On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Bryan Lund wrote:
This is a topic that is of considerable interest to me. I co-host
one of the more popular Linux-centric podcasts
(www.linuxactionshow.com) and we've discussed this (and asked for
feedback from listeners) on a few occasions. The result has been,
essentially, this (I'm dumbing this down and simplifying just for
clarities sake):
- Over 50% of our listeners already pay for software under Linux.
Games, gaming helper apps (cedega) and virtualization top this list.
- Roughly 10% of our listeners donate to an open source project on
a yearly basis. (Nearly 80% say they would, but haven't yet.)
- About 20% of our listeners say they would never even consider
purchasing software.
- Of the people who have not purchased software for Linux, but are
not against it, price was never (not even a teensy bit) the issue
for not making a purchase. Their reason for not buying is simply
that there's not many apps for sales... and none of those apps are
of interest to them.
- When asked what kind of applications they are seeking (whether
presented with a predefined list or simply asked to give their own
thoughts with no prompting)... most users seem highly interested in
consumer-level applications.
Could this be because the vast majority of your listeners are
consumer-level users instead of corporate-level Linux users? When I
look at our customer lists, I see major corporations, universities,
and government groups purchasing far more than games and game support
for Linux.
I take away a few key things from all of this:
1) Linux users, as a rule, seem about as willing (from a practical
standpoint) to buy software as MacOS X or Windows users.
We see this also, but as I said above, mainly outside of the end-user
arena.
2) The small minority of those who would not consider buying
software are the most vocal of the bunch (by a longshot).
Yep, and most of them are running Linux on scrounged hardware rather
than on new systems purchased for a purpose. I've been part of the
Linux world since TAMU, TSX-11, SLS 1.0 and YGGDRASIL in 1993 and
that sentiment has been around since Linux started making inroads
outside of the University CS realm. I still recall the flak that
arose over commercial ventures like Red Hat and Caldera. Even with
the addition of user-level support, there were still quite a few out
there that complained loudly about the fact that Linux was going
commercial.
3) There has been no single good case of a proprietary application
sold for Linux.
We've been selling BRU for Linux successfully since 1994 (0.99pl12).
It is proprietary in that it's not open source and I've even gotten
Eric Raymond to agree that a backup application is one of the few non-
open source projects that are proper to remain closed and proprietary
(along with very specific vertical tools). The basic call on this
was if the user needed expect stability and to have someone to point
the finger at and expect a problem to be fixed, the tool should be
closed source. If you're using a free web browser and it doesn't
work, you're not in any potential trouble. However, a backup
application MUST restore data and blaming the inability to restore on
the fact that tar or cpio is open source will not excuse you in the
case of lost records. A backup user needs someone to go to for a
real world solution to a problem. If an open source product doesn't
work as expected, who do you call? If BRU doesn't work as expected,
we're always there to resolve any issues.
Tim
--
Tim Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
