Is the inherent Open Source Implication stop Developers from porting software on to Linux?

[EternalSeeker]

I don't know if I should post this in the OS Section but this is more of a general discussion and not an OS specific question so I just posted it here.

 

So,I was just thinking of way to use virtual machines to separate my workload, like having the host OS be running the guest OS and have all my HPC applications while I have two guest OS, one for gaming and other for my content creation and media consumption. I then proceeded to see which is the best Host OS and it seems Linux with KVM, QEMU and XEN offer the best visualization with full hardware passthroughs. Alas Linux doesn't fully support most of the HPC software and It got me thinking, what is stopping developers from just porting there software to Linux? And that got me thinking into the implications of actually releasing software on Linux and the implication of its Open source nature.

 

Do you think developers of any software stay away from porting over applications on to Linux/UNIX because that would mean they have to release it for free?

Does having applications one would need to purchase a license for on Linux conflict with the underlying principle of Linux itself?

 

Just looking for some discussion on this, I know some companies have custom Linux based OS that they can run there authorized programs in, maybe they have got Catia or Solidworks running on there Linux based OS, who knows. 

[dom1310df]

There are many programs for Linux that are paid for and/or closed source. The developer distributes a pre-compiled binary. There's then no need for them to release source code.

 

The likely reason that many developers don't port their software to Linux is that they would not see a return on their investment - in their eyes the number of potential customers running Linux is too small.

 

 

Does having applications one would need to purchase a license for on Linux conflict with the underlying principle of Linux itself?

The underlying principle behind Linux is free (as in speech). You can do whatever you want with Linux, including charging for your version of it (as Red Hat and SUSE do) or charging for programs that run on it.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

Linux software does not have to be open source

 

the fact is, 90% of people are using Windows, 9% are using mac and 1% are using Linux - whats the point spending money, and time developing and supporting a platform that makes you no money?

 

(numbers are made up but you get the point)

[dom1310df]

(numbers are made up but you get the point)

You're not that far off. Win 86%, Mac 9.4%, Linux 2%

[ShadowCaptain]

You're not that far off. Win 86%, Mac 9.4%, Linux 2%

 

What do the rest use  

[dom1310df]

What do the rest use

It was marked as other. I guess that includes Solaris, BSD, and Windows versions before XP?

[ShadowCaptain]

It was marked as other. I guess that includes Solaris, BSD, and Windows versions before XP?

 

I was just joking but yeah

[Misanthrope]

Some maybe, but not all: Major companies like Oracle have Linux distros. Also a common misconception is that just because something is open source doesn't means that it has to remain open source: that's basically the big BSD vs GPL debate: BSD believes the source should be free even if you intend to close the source and sell it and GPL believes that once open source you should not be allowed to close the source.

[EternalSeeker]

There are many programs for Linux that are paid for and/or closed source. The developer distributes a pre-compiled binary. There's then no need for them to release source code.

 

The likely reason that many developers don't port their software to Linux is that they would not see a return on their investment - in their eyes the number of potential customers running Linux is too small.

 

 

The underlying principle behind Linux is free (as in speech). You can do whatever you want with Linux, including charging for your version of it (as Red Hat and SUSE do) or charging for programs that run on it.

 

 

Linux software does not have to be open source

 

the fact is, 90% of people are using Windows, 9% are using mac and 1% are using Linux - whats the point spending money, and time developing and supporting a platform that makes you no money?

 

(numbers are made up but you get the point)

 

 

You're not that far off. Win 86%, Mac 9.4%, Linux 2%

 

Ahh yeah I get that, I wasn't really talking about gaming per say, talking about commercial analysis software. I notice some companies do release linux versions of the software but others don't, i am hoping the ones that don't follow suite because many corporations already running linux for the labs over windows. If it doesnt work out there is always the option for me to run windows and have a os x and windows vm but i doubt gpu passthrough work on windows as host