How a cost-free OS can be better than paid OS?

[ovroniil]

When I started to use Ubuntu a month ago, most of my friends (who are Windows/Mac users) were astonished and said me that how can I expected a free of cost OS to be as good as a costly OS like Windows or Mac? Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. So they believe that as they have to pay for Windows/Mac they surely get the better quality. And I still receive this question from my friends or family.

But I don't have any precise or perfect answer of that question. Do anyone have this answer?

[bowens44]

No precise or perfect answer. To each thier own.

Linux does absolutely everything I need or want to do on a personal computer. It's free and it's more stable and easier to use and maintain then any windows version I have ever used.

[Grifulkin]

Tell them you save a lot of money by using the free-of-cost OS and also, by using linux you realize there is alot more to a computer than just Windows or Mac running everything perfectly there is a lot under the hood. And tell the Mac users you can hack there computer in roughly 60 seconds.

[wadesmart]

Then dont respond to them. Its for you to persuade them to change over. They can keep paying for their new computer systems to go with their new OS's and paying LOTS for their software while you go along without hardly a problem working just fine.

I faced similar problems before and the key here is to just not react. Ubuntu has been my work machine for several years without hardly a problem. I do graphics, video, all my programming on it... I love it.

Its the same situation when someone says - I just cant use this. If they are coming from a Mac to PC to Linux then for either, or for that matter going from Linux to a Mac or PC - its a different way of doing things.

My advice - just let them use what they want and you save thousands of dollars and do what you want :D

Wade

[ravi_buz]

Just ask them what they can doin there system that u cant do in ur Ubuntu

[overdrank]

Moved to The Community Cafe

[mcduck]

It's simple. People make it to create as good OS (and programs) as possible instead of making it to produce as much money as possible.

[wojox]

I bet their rich aren't they. Those types usually follow the mentality you get what you pay for.

Have them watch Revolution OS

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409

[lswb]

When I started to use Ubuntu a month ago, most of my friends (who are Windows/Mac users) were astonished and said me that how can I expected a free of cost OS to be as good as a costly OS like Windows or Mac? Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. So they believe that as they have to pay for Windows/Mac they surely get the better quality. And I still receive this question from my friends or family.

But I don't have any precise or perfect answer of that question. Do anyone have this answer?

Why not go into business selling air to those people?

[Viva]

This should answer your question.
http://catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/

FWIW, not all components of ubuntu are free as in beer, but Ubuntu makes use of the freedom of those components to provide free beer, if that makes any sense.

[Tibuda]

Software got an imperfect market. Marginal cost is zero, and there are too much network externalities and product differentiation. Price is not the best quality indicator.

[jerrrys]

there is no one perfect OS, but is is true you get what you pay for, just ask the Vista community...

[dragos240]

Show them a video of compiz.

[CaptainMark]

FWIW, not all components of ubuntu are free as in beer, but Ubuntu makes use of the freedom of those components to provide free beer, if that makes any sense.
am i alone when i say .... no.

[CaptainMark]

youve just made me want a beer, but i dont want to pay for it.

[mrbiggbrain]

Simple,

-Windows has a limited number of developers, linux does not.

- If theres a bug, its fixed quickly by anyone who knows how, under windows you cant even get a copy of sourcecode to know what IS even wrong

-In windows the look and feel is locked down but for a few settings, under linux there are countless window managers.

- In linux everything is documented, every OS catch, every line of code, every driver, everything. this means code can be reused, meaning program development is fast, and easier.

In general how could a paid, locked down, and propriatary os that cant run without a single one of its files, ever be as good as a free one?

[dsavi]

Linux never seemed great to me until I realized that I was doing everything I did on Windows, just for free. Lately that has started surpassing what I can do on Windows. How good of a deal is that?

[NightwishFan]

If you would take a look at how free software works you would see why it can be better. It does not always work for everyone, especially gamers.

[cariboo907]

You could always point your friends to this whitepaper (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)

[Swagman]

Just tell them that you like Linux because you like collecting Windows Viruses and Trojans without being infected.

Then say

"I thought you might be interested too as we like the same sort of stuff so I've sent some to you."
:wink:

[sydbat]

youve just made me want a beer, but i dont want to pay for it.I see we share a similar Scottish / Irish background...

[dmizer]

Just as the word "cost" is more than monitary, payment (in the open source community) can also be more than monitary.

Personally, I'm paying for my Ubuntu OS by heavily contributing to the Ubuntuforums community. Other people pay by contributing code. Others by testing. Of course, some people do indeed contribute monitarily, but it's not a requirement because so many people are doing so many different things.

Open source can be free of cost because the community can freely contribute.

[twright]

I bet their rich aren't they. Those types usually follow the mentality you get what you pay for.

Quite often it is the other way round - in my experience those without money for software often pride themselves on the cost of that which they have pirated.

[SoftwareExplorer]

I always look at it like a person who does (for example) woodworking as a hobby. They usually put more work into whatever piece of furniture they are working on because they aren't bored, (they are doing this for fun after all), and they don't have any deadlines to meet. When it's a hobby, quality is what is focused on, not quantity. Not only that, such a person would often give the finished product away. Compare this to the digital world on one thing changes: the end product can go to more than one person without increasing the hobbist's cost.

[JillSwift]

Wierd.

Do they shop around for the highest price on a given product?

Or do they do that which all of nature does: Seek the greatest access to resources while expending the least.

Judge a product's value to you first, then concern yourself with the price. Otherwise you end up getting ripped off. (Just ask anyone who buys from infomercials. ;) )

[ssam]

The origin of free/opensource software was by programmers who were frustrated that they could not fix the bugs in closed source software. their idea was that if any user could fix any bugs they found the software would improve faster.

back then everyone who used a computer was able to program, but there are still plenty of programmers using software.

[Bölvaður]

I feel like there is a missing corner piece in the puzzle is missing... oh found it...

Linux has been paid for, but don't by individual users. It is being paid for by large corporations and smaller businesses which is too complex to go into how works

In the end, some one else is paying for you.

[HermanAB]

Style, is the ability to recognize quality, without looking at the price tag.

