
I'll pay if I find that the software provides sufficient advantages over other freely-available options. I've paid for SublimeText in the past. I've paid for a handful of other proprietary Windows applications (Tag2Rename comes to mind) because the FOSS equivalents simply couldn't cut it for me.<p>So yeah, I don't think it's a problem. Admittedly I guess the bar may be a little higher than it would be on Windows, since the expectation is that a FOSS solution <i>exists</i> on Linux, whereas Windows/Mac users may have been conditioned to expect that good software must necessarily cost money. But if it's worth it, I'll pay.
I'd happily pay for well designed (ie. ergonomic, usable, intuitive, consistent) software on Linux, but:
- it has to be free (as in freedom);
- if it's pretty, good, but I'd never pay for something pretty at the cost of anything else.<p>Actually, I already donate to some applications I either use or think benefit to the whole free software ecosystem (eg. Krita, which is an awesome project, even though I'm more of a Gimp user myself).<p>Edit: I have to admit I've already spent money on non-FOSS videogames that run well on Linux. I'm not happy, but I don't regret it either.
I hope beautifully designed refers to the function...<p>As it stands, Ubuntu is a pretty desktop. Gnome software looks good and covers most of the basic things you need to do with an OS. I spend most of my time in Chrome, Atom and Steam, all work well.<p>There's functional software for most tasks and it would be a fairly big undertaking to replace it, so I'm curious what you'd actually be building. If it's just MacOS skinned equivalents to the Gnome/KDE apps then I'd say no, I'm not paying for it. If you create something truly useful then yes, I would.
Definitely, I have done so. It all depends on price vs value for me. I sometimes also donate to great software I use or pages.<p>The beautiful adjective bothers me though.<p>UX is tricky since it needs a benevolent dictator guiding the aesthetics of the whole system, not just the app.<p>I don't want it to be just pretty, it needs to be thoroughly thought out, function before looks always. It must play nice with the conventions of the environment it's running in. Avoid unnecessary impositions (stealing focus, modal dialogs, forcing use of a mouse, etc.)
For most apps the looks don't really matter to me, so I wouldn't pay just for that. I would only pay for an app if it:<p>- does the job<p>- has no free equivalent that works<p>- saves me <i>a lot</i> more time/money than the cost of the product, or doesn't cost over 20€ (this is my personal threshold, for personal work. I would be fine paying more for something that I would use in professionnal work)<p>- has useful and innovating features (especially if something that has already been made hundreds of times like a music player)<p>- has a good UX<p>- has good documentation/support<p>- has a trial version
I pay for quality software, not visual appearance.<p>Consistent UI yes, eyecandy no.<p>Slapping on a theme instead of using the native GTK/KDE theme the user has configured? -1!<p>Have a well designed UX, make frequent workflows easy to access, but don't hinder the user from customizing certain aspects. Oh and don't crash on me all the time.
yes. We already pay for jetbrains.<p>People would pay a lot for:
1. SQL ide
2. audio authoring
3. Sketch
4. Photoshop<p>Be warned though that the trend is for this kind of stuff to move to the web. Figma is a great example. Instead of trying to create a desktop client for Linux, they did some real complex stuff on WebAssembly and built a spectacular web client - <a href="https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-by-3x/" rel="nofollow">https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-...</a> and <a href="https://www.figma.com/blog/how-we-built-the-figma-plugin-system/" rel="nofollow">https://www.figma.com/blog/how-we-built-the-figma-plugin-sys...</a><p>Figma is paid (and makes a lot of money)
I've bought some specialised software to run on Linux; Reaper by Cockos, for example. I also write native Linux apps and utilities (with GUIs) to speed up common complex development tasks. Because development time isn't free these are effecctively "bought" too.
Depends on the application, but I can imagine paying for some GUI heavy applications (e.g. audio/video editing). It would have to be open source though. Otherwise definitely no deal.
Yes, I would pay (and have done so in the past). Much as I'm willing to pay for good apps on my phone, even though there are plenty of free alternatives.
Worth paying if the software respects users (FOSS goes without saying) and accepts suggestions. Most paying applications choose to be proprietary, though.
I would say no.<p>But in reality I already paid for JetBrains while I would never have expected to, so why not?<p>The only other software I have bought for Linux are games I think
The web has killed desktop apps. I use linux, but I don't buy software on any platform besides games.<p>I think it makes sense for professional productivity apps, like CAD stuff.<p>I don't think basic desktop apps are worth a fee, since no one will buy them with all the free alternatives, but maybe a case can be made with something that ties into managed cloud compute services (like superhuman's use of AI).
I would at three conditions
1) it's not too pricy (≈20€)
2) There is a trial (either limites features or trial)
3) No drm or not invasive ones at least<p>That's just a consumer saying, not a dev one