I'm going to be brutally honest here: this mindset is retarded and the reason why you don't find a good fucking video editor on linux.
If you want an application, someone has to create it and they need money to live. Free software is no different in this regard than proprietary software. The reason why you should rather pay for free software than for proprietary software is that free software gives you the freedom to use, modify and redistribute the program however you like.
Logan, for example, is stuck on Windows because he relies on Adobe products. If it were free software, he could make it run on linux without any problem. Free software is extremely practical and not theoretical in this regard.
I also find this viewpoint extremely irritating because Logan is telling people to donate to TekSyndicate and turn off Adblockers to get money but at the same time he denies software developers their right to get payed for their work.
I think paying for some software is OK on Linux. For example buying a piece of video software shouldn't earn you a shouting at from the hardcore open source maniacs, but Linux should always be free. I think it will always be free and so will the majority of the software since Linux isn't controlled by one single corporation and can be changed by anyone anywhere.
Usually with open source software if you pay for it you're paying for support. But it is a good question, why would you pay for something you can get for free? You can't just expect people to pay you out of the kindness of their heart, if you want to sell open source software you need to compete with free which means you need to offer something that you can't get with an unpaid version.
There's also no reason that you can't have closed source software on linux, which if the adobe stuff ever gets a linux port it will undoubtedly be.
To me the question is....*Why would you Not pay for a program that ran in Linux? * an example would be a port of Adobe creative suite, most of us have no problem paying for games that run on Linux why would we make a distinction between them and productivity software, we already have free licensed software, and open source free software, I think there is room in the Linux eco system for all types of paid for software.
I think that @Logan's main point was that there is a steep learn curve from Abode to Linux based programs. There are plenty of paid programs on Linux, look at native games from Steam and GOG. Like @blanger said there is no reason they can't co-exist.
All Linux needs to kill off Windows as the desktop king is support from companies like Autodesk, Adobe, and every game developer/publisher, inside of a few years MS would loose it's crown, as OEMs would offer Linux as a pre-installed operating system and once most of the productivity- design software was available on Linux there would really be no compelling reason not to switch, companies would save huge money over Windows licensing and maintenance and enjoy a more robust, flexible, and stable environment that Linux offers....why this hasn't already happen is weird to me because software developers would also save money by not having to pay MS licensing money for the privileged of creating software for their OS.
I don't think money and all that jazz is an issue. it just comes to userbase. there are a billion people on Android (for Example) if you want to be realistic 1/3rd would have Tablets and or Phones. and maybe 1/2 or so is just using a phone. (may be in-accurate but hopefully you see my point) Microsoft or even Ubuntu Phone could gain 50 million users, that doesn't mean people are going to drop everything and just start making apps for Ubuntu Phone or Microsoft's Windows 10 for the universal platform. it comes to userbase and timing in my honest opinion. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, whether we like it or not, they just aren't. if Linux would of came out the same time as Microsoft and Apple did in the late 70s I guarantee you Linux would of had a massive foot in Desktop marketshare.
This is not quite true. Linux does not have to be free (in price), it can be sold for anything anyone likes. What it has to have is the source code available to those who use it and for them to have the 4 freedoms the GPLv2 provides. Monetary cost isn't a concern in the license. The side effect is that it tends to also be free in price.
I might be wrong (correct me if im wrong @Logan) but I took what he said as meaning, why would he pay for a program on Linux when he can pay for a program on windwos he knows will work. adobe for example. Why would you pay for another program that might not do what you want when you already paid for a program to do what you want.
I do agree with the consensus though that just because Free Software is generally free in price doesnt mean you shouldn't give something back if you find it useful.
Linux is also heavily used in the media/film industry, it just happens that those propitiatory programs tend to be fairly specialized and not targeted at consumers, or in-house.
Fyi, blender does video editing and from what ive heard people say, its one of the better ones out there. Not sure how it handles 4k thought, but they have done 4k in there past projects so i imagine the video editor supports it.
Oh I agree @Kat, the point I'd make is that years ago if your used Adobe you had to be on a Mac, then years later Adobe forsake Macs for Windows forcing users to switch platforms, then Apple became more of a main-stream thing and Adobe is back on Apple (of course it's easier today because today your dealing with the same hardware as a PC unlike the early Mac days), you are correct at those times Adobe went to where the largest user base was.
Many many people here are arguing how to get all applications onto linux. That's completely not the point I was trying to make!
I don't care for proprietary software on linux because it's no better than proprietary software on windows. My point is that you have to pay for software, even if it's free software (free software basically means open source and not free of charge).
And if people actually would pay developers to develop free software alternatives, they wouldn't need the proprietary software anymore. Essentially your money is better invested in free software projects than in licenses for proprietary software.
This is true. For me as a developer, entrepreneur and CS student, it is from a financial perspective easier to get a job to build some proprietary software for a specific customer than building an open source software, that would make a change to the status quo in a larger field, because everybody wants to have some open source solution but nobody would pay me ca. 1000$ per month to build such a software. It is easier to get a contract with a company to build them a specific piece of software than finding people, who pay you for a software that is open and developed for people instead of companies. It is also really simple to get crowd funding for entertainment and gaming but for "real products" that make peoples lives easier, it is not easy at all. That's quite a stupid situation we're in here...
It's hard to develop free software (again, free is in freedom and not in free of charge) and get paid for it. It's absolutely not helping when people say stupid things like "Why would I pay for a program on linux?".
The worst part is that people pay for proprietary software just fine but expect free software to be free of charge.
There are many ways how to finance a developer to build software:
monthly donations (e.g. patreon)
one time donations
paying for access to a build of the software (this can be done because most users don't know how to compile something on their own or simply don't want to invest the time)
paying for features
paying to get better support and/or faster updates etc
People simply have to accept that software development is hard, costs much and therefor has to be payed for somehow. If you didn't pay for it, someone else did, and you don't know which intentions they have.
While this is true, its not absolute. Krita has had two successful kickstarters, while not a massive amount of money (€50k on kickstarter) its a large sum to raise for a free software project. They also seem to be going in a similar direction that blender does with a shop to buy various things including training dvds and such, which has worked for blender.
I think one of the problems free software has is with the exception of software backed by companies (gnome, kde), other projects don't have enough people that know how to do this kind of stuff properly thats made the likes of krita a sucess.
With enough knowledge in Software Engineering you can build quite a big software without a huge number of employees in a small team. So I think it is a different problem:
Let's consider there are people willing to pay for the development of an open source software. Now let's also consider there are enough developers out there who are willing to build open source software.
Here comes the problem I see: How should both groups of people know about each other? The people with the money don't want to pay idiots who are not able to build a proper product - you want to pay people who can transform an idea into a useful product. The people with the knowledge don't know who to call to get enough money for the development - you need to know how you pay your bills to be able to work properly.
As much as I know from watching videos; I think he did not exactly mean it the way you see it.
I think it is the developer's decision to make his/her program "paid" or "free", and "open" or "closed" source. Then if the program is good (competition etc are also variables to consider at this point), people will get it.
Also I think saying 'the reason Linux does not have very good programs ((or popular) comparatively)' because of this is not accurate. The more valid variable would be the "number" of people (like regular people) using it, which is more for "Windows" (for examples) because of the marketing from the start.