[MikeTheC]

@ OP:

Linux would not be the great OS and software platform it is but for two specific things:

1. The agenda of the community which produces it;
2. The massively-peer-reviewed nature of Linux and F/OSS in general.

If you're in college, then surely one of the things they must be teaching or at least trying to emphasize the importance of is peer-review. Peer-reviewed experiments, journals, science, research, and on and on are the backbone of the advancement of knowledge. Why anyone would want to draw a line of demarcation around software -- of all things -- and claim they alone stand exempt from this basic principle, I have no idea.

[SuperSonic4]

Think of buy one get one free offers:

Is the free version you have any less good than the one you paid for?

(note this example was used because of staring at some free monster munch *licks lips*

[deadbeatdrum]

Then dont respond to them. Its for you to persuade them to change over. They can keep paying for their new computer systems to go with their new OS's and paying LOTS for their software while you go along without hardly a problem working just fine.

I faced similar problems before and the key here is to just not react. Ubuntu has been my work machine for several years without hardly a problem. I do graphics, video, all my programming on it... I love it.

Its the same situation when someone says - I just cant use this. If they are coming from a Mac to PC to Linux then for either, or for that matter going from Linux to a Mac or PC - its a different way of doing things.

My advice - just let them use what they want and you save thousands of dollars and do what you want :D

Wade

+1

I simply do not have the same amount of problems with my machines that run Linux (currently Ubuntu, Fedora and PCLinuxOS Gnome) as the majority of my Windows using acquaintances.

And I'm the cheapskate? :)

[running_rabbit07]

When I started to use Ubuntu a month ago, most of my friends (who are Windows/Mac users) were astonished and said me that how can I expected a free of cost OS to be as good as a costly OS like Windows or Mac? Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. So they believe that as they have to pay for Windows/Mac they surely get the better quality. And I still receive this question from my friends or family.

But I don't have any precise or perfect answer of that question. Do anyone have this answer?

Just let them know that some of the Developers that build Linux may or may not have worked for MS or MAC at one time or another. You can bring up that with most computer related trades there are more professionals than there are job slots, thus meaning some of these guys/gals developing our wonderful OS may actually be better qualified than the ones working for MS. They may just prefer working for a company that they know isn't out to be super rich like the guy we know that lives in a 10,000+sq ft fully automated house.

[gn2]

~ everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. ~

Not always.
If a famous artists paints a picture and gives it to his mother as a present, is it necessarily any lower quality than one of his works that a collector paid £1,000,000 for?

Higher cost is no guarantee of quality.

[aysiu]

There was a time, not too long ago, when Opera used to charge for its browser, and if you used the free version, you would have to put up with a huge banner ad at the top of your browser. Not surprisingly, Firefox (which is cost-free) became a lot more popular than Opera as an alternative to Internet Explorer (which is also cost-free as long as you have Windows).

Do these folks asking you the question have a problem using Firefox? Why not?

Volunteer efforts can certainly go pretty far (look at Wikipedia), but a lot of the free stuff in Linux is corporately funded (by Red Hat, Sun, Novell, etc.). Even Ubuntu is funded by Mark Shuttleworth until it is profitable.

The operating system itself will always be free, but Shuttleworth is hoping that he can money off of it eventually through support contracts with businesses using Ubuntu (for workstations and/or servers) or through Ubuntu One subscriptions (beyond the 2 GB of free storage).

For more information, read How does open source make money? (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/how-does-open-source-make-money/)

[Maheriano]

Easy. It has nothing to do with price, it's the time and effort put into it. Usually when someone produces something, they do so for profit and therefore the amount of money they're selling it for it directly correlated to the amount of time/effort they put into it.

The difference with Ubuntu is that it wasn't produced for profit, it was produced for use by the same people that created it. It's like if I build my own custom security system in my house, it's going to be way better than anything I can buy from a store because I'm doing it for my own use and putting a lot of time/effort into it. If I were to build a security system to sell to the masses it would probably suck because I wouldn't want to waste my time with no guaranteed return on investment.

Another example, look at the pyramids and viking settlements. Still standing after hundreds/thousands of years. They were free. But there was a lot of time/effort put into them because if you slacked off you got whipped or killed.

[Blacklightbulb]

How a cost-free OS can be better than paid OS?

Simple, a commercial OS is designed for the maximum profit while an cost-free OS is designed to best reach it's target performance, reliability and efficiency.

Learn a bit about marketing.

[RiceMonster]

Simple, a commercial OS is designed for the maximum profit while an cost-free OS is designed to best reach it's target performance, reliability and efficiency.

Learn a bit about marketing.

But isn't making an OS reliable and efficient part of making money?

[SuperSonic4]

But isn't making an OS reliable and efficient part of making money?

No, it just helps.

Using illegal business practices to keep your competitors down is much more important

[deadbeatdrum]

Simple, a commercial OS is designed for the maximum profit while an cost-free OS is designed to best reach it's target performance, reliability and efficiency.

Learn a bit about marketing.

I say this all the time about Microsoft and Windows, it's quality is not relative to it's price tag.

You will probably get a +1 for this insightful remark, yet if I make the same observation I am obviously prejudiced and misguided.

[Blacklightbulb]

But isn't making an OS reliable and efficient part of making money?

No. If all costumers were knowledgeable enough to understand the functioning behind an OS then yes, but..

Microsoft windows kernel is old as hell. They need a new start to build a system to meet todays expectations but instead they continue to patch there and there and mask there old system. I can't explain it any better. They are similar to a used auto-dealer respraying used cars and selling them a double their price.

[RiceMonster]

No. If all costumers were knowledgeable enough to understand the functioning behind an OS then yes, but..

Microsoft windows kernel is old as hell. They need a new start to build a system to meet todays expectations but instead they continue to patch there and there and mask there old system. I can't explain it any better. They are similar to a used auto-dealer respraying used cars and selling them a double their price.

People know when their computer crashes, and they know when it runs slowly. Obviosuly they're not going to be concerned that it's using >500 MB of ram on idle or something, but that's not the point. I don't think Microsoft and Apple don't try to make their operating systems stable. Whether they're less stable than Linux is irrelevant and another discussion.

