To be clear, I’m not complaining that we don’t have these aforementioned applications on the Linux desktop. That’s not the point. The point is “we” still don’t have a robust way for developers to monetise their application development work.

Most desktop Linux users run Ubuntu. Followed by others you’ve likely heard of like Arch, Fedora, Manjaro, SUSE and friends. Most users of these desktop Linux distributions have no baked-in way to buy software.

Similarly developers have no built-in route to market their wares to Linux desktop users. Having a capability to easily charge users to access software is a compelling argument to develop and market applications.

For sure, I can (and do) throw money at a patreon, paypal, ko-fi or buy a developer some coffee, beer or something from their Amazon wishlist. But I can’t just click “Buy” and “Install” on an app in a store on my Linux laptop.

Maybe one day all the ducks will be in a row, and I’ll be able to buy applications published for Linux, directly on my desktop. Until then, I’ll just keep looking longingly at those macOS app developers, and hoping.

  • raubarno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Software was not meant to be someone’s ‘property’ that can be bought or sold. Everyone has a right to free download, modify and share, that’s the point of GNU and Linux.

  • dark_stang@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Flatpak started working on payments earlier this year, so that is happening. But have we forgotten about Steam? It’s mainly used for games yes, but your can sell software on it too. I’ve even bought some software on it.

  • palordrolap@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linux Mint has Software Manager, that is pretty close to an app store.
    It’s installed by default. Some other distros might have something similar.

    (Versions since that article was written can have an “ad” picture at the top for a recommended package, which, somewhat bizarrely, does make it look even more friendly than the interface shown.)

    True, it’s not a Linux-wide common interface, but then the gap between two distros can be as wide as between commercial operating systems, and it would be foolish to expect their app stores to have a common interface.

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know, that probably is the closest thing Linux has. The only thing is it’s not preinstalled and I wonder how many of the actual programs are Linux compatible.

      But otherwise, yeah it’s more an app store than the package manaer

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        many distros have something a kin to a software ‘store’. the strength of open source, where everyone is free to ‘do their own thing’, is also why a central ‘app store’ for linux won’t happen without a major shift in how things are done. there’s simply way too much fragmentation.

        something like snap or flathub would have to become the dominant distribution mechanism for linux applications in order for a ‘store’ to have the user base to make it possible. canonical is trying with snaps but ubuntu’s marketshare is far from enough to make it a reality, and all they’re doing for their efforts is pushing some users away.

        steam is an alternative. it is a proven and time-tested multi-platform distribution channel. there are some ‘non game’ titles on it, not many, but there are some. and it would be up to valve to market it differently, and perhaps change the pricing structures to make it more appealing to developers of non-entertainment titles. 30% off the top is just too fucking much for smaller developers to give up.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The solution is not centralization, the solution is a protocol. The team at Flattr tried to do something that worked for content, but it was centralized. The team at Ganxy tried to expand the definition of monetize, but it was centralized. If we had a protocol where teams could publish metadata that enabled users to use any data-driven app to generate some form of compensation for the contributors, then we could build all sorts of workflows into package managers that made it easier.