PDA

View Full Version : NYT says Linux costs $3



Sporkman
April 2nd, 2009, 09:56 PM
But the ARM chips come with a severe trade-off they cannot run the major versions of Windows or its popular complementary software.

Netbook makers have turned to Linux, an open-source operating system that costs $3 instead of the $25 that Microsoft typically charges for Windows XP. They are also exploring the possibility of using the Android operating system from Google, originally designed for cellphones. (Companies like Acer, Dell and Hewlett-Packard already sell some Atom-based netbooks with Linux.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/technology/02netbooks.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

SunnyRabbiera
April 2nd, 2009, 09:59 PM
Heh, they really dont know.

Giant Speck
April 2nd, 2009, 10:02 PM
I think the key phrase in that sentence is "netbook makers."

It wouldn't surprise me that netbook manufacturers pay the company that makes and provides them with the operating system. I mean, how else are companies like Canonical, for example, going to make money to put toward development and paying their employees?

Simian Man
April 2nd, 2009, 10:02 PM
Perhaps that's the licensing fees for mp3 decoders included with the netbooks.

Shpongle
April 2nd, 2009, 10:05 PM
i read that a linux distro was worth roughly 11bn in terms of the work , lines of code and intellectual property

i think it was done on a fedora distro!, but im sure most of the top ones are worth serious money!

SunnyRabbiera
April 2nd, 2009, 10:05 PM
Perhaps that's the licensing fees for mp3 decoders included with the netbooks.

Yes perhaps, but if so you would think the price will be higher?

Kareeser
April 2nd, 2009, 10:24 PM
Not necessarily... Windows XP costs $129 (at least, it did last summer). $3/129 isn't bad for a legal mp3 codec.

Sealbhach
April 2nd, 2009, 10:25 PM
My contribution is worth considerably less than $3.:p


.

Giant Speck
April 2nd, 2009, 10:38 PM
Not necessarily... Windows XP costs $129 (at least, it did last summer). $3/129 isn't bad for a legal mp3 codec.

We're talking about the netbook manufacturers, not the end-users. Computer manufacturers pay less for the operating system than we do.

Mehall
April 2nd, 2009, 10:41 PM
We're talking about the netbook manufacturers, not the end-users. Computer manufacturers pay less for the operating system than we do.

That's an understatement.

With the price OEM's pay for it, no wonder they're asking for Ballmer's Bailout!!

Therion
April 2nd, 2009, 10:46 PM
Wow, they got off cheap! I paid a LOT more than that for my retail-boxed copy of Ubuntu Professional.

But at least I'm legit now...







/Wait, what??

ubuntu27
April 2nd, 2009, 10:57 PM
i read that a linux distro was worth roughly 11bn in terms of the work , lines of code and intellectual property

i think it was done on a fedora distro!, but im sure most of the top ones are worth serious money!

You mean this (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)?


Estimating the Total Development Cost of a Linux Distribution (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)

rhcm123
April 2nd, 2009, 11:05 PM
You mean this (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)?


Estimating the Total Development Cost of a Linux Distribution (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)

no, i think he was talking about the total value of da linux community

mister_pink
April 2nd, 2009, 11:37 PM
They probably do pay. My eeepc came with xandros linux which isn't free, and most others come with non free-as-in-beer distros.

blastus
April 3rd, 2009, 01:23 AM
Now Microsoft has to make Windows run on ARM and then give it away. That's gotta make Ballmer sweat. ;) It was predicted over a decade ago that there would be a convergence of mobile devices with PCs and that it would not be good for Microsoft and now it's happening.

smartboyathome
April 3rd, 2009, 01:44 AM
Now Microsoft has to make Windows run on ARM and then give it away. That's gotta make Ballmer sweat. ;) It was predicted over a decade ago that there would be a convergence of mobile devices with PCs and that it would not be good for Microsoft and now it's happening.

What about Windows CE? It runs on ARM.

blastus
April 3rd, 2009, 01:58 AM
What about Windows CE? It runs on ARM.

I know about Windows CE, I used to develop software on that crappy platform. Blackberries are far easier to develop for than CE devices. Anyway, Windows CE isn't considered because it is not compatible with XP/Vista so there's no advantage (as in an existing base of applications) in manufacturer's choosing (and paying for) Windows CE (vs Windows XP/Vista) on such devices.