[Blacklightbulb]

People know when their computer crashes, and they know when it runs slowly. Obviosuly they're not going to be concerned that it's using >500 MB of ram on idle or something, but that's not the point. I don't think Microsoft and Apple don't try to make their operating systems stable. Whether they're less stable than Linux is irrelevant and another discussion.

Point is tough, that's a second priority. First priority for them is profit. So obviously there development is hindered.

EDIT: Look at companies like INTEL or AMD. Since these two are in an endless war on who has it the best, their profit is directly proportional to their development. Unlikely Microsoft Windows doesn't have a real enemy IN THE MARKET so they don't care that much.

[TheNessus]

Point is tough, that's a second priority. First priority for them is profit. So obviously there development is hindered.

EDIT: Look at companies like INTEL or AMD. Since these two are in an endless war on who has it the best, their profit is directly proportional to their development. Unlikely Microsoft Windows doesn't have a real enemy IN THE MARKET so they don't care that much.


If Apple would sell OS-X and others, without having to bundle it with a Mac, it could prove to be a worthy opponent in the OS market.

[Blacklightbulb]

If Apple would sell OS-X and others, without having to bundle it with a Mac, it could prove to be a worthy opponent in the OS market.

I don't know much on OS-X but isn't it already a possibility to install it on a windows pc?

[TheNessus]

I don't know much on OS-X but isn't it already a possibility to install it on a windows pc?

It's possible to install OS-X on newer Intel PC's, yes. But Apple don't SELL it for that purpose. You can hack it, sure.

[lethalfang]

Just because you aren't paying for Linux, doesn't mean someone isn't putting a ton of money into developing it. Red Hat, for instance, is a very profitable company who's been making money off Linux for ages.
They put lots of money into developing Linux and then release the code. They make profits by selling support. In return, they also get for free improvements from the entire open-source community, including other Linux vendors.
It's a win-win situation.

[Blacklightbulb]

It's possible to install OS-X on newer Intel PC's, yes. But Apple don't SELL it for that purpose. You can hack it, sure.

That shows that it goes to their disadvantage to release it as an OS alone. You see number one is always profit.

Still OS-X on windows pc wouldn't' perform better than Windows on windows pc. And basically Windows is by far the greatest market share holder.

Windows 93.04
Mac 4.86
Linux 1.05
SunOS 0.01
Other 1.04

If someone really want to compete with Windows, they must build a windows clone gui above a Linux kernel and commercialize it (instead of accepting the amount from Billy to kill the project).

[SunnyRabbiera]

No. If all costumers were knowledgeable enough to understand the functioning behind an OS then yes, but..

Microsoft windows kernel is old as hell. They need a new start to build a system to meet todays expectations but instead they continue to patch there and there and mask there old system. I can't explain it any better. They are similar to a used auto-dealer respraying used cars and selling them a double their price.

Actually the NT kernel, the one Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 uses is quite new and is the same age as Linux, they both came at the same time.
The problem with windows is not the kernel, NT is actually a very good kernel compared to DOS.
No the issue is the company.


If someone really want to compete with Windows, they must build a windows clone gui above a Linux kernel and commercialize it (instead of accepting the amount from Billy to kill the project).

Now this is bull, I feel the linux GUI's are just as easy to use and operate as windows.

[TheNessus]

If someone really want to compete with Windows, they must build a windows clone gui above a Linux kernel and commercialize it (instead of accepting the amount from Billy to kill the project).

And also have DirectX support. Otherwise there's no point

[SunnyRabbiera]

And also have DirectX support. Otherwise there's no point

DirectX is windows only so obviously its a factor of why Windows is in its position, but OpenGL is becoming a force too.

[Blacklightbulb]

Actually the NT kernel, the one Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 uses is quite new and is the same age as Linux, they both came at the same time.
The problem with windows is not the kernel, NT is actually a very good kernel compared to DOS.
No the issue is the company.

I know I was just trying to explain my point. Still NT isn't as good as Linux Kernel. That's why I think they could make some improvements.


Now this is bull, I feel the linux GUI's are just as easy to use and operate as windows.

But marketing doesn't work the way it's best but the way the costumer thinks it's best and easy and the 'average joe' would be confused if the desktop background isn't windows XP (yep the majority would!) and if the start button is GONE. "Who stole my Start BUTTON!":lolflag:
People don't want to learn. People don't want to adept. People want to use want they used since day 1.

[SunnyRabbiera]

But marketing doesn't work the way it's best but the way the costumer thinks it's best and easy and the 'average joe' would be confused if the desktop background isn't windows XP (yep the majority would!) and if the start button is GONE. "Who stole my Start BUTTON!":lolflag:
People don't want to learn. People don't want to adept. People want to use want they used since day 1.

Well I personally never had an issue with the system layout in either Gnome or KDE, both can be very easy to get used to.
The lack of a "start button" and a "big blue E" can be a little rough at first but the advantage is with Linux is the live CD so you can get used to the OS before even installing it.

[Blacklightbulb]

Well I personally never had an issue with the system layout in either Gnome or KDE, both can be very easy to get used to.
The lack of a "start button" and a "big blue E" can be a little rough at first but the advantage is with Linux is the live CD so you can get used to the OS before even installing it.

I can't immagine you being the "average Joe" lol.
I know it easy, but for those who have already work in Windows for decades it's a big step.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I can't immagine you being the "average Joe" lol.
I know it easy, but for those who have already work in Windows for decades it's a big step.

Actually I still consider myself a "Joe" user, I know a lot more now then when I first used a computer but I am still a "Joe" user.

[Warpnow]

Microsoft's offices are huge. But imagine what it would take to house every contributor to Ubuntu in an office from 9-5. The scale of Linux makes it virtually impossible to profit in the normal way.

Simply put, building an operating system this good would simply cost too much money to be able to survive in the private sector. :-p

Not sure if that's true, but it does sound good, doesn't it?

[deadbeatdrum]

How a cost-free OS can be better than paid OS?

