Linux Really Isn't Gratis
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| olefowdie Aug 31, 2009 4:13 PM EDT |
I love Linux as much as the next guy, but you cannot keep saying that it is gratis. There are two things that make it non-free as-in-beer. First, there is the amount of money being thrown out the window in the form of software already purchased. Second, is the down time involved in migrating a whole government/business/home business/whatever to Linux. If you are aiming at Jane and John Smith who recently bought a shiny new computer and haven't installed anything extra on the machine, then sure... linux is free, and will save them money when they no longer have to keep upgrading either their computer or their OS (often both), otherwise it most likely comes with a hefty price tag. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2009 4:42 PM EDT |
Of course you can say it is gratis. First, for green field development there is no sunk cost. Second, for other development, sunk cost is exactly that: sunk cost. It generally makes sense to plan for tomorrow with the idea that you expect to around the day after tomorrow as well. If it makes sense to keep what you've got, that's fine. But the fact of gratis for Linux lowers the bar for replacement. |
| dumper4311 Aug 31, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
To your specific arguments: first, you already threw that money out the window; it has nothing to do with Linux, et al. Second, the same exact argument can be made about upgrading from Windows X to Windows Y, or proprietary app X to proprietary app Y for that matter. The difference is that you can either keep paying for the privilege to use your computer, or free yourself from said privilege tax and support open software. The argument is that it's a path to freedom (in a practical sense, not the bigoted sense pushed by the more zealous of the community), not that it's necessarily free of effort or initial expense. Whether it's free in a literal sense depends on your investment of time, suitability to task, if you decide to pay for support, etc. |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2009 4:46 PM EDT |
> ...otherwise it most likely comes with a hefty price tag. No more so than upgrading your version of Windows. Especially if you dual boot or run Windows in a virtual machine. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
My turn! Long-term thinking vs. short-term: migration means a bit more work and expense now and saves megamonies and hassles over the long run, with a fast payback. There is no rule that says you have to discard all that software you paid money for when you get Linux. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2009 4:57 PM EDT |
Oh, and I think Linux users should think in terms of paying for it in some way: help new users, write some docs, donate some artwork, kick in a few bucks, write some code, and so on. The difference is Linux doesn't extort and gouge you. |
| bigg Aug 31, 2009 5:06 PM EDT |
> I think Linux users should think in terms of paying for it in some way Yes - that's how the system should work. I hate the idea that some individuals use Linux only because it doesn't cost anything out of pocket. If you're poor, or working for a charity, or something like that, the low price is great and should be exploited. Linux will never beat Windows by positioning itself as a low-cost alternative. It has to be positioned as a better alternative. It makes me happy to see the price tag on RHEL - I can show that to Windows users as a way of saying Linux is a serious business. I recently had a related experience with compilers. I told someone I was using gfortran. He boasted about his expensive proprietary compiler, that "I don't want to mess around with that free stuff when I'm doing my job". |
| techiem2 Aug 31, 2009 5:32 PM EDT |
LOL@Bigg's person. Tell that to Google/Amazon/etc...... :P |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 31, 2009 5:46 PM EDT |
Hey olefowdie, Get Off My Turf! I am the incumbent MS shill here. Your Buddy Txt. P.S. Ok, MS send more checks. |
| gus3 Aug 31, 2009 7:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:I love Linux as much as the next guy, butWe have names 'round these parts, for people who start their comments like that. TC, you missed this one. You feelin' okay today? |
| softwarejanitor Aug 31, 2009 8:07 PM EDT |
