Talk:List of proprietary software for Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

Wine[edit]

I am not sure about adding titles that run through Wine, but I remember there was a case with one very large proprietary project, which could not be ported to Linux because of its sheer size, so it was adjusted to work fine on Wine...

If anyone really wishes to add a title that works through Wine, please add a note that says so, but I'd like to encourage mention of titles that work natively in Linux and not through a compatibility layer.
-Mardus 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Firefox, binary versus source downloads, plus proprietary plugin issues[edit]

Since when is Firefox proprietary software? 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Some projects have different versions of software. So binary version of Firefox is proprietary software, but it has also free version (sources). The same is for Chrome/Chromium, Virtualbox, QCAD and many others. How we should handle it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llex1234 (talkcontribs) 11:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made changes to the Web Browsers section, to address the current situation with Firefox. Llex1234, are you sure the firefox binaries are proprietary? I was under the impression they were tri-licensed, just like the source-code (and modern flavors of Firefox are MPLv2 which is explicitly GPL-compatible unlike MPLv1.1). Anyways, if somebody who knows the current license-situation for firefox binaries would make updates to the page, that would help. My changes were pretty major: I made mention of 'essential' plugins which are proprietary (with cites although necessarily those are mostly from blogs -- perhaps we can use the number-of-users-per-addon that mozilla.org publishes, to help quantify whether a proprietary addon is 'essential' in a way that avoids using blog-citations? I also tried to explain the various sister-projects and forks, which definitely have an impact on the shades-of-proprietary-ness that any given Linux app may suffer under. Maybe the rationale should be relocated to an introductory section, and then we can link to it from the browsers / multimedia / etc sub-sections when complex apps warrant the explanation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your changes were major, yes. A major mess. What is considered an "essential" plugin or extension is POV. Listing notable proprietary browser extensions separately might be okay, but this is probably not the list to use for that.Don Cuan (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Minitube[edit]

Minitube for Linux is not proprietary. It's GPLv3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.52.6 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Blender[edit]

It used to be proprietary and closed source. When the company was going under they let the community have it open source and it is now a thriving open source product. It was closed source though so should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.108.38 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Linux games[edit]

Many games are ported right now, does the list really worth here? I suggest to remove it and make a page like the "windows games" one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Windows_games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frututtle (talkcontribs) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a list of all software for Linux, only proprietary ones. If anything, it would be moved to "List of proprietary games for Linux." 71.60.164.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Table layout[edit]

I know there's a technical distinction between a "list" and a "table", but I wonder if we shouldn't try to put the information in tables. It would present the information a little better than the current "Application name - Two sentences describing something about it." Most of the issues that are listed next to the name could be presented in a table with less space. A table would also encourage people to actually do some research when adding an application so we don't have to remove VLC for the fifth time. An example of the table would be:

Application Publisher Support status Native binary Source code available
BigName Editor International BloatCorp Current Yes Yes
Fiddlesticks FiddleWare Inc. Current Wine No
Collation LITE EEE Industries Security fixes only Winelib No
YouNameIt WeGotIt LTD Dropped Yes No

inclusivedisjunction (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)