Open Source? That suggestion would pretty much kill any possibility of us creating a Linux version For a company to produce any application, there is significant work involved from hiring programmers, graphics artists, technical support and more. After all of that, putting it out as an open source project is not a fiscally sound thing to do.

I think that is the number one reason why more companies do not release Linux versions of their software. To most companies, it is more of an expense then revenue. Hard to make money on something you give away for free.....

I don't believe that it has been set in stone that because you provide a software solution in Linux, that it HAS to be opensource (ie, freeware)... True a mass majority of the software packages on Linux are, but there are several that offer a free trial period then a paid subscription (even if only a 1 time fee). And based on what I've seen of CC's software, and the success that CC has had in the WIndows market, I'd venture to speculate that a CC Package (set same marketing as now) in Linux would be successful. I KNOW that I'd prefer to run in Linux, even if I had to purchase the package again.

I have no issue paying for software...I use commercial, shareware and freeware. I'd go Mac but I have too much tied up in hardware and can't justify the changeover. However, I can continue to use existing boxes and peripherals if I make the switch to Linux. (I'm soon to put a Linux server online.)

Since I do a fair bit of web work, I need tools such as CoffeeCup. I'm not going to mess around with having dual booting systems...too wonky for an office environment. So I'm stuck with Windows.

To stand momentarily on my soapbox, I always believed (and I've been a PC user since 1983) that Operating Systems are a language that really shouldn't be owned by anyone...similar to no-one owning English, or German, or Mandarin, etc. But someone might own the book or magazine or whatever that was constructed using the language. And that is what I would pay for.

WIndows is a pig (VISTA a complete disaster). I want to work with tools in a language (say Linux) that is safe, completely free of handicaps and hassles, and allows my tools/software to work properly.

CoffeeCup -- even though I have purchased the complete CC software line (Windows) I would pay a fee to have my software ported to Linux. I don't suppose there are enough customers like me to make it worth while though.

Add me as one who has paid for the complete CC suite in Windows, but would pay again for a Linux version. The transition to Linux is not easy, but after looking at this for a couple of years we decided that Windows was a losing proposition in a multitude of ways, and won't be getting it on any PC's moving forward (after using it on everything ever since 3.1 came out in the early 90's). Right now we're dual-booting and trying to do as much as possible in Linux (so much faster), and re-booting just to run something here and there under Windows is a pain. My theory is that when Google's Chrome OS hits next year it will make Linux a viable option for quite a large number of people who couldn't imagine making the leap before, and software development should take Google seriously. CC doesn't have to be open source, just work under an OS that is. There are many serious shortcomings for a new user with Linux, but all that is outweighed by one huge factor: it isn't Windows.

Don Shelton

Here's another vote for Linux/Ubuntu.
After over 22 years of Windows, I stepped into the Ubuntu adventure some 1,5 years ago, and I love it.
Not because it's free, but because it is more intuitive, safe, solid, and doesn't require frequent disk checks, register cleaning, defragmentation, etc..
Like others in this thread I paid for CC, but am not using it anymore,

I do not think that a company that makes a lot of money selling software for Windows, will do less, when it starts issuing free Open Source versions. As Windows is still the most used OS, the Linux users will act as a group of people promoting CC software, and at the same time you won't lose them as users.

A paid Linux version will scare away a lot of potential users who trust only what comes through the Ubuntu channels and non-free versions will not be part of that.

So come on, CC, show the world that Coffee is for everyone!

I'd disagree with this statement, as there are a number of successful "paid" software versions in Linux. Open-source does not mean FREE as many believe. The biggest decision point for how successful a software publisher is in the Linux community, is the quality of their software (much the same as in Windows environment), and the quality of customer care (which CC is well known for being excellent).

No, I merely said that the majority of Ubuntu users will only install software that is offered by the Ubuntu community, and that means that they will not use installs that have to be paid for.
I know Open Source is not equal to Free in the meaning 'gratis'. Free software usually means that the source is public. There are non-free applications in Ubuntu, like Adobe and Skype, which are not Open Source but still free of cost.
Could you name 1 or 2 of those paid, successful applications for Linux?

Here's a nice listing of "Some" commercial software that's available on Linux OS. Several (being conservative) of which are successful.

You tricked me, Phil! I went to sig link looking for the listing.

Oh darn it... I didn't see that the link disappeared.

ok I'll try again.

http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxC … tions.html
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxCommercialApplications.html