@olefowdie I have no money tied up in proprietary Windows software so I am not losing anything by using Windows. And FWIW, many Windows users never buy anything additional other than what came with their computers. Any additional software they use is often downloaded or copied from somewhere else. They'd probably pirate Windows too if they weren't forced to buy it when they get it "free" with their PCs. In some foreign market they are probably getting it pirated that way too. Even if people have paid for proprietary software they may have to throw it out and buy new again when they upgrade to a newer version of Windows because the old versions may no longer work properly or they may have lost the install media. |
| softwarejanitor Aug 31, 2009 8:12 PM EDT |
@bigg Even if I had to pay to use Linux and I got Windows and all the other software for it I needed for free (which would be hard to duplicate without using the same free software I already enjoy on Linux), I'd use Linux because it really is the better choice. When I am forced to use Windows I personally find it a painful annoyance. If I was forced to choose between just Windows and MacOS, I'd choose MacOS. But FWIW, I've been burned too many times by proprietary software that didn't work right and I couldn't do anything about it. Same sort of problems that led to the start of the "free software" movement. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2009 9:32 PM EDT |
Oh dear gus3, I'm slipping. But the rest of the gang are in fine form. |
| bigg Aug 31, 2009 9:43 PM EDT |
@techiem2: Or even better, AMD, which builds its compiler suite on top of GCC and gives it away, or Sun, which gives away Sun Studio + performance tools. It's hard to argue with the quality of either. @softwarejanitor: That's the story Windows users need to hear. It is a bad idea to sell middle income Americans on Linux as a way to save on OS license costs. You won't get any farther than you can throw Microsoft headquarters with that argument. |
| r_a_trip Sep 01, 2009 4:32 AM EDT |
I love Linux as much as the next guy, but you cannot keep saying that it is gratis. Well, as far as I can see I haven't detected a pricetag on OpenSUSE, Fedora, Blag,Gnewsense, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Sidux, Knoppix, etc. So in that sense it is as gratis as the sunrise. When it comes to owning and maintaining Information Technology... Yes that costs money and time, no matter what OS you use. The myth that it is cheaper by default to maintain a Windows environment instead of migrating to Linux needs to die. No matter how you spin it, Windows and the apps you use need to be upgraded anyways. New version of Windows? If you get on that bus, you probably need to replace your security and system health addons and your optical media program (CD/DVD/BD burner). When a new MS Office is released, you can set your timer. One day or another you'll need to upgrade to be able to open newer documents. All these licensed replacements cost money. Don't forget the occasional hardware purchase, because your old hardware doesn't get new drivers for your new shiny Windows anymore. So let's migrate your home computer to Linux. With some exeptions (Wine/Crossover/Cedega) your Win32 programs don't run directly on Linux. Windows has become superfluous. You might have to replace some hardware as it doesn't have a Linux driver (yet). But you get a modern desktop with an Office suite, graphics editor, optical media program, multimedia player, webrowser and built in resilience to malware. Additional software is a few mouse clicks away from trusted sources. 99.9% of the time without additional costs. But, you don't need to chuck windows when you switch to Linux. You can keep using Windows and programs by dual booting with Linux. Or you can switch Windows and apps to a (free of cost) virtual machine on top of Linux. (Unless MS has some inane stipulations in their EULA that forbid it. Then you need to check if the provision is enforceable.) Plus you can try to run your Win32 apps on Wine (gratis) or Cedega/Crossover (reasonably priced). Options abound. Even if all of the above don't work. It will be a one time cutting of your losses. After that you have a fully featured environment that operates independently from the Redmond industry. In the eight years that Linux has been my main fulltime OS, it has given me considerable peace of mind. I had to spend some cash and some time to get an environment that works smoothly with Linux, but it was well worth it. |
| jdixon Sep 01, 2009 6:55 AM EDT |
> (Unless MS has some inane stipulations in their EULA that forbid it... Windows Vista has such a provision. I don't believe they had thought of it yet with Windows XP, though they may have modified the EULA to add it. In any case, if you're a home user and you can get it activated, you probably don't care. They're not going to be auditing you. |
| Microbiologist Sep 01, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
Everyone's using pirated windows, and so its free, in the sense they dont have to pay microsoft.
