On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:01:09 +0200 (CEST) [email protected] wrote: > > The problem I see with Stallman is that while he wants users to use free > distros he doesn't offers methods for developers of software that primarily > targets desktop users to make money (without relying on donations). >
He did say crowd funding is beginning to work elsewhere in the interview. The economic models document linked earlier in this thread covers a range of methods for making money out of free software. The fact that free software development would be less lucrative was a given from the outset. Free software is an ethical choice and one should not compare the financial size, models or profitability of an ethical industry with the unethical precursor. One does not say that ending slavery was a wrong choice because slavers and slave owners made less profit when it was abolished. The ethics of the situation are the primary matter. > The fact that Mozilla's browser makes most of its money from a partnership > with Google shows that the free software model has a problem with answering > the question how to earn money developing free software designed for desktop > users. Since Mozilla's market share is declining I doubt Google will be as > generous with them in a few years time. I would expect Mozilla as a community effort to be more likely than a proprietary undertaking to change the product in response to this market pressure before that becomes a problem. They are intrinsically more connected to their users. > > It is impressive that GNU/Linux has a lot of free software, however many > programmes do not have a graphical user interface which a non technical user > will be able to use. For example, there are a few very good command-line > download managers (Axel and Aria2), but they do not have decent graphic user > interfaces. Also, video editing can be done via FFMpeg and Mencoder but they > require learning how to use the software and neither has a decent graphic > user interface. In addition, several basic word and board games are not > available with a graphic user interface to GNU/Linux users under a free > license such as scrabble and (a non-network version of) monopoly. > > There is also the problem that many free software developers make desktop > software that is not needed, such as multiple browsers using the same Free software is strong for what has been the user base of its early adopters. Development of a free desktop started years behind the proprietary solutions and it has made significant progress in catching up. If you consider Gnome 3 and Unity you can see that it is about to make the necessary step of overtaking the proprietary solution. The fact that free software currently lags is being addressed. Free software is a marketplace not a product line. There is no grand coordinating master plan. Inevitably free software won't write a clone of every proprietary game. In terms of applications slipstreaming a proprietary design is probably a bad move, you end up inheriting the design flaws. In any event it's free software's aim to overtake proprietary software, so simply playing catchup is rather missing the point - we have to be an order of magnitude or more better to dislodged the incumbents. The fact that we have got so far in such a relatively short time with fewer resources than proprietary software bodes well for the future. That we aint there yet is a given, proprietary software is still allowed. -- Andrew Lindley <[email protected]>
