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

Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

blog.hiri.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 395 posts

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#131

Post by nine_k »

zaarn wrote: post #2

Quite a neat insight and somewhat confirming what I think personally; Linux users largely don't use Linux for FLOSS reasons. People who do use Linux for FLOSS reasons are however rather loud. I would probably not be wrong when saying that most Linux users will happily pay a developer for the binary of an application if the dev is "doing it right". Doing it right largely involves "don't treat the customer as a walking…

I tend to disagree.

You may see GNU folks as crackpots, but in many aspects they are right, for business reasons.

I have an increasingly hard time to admit in my core stack anything that is not open-source (even if not free-as-in-freedom). Commercial offerings come and go, change their terms, etc. They can do something that goes contrary to my interests, and I have no recourse, and nobody has.

This is on the top of problems while troubleshooting. Being able to look at the source, understand what's happening, and maybe even quickly patch it is indispensable when running a production system, and suddenly encountering a problem.

That is, I don't use open-source programs because they don't cost money. E.g. I've donated more to Mozilla than many commercial products cost. I happily install paid versions of open-source apps on Android, as a way to pay the developers. I won't mind to buy paid support for open-source products.

But the openness is very important for something that is not a quick fix for a temporary problem.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#132

Post by coldtea »

simion314 wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many.

>Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many. Source? Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too. I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying.

>I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying.

In a world when most things are based on money, you need proof that cost, and even more importantly, free, is a factor?

I, for one, have used OSS tools that are free over better paid tools, because cost is a factor.

(I've also used others because they are better or because they have bigger community -- but cost has always been a factor).

>Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too.

That's not an option on professional servers and businesses -- which is where I'm mostly basing my statement. If they started paying for the free stuff they use (not even going from Postgres to Oracle, but from e.g. Centos to RedHat) they'd be closing shop.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#133

Post by eeZah7Ux »

olalonde wrote: post #39
pmlnr wrote: post #5

Completely unrelated to the contents: Please, publishers, I beg you: walk away from medium. It's terrible for us, your readers. Set up a static blog, with a domain, go WordPress, Grav, Typo3, anything, but without stupidly large sticky header/footer and without heavy javascript . EDIT: apparently 121KB javascript is not heavy. I still believe it's an overkill for 30KB content.

Why is it that I only ever hear those complaints on HN and never elsewhere... Are you all still using Pentium 3 PCs and 56k modems?

> Are you all still using Pentium 3 PCs and 56k modems?

Half of humanity has intermittent and very slow Internet access and old hardware.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#134

Post by coldtea »

kome wrote: post #19
coldtea wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly makes it terrible "for us, their readers"? Aside from their bs paywall (which is not a case with HN submissions, those are specific siloed posts) I like Medium -- and surely more than the accessional Blogger relic or badly done personal blogs.

> What exactly makes it terrible "for us, their readers"? cpu melting javascripts

Doesn't happen to me, so?

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#135

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

skrowl wrote: post #7

I'd imagine for most Linux users (not all, of course) that they're not interested in paid proprietary products, which is why they chose Linux in the first place.

I use Linux because of the state of Windows these days, as well as its tweakability, not because of some dislike of proprietary software. I use plenty of proprietary stuff in my day-to-day life and its existence really doesn't bother me.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#136

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

coldtea wrote: post #18
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little to no evidence of this. I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform.

> I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many.

I'd wager that over 90% of desktop Linux users are running it on a machine that came with a Windows license and Windows preinstalled, and went to the effort of wiping it despite the fact that they paid for it and legally own it.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#137

Post by yAnonymous »

magduf wrote: post #72

The big thing I see missing from all this analysis is the home vs. work distinction. You have people saying "Linux users choose FLOSS because of philosophy, and proprietary software goes against this", you have users saying "I'd have tried it if it were FLOSS and I could just download it and try it", etc., but the problem is: this is a product for working with an Exchange server. How many individual users have a need…

>you're just not going to get any significant number of home Linux users or enthusiasts to pay for your software.

More like no significant number of home users are using Exchange.

If every software that runs on Windows ran on Linux without restrictions, that would be the end of Windows right now and it's exactly what Microsoft are currently preparing for.

They are shifting profits from Windows licenses to the app store and user data/ads to compete with free operating systems and they're trying hard to appeal to Linux users.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#138

Post by LarryL »

bumholio wrote: post #99

I don't understand, why is there such a hard dichotomy between "commercial - binary blob" and open source? Why can't most commercial software ship with sources, with a sane license that allows a license holder to study, recompile and modify, but not publish derivative work? 90% of the people who want the source would not pirate the software, and 100% the pirates are satisfied with a binary copy. And don't tell me abo…

> why is there such a hard dichotomy between "commercial - binary blob" and open source?

I see at least 2 reasons.

1) Mindset (and ignorance)

I've worked in big telecom companies, in their technical teams, which means people who know about programming in big (BIG/HUGE) projects. Even there, many of their -very- experienced tech people were AFRAID of anything open-source. They were terrified that using anything that had the words "open" or "free" (as in free software) would mean that they would have to "give" their code "gratis" and lose their customers.

The irony? Those programs were BIG projects that were only useable with their hardware (think stuff like devices' OSs & supervision UIs for telecom equipments), it would not have worked with other devices and any attempt at an adaptation would have cost more than developing from scratch. Add to that that they only sold to a handful of companies (those hardware + software solution are expensive) so they would immediately have noticed that something was wrong, and you see how INSANE it was that they were afraid. They had completely bought the FUD from Microsoft and the like.

And thoss were TECHNICAL people, I leave to your imagination the attitude of managers... :-(((

2) Quality (or lack thereof)

A lot (if not most) of code done for "enterprise software" is of pretty bad quality (and I'm being nice). I've seen such horrors that you are left to wonder how anything AT ALL could work. The incompetence was staggering, comments and tests inexistant, no source management, no documentation, "if" conditions spread over hundreds of lines, 10 thousand lines of SQL in a single file, config files thousands of lines long maintained by hand (which I showed contained hundreds of errors), etc.

Showing how "sausages are made" (an horrifying view) would be bad, maybe even suicide (once their ineptitude would be proven) for those companies.

On the other hand, the bad quality would have quaranteed that nobody used their projects (LOL). Even compiling them was a HARD task. Real example: I had just arrived on a project where the most experienced guy was unable to install on my computer the tools needed for development... I had to write code "blind": without linking & testing nor documentation. Am I surprising you when I tell you it did not go well? (And they had the nerve of blaming me for their incompetence!)

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#139

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

billfruit wrote: post #61
sandworm101 wrote: post #10

"First stop, reddit" Dont go to reddit for market research. You will only find extreem views on reddit. They are the younger crowd. Try the ubuntu or mint forums if you want to talk to average linux users. I myself would pay for such an email client because no good foss one exists atm. But i find it very odd that such basic software isnt yet free. I dont like the idea of having my email handled by propietary software…

Along with the Ubuntu and mint, I would also suggest the archlinux forums, they are quite active.

I'd actually recommend the Arch forums over Ubuntu or Mint. The community seems a lot more friendly IMO.

Re: Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux

#140

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

sandworm101 wrote: post #10

"First stop, reddit" Dont go to reddit for market research. You will only find extreem views on reddit. They are the younger crowd. Try the ubuntu or mint forums if you want to talk to average linux users. I myself would pay for such an email client because no good foss one exists atm. But i find it very odd that such basic software isnt yet free. I dont like the idea of having my email handled by propietary software…

> I dont like the idea of having my email handled by propietary software.

Fair point, although I'll point out that you're commenting on a story about a client specifically designed for Microsoft Exchange.

Post reply on HN