A friend's relative recently bowed down nd actually *bought* original windows hoping it would not suffer from viruses. :-P Windows is actually using its weaknesses to sell itself. That's some marketing... |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
What I find most interesting is that in other fora, when there is an argument Linux vs Windows, if I raise the issue of having to pay for Windows, Office and the like, one of the pro-Windows posters will invariably pop up saying that I'm such an idiot. Just get new versions by downloading from warez sites and The Pirate Bay, etc. Only an idiot would pay for Windows, and anyone with brains will know how to avoid the warez sites that put up Windows disk images with viruses and trojans and such. Gee, what an idiot I am. Here I thought Microsoft made money from Windows sales. Personally, I'd much rather use software that the author actually wants me to use. |
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2009 2:13 PM EDT |
Hey, where did our OP go? He/she's missing all the fun! |
| dumper4311 Sep 01, 2009 2:23 PM EDT |
hard to have a tar and feathering party without the victim, er. . . guest. |
| jdixon Sep 01, 2009 3:41 PM EDT |
> Hey, where did our OP go? That seems to be the pattern recently. One post an then gone. I guess we're too intimidating for them. All this harsh language and uncivilized behavior on our part, you know. |
| caitlyn Sep 01, 2009 3:46 PM EDT |
Yeah, we're all horrible people who just won't play nicely with MS shills and astroturfers. We should all just be nice and not challenge the misinformation and outright falsehoods. That's the ticket. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 01, 2009 3:48 PM EDT |
LXer: Eating newbies for breakfast since 2004. </sarcastic> But seriously people, let's try not to scare new members away too fast eh?! |
| bigg Sep 01, 2009 3:49 PM EDT |
From what I've seen, I don't think olefowdie is an astroturfer (if he is, he's much better than justintime). Let's see if I can draw out some astroturfers: Mono is evil. We need to get it out of Linux distros. It is a patent trap. Die Mono die. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 01, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mono is evil. We need to get it out of Linux distros. It is a patent trap. Die Mono die. I've been using F-Spot Photo Manager -- built with Mono -- since it's the default app for that purpose in Ubuntu. Truth be told, digiKam is better suited to my needs (as pretty much the only Linux-native app that at least partially addresses my JPEG holy grail, namely preserving and editing IPTC data), and I might migrate to that even if I don't run the full KDE desktop. I'm also considering Picasa ... |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 01, 2009 4:00 PM EDT |
Re: Linux not being free ... I really wanted to stop playing the steal-this-software game that most Windows users are playing. Nobody wants to pay for those overpriced Windows/Mac apps, and in my case, I'm uncomfortable stealing them and justifying it in my own mind (and in others), so that was a primary motivation for me to move from proprietary to free, open-source software. |
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2009 4:32 PM EDT |
I don't see a single rude or even harsh comment in this whole thread, Sander, and the OP doesn't claim to be a noob. The whole thing is uncharacteristically calm, so you should be praising us! |
| caitlyn Sep 01, 2009 4:34 PM EDT |
I agree with tuxchick. Try the comments section of DistroWatch Weekly if you think this is rude. Of course, so long as Ladislav pays me to write for him I'll be on DistroWatch Weekly regularly, comments and all :) |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 01, 2009 5:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't see a single rude or even harsh comment in this whole thread, Sander It was more a general comment brought on by the disappearance of the OP than something specific to this thread. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 01, 2009 8:02 PM EDT |
OP might have more of a life than the rest of us here ... |
| jdixon Sep 01, 2009 8:18 PM EDT |
> OP might have more of a life than the rest of us here ... What's a life, and can I download a demo? :) |
| gus3 Sep 01, 2009 10:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:What's a life, and can I download a demo?It's a computer simulation, developed by John Horton Conway in 1970. There are implementations to be found all over teh Intarwebs. |
| caitlyn Sep 01, 2009 10:44 PM EDT |
Gee... I thought Life was a cereal Mikey liked. |
| gus3 Sep 01, 2009 10:49 PM EDT |
That, too, was just a simulation. Why do you think they called it a "script"? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!