Hi all !!

Would someone have any advice for me, or enlighten me. In all of linux-land, is there an audience for people that would consider using software that is ~not~ open-source ? I myself use linux, I like alot of the programs ported for linux, and also have a fair mix of software installed that is proprietary itself. For example, I paid for renoise tracker, it was a bit expensive in my opinion (~$70), but it's an extremely amazing program nonetheless & I enjoy it alot and I'm definitely running it on linux.

I have no problem using closed-source or open-source software, I just care about how good it is and also as long as it's reasonably priced, cheap etc..
But I get the impression that in many open-source centered communities, the community will have no interest in some software if it is not immediately open-source. This could just be completely my own inference, but if there's any truth to that, would anyone suggest some community I'm not aware of that is more like me ? Is there really no one like me out there or am I uninformed of the places where such people might reside.

if you read this thanks for taking your time to, cheers, Godspeed, happy holidays

Very few Linux users actually find "not open source" to be a dealbreaker.

It is.

Even the kernel devs made an accommodation so binary blobs could be shipped and not mark the kernel "tainted".

People making a buck for their efforts is not necessarily anathema.

That's a slightly different issue. There's nothing to prevent free software from being sold for money. It's free as in free speech, not as in free beer. If someone improves a program and wants to make some money out of all his hard work, he can and good luck to him! People will pay if they think it's worth the money. Those who aren't prepared to pay can continue to use the unimproved version. But if he charges an unreasonable amount, his customers can distribute the program in competition with him, for less or for free.

Proprietary software is different, because there are legal rules which prevent it from being distributed or used except as the owner allows. This makes selling it a much more profitable affair. And yes, some people (Richard Stallman in particular) are very evangelical about not using proprietary software under any circumstances whatever. Whereas others would much rather use proprietary drivers and codecs than be stuck with things that don't work. Or they may even have a favorite proprietary program which they think is better than its free equivalent.

You will probably find that the users of most Linux forums are pretty equally divided between these two positions.

There almost certainly is, but it doesn't include me for either personal or business* use.

I DON'T have a problem with paying for software and have given money for free (as in both "speech" and "beer") software - which I expect to also do in the future.

There are also a couple of commercial programmes I need for my personal use (setting up some nonessential hardware) - there's no way I would hand over money for that software**, I'd just not use the hardware instead.

*I'm in the fortunate position of not depending on locked hardware for a living.

**Although I suppose I did pay for it when I bought the things.

Freedom also allows for you to pay for software, if that is what you want - most people on Linux & BSD forums do prefer to use FOSS though.

But that doesn't mean that they don't 'pay' anything, some contribute small amounts of money to projects that they like, others give away their hard gained knowledge freely on forums like these.

1 members found this post helpful.

Worth noting that Microsoft has become a Platinum member of the Linux Foundation. So (one of) the most proprietary of companies now has higher membership (and influence) than Redhat.

Welcome to the real world.

I have bought licenses for software and other digital information and I have contributed towards open source software projects so, yes, I'll pay money for information.
However, I would think badly upon anybody starting out with the aim to produce anything proprietary because I feel it's a bad model in a "game theory" or "greater good" type sense. My principals don't stop me purchasing closed-source information but they do make me feel bad for doing so.

In the long run I don't mind paying for somethings but if we can't see how it works, what it's doing or make changes to what we pay for,,, F that; if a license agreement only allows for sharing our changes back to the proprietor, win-win—times 7,000,000,000+! Big problems with capitalism* one it's too stupid to change so we must keep the r in evolution!

I may be even dumber than I had thought, last week. But I do not understand your question.

What might such a community be actually good for? Discuss potential changes to code, that they have no access to? Exchange praises and compare slogans? Look at it the other way around: Where do the “open-source centered communities” come from, what are they good for and what do they do?

Okay. Here is a forum that I frequent myself, and which is dedicated to SoftMaker Office (free or commercial, both closed-source):
http://www.forum.softmaker.com

I am sure, that you find the same kind of community around most of the commercial, closed-source applications that you consider worth trying. You can ask for modifications and hope for your suggestions to be honored, report bugs and discuss your experience with other users. What else is missing?

1 members found this post helpful.

Meh I don't care as much as I probably should..I like my stuff to work like this Chromebook Pixel or my Pixel phone

1 members found this post helpful.

I work with people, most are the worst (LA$Y "universe" lovers;) ironically the more the merrier, think about it all or some?!

You are assuming that influence is measured in money.

---------------------
Steve Stites

I have from time to time used proprietary software with Linux. I take care to vet the providers of the software carefully. Two examples:

A long time ago, I used Crossover Linux to run Windows Media Player because there was a particular audiovisual website I liked with provided its files only in *.wma format. Crossover is the people behind wine.

For a long time, Opera was my go-to browser, even though it was proprietary because, at least up until the time they changed course a couple of years ago, they had a track-record of being trustworthy.

So, no, I do not consider not being open source to be ipso facto a reason to not use a particular software package. I do consider it cause to vet the software provided carefully, especially if the software involves cloudy cloud stuff, as privacy and "on-line" seem too often to be mutually exclusive.

1 members found this post helpful.