Ask yourself this question, but think for a second before you do. Then ask another more relevant question. How much are the purveyors of this paid for OS willing to spend in time and resources to discredit the cost-free OS, by all means at their disposal? Legal or otherwise?

If Linux had only 1% of the desktop, and they felt no threat, why do Microsoft divert such considerable resources into trying to close down Linux?

I, sort of, asked this question of my WIndows compadres. They all shrugged their shoulder and unanimously proclaimed Microsoft must have their reasons. I am sure they do.

[lethalfang]

Microsoft fears Linux because it cannot get rid of Linux. They can kill a company, but they cannot kill Linux. Steve Ballmer was right when he lashed out, "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
Slowly and gradually, Microsoft is dying a painful death at the hands of open-source software communities. The question of this century in the computing world is that, 'when will Microsoft decide that the only way it will survive is to open-source the code of Windows in order to continue to survive."
Microsoft is a giant and changes are slow to come by, but a number of smaller companies have already found out that open-sourcing their software is the only way to survive, e.g., Mozilla.
Microsoft, as big as they are, is under siege from open-source community worse than most people realize. Encarta has already been destroyed. IE is being attacked from all fronts. Their two primary products still remain: Office and Windows, but open-source competitors have already gained a foothold in those two areas as well.
And as I have said, once open-source software gains a foothold, it will not go away. Microsoft has no hope of killing Open Office and Linux, or whatever future derivatives that will come from those.
Have you seen a long-time Windows user switch to Linux?
Have you seen a long-time Linux user switch to Windows?
Once open-source softwares in OS and Office reach a critical mass, Microsoft's proprietary model is over.

[scorp123]

Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. "Cheap" goods ... maybe, yes. But we are talking about _FREE_ which is not the same as "cheap".

So they believe that as they have to pay for Windows/Mac they surely get the better quality. A Windows programmer works for money. Does he care that you have viruses or security holes? Nope, he doesn't. He will only care if someone is going to pay the extra-hours he needs to fix those problems, other than that he doesn't care. Compare that to Linux programmers who do their stuff because they are _PASSIONATE_ about them. Most of them don't get paid for their stuff. It's not a boss or a manager that drives them to program stuff until early in the morning each night. It's their desire to program "good code", their passionate feelings about their projects.

Guess which one has the better quality in my opinion? :D

Or why do you think I am here? Search for my threads here. You will find only one where I posted instructions on how to get the Samsung SGH-G800 mobile phone working with Linux. Other than that I spend my time helping people. And nope, I don't get paid. I do obviously do it for free. Because I like Linux and I have a desire to help people.

But on the job my help costs a fortune. My employer charges customers a fortune for the professional support and consulting services that people like me provide to our paying customers.

So the one support job is the one I really love doing, and the other is the one that fills my pockets at the end of the month. :D

I guess it's the same with Linux developers. They probably have "normal jobs" somewhere somehow that gets the food on the table. But their real passion lies in making Linux advance.

[s.vladimir]

Ubuntu is contributed to by lots of people worldwide, almost each one with expertise. These are artists, programmers, etc. These people put their time and effort in to making the operating system good for others to use.

They do this <mostly> without pay. Therefore, people that are in the ubuntu community do this because they think that their skills would apply nicely to the community.

All the Windows developers that develop for money don't do it for the good of the community. Just the food on the table
Linux developers have other jobs, and they develop the wares >>>not for money<<<.

Thousands of people can develop programs, <easily>, but using propietary software, i.e windows, it is hard to program and give because it is expensive, most of the time.

I know this didnt really help. sorry

--
Vladimir. [[[socialist]]]

[starcannon]

When I started to use Ubuntu a month ago, most of my friends (who are Windows/Mac users) were astonished and said me that how can I expected a free of cost OS to be as good as a costly OS like Windows or Mac? Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality. So they believe that as they have to pay for Windows/Mac they surely get the better quality. And I still receive this question from my friends or family.

But I don't have any precise or perfect answer of that question. Do anyone have this answer?

Linux is not "cheap"; indeed a lot of money has been poured into it over the years (how much I wonder). We the users just happen to be happy recipients of very generous benefactors. I wonder, if one wins 10 million dollars from a $1 lottery ticket, does this make the prize any less valuable?

[lethalfang]

Linux is not "cheap"; indeed a lot of money has been poured into it over the years (how much I wonder). We the users just happen to be happy recipients of very generous benefactors. I wonder, if one wins 10 million dollars from a $1 lottery ticket, does this make the prize any less valuable?

This point cannot be understated. Some people talk as if Linux is entirely built by armies of unpaid volunteers. That notion is incorrect. It might have started as such, but today Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Many profitable companies such as Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, and now Google, have paid programmers to develop and improve this operating system based on Linux. Due to its open-source nature, each Linux company and the open-source communities have all benefited from each other.
While Microsoft might have spent more money developing their OS than each of the above mentioned company, the combined resources poured into Linux (some paid by well funded corporations while others are on voluntary basis) is another story.

[scorp123]

I know this didnt really help. I disagree :D I think what you said was useful. :D

[Swagman]

Microsoft has no hope of killing Open Office and Linux, or whatever future derivatives that will come from those.


If Microsoft loses the patent case it will probably buy i4i then it's a very real possibility Open Office will die.

This is a standard Microsoft tactic.

[scorp123]

it's a very real possibility Open Office will die. StarOffice maybe yes, because that one is a commercial package sold for money by SUN Microsystems .... But OpenOffice? Highly unlikely. You can't kill something when the code is open. Even if they shutdown the OpenOffice.org web sites then the development would simply move into the underground, or into Usenet newsgroups (like it was in the early days of Linux!!).

You can't kill what you can't catch.

[bryncoles]

StarOffice maybe yes, because that one is a commercial package sold for money by SUN Microsystems .... But OpenOffice? Highly unlikely. You can't kill something when the code is open. Even if they shutdown the OpenOffice.org web sites then the development would simply move into the underground, or into Usenet newsgroups (like it was in the early days of Linux!!).

You can't kill what you can't catch.

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

... or am I thinking of something else?

[Swagman]

Being Free of charge doesn't negate the legality.

