PDA

View Full Version : If Linux weren't free



ExSuSEusr
November 21st, 2009, 05:01 AM
So, if "Linux" cost money to obtain (say more than 100 dollars) would you pay it?

lisati
November 21st, 2009, 05:06 AM
I might be tempted to check things out if a trial or demo version was available, but otherwise I'd be likely to stick with whatever was on my machine.

emigrant
November 21st, 2009, 05:08 AM
Hope i could get a pirated version.

BenAshton24
November 21st, 2009, 05:12 AM
I don't use Ubuntu because it's free, I use it because it is awesome in every aspect :)

although I wouldn't dream of paying for any Linux distros that cost money currently...

jrusso2
November 21st, 2009, 05:14 AM
Its not worth a $ 100 to me unless extensive changes are made and it becomes reliable and stable, and included codecs and DVD software.

mivo
November 21st, 2009, 05:30 AM
So, if "Linux" cost money to obtain (say more than 100 dollars) would you pay it?

Hypothetical threads are hypothetical.

If Linux had not been "free as in beer", it would probably never have left Linus' room. People would not have contributed, it would not have grown. So the poll question is pointless.

But for the sake of entertainment: I pay for Windows and I have paid for every OS that I used that wasn't hard-wired to the computer, so I would pay for a *nix version as well, provided it was affordable. Just to broaden my horizon, but my interest would be mostly academical. That's for home use. The company I work for did pay quite a bit for Red Hat before switching to CentOS.

Exodist
November 21st, 2009, 05:35 AM
I LOL at this thread..

Some of you youngsters dont know that it wasnt to long ago the best way to get the latest release of RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE or Debian was to purchase it. I have frequently paid about 50USD for a new release of RedHat and SuSE. Think the last version I purshased was SuSE 9.3 and it came with very THICK and informational manuals about 2 inches thick. Well worth the money!

Ewingo401
November 21st, 2009, 05:36 AM
I voted maybe. If I were to ever pay for a Linux distro it would definitely have to be a rolling release such as Arch. The only way I would pay for Ubuntu is if it were a one time cost but then I could upgrade to all subsequent releases at no charge.

w1ll1am
November 21st, 2009, 05:41 AM
oh my god thank you i have been trying to figure that out for like 45 minutes now thanks. sorry i was dumb lol

julianb
November 21st, 2009, 05:44 AM
Honestly, if the cost for Ubuntu were $1 I'd probably never have put it on my laptop alongside XP.

On the other hand, I was given a server for free that had no OS, and I'd have paid a few bucks to get it working.

There are situations in which *nix is clearly superior to Windows (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1332696), and I'm talking practical stuff, not just philosophy. I'd pay good money for those features if that's what it took.

siimo
November 21st, 2009, 06:51 AM
I use linux because I cannot afford to pay for Windows license on the 4-5 PCs i own. I settle for the inferior user experience. (this is subjective obviously and a lot of people use Linux cause its superior but I am not one of them) If it was payware i'd buy Windows 7 family pack.

Tipped OuT
November 21st, 2009, 06:54 AM
I wouldn't pay for Linux. Why pay for Linux when I could pay for Windows and have access to a much larger library of supported software and drivers.

ElSlunko
November 21st, 2009, 07:23 AM
I would for the Security over windows and how well the software I use works on it. I also love how customizable the interface is.

Mustard
November 21st, 2009, 08:52 AM
The whole point of linux, for me, is that it belongs to the 'people'. Paying for it seems to defeat that purpose. Information is power and access to that information should be universal and free, so that everyone is empowered.

Frak
November 21st, 2009, 08:58 AM
I wouldn't pay for Linux. Why pay for Linux when I could pay for Windows and have access to a much larger library of supported software and drivers.
This.

