Our experience launching a paid, proprietary product on Linux • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by siscia » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

pritambarhate wrote: post #162

siscia wrote: post #97

I am trying to make a living with a software product, a database in particular. RediSQL, SQL steroids for Redis: http://redbeardlab.tech/rediSQL/ So let me share a different point of view. I find it extremely, extremely difficult. As far as I know, if you need a solution for in memory SQL as cache layer or also as main persistent layer it is the only available solution, on top of that it works on top of existing, wid…

Just checked out the software. Since you mentioned Sidekiq, I think the main reason it worked commercially is that almost every medium-sized web application needs a background job queue. However, very few people expect their cache system to support SQL. So the main problem is that there is little or no demand for this type of software. Anyways best of Luck! Hope you succeed.

Thanks!

the reality is that medium-sized web applications do not need full-fledged databases like Postgres or MySQL and could get along for basically all their needs with something as lightweight as like RediSQL itself without the need of being able to manage a real database.

What is really difficult is to let people know about this opportunity and let them see the advantages.

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

#182

Post by svanwaa » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

kevkav wrote: post #21

cirgue wrote: post #6

I am increasingly happy to pay for software and services as long as the organization producing the software has no relationship with advertisers. I would rather pay money than use something for free that includes advertising. If there are good open-source alternatives I will always prefer those, but there are definitely some things that open-source will never be able to really make work effectively (notably anything…

Out of interest, what linux apps have you paid for?

CLion and SmartGit

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

#183

Post by detaro » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #90

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 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". Hm, this reminds me of the Caddy, the HTTP server with Let's Encrypt integration. It's still open source, but a while ago they made the binaries paid (if you want it for free you need to compile it yourself). They got a lot hate for that; people were even accu…

I think the Caddy mess had a bunch of factors complicating it, and isn't a good comparison. E.g. they promoted themselves as an easy and powerful solution for people that aren't really sysadmin/server types, and then hurt that exact demographic by from one day to the other requiring them to either pay a not-insignificant amount of money or learn how to compile a product they choose because it's really easy themselves. People really don't like bait-and-switch.

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

#184

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #101

amelius wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but unless the distribution problem is solved Not sure what you mean. The distribution problem is solved by the internet. Discoverability (probably what you meant) is solved redundantly by Medium, since it is already solved by Google, and by social news websites such as HN and Reddit, etc. Medium = YouTube for textual content. The only way we "need" it is if we want a feed of algorithmically chosen content based on…

Unfortunate that the Internet community (writers and readers) are sacrificing so much to the false god of “discoverability.” For a few glorious years, self-hosted decentralized blogs, services and games were a thing. Now everyone is off re-implementing everything that sucked about centralized broadcast media.

Because they recognized that there was some value in the centralization, namely that it makes it far easier for users to find content. Putting your own blog out there into the ether is far, far, far more difficult to drive users to it. And then, if you want to have comments, now you have to invest time and effort into moderation and anti-spam, whereas here Medium takes care of most of that.

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

#185

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #36

scns wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at "make medium readable again", a plugin for firefox and chrome. Source is on github, could not paste the link because i am on mobile.

Why do users have to do something to fix something that needs to be fixed by publishers?

Most users don't see this as something that needs to be "fixed". They're fine with it. This is only for those that don't like the stylistic choices made.

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

#186

Post by zaarn » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #131

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 p…

Being able to look at the source and troubleshoot it is not mutually exclusive to a product being proprietary (ie, source available would give you this).

There is also plenty of business I know that do everything in their power to ensure that if they go away the customer isn't left helpless (this is very popular in some parts of industrial engineering where it's common sense to hand over the blue print along with a service contract).

It's just very popular for software vendors to behave without care for the user but it's not the only business model and I think that's a common mistake of some people (ie, believing that FLOSS and proprietary is a binary property that will automatically mean certain things like you mentioned).

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

#187

Post by mintplant » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #180

pmlnr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An on the other other side Firefox's reading mode makes this whole discussion irrelevant. It really doesn't. It doesn't fix it for non-firefox and non-power users.

Safari also has a reading mode. I would be shocked if Chrome and Edge didn't as well.

Edge does, Chrome doesn't.

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

#188

Post by ISL » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #69

alexmorse wrote: post #3

I would insta-buy a lot of linux proprietary software if it fit my needs. No question, no hesitation. Things like: lightroom, sketch, omnigraffle, Your email client looks very well done! Doesn't apply to me, but if I had to use outlook/office 365 I would probably snap it up.

> lightroom Tried Darktable?

Too late to edit -- just wanted to add that I use it daily, and Darktable's capabilities exceed my own. I haven't used Lightroom, but I don't feel crippled.

Essentially every image here https://www.instagram.com/charliehagedorn/ has been processed in Darktable and GIMP.

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

#189

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #183

FooBarWidget wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". Hm, this reminds me of the Caddy, the HTTP server with Let's Encrypt integration. It's still open source, but a while ago they made the binaries paid (if you want it for free you need to compile it yourself). They got a lot hate for that; people were even accu…

I think the Caddy mess had a bunch of factors complicating it, and isn't a good comparison. E.g. they promoted themselves as an easy and powerful solution for people that aren't really sysadmin/server types, and then hurt that exact demographic by from one day to the other requiring them to either pay a not-insignificant amount of money or learn how to compile a product they choose because it's really easy themselves…

I cannot see someone trying to get paid for their work as a "bait and switch".

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

#190

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

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…

Cause giving away what makes your application different is extremely difficult to do and still make money doing it. It can be done, but that comes with a lot more challenges than the traditional "exchange money and receive a thing in return" model.