So I went to their main page to download an ISO to give it a try in a VM.
They hid the download button really well: You have to type in "0" into the "how much you'd like to pay" field for the "Purchase" button to change to "Download".
I mean I understand that open source projects need funding. But if you want people to try your niche OS at least make it obvious how to download it. Ask for money later after people had to chance to try it out.
I only typed in 0 because I know that "trick" from other websites. If I hadn't known I would have just left the website and would possibly never return.
They retracted that and apologized. It's unreasonable to just hold this over their heads, and in general use it to dismiss their entire project, which they have been working on for half a decade, mostly with no salary, because of one badly phrased sentence from one contributor which was then retracted.
I also think if you read the rest of what they're saying, it's probably is true that we will only get Linux GUIs which are competitive with Windows or Mac when people are willing to fund their professional development. OSS works exceptionally well for lower level components, or for components targeted at developers, because everyone involved benefits. For a professional developer a contribution acts as a good mechanism to raise your profile within the community and improve your ability to earn a decent salary elsewhere. For a company, running open source projects means they can solicit contributions and improve their profile; they contribute to other projects because it gives them a base to be able to build their products. We don't expect or find that OSS developers of high profile projects are starving in garrets, they are in fact leaders of their communities, highly prized and in-demand.
But these mechanisms do not have the same force when the consumer of the software is a general user, not a developer in the same field. i.e. when you're writing software in C++ which is then going to be used by graphic designers or artists, or by a casual user. In those case, the direct reputational benefits just aren't there, and that's why those sort of projects often struggle to take off. And on top of that those projects also involve a lot of painstaking and arguably boring work to get everything polished to a fine sheen. Krita for instance is excellent, but it has found a way to fund development through yearly crowdfunding. I think the same applies to Linux GUI's, that ultimately you need some pot of money able to support developers, which moves around according to the desires of informed consumers. In my opinion, that's what it will take for desktop Linux to become a serious mass market alternative to Mac and Windows.
My problem with their project funding argument is that I'm not an investor. An investor has lots of money, and so is more willing to accumulate risks for the payoff of creating a stable enterprise.
It's not rational for me as a consumer to fund such an unsure bet, especially when changing an operating system has lots of friction. I assume that the proposed talent of an individual investor is in the ability to sieve good from bad in a sea of maybe. But I also don't understand the market well enough to see how such an unproven bet might succeed in a very stale market dominated by arguably one entity (you can't really buy macOS) -- maybe two.
I'd also say that while software work is expensive and requires talented labor, and while operating system work takes an intense amount of effort, there's something to be said about the fact that Elementary OS could even build their OS to begin with. How did they do it? On the backs of billions of dollars of free labor. I can't imagine how it would be if the whole world hid their source code with proprietary-only software, and Elementary had to start from ground 0.
Your argument would make sense if it weren't pay what you like, with the option to pay zero, and the default option being less than the price of a sandwich.
You mention that investors have lots of money and are therefore able to take on risks. I suspect that nearly everyone who would consider downloading this operating system has a lot of money relative to the $5 suggested donation, and certainly relative to the $1 you could choose instead. And if you truly don't have that, then you can do $0 instead.
You can make the risk to yourself arbitrarily low, selecting whatever you think fits your profile of cost vs potential reward. That is their rational model.
I really wish someone would start a paid OS based on Linux and OSS tools. I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
As it is, my Macbook Pro Retina has been crashing a lot and doing weird things frequently since i upgraded to Sierra. Between that and the latest Macbook Pro notebooks, i just don't like Apple anymore. I'm pretty set on buying a highend laptop _(similar build quality to Apple)_ and putting Linux on it... but that's where the fun stops. Linux UIs tend to lag behind significantly.
I want a for-profit UI company working on a Linux UI. OSS just can't compete with Apple on design it seems.. and in my opinion, users shouldn't have to choose between OSS and pretty design.
It's bad enough that if/when i leave OSX, i lose a lot of my apps due to them not supporting (or not supporting competently) Linux, but losing apps and UX.. well, it's a tough pill to swallow.
You just described elementary (fwiw, it is a for-profit LLC).
