Where do you get the figure of 98% of commercial software from?
I understand that the vast majority of software vendors don't port their applications to Linux, but some of the big names do. Of the top 10 software companies on the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies) Microsoft is one of the few not to embrace Linux. Google, Yahoo, SAP, Oracle all do to varying degrees.
Many people do run commercial software on Linux - I know I do. Not much of it mind, because the vast majority of what I do can be done with free software. But I have a pragmatic approach, I would rather use free and open software if it is available, but will reluctantly use proprietary software if required
Don't forget the reasons why people don't like commercial software. It's not just that people want their software at no cost, it's non-open/free (as in speech) aspects too. I don't like commercial software that isn't free because it restricts what I can do with the software or my computer.
I disagree that yum and apt (and other package management tools) are inappropriate for distribution of commercial software. The main problem often comes where the software vendor uses a restrictive license which actively prohibits the Linux distribution from including their product in their repository. Some software vendors have seen the light though. Java (even before it became open), Real Player, SugarCRM and Opera are all in the Ubuntu commercial repository and can thus be installed using the standard package management tools.
Adobe Photoshop _is_ one of the most asked for applications. It does run on Linux, using Crossover:- http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7770280571.html
A good point, but..
Where do you get the figure of 98% of commercial software from?
I understand that the vast majority of software vendors don't port their applications to Linux, but some of the big names do. Of the top 10 software companies on the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies) Microsoft is one of the few not to embrace Linux. Google, Yahoo, SAP, Oracle all do to varying degrees.
Many people do run commercial software on Linux - I know I do. Not much of it mind, because the vast majority of what I do can be done with free software. But I have a pragmatic approach, I would rather use free and open software if it is available, but will reluctantly use proprietary software if required
Don't forget the reasons why people don't like commercial software. It's not just that people want their software at no cost, it's non-open/free (as in speech) aspects too. I don't like commercial software that isn't free because it restricts what I can do with the software or my computer.
I disagree that yum and apt (and other package management tools) are inappropriate for distribution of commercial software. The main problem often comes where the software vendor uses a restrictive license which actively prohibits the Linux distribution from including their product in their repository. Some software vendors have seen the light though. Java (even before it became open), Real Player, SugarCRM and Opera are all in the Ubuntu commercial repository and can thus be installed using the standard package management tools.
Adobe Photoshop _is_ one of the most asked for applications. It does run on Linux, using Crossover:- http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7770280571.html