Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#151

Post by afarrell »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #133
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

I am well aware I can do that. But I don't have enough money to ensure that there is enough donation to ensure that there is enough support for those working on the projects to focus on it full time. The systems-level change of allowing developers to use copyright to require people to pay for their work comes much closer to ensuring that.

> "did you even bother looking?"

Also, when someone is building a product for money, it incentivizes them to proactively look for feedback on the quality of their product and to value the feedback of frustrated users. When someone is building a product without a business goal focused on pleasing someone else, they are far more likely to be either passive in waiting for people to report things on mailing lists or to be actively annoyed with the reports and to occasionally express that frustration in a way that belittles users.

Re: On paying for software

#152

Post by ropeadopepope »

michaelmrose wrote: post #132
ropeadopepope wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

"Open source, on the other hand, is like trying to shave with a razor blade with no handle. It's a hard sell to get people to donate to projects that they know are going to cut them at some point." This sounds whiny and more importantly it isn't true its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop. Don't make things more complicated than they are.

> This sounds whiny

Are you an OSS developer by chance?

> its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop.

The Apple third party app ecosystem proves you wrong. Users are willing to pay for good software, even if there are free alternatives available.

Re: On paying for software

#153

Post by jancsika »

afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

> It is waaaay more efficient for these to be fixed by an engineer working not in their spare time, but as their full-time job.

You miss the possibility of simply offering to pay a developer with the relevant expertise to fix one of these bugs for you.

I can tell you from experience that there are FLOSS developers out there with sufficient expertise and professionalism to do this.

Re: On paying for software

#154

Post by jcoffland »

justinclift wrote: post #82
TimJYoung wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on the good will of others does not work , period. The fact that it works sometimes is not something that one can use as the reason to quit their job and start an "endeavor" (you can't really call it a business). Can we please dispense with this notion and start realizing one simple fact: people will typically only pay for something if you make them pay.

> Can we please dispense with this notion and start realizing one simple fact: people will typically only pay for something if you make them pay. Things to appear to be changing for the better though. As an examply, Gina Häußge is working full time on OctoPrint (3D printing software) supported entirely by donations: https://www.patreon.com/foosel There are probably others too, I'm just not aware of them and have only…

Gina Häußge is the only one making reasonable money on Patron for a software project, last I checked. I exchanged several emails with her about this very topic. Despite her success in fund raising, even she was concerned about the long-term viability of this sort of funding.

I also am the author of an active Open-Source project. I accept donations but they have never amounted to much.

Re: On paying for software

#155

Post by tonyedgecombe »

mcny wrote: post #20
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard for developers to make a full-time living selling their open-source software? Do you really expect people to pay for something when they can get it for free? Making software open source means you are either selling something complementary (hardware, other software, services) or else begging for crumbs.

I don't know much about these things and I'm making this up as we go but I wonder if we can use AGPL or a stronger version of AGPL. Basically, you pay for a subscription or everything on your servers that touches this software must be free and open source. Should work for researchers and students and there is a continued revenue stream. For example, require any software that talks to a rest API also be foss. With mor…

Thoughts?

It depends. In my own business I decided open source 'customers' are more trouble than they are worth so I do very little.

Just the fact that people are willing to pay for my software is a strong validation that I'm doing something useful and on the right course.

Re: On paying for software

#156

Post by BTeam »

theshadowknows wrote: post #35
mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

I don’t understand when people complain about software that isn’t free. You want it free? Go make it yourself and give it away...oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free.

Until someone actually do it, and better. Good luck monetize your proprietary alternative then!

Re: On paying for software

#157

Post by electricEmu »

michaelmrose wrote: post #132
ropeadopepope wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

"Open source, on the other hand, is like trying to shave with a razor blade with no handle. It's a hard sell to get people to donate to projects that they know are going to cut them at some point." This sounds whiny and more importantly it isn't true its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop. Don't make things more complicated than they are.

I would say the blade analogy is fairly correct.

OSS isn't polished many times. The installer might be missing. Documentation is out of date or incomplete. The plug-in manager requires using the file system explorer directly.

All of that cuts. OSS can be death by a thousand cuts at times.

Re: On paying for software

#158

Post by afarrell »

jancsika wrote: post #153
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

> It is waaaay more efficient for these to be fixed by an engineer working not in their spare time, but as their full-time job. You miss the possibility of simply offering to pay a developer with the relevant expertise to fix one of these bugs for you. I can tell you from experience that there are FLOSS developers out there with sufficient expertise and professionalism to do this.

If I'm running an enterprise, perhaps then I can budget enough time and money to communicate about and pay for that and deal with the uncertainty inherent in software schedules.

In my personal life...that sounds like a stressor that I'd be willing to pay money to avoid.

Re: On paying for software

#159

Post by pjmlp »

josteink wrote: post #114
shawnfratis wrote: post #113

I would not have a problem paying for software if what I was paying for didn't suck. Case in point: I have never been very happy with Win 10 since I got it, but in recent weeks it has become completely unusable, mostly because of their constant upgrades and behind-the-scenes processes that slow my machine down to a crawl. Out of frustration I wiped my drive and installed Ubuntu. Granted, Linux has it's share of probl…

Ubuntu gives you a very clear option to pay for it when you download it. If it works for you and you want it to keep working, making a donation/payment may not be the worst idea.

Exactly, I always paid in some form to the distributions I had on my computers.

Re: On paying for software

#160

Post by afarrell »

mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #83

Although the author failed to mention, the comments here pointed out the distinction between software from a little guy innovator and a huge corporation. That content was glossed over in the article, but it seems to be a very important part of the conversation about free/paid software. Not only that, but there's an underlying assumption here that some person or company has to receive a wage or profit for a software t…

> there's an underlying assumption here that some person or company has to receive a wage or profit for a software to be maintained or repaired, which is simply not true.

Indeed, one can have unpaid maintainers. But it is more difficult to keep a healthy team running when none of them can focus full-time on the thing because all of them have to support themselves with other jobs.

Post reply on HN