
Top Ubuntu Software Centre app downloads for December 2011 - macco
https://developer.ubuntu.com/2012/01/top-10-ubuntu-software-centre-app-downloads-for-december-2011/
======
yason
Just curious: what's the point of Fluendo DVD player? I assume that as they're
actually selling a certified DVD player it means they must comply with the
restrictions such as implementing no-skip sections etc?

That's just unfathomable. One of the biggest reasons for that I never use a
real DVD player but prefer Totem/VLC instead is that I don't have to bear with
the stupid menus and wait for warnings to end.

With Totem/VLC I can skip directly to the right title, press a few keys to get
subtitles/audio tracks right and just watch. Not as easy as a simple .avi/.mp4
file but almost. It's a total pain whenever I'm visiting a friend and we're
watching FBI warnings displayed on the television.

So, what's the point of _paying money_ to get a crappier DVD experience? The
privilege of not having to install libdvdcss2 if you're not computer savvy?
But how many people who are not computer savvy are actually watching DVDs on
Ubuntu and still know how to get, buy, and install these applications?

~~~
thristian
Well, I think Totem/VLC still have some issues with certain DVD menu
constructs, so there's that.

Also, libdvdcss2 is illegal in many parts of the world, so the Fluendo DVD
player is your only legal option. Sure you could install libdvdcss2 _anyway_ ,
and the likelihood of you being hauled in front of a court for it is minimal,
but it's nice to have a legitimate option.

~~~
kijin
In addition, libdvdcss2 is in Medibuntu, and most casual users don't know how
to enable another repository.

Companies and organizations that supply Ubuntu to schools and other large
clients in the U.S. might also want to avoid any possible legal trouble.
Result: thousands of Ubuntu boxes end up with a proprietary DVD player on it.

~~~
thristian
Well, you don't strictly need to enable another repository. If you have VLC or
Totem installed, then running:

    
    
        sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread4/install-css.sh
    

...will set everything up for you.

~~~
jonursenbach
That's not something I'd expect a casual user to know about, or even execute
(let alone know _how_ to execute it).

------
Periodic
I notice the lists are mostly games. I wonder if that shows Linux's lack in
entertainment compared to other platforms.

The lists also don't seem very diverse, which is probably due to the store
being so new. It's good to see people able to make money selling software for
Linux. It has traditionally been difficult compared to other platforms.

~~~
jiggy2011
I can't think of many pieces of commercial software available for Linux that
aren't games.

I think games are really one of the few pieces of software that don't really
make sense as "free" software.

Even on my Windows boot (apart from the OS itself) the only proprietary
software I run are games + steam.

~~~
shadowfox
> I think games are really one of the few pieces of software that don't really
> make sense as "free" software.

I am curious as to the distinction. What is different about games, say
compared to a complex piece of software like an office suite or a medical
imaging/diagnosis suite?

~~~
jiggy2011
Well there's a few reasons.

Firstly high quality games (AAA or even professional indie titles) require a
huge amount of time and specialist skills to develop including some (art,
music etc) that are not usually possessed by developers themselves.

Secondly the usefulness of a game is pretty low, playing games by and large
will not help you do another task which makes you money (Dev tools , libs and
creative software will). Also their perceived entertainment value degrades
over time relative to other newer games with better graphics etc. Also you are
unlikely to play any one game for a massive amount of time without becoming
bored of it and wanting something else.

Most open source software is developed either because.

1) There is an economic reason to pay somebody to do it for you, for example
if you are facebook and you use allot of PHP it is in your economic interest
for PHP to be as good as possible. If you are IBM it is in your interest for
Linux to be as good as possible so you can sell servers based on it.

This doesn't really exist with games since there are less people making money
from the gaming market who are not game developers, I can't think of a good
economic reason to pay somebody else to build or improve on an open source
game. This is because games make money from either charging one off for the
game or by including adverts (which could be removed in a fork of an open
source version). The only other model is selling subscriptions services (Wow)
etc but then you are subsidizing the development of the game and another
company could simply launch their own game servers for your game without
subsidizing development and have an economic advantage.

2) You are "scratching an itch", this is partially valid as evidenced by the
large numbers of people who _start_ projects to build open source games. But
due to reasons outlined above they will eventually find that either they lack
the skills or that it is not an economic investment of their time.

If you build some office software than only you and a handful of others like
to use than that may be a good investment of your time because you _need_ an
office suite and you will get many hours use out of it. If you build a game
that few other people play this is probably not going to feel like a good use
of time.

There are plenty of open source tools for game developers (engines etc)
presumably these were built by game developers to scratch their own itch for a
high quality free engine that was then used in a commercial game.

~~~
DrCatbox
Good read.