I think you're massively underestimating the magnitude and difficulty of what you're seeking. elementary has been at this for 5 years and made an immense amount of progress, though. But it's definitely still not at the level of Apple, which has had decades and billions of dollars poured into this.
It's not a "paid OS" in that it doesn't force you to pay a particular dollar amount, though. (People tend to lose their minds when you charge them for open-source software.)
I think this is one big problem with the OSS community: there is no concept of 'value'.
People complain about iOS' race to the bottom, but in the OSS community, I frel like this has been there for a long time. "You want to _charge me for it_ ?! Pffft!"
We may complain about macOS now with Sierra but for thr most part, macOS has been stable for a long time. I haven't seen a kernel panic in probably a decade. Not saying it's perfect, but there's a point you hit when people are paid to make things happen and macOS hit that point yeats ago.
I would argue Elementary provides a lot of value and should therefore weed out the complainers and worst of the bunch by charging. I would remove the 'pay what you want' and just charge $30 or $40.
We don't live in the Star Trek universe yet, so people still need money to live. I fully believe in and support companies, individuals, and groups that provide a good value for what they charge.
I _want_ those people making great things and doing it full time. Otherwise, you just get abandonware or crappy products where people don't fix bugs because they have a day job to deal with. That's the reality in my mind.
Ironically, Elementary might have an easier time charging money for it if they positioned it less as an open source project. macOS is built largely atop open source software, and while they do make the GPL'd sources available for download they're not nearly enough to compile an OS with an experience approaching macOS.
I can throw $XX at a linux distro, pray that it goes to the right things and gets improved proper, and then wait until it becomes good, or I could throw $XX at a closed source solution, and have something that works good right now.
Its all fine to donate $XX, but buying for $XX to get something significantly worse than its competitors is a bit weird, and can only really be justified through "I support free software even if it has binary blobs", which is still a bit weird
I believe elementary OS is the closest thing to what you're looking for. They're an LLC with the team that focuses on building a good looking UI and a nice UX. Pantheon is the only desktop environment which I wouldn't call outdated in the Linux world and somewhat stable and easy to get (Solus project is attempting to do the same, but I think they just don't have enough man power to pull it off).
I wish them the best of luck but recall Eazel (?) attempting to do this with Gnome back in the day and ended up folding as not enough people were willing to pay.
I agree, been using mint linux (Debian based, borrows some "just works" stuff from Ubuntu) plus the Cinnamon Desktop, is a dream, on high end hardware or not. I will concede though, most people coming from iOS/Mac will want something tailored and curated for them, even though *nix offers unlimited possibilities in customization and software.
I'm right there with you. The only thing that keeps me on a Mac is the combination of Unix + Half decent UX. If someone built a paid Unix/Linux distro that could run Mac Apps, I'd give away my extra kidney for it.
Windows almost has me sold with their new Ubuntu subsystem.
I've come to a conclusion that if you have high standards, you can't look to other people for happiness. Even if I had a dream system for a while, at some point they'd follow a new trend that annoyed me and I'd feel left out again. Or they'd fail to follow a trend, and I'd complain that they'd fallen behind.
I've been orphaned from several platforms. OSX surprised me. It appeared to be the dream commodity unix. But then a release broke my workspace usage.
Eventually, I completely switched to a stripped-down unix. I use a bash menu for controlling things like wireless and screen lock. Tmux/dwm are my window managers, I use whatever the latest browser is.
All this required effort to learn and set up. People who look to the big companies for fashion would sneer at this. But it's a sharp tool, and it'll never be made obsolete by shifting trends.
I gave that up in 10 minutes. I really tried spinning up a basic docker project (docker compose) without luck. Sure, having a bash is a step forward and I see it getting better but it's no way near to a developer's basic needs.
It works tolerably well, but the hyper-v thing that it runs on is currently my #1 suspect when Windows takes > 30 seconds to connect to any network :-/
> Is that not what Red Hat is? I thought that's what the Red Hat license provided?
I won't say anything bad about Red Hat, but calling the UX awesome isn't something I would do based on my experience. Then again, they might have changed but I haven't heard anybody mentioning it.
(This used to be Canonicals niche before they picked up the assumption that Mac-like == Good ; )
I may have skipped over the awesome UX. More of the stable and paid dev work.
