Linux users are poor ?

[johndc]

Pretty much anyone who qualifies as a "Linux user", as someone pointed out, ostensibly has the great luxury of owning a computer.

If you can afford a computer, you most certainly do not qualify as impoverished in my opinion.

Someone is "poor" if they do not have access to/can't afford things like heat in the winter, food, clothing, sewage service, etc. Keeping this in perspective, nobody here would really qualify as poor. And the frivolous question of "which computer operating system to use?" is the last thing on the minds of people who actually are.

[BobSongs]

Pretty much anyone who qualifies as a "Linux user", as someone pointed out, ostensibly has the great luxury of owning a computer.

If you can afford a computer, you most certainly do not qualify as impoverished in my opinion.

Someone is "poor" if they do not have access to/can't afford things like heat in the winter, food, clothing, sewage service, etc. Keeping this in perspective, nobody here would really qualify as poor. And the frivolous question of "which computer operating system to use?" is the last thing on the minds of people who actually are.

Bingo. End of discussion. Time to close this thread.

[EvilMarshmallow]

I wish I could convince them to give me a raise, but I'm not doing too bad.

Money2theMax, CALs are "Client Access Licenses". It's a way to purchase Windows. You can either buy a separate license for each machine, or if you're doing some sort of terminal server setup, you can buy a Windows Server copy and x CALs, allowing you to have x clients connected to that server.

Anyway, back on topic... Linux users aren't poor. They're making a tradeoff decision. I can either buy Windows and not tinker with my Operating System EVER, or I can get $DISTRO for free and maybe have to tweak it a bit to get it to work (although even the tweaking is getting to be less & less). If you like messing around with computers, it's just good financial sense to stay away from Windows.

And johndc is right... if someone's truly poor, their OS is the last thing on their mind.

[~LoKe]

No!



I just prefer not to spend money on things if I can avoid it.

[inversekinetix]

theres nothing wrong with owning an expensive computer nor a cheaper one, nothing at all. i don't see the point of this thread

[p_quarles]

theres nothing wrong with owning an expensive computer nor a cheaper one, nothing at all. i don't see the point of this thread

Of course there's nothing wrong with either of those things.

As for the point of this thread: there are people who say that the only reason to use Linux is because it's free as in beer. Of course, they're wrong, and most of us who use it don't use it for that specific reason.
Evidently, the OP heard that cliche somewhere, and was asking if it had any validity.

[~LoKe]

I own a legit copy of Windows and I've chosen not to use it. Not because it's free in any way, but rather because it does everything I want, whereas Windows did not (for me, at least).

[money2themax]

No!



I just prefer not to spend money on things if I can avoid it.

nice are those black things next to your duel monitors your computer speakers?

[~LoKe]

nice are those black things next to your duel monitors your computer speakers?

"Computer speakers"?

Technically, yes. I have my computer hooked up to the receiver you see on the left.

[paintba||er]

I'm not poor. Usually people say that I'm rich, though I'm really just middle class....