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.

  • @ulkesh@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    89 months ago

    “store” - n. - a quantity or supply of something kept for use as needed

    A store doesn’t have to mean that something must be for sale. There are numerous Linux app stores that all function exactly as they are designed.

    • @anothermember@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      The term “store” grates on me a bit, until recently we just called them repositories/repos, I think that’s a better name.

      • @ulkesh@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        It’s really just semantics. And the article just seems like a nonsensical argument, to me.