I'll agree most UX on Linux isn't great. But GUI is such a pain in the ass that most people really don't want to work on it. Plus, plenty of Linux users aren't casual users and will accept or prefer function over form.
I myself am a heavy terminal user and pretty much limit my GUI use to the occasional image editor and the browser.
Fedora is ahead of RedHat server, kernel and package-wise. That's the point: pish the edge with the desktop, keep the server conservative and very stable.
RedHat makes their money on support licensing for the server. Employees are paid to work on Fedora, but it is not the RedHat product.
That's really sad to hear.. if you think the GNOME 3 UI is buggy, childish, opinionated, and hard to customize (I've yet to get a downloaded theme to work right the first time) Fedora is a non-starter.
Which is really too bad. It's the only RPM distro I've seen that's reasonably well put together.
Probably nothing that can't be easily dismissed as personal preference. I recall YaST had a bad habit of unnecessarily cycling network interfaces when certain changes were made, but that was a long while ago.
Awesome UI/UX is where everything falls apart. Everyone wants something different and just about everything beyond a rectangle with a few handy buttons on it actually slows productivity. Nothing's worse than waiting for an animation to complete so you can click a button you have to click 100 more times today. On top of that, people get bored really fast and then everything has to be overhauled for absolutely 0 gain.
I'm a KDE user / occasional contributor. I love the new Breeze theming and all the effort that went into the icon set along with it. I've used Macs in the past, and find the UI garish and much more intuitive, and way less customizable.
It is definitely a case of "to each their own", but the only issue with KDE right now is developer churn. As the writers and more experienced developers in some applications reduce their participation due to time constraints, it is incredibly hard for anyone to step into those shoes in often millions of LOCs code bases. A lot of UI rot isn't because we don't have technologies (Kirigami, Qt Quick Controls 2, Plasmoids, etc) that enable fantastic UI and UX experiences, it is because porting forward hundreds of applications comes down to who has the time and willpower to either continue maintaining their 10 year old project or someone having the willpower to learn what can often be very ugly C++ or ancient PyQt codebases.
I also have no problem with what Gnome is doing. Their applications may not be for me, but I can recognize the beauty in what they are trying to accomplish, and still think they have a much better design language than anything MS / Apple is putting out. Whenever I sit down at OSX / Windows I feel like both are stuck in the 90s, often because half their applications (especially system management) were written then and never updated since, and because they just make random UI splits every release to look shiny and new by just changing the shell look and keeping the rest jarringly legacy.
It's all subjective but I find that KDE apps need a lot of work in terms of control flow, UI hierarchy, white space usage. To me, these are some of the things that macOS and most third party applications for it get very much right, and coming from it KDE feels... jarring. In some ways it feels modern but in others I feel like I'm using Win9x, complete with overcrowded windows and dialog tunnels, with a new coat of paint. It would greatly benefit from someone sitting down and giving it all a rethink.
GNOME sits on the other side of the spectrum on these issues but I personally find it and in fact most GTK+ apps more aesthetically pleasing and more well organized even if all the buttons are too huge and its white space is like a football field.
> I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
The problem is that many people have differing ideas of what the UI/UX would look like.
If you asked me to provide such a thing I'd just use Debian. Others might prefer RedHat, or similar. But copying an existing distribution, and keeping up to date with new versions would be a full-time job in itself, and that wouldn't leave any room for actual development.
The GNOME project, and KDE project for that matter, have spent years creating a unified environment, and even with their funds and developers the project is never-ending.
I wouldn't say a minimal & unified distribution is impossible, but it would require a lot more users to pay, up-front.
You can always pay for Ubuntu. BTW, that is probably the one closest to what you're describing, not elementary, but they have a tendency to focus in fixing not the broken things.
As a daily Linux user I feel your pain, but have you considered Windows 10 with their Ubuntu coop install? I'm seriously considering it for user-space apps.
>I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.
Good luck with that. The problem is that no one will make a UI/UX that's both awesome and stable. It's not like the resources aren't there: there's a ton of DEs for Linux, and they've been working on them for 20 years now. But the problem is they can't ever agree on anything, and they can't ever just leave well enough alone: every time they get something stable, they abandon it and make up something completely new and unstable. It's easily the 2nd biggest hindrance to Linux-on-the-desktop adoption (the biggest of course being application compatibility/inertia with Windows).