Sorry, the market just doesn't agree with Linux on the Desktop as an alternative to Windows or Mac OS X.

jacobs444
November 21st, 2009, 09:04 AM
no, because at least with windows i get full drivers for any video card i use. No flame war just stating. I use ubuntu, but the funny thing is that i fully expect this kind of topic before ubuntu starts charging for its use, as i still have yet to get an answer on how to change the ubuntu white boot icon that shows on startup. and the fact that there is no gdm gui based theme changer in karmic. Many things are starting to look like microsoft, ie hard to change!

jacobs444
November 21st, 2009, 09:07 AM
I use linux because I cannot afford to pay for Windows license on the 4-5 PCs i own. I settle for the inferior user experience. (this is subjective obviously and a lot of people use Linux cause its superior but I am not one of them) If it was payware i'd buy Windows 7 family pack.
as far as your quote says, you like windows. Idon't wink wink advocate piracy but if you feel linux has an inferior UI then there is always isohunt, am i right?

jacobs444
November 21st, 2009, 09:09 AM
Hypothetical threads are hypothetical.

If Linux had not been "free as in beer", it would probably never have left Linus' room. People would not have contributed, it would not have grown. So the poll question is pointless.

But for the sake of entertainment: I pay for Windows and I have paid for every OS that I used that wasn't hard-wired to the computer, so I would pay for a *nix version as well, provided it was affordable. Just to broaden my horizon, but my interest would be mostly academical. That's for home use. The company I work for did pay quite a bit for Red Hat before switching to CentOS.


someone would have written a better core that was free and it would still be free GNU

jacobs444
November 21st, 2009, 09:11 AM
I LOL at this thread..

Some of you youngsters dont know that it wasnt to long ago the best way to get the latest release of RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE or Debian was to purchase it. I have frequently paid about 50USD for a new release of RedHat and SuSE. Think the last version I purshased was SuSE 9.3 and it came with very THICK and informational manuals about 2 inches thick. Well worth the money!

now heck yes! I would pay if ubuntu or any linux were better documented these days.

Hetor
November 21st, 2009, 11:13 AM
I'd pirate it.

ssam
November 21st, 2009, 11:33 AM
i used to pay for Linux CDs before i had broadband. i never minded that.

Kevbert
November 21st, 2009, 11:42 AM
I might pay for it as I'd expect that more developers would be full time and therefore there would be fewer bugs. Don't forget that a lot of people who work on Linux do it as a hobby and not to earn a living.

etali
November 21st, 2009, 11:48 AM
I've bought various Linux distros (and other alternative OSes) in the past, but they weren't at the price point the OP mentioned.

I doubt I'd buy any now, though. I distro hop a lot, and it would get ridiculously expensive.

Fenris_rising
November 21st, 2009, 01:24 PM
I said I'd buy it.

But then this is tempered with the fact that because it was free I didn't mind tinkering to get a couple of show stoppers in 8.04 sorted. Everything has been fine up to 8.10 on my main PC. Karmic, installed on my eeepc, has been faultless.

If I had paid for it and things had played up maybe my vote would have been different.

On the other hand if it was paid for then isn't it likely that this would have financed the drive to make it work OOTB across the board?

regards

Fenris

ZankerH
November 21st, 2009, 02:20 PM
I don't use GNU/Linux because it's free, I use it because it's Free. I've used non-free Free software distributions of GNU/Linux in the past, and I'd do so again if they had something I needed that I couldn't get elsewhere.

tubezninja
November 21st, 2009, 09:45 PM
As a desktop OS? No. Not out of philosophy, but because I don't feel it's good enough yet to pay for.

As a server OS? Well, the company I work for has already done that, sorta.

Frak
November 21st, 2009, 09:51 PM
As a desktop OS? No. Not out of philosophy, but because I don't feel it's good enough yet to pay for.

As a server OS? Well, the company I work for has already done that, sorta.
I agree.

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 09:53 PM
No, but that would mean I wouldn`t use a computer. Hey ho.

I`m not going to start paying for something I`ve always had free. Don`t mind donating though.

Bachstelze
November 21st, 2009, 09:54 PM
No. The whole point of Linux to me, or rather the reason I use it, is to have a free UNIX-like OS that is usable for daily tasks (it is for me, your mileage may vary). For various reasons, the BSDs and OpenSolaris are not quite there yet, so if Linux weren't free, I'd just use OSX.

