Proprietary software, a necessary evil?

I just finished reading this article (warning, its a long read) in which the author suggests what Linux needs to do in orded to succeed as a operating system and gain at least a significant share in the desktop market.

One of his suggestions i would like to bring attention is where he states that Windows, OS X, and even things like the Xbox have a "killer app", which means an application so great that it would cause users to adopt new hardware or an OS just to use this application. He says that in order for this application to help out Linux:

Can't be ported off its home platform, whether for technical or legal reasons.

So this would obviously mean a closed source application.

Also he goes on to say that it is a good thing to push for open file formats, but he also says that Linux needs to make more of an effort at supporting closed formats (e.g. .mp3 .doc .docx .wav .mov dvds etc.). Honestly so far the only problems with closed file formats i have had are with .doc and .docx files, but this does pose somewhat of a problem with Microsoft and Apple constantly locking down alot of their software and the files they are associated with.

He does include alot of other points but these are the ones i want to focus on. While i love the idea of free (beer and speech) software, it seems that the Linux community needs to make somewhat of a 'deal with the devil' in order to increase its user base and win over influential software companies such as Adobe, hardware manufacturers such as Nvidia, ATI, Broadcom, and PC vendors such as HP, Asus, IBM.

So basically in order to receive better hardware support and better applications, the Linux community needs to recognize proprietary software as a necessary evil. I think some have accepted this fact, but some are still OSS purists (nothing wrong with it, i wish everything could be free and open too).

So basically i said all that to figure out what you guys think about all of this and start a healthy debate (please no flaming or petty name calling such as M$ and winblows for example)

:popcorn:

EDIT: Oh and also i don't know how old the article is; i couldn't find a time-stamp. Somewhere he refers to 2008 as the deadline for Linux to succeed, and apparently 64-bit computing is still kinda new in the article

The article seems to be from around 2007 since the writer speaks of Y2K as being from 7years ago.

All in all I don't believe most of the arguments present in the article really hold up. I think many times when faced with the question as to why Linux isn't taking a stronger hold, people look too much into it. It is really quit simple actually.

The average person does not install, or even know how to install, their own operating system. They go to their local best buy, or to dell.com and they order whatever is readily available which more then 9/10 times comes pre-installed with Windows.

This also discredits the argument that Linux is not yet as easy to use as Windows. That is not at all true. Try installing Windows on your own custom built computer and you will see that it is actually harder in many cases then setting up a distribution such as Ubuntu.

Where can the average person go to purchase a computer pre-installed with Linux? It just doesn't exist to the masses, no one offers it and they have no way of even knowing about it.

I strongly believe that if a company dedicated itself to pre-installing a solid distribution such as Ubuntu or Linux Mint on attractive and reliable hardware with everything tested and compatible, and then if they poured tons of money into advertising like Dell, and opened up tons of stores all around like Apple, then it would take a strong hold and people would like it for its simplicity, ease of use and non intrusive behavior.

Now with that said, while I do believe Linux needs more traditional closed source application developers such as Adobe to port their applications to Linux, this will not happen until Linux has a larger base, and as I have said above I believe this larger base will become a reality when Linux based computers are readily available to the masses.

Just my two cents on this matter, what do you think? David

Well if PC vendors started shipping mainstream computers with Linux installed, there would be no doubt that users would end up adapting; but before we can even dream about Linux being widely available pre-installed we have to first increase the user base to prove how viable of an alternative to Windows it is; and to do that, we have to make Linux more usable to the average computer user.

Although i think that Ubuntu is already a viable solution for the lay-person if they can receive it pre-installed; the problem is getting hardware vendors to recognize Linux as an alternative. That's where i believe that Linux needs proprietary software to succeed.

Now what's interesting is how people discredit Linux for how easy it is to install it from scratch. I agree with you on the fact that installing Ubuntu is easier than Windows because mostly, you don,t have to mess with drivers except with graphics (easy) and maybe wireless (i little bit harder but not too bad)

blakjesus said: Well if PC vendors started shipping mainstream computers with Linux installed, there would be no doubt that users would end up adapting; but before we can even dream about Linux being widely available pre-installed we have to first increase the user base to prove how viable of an alternative to Windows it is; and to do that, we have to make Linux more usable to the average computer user.

Although i think that Ubuntu is already a viable solution for the lay-person if they can receive it pre-installed; the problem is getting hardware vendors to recognize Linux as an alternative. That's where i believe that Linux needs proprietary software to succeed.

Well I agree with that but I was saying as an example if a company with the right influence and funds wanted Linux to succeed. Look at what Steve Jobs did to Mac. He came back to the company and took a UNIX based OS which almost no one used and he marketed the hell out of it. Eventually people started to take notice and it became bigger and better. Following this was better application and hardware support.

Now I'm thinking that if a compnay pre-installs the computers and also sells accessories that are known to work flawlessly with the OS such as printers, webcams etc, then hardware support will not be much of a problem for people buying these computers. An after effect of this would be the OS would be more and more noticed as more people used it and hardware/ application support would improve over time.

blakjesus said: Now what's interesting is how people discredit Linux for how easy it is to install it from scratch. I agree with you on the fact that installing Ubuntu is easier than Windows because mostly, you don,t have to mess with drivers except with graphics (easy) and maybe wireless (i little bit harder but not too bad)

I agree with you 100%. There are so many things that are much easier in Linux distros such as Ubuntu. Installing software is another aspect (synamptic or add/ remove). Also driver support for graphics cards and wireless adapters keeps on getting better.