>but that's where the fun stops. Linux UIs tend to lag behind significantly.
That's the Linux community's fault. It's not the features that lag, either; KDE, feature-wise, has always been far ahead of the commercial UIs. For one simple example, I can't middle-click and vertically maximize a window on any other DE that I know of, but in KDE that's been a standard feature for at least 15 years. For another simple example, multiple desktops have been standard on Unix UIs for over 30 years, but never in Windows or Mac. The problem with Linux UIs isn't design, it's stability: everyone's constantly revamping stuff (Gnome3, KDE4, KDE5, etc.) and never spending any time fixing bugs. For instance, I have the Dvorak keyboard set on my LM17.3/KDE desktop, but several KDE apps don't respect that and go back to Qwerty. (To be fair, Windows is even worse: I have my work Win7 desktop set so I can switch between Qwerty and Dvorak, and the stupid thing is constantly switching back and forth randomly.)
Totally agree with this. Except, I've never liked the KDE look and feel. It's like the worst glossy cartoon ui ever. Yuk. To be fair, I haven't looked at it recently, so the gloss might have been toned down or removed.
But to your point of bug fixing, I absolutely agree. macOS is plagued by this as well, but mot to the degree Linux DE's are.
I've used multiple desktops since the 90's and loved it. macOS has had support for a while, but the animation switching from desktop to desktop was horrendous. I got a utility to fix that, but it's a joke they don't just include a checkbox to toggle the animations. This is one huge UX fail in my mind.
KDE's changed its look, but more importantly, it's not set in stone: it's entirely possible to change its settings and theme. It's the most configurable DE out there.
I really wonder sometimes why distros don't use it more, and make their own custom themes for it, instead of just leaving it at the default. It wouldn't take that much work to make themes to make it look almost like anything you want. Or you could even make a different version of Plasma which emulates some other OS/DE if you needed to, leaving all the underpinnings intact.
OSX has plenty of weirdness, but in my experience it's still more usable by far than Windows and a million miles away from any desktop Linux distro. I use it because it's the best available, not because it's perfect in every possible way. It's not, and nothing is. But it's a generally excellent GUI around a UNIX core, which is perfect for me.
I hackintosh so I'm less well-placed to answer your second point, but I'll try: A Mac is expensive, but you know exactly what you're getting and you know it will work well (recent dongle madness notwithstanding).
Meanwhile, eOS markets itself (previously implicitly and now apparently explicitly) as a potential replacement for OSX. But it's nowhere near. It's an outdated version of Ubuntu with some basic custom apps on top (a calculator, another basic wrapper around webkit, a slightly cleaned up fork of a file browser, etc).
And then you stray to the third party apps, and as always with desktop Linux, they're awful. Everything uses a slightly different toolkit, the UI elements are ugly, UX seems to be devs' lowest priority item, and of course you can't completely interact with industry standard formats (DOCX, PSD). The Intel Mesa driver still tears and/or stutters (actually all drivers do except Nvidia's) so watching videos is an awful experience.
Most of those items above are not fatal by themselves, but together they make for a miserable experience. I used desktop Linux (mainly Ubuntu) for over a year since I needed to do some dev and couldn't run OSX at the time. I won't try again unless there's a revolution in the desktop FOSS world. (Good video drivers, standard well-designed toolkit, UX as a priority, deeper integration of things like WINE.)
I do have some family members who use ancient core2duo laptops and do absolutely everything in Chrome. I pop Ubuntu MATE on their machines so they can avoid malware. I also always keep a live USB stick handy for flexible troubleshooting. As far as I'm concerned, this is basically the limit of usefulness for desktop Linux.
I understand some people value the flexibility above everything else and thrive under desktop Linux. I'm not trying to devalue their views or say that their setup is wrong. Use whatever works for you- but if you haven't gave OSX a serious shot yet, do try it.