MikeTheC
April 3rd, 2009, 06:27 AM
Gotta love that UsedCarSalesmanSteve. You know, maybe if he stopped jumping up and down in front of people, screaming at everyone, and in general acting like the big, fat sweaty pig he is, Microsoft might actually do something useful.

Meh, doubt that will ever happen...

Polygon
April 3rd, 2009, 03:23 PM
windows ce != windows, they are almost completely seperate devices

and even if microsoft could just recompile windows for arm, then they have to worry about all the third party drivers and stuff.

and 3 dollars for restricted codecs maybe like someone said? 3 dollars per licence of windows/linux is a lot of money

forrestcupp
April 3rd, 2009, 04:15 PM
Of course a manufacturer is going to pay money for Linux.

First of all, we're talking about Android, which is an OS by Google. I don't know what you're thinking, but Google is all about making money. I totally believe that netbook manufacturers are paying $3 a pop for Android. They're making money off of every phone that has Android on it, too.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what distro it is, an OEM will pay money for it. It will be way less than Windows, but they will pay money for using it. Don't you remember the Dell deal. The reason Shuttleworth was so excited about the Dell deal is because it was a "deal". Canonical made money from Dell putting Ubuntu on computers. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

LowSky
April 3rd, 2009, 04:42 PM
$3 comes from installation fee, Technical support, and codec support (as I know dell adds mp3 and other codec support).

Thelasko
April 3rd, 2009, 04:52 PM
Not necessarily... Windows XP costs $129 (at least, it did last summer). $3/129 isn't bad for a legal mp3 codec.

Bad comparison

As the article said, XP costs $25 and Ubuntu costs $3. Therefore $3/25 isn't bad.

The off the shelf disk of Ubuntu with mp3 and DVD playback was $20 (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/026208&from=rss). Therefore $20/129 isn't bad. Apparently, this didn't go over well, as I can no longer find Ubuntu on Best Buy's website.

dmn_clown
April 3rd, 2009, 05:27 PM
Bad comparison

As the article said, XP costs $25 and Ubuntu costs $3. Therefore $3/25 isn't bad.

The off the shelf disk of Ubuntu with mp3 and DVD playback was $20 (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/026208&from=rss). Therefore $20/129 isn't bad. Apparently, this didn't go over well, as I can no longer find Ubuntu on Best Buy's website.

Desktop Linux doesn't sell well, ask anyone in the business of selling linux.

Also, it is not really that bad of a comparison, Microsoft is selling XP licenses to Chinese citizens for $3/license.

Christmas
April 3rd, 2009, 05:45 PM
Probably they were referring to the fact that you can buy a CD with some Linux distro for $3, not that it costs $3 to download an image (in which case you will also have to burn to a CD, maybe it's not $3 but it still involves 50 cents or so).

intango
April 4th, 2009, 02:09 PM
I've written to the article's authors requesting a slight update explaining where the $3 goes. This - "Light and Cheap, Netbooks Are Poised to Reshape PC Industry" - is currently the #1 most emailed & popular "technology" article the NY Times has right now, and I can't bear the thought that thousands of literate people, unaware of the details of Linux, are reading it and not only thinking it costs $3 to anyone, but maybe even misreading the sentence and thinking the $3 is going to Microsoft.

So you don't need to go back to page 1...

The offending sentence:
"Netbook makers have turned to Linux, an open-source operating system that costs $3 instead of the $25 that Microsoft typically charges for Windows XP."

The article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/technology/02netbooks.html

jimi_hendrix
April 4th, 2009, 02:16 PM
rofl! xp costs $25!

linuxisevolution
April 4th, 2009, 02:53 PM
I wish windows xp costs $25! :lolflag:

forrestcupp
April 4th, 2009, 03:15 PM
rofl! xp costs $25!


I wish windows xp costs $25! :lolflag:

Come on, guys. It's not talking about a retail version of XP Professional being sold to an end user. It's talking about a stripped down netbook version being sold to an OEM that is buying thousands of licenses to install on an entire line of netbooks. Do you not realize that Microsoft gives manufacturers a better deal than they do to the average Joe? They get a much better deal than that OEM version of XP you can buy online, too.

Mason Whitaker
April 4th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Do you honestly think that just because Linux is free, it means that the employees of companies behind Linux don't deserve to be paid?