Any commercial organisation will not touch OO.o with a barge pole if it's deemed illegal. (XML)

And if MS buys i4i they sure as heck wont licence XML to OO.o

[zakany]

...how can I expected a free of cost OS to be as good as a costly OS like Windows or Mac?

As others have said, Linux is not free of cost. It cost many people many hours of time, if nothing else, to produce and maintain. The marginal distribution cost is nil.

It costs nobody nuttin' for you to DL and install Linux (essentially), so there's no need to recoup the cost of providing it to you.

Your expectations are based on perception: what others say about Linux, your experience using Linux, etc. You expect it to be and behave a certain way.

Whether on OS is as "good" as another is highly subjective. It is a personal assessment.

[mamamia88]

it just is totally blew me away wasn't expecting much first time i tried it to be honest for same reasons your friends state. you know what they say the best things in life are free

[scorp123]

Being Free of charge doesn't negate the legality. And so? Look at viruses. They are illegal. And so? Poeple still write them, use them against whatever targets they wish, and so on.

Any commercial organisation will not touch OO.o with a barge pole if it's deemed illegal. (XML) And? Like everything in life only matters if commercial organisations touch it??? People like me would still use OpenOffice, no matter what the broken US patent system says about that.

And if MS buys i4i they sure as heck wont licence XML to OO.o In case you have not noticed: The world is far bigger than just the US of A. :lolflag:

MS can buy any patent they want ... I don't give one smelly kilobyte about it. OpenOffice's development would simply move into the underground or to places / countries / territories where software patents are invalid. Voila, done. :)

[Methuselah]

Firefox is free.
Google search is free.
Life is free; nobody paid a dime to exist.

The best things are free.

[scorp123]

you know what they say the best things in life are free Operating Systems are like sex ... it's best when it's free. -- Linus Torvalds.

Let's face the obvious. There is a lot of truth in there. By the same logic a paid-for Operating System is like paid-for sex: You get what you pay for. But just that. And it's over when it's over.

Now guess which one will give you viruses and might make you very sick over time and which other one will give you more joys in life, emotional fulfillment, happyness, and _really_ make you feel good .... :D

You see. Same thing with operating systems. :D

[sydbat]

If Microsoft loses the patent case it will probably buy i4i then it's a very real possibility Open Office will die.

This is a standard Microsoft tactic.That's assuming i4i would even consider selling to Microsoft. There are companies out there that have successfully fought the urge to sell out...

<snip>

In case you have not noticed: The world is far bigger than just the US of A. :lolflag:

MS can buy any patent they want ... I don't give one smelly kilobyte about it. OpenOffice's development would simply move into the underground or to places / countries / territories where software patents are invalid. Voila, done. :)Exactly.

[swoll1980]

Now guess which one will give you viruses and might make you very sick over time and which other one will give you more joys in life, emotional fulfillment, happyness, and _really_ make you feel good .... :D

You see. Same thing with operating systems. :D

That was great!

[keithg59]

My shiny new laptop running Vista shows 38% memory usage when first started up and very quickly exceeds 50% resulting in slow running and a subsequent reboot.

Just installed 64 bit Ubuntu Linux and what a difference: 6% memory usage at start up and no need for constant reboots or for it to wait and think what its going to do next.

OK, so its taken a bit more effort to install java, flash etc, but so far, its working just fine.

[credobyte]

lol @ those who'll never understand what open source means. Btw, how old are your friends ?

[Tamalin]

A cost free OS means that everyone has access to it. It also gives users a chance to put their input into the OS by volunteering to help, which is one of the best features of Open Source. When I look at Ubuntu, then at Vista, I see Ubuntu as a neat, tidy, and well built OS, but I see Vista as basically an unsturdy heap of random useless items put behind a fancy glass panel. This is because the people who build the Ubuntu will probably actually use it themselves, which is a great motivator for them to put some quality into it.

[running_rabbit07]

lol @ those who'll never understand what open source means. Btw, how old are your friends ?

Funny, I have a distant relative that argued with me for a half hour on how to pronounce Linux, because she has a Master's degree and English was her minor.

Then she went on to say how she could easily make her Windows out do anything Linux ever could do. I asked her how much she would be paying her programmer to make that attempt.

This is the same woman that goes out of her way to recycle glass and paper to save the world's resources, yet has no kids and drives a big *** Lincoln Navigator around.

[sydbat]

Funny, I have a distant relative that argued with me for a half hour on how to pronounce Linux, because she has a Master's degree and English was her minor.

Then she went on to say how she could easily make her Windows out do anything Linux ever could do. I asked her how much she would be paying her programmer to make that attempt.

This is the same woman that goes out of her way to recycle glass and paper to save the world's resources, yet has no kids and drives a big *** Lincoln Navigator around.We ALL know people like this...

[NightwishFan]

A cost free OS means that everyone has access to it. It also gives users a chance to put their input into the OS by volunteering to help, which is one of the best features of Open Source. When I look at Ubuntu, then at Vista, I see Ubuntu as a neat, tidy, and well built OS, but I see Vista as basically an unsturdy heap of random useless items put behind a fancy glass panel. This is because the people who build the Ubuntu will probably actually use it themselves, which is a great motivator for them to put some quality into it.

I like this post. I feel similar. I want to help Ubuntu because I actually can help, no matter what my skill set is. Also what I do to help can directly benefit myself and others.

[Chronon]

A cost free OS means that everyone has access to it. It also gives users a chance to put their input into the OS by volunteering to help, which is one of the best features of Open Source. When I look at Ubuntu, then at Vista, I see Ubuntu as a neat, tidy, and well built OS, but I see Vista as basically an unsturdy heap of random useless items put behind a fancy glass panel. This is because the people who build the Ubuntu will probably actually use it themselves, which is a great motivator for them to put some quality into it.

You seem to have mixed up gratis with libre. Cost-free does mean that everyone has access to it. It doesn't mean that you get to contribute to it or change it in any way. Freeware qualifies under this heading. If, in addition, it is libre, then it is free in the way that free software proponents care about. Then, you have the right and means to make changes and contribute.

[markbuntu]

I like linux for many reasons. One of them is that it does not involve the giving of money to mean money grubbers.