I also never thought that the UX was particularly good. It looks pretty, but some fundamental stuff is hidden and when I was new to OS X I never knew when I had to switch to terminal. To me the real reason to run OS X is that I never have to fight with drivers or my xconfig. On Ubuntu plugging in a projector to give a presentation was always more exciting than it should have been. I more often than not had to borrow someone else's Windows laptop. I also can't count the times apt-get update replaced my proprietary Nvidia driver with an much worse, open source one. Last time I gave Ubuntu a try a few years ago it actually managed to destroy the firmware on my external screen. I just want a Unix based system that works.
> I also can't count the times apt-get update replaced my proprietary Nvidia driver with an much worse, open source one.
I don't think it's fair to compare OS X (with runs on a very limited set of hardware) with a Linux distribution running on a random not-well-supported system. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison I'd suggest to test Ubuntu on one of the officially supported systems - see https://certification.ubuntu.com/desktop/ for a list.
It's fair when you consider the usual value proposition of "do I buy a PC and put linux on it or do I buy a Mac".
But you are right, some people mix these different issues up. My next laptop will come with Linux pre-installed - so I expect to report that all the bits work correctly (except Linux will be running on top of Qubes rather than on the metal, so...)
I don't think anybody is saying that macOS is perfect. It's more that historically for most of us, the set of trade offs that come with it are much easier to swallow than those that come with $DESKTOP_LINUX_DISTRO. In fact, that's the core of the problem: even now, after all that he missteps Apple has taken and after all the improvements desktop Linux has seen, macOS is still the more appealing option. This is frustrating because it suggests that there may never be another desktop platform with a set of pros and cons similar to those of macOS.
I felt the same way ultimately despite my original enthusiasm. To be honest now that I have some experience with the eco-system as a whole, I mean Linux, it's really unreasonable to expect a few developers, even very good ones, to produce a desktop operating system that rivals OS X or Windows or even Fedora because they are competing against very large and well funded teams at huge corporations that by now have at least three decades of experience building desktop operating systems. In short, Elementary OS is a nice idea but it's a somewhat Quixotic endeavor.
I tried a few times to contribute to their project, but all of their apps (at the time, at least) were hacked together with no tests and poor documentation. This is all fine, everyone has to start somewhere, but they were openly hostile to suggestions of testing or new architecture. In my opinion, they had a very "we know best" attitude for a group of (almost entirely) amateur developers. :/
Don't ever rely on your own perception of what's intuitive to evaluate a user experience. Someone has given specific feedback to the contrary, which means that there will be others. If I was the site's maintainer, I'd be heading straight for the analytics to see if they support this feedback.
This part wasn't that horrible as the quote from Elementary blog was (apparently they removed the old blogpost, but it's easily googlable):
"We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software. We didn’t exclude a $0 button to deceive you; we believe our software really is worth something."
This. They tried to shame people for downloading without paying, Foss community shamed them for that because they don't pay anything for the parts they get from Ubuntu, Debian, gnu, Linux etc.
>> we believe our software really is worth something.
That's why you let users decide after they've used the software. You don't tell someone that up front and expect a payment when you haven't been able to try and test the software for yourself and your team.
If it's worthy, then users will come back and offer a payment or contact you to find out how they can contribute if they feel its really worth it.
I think a lot of people have this misconception that everybody who uses open source software just assumes it should be free. In my own experience, it's quite the opposite. Most people who use open source are actually more willing to pay for something they feel is valuable to them without hesitation. They're also usually willing to pay a little more then perhaps is necessary in order to make sure its maintained and supported.
Because for most people, "0 dollars" is not a sensible answer to that question. Getting something for free is perceived as a separate kind of action from purchasing something, even if you can ultimately boil it down to the same "exchange $X for Y" process.
When BetterTouchTool forced the switch to a "pay-as-you" want version (they even forcefully expired existing versions of the app, it simply stopped working unless you fork over money), their minimum was 4$ or so, because apparently if it was less, then the payment processing would be too high in relation.
So apparently in the bait-and-switch mentality of the mac world, that you can pay '0 dollars' is not obvious.
It is a shame for Elementary OS Team, because this issue was many times discussed on GH issues / IRC about implementing just a "$0" button. As I remember in launchpad there is also a task or discussion about suggestion of the dialog which will remind about donation after certain time duration.
