Well, I do think there is some hypocrisy on the part of people (including myself) enjoying free software and services, when the revenue of those is generated by unaware people clicking on ads or accidentally installing crapware.

>You CAN install binaries on other platforms but on for example linux distros their is a curated platform of packages where you can get most/all software.

Sure, but things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves. In the case of Linux packaging, there is no mechanism for monetization or advertising, so the point doesn't come up.

>The fact that this is the default way to install software and regular users don't need to look beyond the official repos is why installing software on linux isn't this kind of shit show.

I'd use Linux if it had the software that I want to use. So a bit of apples-oranges here...

"things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves"...

Whoah, for a second I thought this was 1999.

Looking at the official numbers of desktop Linux installed systems looks like it.

Why would we take that one, narrow specific segment of software taken as an example of the success or value of open source as a whole? It would be as useful as comparing web server software market share as an indicator of whether Microsoft has succeeded as a company.

Moving goal posts here? I thought the subject was desktop software.

Yes, Linux won the server side, it is hard to fight against free beer.

Now getting desktop software companies to invest in such market is another story.

I guess I must have fallen into a time machine since I just purchased Photoshop last month.

That would be which logical fallacy? Something where you take something I said to a nonsensical extreme? I certainly never asserted that people did not pay for software. My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.

>My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.

Yes, it is indeed proven that when you pay people to develop software, it works great. (Linux, FF, Chrome, Photoshop, Windows, etc, etc). The license doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

When you don't - (your typical freeware on download.com) - they have to figure out a revenue stream after the fact, and the choices they end up making cause them to be on the front page of HN where people line up to call them "scum".

Obviously this is not about hobbyist/part-time developers with a github repo, who are already getting paid through an external job, etc.

> In the case of Linux packaging, there is no mechanism for monetization or advertising, so the point doesn't come up.

Just to point out, there are commercial versions of Linux (Red Hat, SUSE Linux, likely others). Both with workstation and server variants.

> I would rather they go out of business if they can't figure out another way to make money.

Only for some other unscrupulous company to replace them? Ideally, the most profitable method should be ethical by nature, unlike the current situation in software (and games, of course) where the most profitable methods are among the least ethical.

Ideally we can support good software by donating to it but this is challenging to. Perhaps a software store for various platforms that defaults to charging money for open source software you haven't already paid for. Let the user set a multiplier that effects the price so it is reasonable for that user and let the user also change the price if they desire. They CAN pay zero for insert filezilla competitor here but the default is 3.99. This is probably already more than for example filezilla makes for selling out their users.