Why Proprietary Software Sucks on Linux ...

same issue here

I’m trying avoid the SaaS/GaaS/HaaS (as a service, or as I put it… as a scam, as a subscription) business model as much as possible. I don’t mind proprietary software though… if it respects my values, my system and workflow, my financial situation, etc.

I just switched to Linux recently though, and there has been a lot of improvements… but there’s so much stuff that still doesn’t work properly for me. I don’t have a super power, brand new, high end system… so I have stuttering in games (than in Windows), stuttering audio (and no multichannel audio setup like I had in Windows with Voicemeeter), issues with some hardware (especially NVIDIA - which I totally agree with Linus Torvald’s statement “NVIDIA, F**K YOU!” 😂).

Hopefully one day I’ll be able to fix all the issues.

I tried 2 Linux distros more than 10 years ago (Ubuntu - Fedora) and I say sadly the programs I use in windows do not run easily on Linux (Autodesk MAYA - DaVinci Resolve)

The funny world of proprietary stuff on Linux. It is rather wild. 🤔🤣

Same goes with Pixar Renderman (3D render engine). It uses old Centos 7 libraries and for newer distributions you need to build those libraries yourself or find a proper safe copy online and install manually in few folders of Renderman's installation. This is just cumbersome.

as someone who needs Unity for work i completely understand your pain

This is why Linux fails on the desktop; if you create a program that is not open source, it breaks the moment a dependency is updated with ABI changes. It's why proton is superior to having native linux games. There have been a few porting houses of games to Linux, like lokigames and LGP, and their games basically don't work anymore due to broken dependencies. Microsoft solved this problem on Windows a long time ago.

Its not Proprietary Software that sucks. Its Linux that sucks 😂

I feel you there. I have a similar situation with Arch as my main computer, but use web-authoring program Blue Griffon to maintain a personal website.

No other distro quite accomodates the way I want to use my main PC like Arch does. Even though I first discovered Blue Griffon in a list of AUR packages, it by that point already looked shaky if installed that way. An Arch package made from the vendor's .deb package with debtap failed to install. When purchased, Blue Griffon supports no distro other than Ubuntu, whether it could be installed on other Debian-based or not.

Not two machines, but the solution I eventually came up with was to install an extra SSD in my tower and install Ubuntu on that drive, with its bootloader on the same SSD, not the Arch one. Then I set the boot priority in my UEFI setup to boot Arch by default.

Other than the anonymous 1Tb volume showing up on my file browser sidebar, there's no indication in normal use that there even is a separate system. But if I need to use my one proprietary program, I can shut down my computer and use the F-key during startup for a boot menu to boot Ubuntu that time. Same as if to boot a flash drive.

Best kludge I could come up with for that.

Hey Micheal, we use Engineering software and these apps use the windows way of installing softwares on Linux. You can even put the installation paths, so they don't leverage the central dependency. These softwares are MATLAB, ANSYS, Unreal, pycharm. they don't prefer the package manager to dsitribute the software.

is not "had to be Davinci Resolve" is more like: "linux cant get to work with creative tools no matter what"
....I have been trying a stable system since before you were born

Yes, media editing software is a nightmare. I guess virtual machines / proton is the way to handle them. Adobe and Davinci are made it for centrally managed, single-point-of-control hollywood studios, so the kind of free file sharing that you can do between open source tools is dangerous to their monopolies.

I'm cofused with the Maya package because i read online that they only ship RPM so i switched from Ubuntu to Fedora just to use it. Now that I download it, there's no RPM, just an executable that runs on the terminal. They even have an official guide to change the RPM setup to DEB but, again, THERE WAS NO RPM 😬

AUR has Davinci Resolve and it works! Although flatpak is also a nice idea!

Many big companies don't care about desktop Linux, and it is completely understandable:
- We're few (meaning there's not much money to be made),
- We're fragmented as hell (though universal packaging formats like Snap, Flatpak, and AppImage do exist),
- A decent chunk of Linux users and distro maintainers are die-hard FOSS/FLOSS fans.