[cascade9]

How can a free OS be better than paid?

If you just look at windows world, its funny how much free stuff is 'the best'.

foobar + VLC (or probably 10+ other media players) is much nicer than WMP/iTunes.
EAC (and a few other rippers) much better than WMP/iTunes.
Firefox, Opera- much nicer than IE.
uTorrent (not that MS makes a torrent client, but if they did I bet it would have 60%+ market share)
Open Office/Abiword are nicer than Word.
etc etc.

MS gives people what they think is needed, not what they want. They also like to use the leverage of market position to try to push thier own solutions, that may or may not be better than the free or open solutions around. (as an aside, I'm convinced that iTunes and WMP dont support flac because MS is pushing WMA lossless and iTunes is pushing m4a ALAC apple lossless audio codec)

FOSS, if you've got the skills, you can build it yourself. If you dont have the skills, you might be able to beg/hassle/bribe the devs into making what you want. Try that with a windows app! Its is any suprise that a FOSS OS is better than 'heres what your getting, put up and shut up'?

[t0p]

FWIW, not all components of ubuntu are free as in beer, but Ubuntu makes use of the freedom of those components to provide free beer, if that makes any sense.

Umm, I think you got that backward. All components of ubuntu are free as in free beer. How else could we all run it for zero cost? Not all components of ubuntu are free as in free speech though. flash, unrar, etc.

[t0p]

How can a free OS be better than paid?

If you just look at windows world, its funny how much free stuff is 'the best'.

[...]

Firefox, Opera- much nicer than IE.


To be fair, IE is just as free as Opera. Doesn't cost a bean. But very unfree for all that.

(Anyone who thinks Opera is FOSS... it ain't. Check out that EULA you gotta accept before you can use the thing.)

[cascade9]

LOL, about 1/2 of what I posted isn't FOSS. To be exact- EAC, foobar, opera, utorrent. All free, none open source.

IE might be 'free' but its also not. Yeah, you can get IE for nothing, but from the MS site- "Internet Explorer 8 is available only on PCs running Windows" Free, when you buy an OS.

[Viva]

Umm, I think you got that backward. All components of ubuntu are free as in free beer. How else could we all run it for zero cost? Not all components of ubuntu are free as in free speech though. flash, unrar, etc.

What I was trying to say is not all components are meant to be free as in beer when their original authors/companies wrote them. Many of them are free as in free speech, so canonical are allowed to provide them at zero cost.

[sydbat]

LOL, about 1/2 of what I posted isn't FOSS. To be exact- EAC, foobar, opera, utorrent. All free, none open source.

IE might be 'free' but its also not. Yeah, you can get IE for nothing, but from the MS site- "Internet Explorer 8 is available only on PCs running Windows" Free, when you buy an OS.Well...you don't buy their OS, you kinda sorta rent it for awhile until they decide otherwise...

[RiceMonster]

Open Office/Abiword are nicer than Word.

I don't agree.

LOL, about 1/2 of what I posted isn't FOSS. To be exact- EAC, foobar, opera, utorrent. All free, none open source.

Regardless though, foobar is still miles ahead of almost all media players, especially WMP and iTunes.

[juancarlospaco]

Some corporations pay for Ubuntu too, optionally.
:)

[scorp123]

Some corporations pay for Ubuntu too, optionally.
:) For support yes, but not for the OS itself.

[cascade9]

True sydbat, you dont buy it, you just rent it for a while.

RiceMonster- aww, you dont like OO or Abiword? Older office is OK IMO, but that new mess is..er...a mess. Seeing how you like foobar I wont make an issue out of it :P I just wish they would port foobar to linux (yeah, I know thats not going to happen, but I'm allowed to dream, right?)

[Chame_Wizard]

Everybody is part of it.:lolflag:

[emrys]

Open Office/Abiword are nicer than Word.


Maybe nicer, but definitely not compatible...

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/20877/

[ovroniil]

Caution: This question may be a silly one but for a novice like me this is quite a thoughtful one. :D


How they make available any linux distro cost free? There must be some cost for running an office, hiring programmers, advertising the product (I am not sure about this point for linux) etc. Apple or Microsoft charges money for their OSs because they invest money for creating and developing it and they are making profit from it. In case of linux if we omit the scenario of profit, how come they run their business without charging their product? :-k


Lets say about Ubuntu, they have to maintain their office, hire programmers, spend time and money to improve the OS, not only that they are shipping Ubuntu CDs too! These task should cost money but they are not getting it from the users. So how they sustain? Same question goes for Linux kernal, which is free for all. How do they make profit out of this?? As they are not charging anyone isn't there any threat of collapsing these distros or Linux itself due to lack of enough money? :frown:

[speedwell68]

Canonical might not charge for Ubuntu, but they do charge for support packages and Ubuntu merchandise.

[TobiDN]

The linux kernel was started as a hobbyist project :-)
A great amount of the work is volunteer work, or work sponsored by donations.
And as said above, canoncial (and some other open-source projects) make money by
selling support.

[ovroniil]

Canonical might not charge for Ubuntu, but they do charge for support packages and Ubuntu merchandise.

I am getting the security updates and other updates for my Ubuntu when they release. But I am not paying anything! Are not they giving me the free support by keeping me up-to-date?

[howefield]

But I am not paying anything! Are not they giving me the free support by keeping me up-to-date?

Yes, but you can buy a support package, should you want to.

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/services

[K.Y.A]

Keep in mind, some Linux distros do cost Money...

i.e, Red hat and Xandros.

[swoll1980]

Linux is like PBS. The Following operating system is brought to you by; Novel, IBM, the letter C, and people like you.

[ovroniil]

Only by selling support they are making the profits? I guess the profit is not that much? I doubt whether they make any profit actually?

[Whiffle]

Only by selling support they are making the profits? I guess the profit is not that much? I doubt whether they make any profit actually?

Red Hat is a Fortune 500 company, and they make their profit by doing exactly this (selling support). They also contribute quite a bit to the development of Linux.

Canonical is attempting to do the same thing, essentially. I don't know if they've turned a profit yet, but I think they have a good chance.