What is your opinion, or how do you perceive open source software which comes
at a price? ie office suite or game where the source is open but the producer
requires monetary fee for it or support services for it?

~~~
jiggy2011
Again this depends entirely on the model which depends on the end user of the
product and their incentive for buying it.

If you take redhat as an example they will contribute freely to the Linux
kernel and other projects but will charge a support fee for their enterprise
software. This support fee is justified because configuring Linux systems in
an enterprise is a technically complex task and failures can come with a hefty
price so having the support of an expert from redhat will be good value for
money for a FTSE 100 company.

Another example to consider would be 37 Signals , who sponsor allot of
development on rails but do not release the source for their profit making
services such as basecamp etc. There is an economic advantage to them for
making rails open because 1) publicity , 2) It's in their interest to have a
good framework to use , so by releasing the source others can improve it.

Let's imagine for a moment that 37 Signals released the source code to
basecamp under a GPL or LGPL license, what would stop a competitor from simply
taking the source and uploading it somewhere else and then charge 50% of what
37s charge (because they don't have to employ developers)? What would be the
incentive to use 37s service rather than the competitor?

Now we come to games, most games don't (and shouldn't) really require
technical support services. So trying to finance development of a game from
having a $1 a minute technical support helpline is unlikely to be a good model
unless you deliberately make the game buggy (if it's open source the bugs can
just be fixed and re-released anyway).

If you have an MMO with a monthly subscription you get the same problem as 37S
that I illustrated above.

The only people who seem to do OSS well in games and still make money is id
software who release the GPLed source for their older games so that people are
free to release derivative free games (you have to create your own art assets)
but this is only after a period of time (usually 3 years or more). If you want
to make a commercial game with an older engine you still have to pay them ,
albeit at a reduced rate.

Another example might be Valve who release the source to some parts of their
game logic but not their core engine, this allows people to create their own
"mods" that override some parts of the game behavior but these mods will not
work for someone who does not have a copy of the proprietary commercial
binary.

I think an office suite would have largely the same problem as games unless
you can think of some support service that would be worth the payment.

Obviously this is not 100% true because open office exists, however the
original work for this was done by Sun Microsystems (as Star Office) who (I
guess) mainly built it so that they could sell expensive Sun workstations with
a working office suite that was at least partly compatible with MS office.

Joel Spolsky wrote about the same basic theory.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html>

------
old-gregg
My latest favorite: Pithos, a GTK-based desktop client for Pandora. No more
Flash, no more having to keep the browser open, no more "I am still listening"
nonsense, and all media buttons on the keyboard work: pause, skip, etc.

<http://kevinmehall.net/p/pithos>

------
aeurielesn
I need to ask whether someone know if installations through other packaging
tools (apt-get, aptitude) are somehow considered too?

~~~
crb
For that, look at the Popularity Contest (popcon) results. popcon, originally
from Debian, tracks the packages installed by the (self-selecting) subset of
users who have installed the 'popularity-contest' package.

<http://popcon.ubuntu.com/>

------
tomjen3
Sadly they are mostly games -- I wash hoping to see how well Gnome Do was
doing (as it is an awesome piece of software).

~~~
SkyMarshal
I used to use Gnome-Do, and it is truly excellent. It always seems to know
exactly what I'm searching for with no missed suggestions. However it was also
the only Mono-based app I used.

I just got a new computer and installed a fresh Linux, and am giving the pure-
Python Synapse another try. It seems to have improved since I last tried it,
and while still not quite as good as Gnome-Do yet in its prediction accuracy,
I think it's a good enough replacement to make the switch.

~~~
eropple
Even all other things being equal, why is the fact that Synapse is a non-Mono
app a reason to "switch"? If you're running an even remotely modern computer,
the minor runtime overhead of Mono is a rounding error, and Gnome-Do wins
handily on features and search effectiveness (I've used both and Synapse is
much less accurate with searches).

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
In my case, I think Synapse looks and feels much nicer than Gnome-Do ever did,
and it doesn't require pulling in a giant set of package dependencies that I
wouldn't otherwise be needing.

~~~
eropple
What drives you to care about "a giant set of package dependencies"? I mean,
my / is on on a 100GB SSD and I've never really found a reason to give shits
about what dependencies I've got installed.

Like tomjen3 said to the sibling comment, be anal about something that
matters.

------
listic
I wonder why don't they publish number of downloads for those apps? This would
be in the spirit of open source.

~~~
fierarul
What does the spirit of open source have to do with the number of downloads
for some commercial, closed source apps?

Open source isn't infinite transparency.

------
g3orge
90% are games. Is this good or bad?

~~~
willyum
I think it's good, or at worst interesting. There have been a couple articles
talking about how Ubuntu+Unity will push Linux into the "common user"
limelight. I'd gander that most hackers wouldn't bother will games like these