Plus, most of us are pretty, pretty sensitive about some stuff:
- Our privacy and data collection,
- Our rights (Linux users have a big problem with EULAs and terms of use which look even remotely shady)
- Freedom of choice (not being corralled into software/hardware ecosystems like Apple's iOS/macOS, Adobe's suite, or Samsung's Galaxy ecosystem),
- Freedom to edit/customize and fork the software we use.

All proprietary software sucks. We are just spoiled with FOSS on Linux so much that proprietary software when it does appear looks terrible like it always does in comparison.

I just have windows on an external ssd (with rufus windows to go) and whenever I need a program that would mess with my system I just use the ssd.

Ages ago micro-softie declared Gnu-Linux "a threat." Other developers followed along, and none changed their behavior. If you can port to apple, porting to Gnu-Linux is trivial. Certain applications I would pay for, but I got tired of waiting. I just use what's in the repository.

That's why i went back to Windows. I need PS, Illustrator, DaVinci and Outlook. Marketshare of Linux is too low. It's to much work for them to make it available as deb, rpm every 6 to 12 month for new linux versions. Don't misunderstand me, i really love Linux. Still running Fedora on dualboot with Windows 11 but only for private use.

I would argue that closed source in general is a bad idea for distribution's sake, but if a company insists on doing so, a completely static build would be the best bet. I love AppImages because they just work, but even they have a dependency, even if it is one that is easily met and nearly every system has it by default, and I've still not gotten FlatPak to work on my system at all. Yeah a static build would still be a giant download, but it would work on every system.

Thing is: This is they way you publish software on Windows, and they just replicate the method on Linux.
Then the problem is: Linux distros are very hostile to this approach. As you said, a Fedora update breaks Davinci because they removed some libs. On Windows that would never happen, and then Blackmagic assumed that this should apply to Linux as well (note that I'm saying Linux, not the distro. That's intentional). Windows would keep legacy libs for decades and Fedora just removes the old versions each release.

I have a problem with davinci fron fedora 35
When i move to fedora
Davinci didn't open currently some part of davinci move out on monitor and i dant see
And i cant drag windo so i can't use Davinci
And also kdenlive it has same problem
My monitor is 16inch 😐

Use distrobox. That way you can use davinci in a container with Fedora 37.

Although it doesn't always work, this is ONE thing i do like about recent versions of windows. They have a compatibility mode that you can use to launch programs as if there were running on older versions of windows.
But definitely, more companies ahould be using flatpaks. I hope we start seeing this shift soon.

100% agree with this. Just tried Resolve on Fedora 38 and what a nightmare. I livestreamed the entire setup and finally just said forget it... I'll switch distros to something Resolve likes lol.

I have to give valve their praise here, because their app is available on basically everything (included snap and flatpak) , we only need an appimage steam and the circle will be completed xd

Have you tried Nobara

i try davinci, now i use lightworks, basic for editing on travel with a normal laptop.

I completely agree. Releasing in a traditional package format not only limits which distributions can run a piece of software, but it fails to recognize how far we have come in the Linux community and that there are now several formats to choose from that will allow you to run on any distribution.

While I am an advocate for flatpak and appimage for desktop applications, I recognize that snaps have their place for servers and IoT devices. They can all co-exist.

Hopefully, BlackMagic (and others) will see the light and recognize that you can package proprietary software for Linux using a universal package format, maximizing the audience in the Linux community, and still allowing the company to make money if they desire.

I am going to attract a lot of hate here, but I would reframe the question as, "why Linux sucks with proprietary software?". The answer is because after 25 years the community still haven't agreed on the basics: copy and paste, sound subsystem, graphics subsystem, init subsystem, and the list goes on.

Hi, I use Linux Manjaro in a dual boot with Windows 10, because I still need some programs which wouldn't run property under Linux, they are only available for Windows and MacOS. I know I'm off topic, it's a different kind of problem, but since I have my fair share of distro hopping under my belt, I can say, even programs like Wine, Winetricks and Bottles are behaving differently depending on the distro they running on.
The range of success of getting a program to work goes from not at all to sometimes.
Linux itself is also guilty of that behavior. A few years ago, I could install my printer in three click's. Today's Manjaro can't do it no matter what. I have to use Cups to install the same old Printer. Why? I don't understand.