[oldsoundguy]

Lots of money is made on Enterprise (business) versions of Linux. AND commercial server editions.

PLUS there is the "custom built" versions of Linux for places like Lowe's (they use a custom version of Red Hat)

That type of Linux software accounts for over 20% of the world market overall. A very sizable piece of change.

And .. define support! .. updates are NOT what is considered support. Even for Windows. That is program support, not customer support.
That is NOT what you are paying for when you buy a retail version of a program or OS .. you are paying for a live body to answer the phone and answer your question. (if you can understand them)
(in the case of Windows, IF you did not buy the retail version of the OS, the charge is $39 bucks per call (us)). (and the usual response is "F Disk and format and re-install."
They now are offering a 3 year "phone support" add on to those who bought OEM software .. ONLY $300+ for the "service".

[dragos240]

Well..... there are distros that cost money. Like red hat linux....

[Lacrimo]

Who said Ubuntu was in this for the money? Go lookup a definition of Ubuntu.

[Ichtyandr]

In fact nothing is free, as there is no "free lunch". So someone is already paying for this. And it has been mentioned that Canonical does not cover its costs for developing Ubuntu yet. So the question is whether the Ubuntu project contradicts market economy?
One could think of it as of a forward looking project, eventually providing a viable alternative to monopoly that can open the way to many business developments. Also it could be an incubator to develop and test a new generation innovative OS or other concepts, perhaps selling it out later, or providing paid services on its basis (such as eg Ubuntu One). But the most worthy effort I think is to do away with the monopoly, for which it is actually us the consumers that pay at the end of the day anyway.

[markg48]

dell probably gives them some funds for future dev on the os coz you can buy pc with ubuntu on them for every pc they sell they prob get a small percent of that price

[fouserge]

On the topic of why the Linux Kernel being free; read Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary by Linus Torvalds. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0066620732/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0066620724&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1BTF0FD3RCVFFF5VDBBW)

[dlmarti]

How they make any available any linux distro cost free?

How does Verizon get away with selling $500 phones for $75?
How does Microsoft get away with selling $900 Xbox's for $200?
How do RFID companies get away with giving you RFID readers for the cost of the install?

You sell ancillary goods and services thats how.
You sell training classes, you sell support contracts, you sell installation services, you sell hardware, etc, etc.

My company solely sells Linux based products, most of which is all custom code. You want the code? sure its free here. You want the hardware? nope that costs.

[lethalfang]

Red Hat is a Fortune 500 company, and they make their profit by doing exactly this (selling support). They also contribute quite a bit to the development of Linux.

Canonical is attempting to do the same thing, essentially. I don't know if they've turned a profit yet, but I think they have a good chance.

I think Canonical may also try to make money by selling support and certifications to PC sellers like Dell, i.e., desktop market largely void of any linux presence.

[lethalfang]

Well..... there are distros that cost money. Like red hat linux....

Yes, but the source code is still free, which means you can get the identical copies of Red Hat Linux (minus the branding) for free with CentOS.

[Nevon]

Keep in mind that a lot of companies use Linux for their products. For example the TiVo. As these companies rely on Linux to perform well, it is in their best interest to invest money in developing it further.

[lethalfang]

Who said Ubuntu was in this for the money? Go lookup a definition of Ubuntu.

Canonical does not exactly identify themselves as a non-profit organization. There is nothing wrong with making profit, as long as it does not hurt people in the process and is done in a legal manner.

[Frak]

Who said Ubuntu was in this for the money? Go lookup a definition of Ubuntu.
Canonical is a company, therefore they are automatically in it for the money.

As for making money, RedHat, SUSE/Novell, and Canonical got a chunk of change from me for certifications.

[known]

Users do not run OS.
They run Applications.

Hence it is prudent to compare Usability, Performance, Functionality and Cost of GNOME/KDE/FOSS Applications with Microsoft Applications.

[ovroniil]

Does Canonical makes money like Apple or MS? But I think it is enough for them to maintain themselves.

Linus Torvalds is developing and distributing kernel for free to others. Companies like Redhat are making money out of it. How does Linus Torvalds make his money. Did he get any share of revenue from these companies? Or those companies invest money for developing linux??
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds)

[ovroniil]

Users do not run OS.
They run Applications.

Hence it is prudent to compare Usability, Performance, Functionality and Cost of GNOME/KDE/FOSS Applications with Microsoft Applications.

Well in that case, maximum applications are also free of cost in Linux world. :)

[dmizer]

Does Canonical makes money like Apple or MS?
No.
Linus Torvalds is developing and distributing kernel for free to others. Companies like Redhat are making money out of it. How does Linus Torvalds make his money. Did he get any share of revenue from these companies? Or those companies invest money for developing linux??
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds)

Many people make gobs of money even though they sell no product. Many people sell services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)), much like a consulting firm, a laundry mat, or your automotive mechanic.

Linux is a free product, but related services are not free.

[fouserge]

I'm not sure how up to date this is but last I knew, Linus Torvalds makes no money off of Linux and that is the way he intends it to be. He works on Linux only has a hobby and a pastime. Last I knew he was working for a company that I believe makes microchips but they give him the liberty to work on Linux at his leisure and he owns the copyrights.

[aysiu]

iTunes is cost-free... in the hopes you'll buy an iPod or iPhone and buy things from the iTunes music store or app store.

Internet Explorer is cost-free... in the hopes you'll become hooked on some badly-coded IE-only website and be stuck using Windows (and, yes, rare though they are, there are some sites that won't work even with User Agent Switcher or IEs4Linux in Wine).

Google is cost-free... because the cost is paid by advertisers.

How come no one asks why those are cost-free? Only Linux gets this line of inquiry, for some reason. You can read more details at How does open source make money? (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/how-does-open-source-make-money/)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Money is not everything :D

[jrusso2]

I'm not sure how up to date this is but last I knew, Linus Torvalds makes no money off of Linux and that is the way he intends it to be. He works on Linux only has a hobby and a pastime. Last I knew he was working for a company that I believe makes microchips but they give him the liberty to work on Linux at his leisure and he owns the copyrights.