I have not read the article, blakjesus, but I agree with dyous87.

People are used to Windows, as their OS, just because they get it preinstalled. And as with Vista, many people avoid Linux 'cause a friend of a friend of a cousin said that Linux is crap because <enter random motivation>. Also, MANY friends of mine told me that Linux is crap because their unknown-to-the-masses modem would not work inserting the cd-rom and clicking on install.exe. You know what? Same happened for Vista (drivers were Xp-only) :-)

Anyway, I think that the "killer app" for linux is the concept of a package manager. It's simply beautiful how you can install and remove programs by using a simple app, which gets the needed files and takes care of almost everything.

I also think that proprietary software is not as bad as many people depicts it, especially if we think about simulation software for automotive applications, or something like that (this point could be a bit obscure, since I'm not a native speaker :-P)

LAST MINUTE ADDITION: I was a bit slow in typing, and agree with both of you, about the latest posts.

MeURi said: I have not read the article, blakjesus, but I agree with dyous87.

People are used to Windows, as their OS, just because they get it preinstalled. And as with Vista, many people avoid Linux 'cause a friend of a friend of a cousin said that Linux is crap because <enter random motivation>. Also, MANY friends of mine told me that Linux is crap because their unknown-to-the-masses modem would not work inserting the cd-rom and clicking on install.exe. You know what? Same happened for Vista (drivers were Xp-only) :-)

Anyway, I think that the "killer app" for linux is the concept of a package manager. It's simply beautiful how you can install and remove programs by using a simple app, which gets the needed files and takes care of almost everything.

I also think that proprietary software is not as bad as many people depicts it, especially if we think about simulation software for automotive applications, or something like that (this point could be a bit obscure, since I'm not a native speaker :-P)

LAST MINUTE ADDITION: I was a bit slow in typing, and agree with both of you, about the latest posts.

MeURI, Lei parla inglese molto bene. Non si preoccupa. (:p I am assuming you speak Italian, my apoligies if I was mistaken).

By the way I agree with every one of your thoughts.

The package manager is one of the most elegant apsects of most linux distributions and Windows or Mac do not even come close in this regard.

And you speak Italian very well; you also used a formal way of saying what you said: very good :-) And if you used a translator, you were evil :-P

Anyaway, "preoccupa" is wrong here; the right word is "preoccupi", which is subjunctive. (Italian is way more complex than English, speaking of grammar rules :-))

Back on topic: I love the "uninstall" approach of OSX: simply drag an app to the wastebasket. But maybe the package manager is just more dumb-user-proof.

Back off topic: one great problem of linux, IMHO, is the lack of graphic consistency: gtk, qt, tcl/tk, and e17 with its new libraries... Too many different toolkits. Even gtk apps, sometimes, look "strange" in Gnome. What is great about OSX is its appearance. Windows comes second. Linux goes last because of too much freedom, I think. If I buy my pc at a local store, I probably don't care about different toolkits, LSB and whatever: I just want something that works, and pleases my eyes. If I use Gnome and then I install an app which uses qt, upon launching it I say: what the hell... it's ugly :-(

It's like buying a Honda Civic, with the front bumper of a truck... it does its job, but it looks *wrong*.

But this is VERY off topic :-P

Thank you :), no I did not use a translator. My mother is from Italy and I studied Italian in high school and college.

Thank you for the correction though. I understand. :)

I also agree with you that uninstalling applications in OSX is very elegant and simple but sometimes when using that system to do so I feel like I am simply deleting a shortcut and not getting rid of the application really. Maybe I am just nit picky.

As far as graphical inconstancies, that is a great annoyance for me as well. I use gnome but I prefer some KDE apps over their gtk counterparts. Examples are k9copy and Amarok. I recently stumbled across this thread however which speaks of a package that is supposed to use GTK+ to draw Qt widgets which will make the kde apps look and behave like they are gtk apps. I installed it but it does not seem to work for me. Maybe you will have better luck: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6320713

Having mucked about with computers and Windows for years I finally gave up on MS and bought a Dell with preinstalled Ubuntu (Fiesty), and am loving it every day. I'm very much a newbie to Linux, but I can do practically everything I want to (and that includes video), and it is no more difficult to operate and maintain than Windows. We are now at the point that Linux is a useful desktop for everyone. The only thing, in my opinion, that stops most people using it is sheer ignorance. I don't believe that we need proprietry software to make Linux fly, frankly. What we need to do is to educate.

lauriejb said: I don't believe that we need proprietry software to make Linux fly, frankly. What we need to do is to educate.

I partially agree with you. We sure need to educate, not to get rid of Windows, or OSX, or whatever. We need to educate to make people be able to choose what it's best for them.

But if I am forced to choose OSX because an application just exists for it, it's like if I am forced to use Windows because of DX10 games that do not run on linux (bad example, but hey... it's almost midnight :-P). And this is a bad thing, if I have no Windows license, or an Apple computer.

And if I can choose Linux to work, it's just better: a friend of mine had to buy a Mac because she reviews documents for work (books, and so on), and where she works they use Macs, and Mac software. If she could have had that software for Linux, wouldn't it have been better? Maybe she would have bought a Mac "just to be sure", maybe she would have tried Linux, being much more affordable.

Well that is certainly true!

I use Ubuntu for just about everything however I am forced to keep a windows installation withing VirtualBox for running Adobe CS3 applications such as Photoshop and Flash that I need for work. There are just no viable alternatives available for Linux and I wish Adobe would release them for my platform!