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 10:02 PM
if Linux weren't free, I'd just use OSX.

Nah, i`d just do without the computer.

Kdar
November 21st, 2009, 10:03 PM
well, I think the main philosophy of Linux is to be open and free. If it wasn't.. I am not sure if it would be the same kind of "Linux" that I know now.

If it wasn't free, it probably be more like Apple. I don't think I would even think about getting apple anytime soon.

Bachstelze
November 21st, 2009, 10:04 PM
Nah, i`d just do without the computer.

You contradict yourself.

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 10:05 PM
Do I?

Palanthas
November 21st, 2009, 10:09 PM
Currently the only reason I would not purchase it is because I am a gamer and still need Windows. On the other hand though, if I was not a gamer or if Linux supported games better AND the price was comparable to the other operating systems, I would definitely purchase Linux over any other OS. I would even be willing to pay more for it if I had the money.

Digikid
November 21st, 2009, 10:16 PM
*Ahem*

Free or nothing.

So. Hell. NO!

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 10:22 PM
I`ve only ever used linux.

Never windows or mac (whatever it is)

I`d always done without a computer before.

I don`t think I need one now.

I love it for music management, and I`m a budding coder, but I could do without one, no problem.

I don`t actually like, or trust technology.

I`m not going to pay for an operating system when I`ve always had it for free........ am I

Bachstelze
November 21st, 2009, 10:27 PM
Do I?

Never mind. My reading abilities seem to be very impaired tonight. I guess I should just go to bed. :p

SuperSonic4
November 21st, 2009, 10:32 PM
Possibly, depends how much it was. If Arch was paid for I would pay up to 150 for a 1 user, infinite licence, multiple installs (that is taking it off before reinstalling)

Some instability would be natural because I like to be on the cutting edge.

MasterNetra
November 21st, 2009, 11:03 PM
I`ve only ever used linux.

Never windows or mac (whatever it is)

I`d always done without a computer before.

I don`t think I need one now.

I love it for music management, and I`m a budding coder, but I could do without one, no problem.

I don`t actually like, or trust technology.

I`m not going to pay for an operating system when I`ve always had it for free........ am I

So you don't even trust the bed you sleep in? Or even the basic eating utensils? Something even as simple as spear is still technology.

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 11:17 PM
Never mind. My reading abilities seem to be very impaired tonight. I guess I should just go to bed. :p

No offence meant. I`m just one of the countless thousands (I`m guesing, maybe hundreds, probably tens) who have been introduced to computers with ubuntu. ............. ok, you`ve got Ubuntu (for free), how about paying for windows????????? -------- from my point of view, no thanks.

nothingspecial
November 21st, 2009, 11:18 PM
So you don't even trust the bed you sleep in? Or even the basic eating utensils? Something even as simple as spear is still technology.

A bed is not a computer.

Stop being silly.

Psumi
November 21st, 2009, 11:23 PM
I mainly use linux because of this aspect, as well as security woes.

So if it were not free, I would probably still with Windows.

twidget
November 21st, 2009, 11:35 PM
I paid $30 for win 7 that's about how much I'm willing to pay for an OS. maybe a bit more for something that isn't spyware ridden or locked to expensive hardware.

LinuxFox
November 21st, 2009, 11:37 PM
I voted for depends on how much. Reading about Linux and talking to a friend about it got me interested. If the price was affordable, then I might pay for it if it wasn't free.

Psumi
November 21st, 2009, 11:38 PM
I paid $30 for win 7 that's about how much I'm willing to pay for an OS. maybe a bit more for something that isn't spyware ridden or locked to expensive hardware.

I would have to pay over 200 USD for Windows 7. Because...

A. My current Windows does not activate; cannot get an Updgrade.
B. I need Windows 7 Professional as to be compatible with applications that did not run in Vista.
C. I am never going back to school at this rate.
D. I am not working with technet.

Zoot7
November 21st, 2009, 11:55 PM
Hope i could get a pirated version.
Ditto! :popcorn: