your main issue is that you just have some strong software preferences
Yes, I want to use applications and do something productive with them. An operating system shouldn’t be an end in itself.
I avoid browser based software because the UX is always a bit icky. It does fill lots of niches for special software you are right.
I have often found that if I can pay for the software it will be better
Yes, developers need to eat, pay rent, etc. Culturally Linux users don’t like paying for software. That in turn leads to the indie developer scene you see on macOS for example to be very small.
Even donating to FOSS projects I use can be a hassle. And of course I can’t feasibly donate to the developers of all the packages on a Linux distribution. It would be cool to pay a monthly subscription, that’s then distributed among the software I use or have installed. That could be integrated into a package manager even. I don’t know if any Linux distro does something like it.
It would be cool to pay a monthly subscription, that’s then distributed among the software I use or have installed. That could be integrated into a package manager even. I don’t know if any Linux distro does something like it.
I’ve been thinking the same thing lately. It would be cool if at least there were some sort of metadata maintainers could include on packages saying, “if you want to donate money, upstream accepts donations at this link: <…>”. Then I (or someone else) could put together a tool that helps you track what upstream projects you’re donating to.
I understand that isn’t nearly as easy as just a subscription though. The issue I see with that is legal - you’d need a legal entity specifically for accepting payments and disbursing each upstream project’s share, plus all the accounting and such that goes along with it. I don’t see why it couldn’t be shared across multiple distributions though. Upstream packages could create an account with the funding service, then distro maintainers could include some sort of Funding-Service-ID: gnu/coreutils metadata and a way to upload a list of Funding-Service-IDs to the funding service’s servers.
I think that would be doable, but it would require buy-in from distributions, upstream maintainers, and someone who could operate such an organization. Not to mention users.
Sorry but saying Linux users don’t like paying for things is just not true. In fact stats about gaming from Humble Bundle (I think, don’t remember exactly) demonstrates the opposite: that Linux users will happily pay and on average more than windows users.
As for paying maintainers of important packages etc I think states (and corpos) should start doing it given how much of the IT infrastructure depends on them.
You are right, I remember something about Linux users paying more than Windows users and Apple users paying the most for HumbleBundle. The number of small paid applications is low compared to macOS.
Corporations and governments are already paying Red Hat or similar companies for their services and development. Their use cases aren’t the same as the average desktop users though. Linux makes for a great thin client for web applications for example. That’s very far from Audio and video workstation applications.
Yes, I want to use applications and do something productive with them. An operating system shouldn’t be an end in itself.
I avoid browser based software because the UX is always a bit icky. It does fill lots of niches for special software you are right.
Yes, developers need to eat, pay rent, etc. Culturally Linux users don’t like paying for software. That in turn leads to the indie developer scene you see on macOS for example to be very small.
Even donating to FOSS projects I use can be a hassle. And of course I can’t feasibly donate to the developers of all the packages on a Linux distribution. It would be cool to pay a monthly subscription, that’s then distributed among the software I use or have installed. That could be integrated into a package manager even. I don’t know if any Linux distro does something like it.
I’ve been thinking the same thing lately. It would be cool if at least there were some sort of metadata maintainers could include on packages saying, “if you want to donate money, upstream accepts donations at this link: <…>”. Then I (or someone else) could put together a tool that helps you track what upstream projects you’re donating to.
I understand that isn’t nearly as easy as just a subscription though. The issue I see with that is legal - you’d need a legal entity specifically for accepting payments and disbursing each upstream project’s share, plus all the accounting and such that goes along with it. I don’t see why it couldn’t be shared across multiple distributions though. Upstream packages could create an account with the funding service, then distro maintainers could include some sort of
Funding-Service-ID: gnu/coreutilsmetadata and a way to upload a list ofFunding-Service-IDs to the funding service’s servers.I think that would be doable, but it would require buy-in from distributions, upstream maintainers, and someone who could operate such an organization. Not to mention users.
Sorry but saying Linux users don’t like paying for things is just not true. In fact stats about gaming from Humble Bundle (I think, don’t remember exactly) demonstrates the opposite: that Linux users will happily pay and on average more than windows users.
As for paying maintainers of important packages etc I think states (and corpos) should start doing it given how much of the IT infrastructure depends on them.
You are right, I remember something about Linux users paying more than Windows users and Apple users paying the most for HumbleBundle. The number of small paid applications is low compared to macOS.
Corporations and governments are already paying Red Hat or similar companies for their services and development. Their use cases aren’t the same as the average desktop users though. Linux makes for a great thin client for web applications for example. That’s very far from Audio and video workstation applications.