Mostly agree.

Context: Cut an entire feature length on DaVinci Resolve on Ubuntu Studio and popOS. The process on my machine - XPS 9750, i7 8th gen, 1050TI, 32 GB RAM - was almost painless, and drama free. I was even sharing files with my color gradist who was on a Windows machine and we had zero issues.

I am in two minds.

On one hand, I am very thankful to Blackmagic for having done this - it made transitioning into Linux even more of an inevitability for me since there is nothing hold me back to Windows otherwise.

On the other, I completely agree universal packaging format might be the way to go. I think a possible route is for them to release a compatability tool on their website - a script that gathers system config details - hardware and software - and in the case of the latter, takes notes of software libraries that are needed for the installation to go ahead. It then gives the user a list of missing dependencies and where/how to install it.

Once dependencies are installed, run the tool again and it gives you the link to download DaVinci Resolve as an appimage. Right now, being restricted to Deb and RHEL systems, I feel, BlackMagic is losing out on a potentially large-ish market of content creators who primarily use Linux.

Davinci Resolve is the only reason I still dual boot windows. Rest all the software I use are open source and perfectly supported on Linux.

How about Nobara Project? I heard they offering pre-installed dependecies for Davinci Resolve itself.

If you are going to ship dependencies ship all ; if not give a readme for all deps needed

this is the perfect use case for Flatpak

This isn't even only an issue with proprietary software. Packaged versions of Blender in multiple distros don't work with AMD GPUs but the web download does. Sometimes AMD HIP is completely missing as an option, other times its there but doesn't see any devices. Obviously after doing requisite work of getting opencl/rocm installed and groups done. Only the web versions have worked consistently after that.

resolve should just release a flatpak

fragmentation on linux is a massive issue and i think people and developers understimate that.

it compromisse users freedom.
sure you are free to chose between gnome, kde, xfce etc, but you end up with an poor experience in all of then as result.

for example, once i customized my gnome2 enviroment, then i opened an program and... it didnt respected my theme at all!
why? because it was made with QT instead of GTK...
i figured out how to customize the theme of QT programs on gnome, so i opened another... and it was using another completely different framework!
hell, back in the days we didnt had "dark mode", so trying to customize the theme was an pain, you open a single window that didnt respect your preference and your eyes hurt!
what is the point of having customization if you cant use it?
i gone so far to customize even the sites i visit with stylish, my browser end up using too much ram, but at least that was not an issue related to linux itself... anyway, moving on.

i changed my mind and decided to use an light theme since dark was not working...
and guess what, reverting to the default theme didnt fix the colors of all elements, so i ended up with an light text in a light background...
the worst part? i was an newbie so i didnt knew how to fix this issue, i tried to reinstall the system and end up losing my files! (and most programs to recover data assume you use windows )



continuing my strugle, i tried to use xfce to have an lightweight enviroment, i openened an program that didnt supported this DE, and as result? i ended up using more ram instead of less, because now i had QT libraries and XFCE libraries opened using ram!
and if i remember correctly the same happened once i opened an program that didnt had an fallback in case you didnt use gnome...

i saw some videos showing how cool compiz was, but none of then told me how easy it was to break your GUI using it, i tried to make my own compiz video and my screen recording software didnt worked for god knows what reason.

video editors were a mess back then, they still are, but at least we have davince... that only support a few distros and i cant complain, i can understand their strugle, i tried to develop for linux once, but had no idea how to deal with different package managers...
the issue is: maybe davince only works on redhat? fine, but what if i use redhat and need another proprietary program that only works on ubuntu too? then its game over, or i have to reboot between each step of the workflow...

i tried to code multiplatform softwares, but i strugled to configure the qtcreator tool to export for windows, and selling my software for linux only dont seem to be very profitable...i have bills to pay... i wasted literally 24 hours compiling the entire QT framework to make the qtcreator be able to compile for windows, only to figure out there were another solution for that... anyway, at least it worked right? WRONG.
and i end up with 10GB of used disk space, that i didnt know what to do with, i could delete it but then my system could not work anymore and i would take forever to know why, i could leave it there but... its 10GB... in any case i lost time for nothing.
i couldnt find an tutorial on how to fix this issue specifically made for my distro specifically made for the 14.04 version of it, hell i couldnt find it in english imagine if i only knew portuguese...