I don't think this is a trick - especially as it states "Pay What You Want". They need money to develop the OS and apps. And asking later will result in more hate.
They should include more videos and screenshots so people have a better idea of what they are buying.
I agree this is kinda frustrating, but judging from other comments it seems like ElementaryOS is maintained by a for-profit company. Driving conversions is probably more important to them rather than optimizing for total total number of downloads. I personally think this strategy is limited in scope as it ignores the life-time value of users that donate after using for a period of time, but always interesting to play devil's advocate.
This is a long-standing criticism of Elementary. I think they initially didn't even provide a way to get a free download, and eventually settled for the current UI. Basically the founder-owner is adamant that someone has to pay for his time, and tbh I don't begrudge him.
As an OSS contributor, I _do_ begrudge him for it - and this is why.
If you were to email Elementary and ask for support with a non-working 'sg' kernel module, I would be highly surprised if they offered you any support. More likely, they would tell you to contact one of the authors, who did not receive one dime for our work. He takes your money, and shirks off supporting you to people that _didn't_ take your money.
>As an OSS contributor, I _do_ begrudge him for it - and this is why.
If you were to email Elementary and ask for support with a non-working 'sg' kernel module, I would be highly surprised if they offered you any support. More likely, they would tell you to contact one of the authors, who did not receive one dime for our work. He takes your money, and shirks off supporting you to people that _didn't_ take your money.
By voluntarily contributing to an OSS-licensed project, you don't have the moral right to begrudge him for it. What they are doing is completely permitted by the license; RMS has spelled it out over and over. So, no sympathy from me.
That's kinda the point. He pushes for donations, but doesn't offer support. It's not illegal for him to not offer support and it's not illegal for me to not pay him.
I would prefer to pay a reasonable subscription fee with a support contract which is also not illegal, but benefits all parties.
I do make contributions to some projects (can't support them all), but if the project is being too pushy, they can count me out. The idea that I can get support in return is just a nicer model of exchange. There's a good chance that I won't even use that support, but it's nice to know that my contributions have a direct impact on how usable the project is for my needs.
I run a small software company myself. We're selling our software on the internet. But our website focuses on getting people to download the free trial first. The "asking for money" is then done once the trial period ends.
It's already hard to get people to download your stuff for free. With obviously visible download buttons.
If we did what Elementary is doing we would be closing our shop rather soon.
As far as I know the GPL does not allow trial periods and asking for money later on, but feel free to correct me. That's why elementary cannot do such a thing.
GPL just requires source to be available to anyone who receives the binary. It has to be available on request. You can ask them to pay for the cost of postage to ship it to them.
Hell, you can ask them to pay anything, like RedHat does, regardless of costs. It's perfectly legal and GPL-compliant. You just have to provide sources.
No, I didn't mean a trial version. I just suggested they should ask for a donation once people actually had the chance to find out if they'd consider donating worth it.
The GPL and payment are orthogonal. They could GPL a piece of software that stops working after 30 days if you don't pay. You decide if to compile out the code that checks for the payment (and possibly distribute your version) or pay them those money.
If Elementary wants to alter some program to add a time bomb, the GPL cannot stop them. The GPL only ensures that the user can take the time bomb out (either by themselves or by following instructions on the internet, or by hiring somebody to do it).
No. Gpl has no such thing. But you'll have to provide the source code with your software, so I'll just modify the source to give myself infinite trial.
It'll work, it just won't get quite as many conversions as it might otherwise. The same principle applies to closed-source software, after all: you have to provide the binary, so I'll just modify the binary to give myself an infinite trial. This is entirely doable, but enough people still pay to make it a viable business in many cases.
The number of people that would bother to do that is relatively small. If it's a good product, and reasonably priced, people would much rather just pay to have it. (See music streaming.)
In the previous design of the website, there was a small "...or download for free" button tucked away below the payment options. IIRC that meant that the number of users who payed for the OS was something below 1%. Now, after that switch, it's still rather low, but combining with the amount of money they get from other places (like Patreon[0]) it's enough to have two (again, IIRC) full time developers and one part time developer.
From what I can remember, there was never a time where they disallowed a way of downloading the OS for free, they just made it more difficult to figure out over time.