Not for a while. Linus now works for the Linux Foundation to work on the Linux kernel.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about

This is paid for by a group of corporations who pay his and several other salaries.

Also when Red Hat went public they gave Linus some proceeds and he is estimated to have received over a million dollars.

[macogw]

Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S Raymond. Also read the Halloween Documents (memos leaked from Microsoft).

Nevermind the couple hundred of us (just in Ubuntu) who work on this in our spare time. When we get home from work or school, we sit down and hack a bit.

Greg KH recently released a report after emailing all of us who'd committed to the kernel whether we were doing it for work or in our spare time. I think like 20% were doing it in their spare time.

[RiceMonster]

True sydbat, you dont buy it, you just rent it for a while.

RiceMonster- aww, you dont like OO or Abiword? Older office is OK IMO, but that new mess is..er...a mess. Seeing how you like foobar I wont make an issue out of it :P I just wish they would port foobar to linux (yeah, I know thats not going to happen, but I'm allowed to dream, right?)

I don't like abiword, but OO is fine. I don't think it's better than Word, though. As for foobar, I agree, but it's not going to happen. The dev shuts the idea down completely when anyone proposes it.

[Swagman]

Because we have an awesome Sugar Daddy

[Matthewthegreat]

When asked this question just ask if they know how the wikipedia is developed. Ubuntu is developed in sorta the same way. I doubt that many people can say that the wikipedia in inferior to a paid for encyclopedia.

[JillSwift]

I doubt that many people can say that the wikipedia in inferior to a paid for encyclopedia.
Actually, people say that quite often.

They try very hard to keep things on track there, but plenty of bias and outright lies manage to get past, even if only for a while.

[koshatnik]

Because everybody knows that cheap goods are always lower in quality.

I paid £10 for my OM20 body, and a total of £50 for 3 Zuiko lenses for it. Its a better camera than my £1500 DSLR rig. Or anyones DSLR rig. Guess that argument holds true. :)

[Roasted]

My answer to this question is always the same:

There's enough people out there who find enough of an interest in open source software to develop bits and pieces on their own. Multiply that by thousands of users and you suddenly have a little bit of everything amounting into 1 big pile of awesomeness, whereas with Microsoft you have the same people around the same board room table doing the same things year after year which lacks the degree of diversity that Linux has obtained due to its widespread awareness and easily accessible coding.

When you take a lot of interested people who devote their time to make a free project better, you're left with one really fricken awesome operating system.

THAT is why, in my opinion, Linux surpasses Windows and Mac in pretty much every department I can think of.

[cascade9]

I'm not sure how up to date this is but last I knew, Linus Torvalds makes no money off of Linux and that is the way he intends it to be. He works on Linux only has a hobby and a pastime. Last I knew he was working for a company that I believe makes microchips but they give him the liberty to work on Linux at his leisure and he owns the copyrights.

Ohh, he made plenty off linux.

Red Hat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat) and VA Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA_Linux), both leading developers of Linux-based software, presented Torvalds with stock options (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_option) in gratitude for his creation.[/URL] In 1999, both companies went public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds#cite_note-11) and Torvalds' net worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_worth) shot up to roughly $20 million.

Torvalds owns the "Linux" trademark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark), and monitors use of it chiefly through the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mark_Institute"]Linux Mark Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds#cite_note-19).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

He was working at Transmeta for a fair while, but now works full time on the linux kernel for the Open Source Development Labs.

[known]

Users do not run OS. They run Applications. Hence it is prudent to compare the cost of Usability, Performance, Functionality of GNOME/KDE/FOSS/Web Applications with Microsoft Applications.

[ibuclaw]

How can a cost-free OS be better than a paid OS?

The answer is short and simple: If you are having to ask that question, you are probably looking at it from the wrong angle.

I could have written a speech on productivity, maintenance, performance and feature rich environment, and how they are high, low, excellent and flourishing (in order), but I don't really have the time. :)

[cascade9]

Users do not run OS. They run Applications. Hence it is prudent to compare the cost of Usability, Performance, Functionality of GNOME/KDE/FOSS/Web Applications with Microsoft Applications.

So important you had to say it twice, eh?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7828975#post7828975

I'll disagree, users do run OSes. Just because a lot of them do not want to know what an OS is doesn't mean that they arent running one. ;-)

[Ocxic]

From wikipedia:


The cost to redevelop the Linux kernel version 2.6.0 in a traditional proprietary development setting has been estimated to be $612 million USD (€467 million euro) in 2004 prices using the COCOMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COCOMO) man-month estimation model. In 2006, a study funded by the European Union put the redevelopment cost of kernel version 2.6.8 higher, at €882 million euro ($1.14 billion USD)
Do you think any business/company would spend this much money on JUST the kernel. never mind the rest of the OS, that is why open source software can be created with much better software practices then any proprietary software could be.

This would also be the reason why Microsoft will probably NEVER redesign the NT kernel and will continue to patch and slowly re-write existing code until things are an unmanageable mess since MS provides WAY to much backwards compatibility(god forbid they tell someone to re-write an app to conform to standards, and we all know how much MS likes standards.). It would put even Microsoft out of business just trying to get things rolling, not to mention they will have to still implement there current API to provide backwards compatibility, which opens up a whole new set of issues.

[known]

I'll disagree, users do run OSes. Just because a lot of them do not want to know what an OS is doesn't mean that they arent running one. ;-)

Wish Linux community shuns this mentality.

Just check how serious Microsoft is about Usability of its Applications.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/H1B-Visa-045-2009-SO.htm

Microsoft hired 111 Psychologists to design user friendly software since 2001.

[cascade9]

111 'psychologists'. Not design experts, or time/motion experts, psychologists. Funny that they didnt pick up on the huge blacklash from redesigning office 2007 (stupid ribbon). Or on the annoyance factor of WMP not supporting flac. Then again, maybe they did, it just suits microsoft to disregard infromation if it doesnt fit in with microsofts business plans.

I guess thats why microsoft has to, heh heh, 'borrow' ideas from free or open source software. Like tabs in IE 8.