im trying to make an game, and that is the worse possible scenario, because you need just everything!
an image editor to make sprites/textures, an 3D modeling program in case the game or any of it assets are 3D (some times its easy to make then in 3D even for 2D games, donkey kong for snes is a good example), you also need an tool to make music and simulate every musical instrument, guitar, drum, piano, etc... or have real instruments, or simply outsource that part of the game...
you also need an program to code, one game engine to join all of those assets into one consistent experience...

nowadays i have godot and could try unity or unreal despite their treating linux as second class citizen, but i wasted years making my own engine because i couldnt find an descent one until i found godot and realised i was wasting my time making an engine that couldnt never compete with godot, while i should have spend such time making an game in godot... now i have nothing to sell with the time i wasted...
people told me "well if you cant find and good engine, just make one, all the big companies do their own" and the fool of me have listened to those fanboys that couldnt admit linux ecosystem was not perfect...
yeah, big companies made their own tools backthen, but they had millions to spend, i dont.
and nowadays even big companies are outsourcing this part of their development...

anyway, making an game is hard enough without making my own tools for that, its harder when you dont have an proper tool to animate in 2D (eg: flash) fortunatelly godot solves that, but even if im able to make an game, i still need to promote it, and making videos in linux is... well, a hell...

then finally i need an webpage to promote my game... and all editors i tried on linux suck, yes, even for that!
either they dont have an WYSIWYG tool, or it only support html4, in other works its an abandonware that was not updated in an entire decade!
so, its impossible? no, TailQuest Defense proves its possible.
the issue is: what im trying to do, trying to make an game or to use linux? because if im tring to make an game, windows would give me more options of tools to make music, assets, etc...
the issue is, i was not trying to just make an game, but to make it using linux, making an game is hard enough, dealing with an system that has tons of issues afore mentioned, and lacks an good ecosystem is even worse, so what i was really trying to do?

oh, yeah, i forgot that horror story when i tried to make an PWA before those where a thing, canonical was one of the first companies to have that idea, but they discontinued it... so i end up coding something for an niche... and the company who made the apis gave up on then... and then an web standard came to do the samething.

anyway, i think linux fragmentation is one of (if not the) biggest flaw it have, it leads to lack of support from thirdy parties, wich lead to lack of users wich lead to lack of improvments in all areas.

Have you tried Lightworks??? I love it and they provide rmp and Deb packages. I never had any issues with it!

aand this is just a tiny fragment of the huge pile of reasons I use windows for desktop and leave linux to network stuff...unless theres a GOOD open source alternative, it is garbage

Distrobox

Agree.

Flatpak all the things but what do i know lul

I would like to say that I use Davinci and just upgraded from Ubuntu 22.10 to 23.04 and I don't have any issues. It was the first program I tried after install because I did not expect it to work but I was happy to see it go smoothly. I would also like to point out that I have had appimages not open because they are missing dependancies too. So yea they're that.

you know you could use a Arch based distro and just install it from the AUR, but Arch is unstable !! (to this kind of thing i say no, it has just work for make there is none of this kind of problems and you are not force to build your software from source like Ubuntu.

that said i use Linux from 1996 and i know my way around in Linux and can fix anything, but you should so too if you can't)

MMMM MEH!!!

Any arch based distro ---> yay -S davinci-resolve
You need a GTX mmmm ... 900 series or better ---> Nvidia proprietary drivers and bumblebee if you are on a laptop

You are pointing out one of the biggest headaches in Linux desktop: packaging. This is not an issue with software, in the linux world packaging is all over the place. It seems everybody wants to have a package manager, which basically forces developers to package for individual distributions. That works well for open-sourced software where the distribution maintainers take that job, for all the other use cases companies must choose which distribution support. There is no right way to deliver to Linux! there is "X distro way" Oh flatpacks...what about snaps? or all the other options they think they can do better in the future. That is the downside of being open and don't standarized