The argument is that the potential user needs to be aware of his action when he's entering in "0". Otherwise, it's just automatic - you don't even think about it.
But I think it's counterproductive, because it looks adversarial. Apparently the best way to get the donation is to bring up the payment screen after the download has happened. This is because risk-averse buyers can first try the product and then feel less pressured to decide how much it's worth:
It's kind of difficult to do that when you are talking about the OS, isn't it?
First of all, it's a rather large download, so you're probably going to close the website as soon as you click on the download button. Second of all, to consume the product in this case, you have to install it. And yet again, after you do so, if you get greeted with the "donate" window right away, you're going to dismiss it because you still haven't tested out the product.
So, what you need is a timer, something that says like "after 30 minutes (or an hour, or two hours) of usage, display the window", but that would require the OS to make calls to external servers without the user consent, and, because we are talking about a Linux-based operating system, people would be complaining that this is a a privacy violation.
> It's kind of difficult to do that when you are talking about the OS, isn't it?
Not necessarily. It's not like you expect the buyer to do a careful analysis of what it's worth before they pay. You can usually decide this sort of thing based on very quick impressions. Also, there's the aspect of it just seeming nicer to ask after the download has happened. Then it's clear that you already have the product, now it's up to you to decide what to pay for it, if anything at all. Here people have been tricked into thinking they had to pay and begrudge the author.
> 99% of us simply close the tab after the download starts.
Really? On most sites that I visit, I 'Save As' every link that I care to download, so that there is no separate tab to close. (But maybe you were referring only to this specific site.) Maybe the solution is just to make sure that there's more of interest on your download page than just the download button?
It's a tradeoff between getting more users and getting more money, which I'm sure he knows. He's chosen to be more towards the "money" end of the scale, which is fair enough.
I don't say "I paid zero." or "I paid nothing" unless someone asks the specific question "How much did you pay for that?"
It's obviously a way to nudge people into paying something.
edit: I made an aside about the use of the word 'donation' by cannabis collectives in the U.S. to denote 'payment' (as a way to operate as non-profits and avoid federal problems) as a reference to similarly weak wording used in a nefarious way, but I thought the relationship to the pattern here was weak, so I removed it.
I'm very curious to try it out, and came to comments in hopes of seeing some comments about what it's like. Instead there's a bunch of comments about the pricing situation. So it's definitely affected my chance of giving it a shot.
I'm using it and it's pretty good. I don't really agree with the scheme of 1. Tricking you into paying something. 2. Feeling guilty for entering $0...but the ui is not bad at all imho.
It is progressively becoming quite more than a simple skin. They do have their own window manager and a quite comprehensive set of applications with simplified interfaces and consistent UI. To me it seems like a worthy goal, however it seems to create a separation between the typical Linux user/developer and their potential targeted users.
Not really. I developed on elementary quite a lot. I find its ease of getting around quite easy. Your text editor / IDE is at the front and everything else is completely tucked away + you can control basic things about your OS like music / notifications etc. without having to focus on some other app to make a change. And it's pretty lightweight.
Comparing that to GNOME, where everything is so damn big that it wastes half of my screen and KDE where the default apps are usually bloated and confusing and can do way too many things, I call Pantheon as a win for the developers.
EDIT: Also, one neat trick that I've never seen any other terminal emulator doing other than Pantheon Terminal, is that you get a desktop notification every time you're not focused on the terminal when it finishes its job. For example, let's say I do something like "sudo apt install netbeans". Since the download is large, I'm going to focus on something else in the meantime and I'll get a desktop notification when the installation is finished.
Sad. I tried to modify elementary OS entry in italian wikipedia for this (and... it is not open software, but 'free' if it is distribuited via GPL...). I did not be able to modify the wiki, anda banned for 24h... EDIT: for 'personal attacks'... LOL, it's all written, where are my personal attacks? LOL
They hid the download button really well: You have to type in "0" into the "how much you'd like to pay" field for the "Purchase" button to change to "Download".
I mean I understand that open source projects need funding. But if you want people to try your niche OS at least make it obvious how to download it. Ask for money later after people had to chance to try it out.
I only typed in 0 because I know that "trick" from other websites. If I hadn't known I would have just left the website and would possibly never return.