ubuntu free?

[karmicgaz]

Please help a stupid noob. Why is ubuntu free? What I mean is, it takes a lot of hard work to make something so good, so how can it be free? Don't get me wrongI'm over the moon it's free and I am telling anyone who will listen just how good it is but, how?

[whiskeylover]

Magic

[lisati]

Prestidigitation.

[koleoptero]

Read here
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

[Странник]

It's the right thing to do

[dzon65]

Devine interference?

[RATM_Owns]

It's the right thing to do
Agreed.

It's wrong to charge money for an operating system.

[Dark Aspect]

Maybe because the programmers and developers realize that 90% of the users here would simple get Ubuntu in a torrent if it wasn't free.

[jv2112]

God is Good !!!!!!

Ask & you shall recieve :)

[benj1]

Maybe because the programmers and developers realize that 90% of the users here would simple get Ubuntu in a torrent if it wasn't free.

what do you mean by that?
if you mean we're all a bunch of free loaders i disagree

if you mean that the GPL gives everyone the right to freely redistribute code, so it would be pointless charging for it, then i agree




Agreed.

It's wrong to charge money for an operating system.

why is it wrong to charge money for an OS?
people have the right to charge for their work, even RMS agrees with, and does/did that.

[Nerd King]

Ubuntu is good enough that I'd pay for it. The free bit is a nice bonus, and something I'm thankful for :)

[Bölvaður]

do you mean free as in you owning slaves or free as in the slaves are free?

[Swagman]

Who is this Devine ?

Or do you mean DIvine ?

[A_T]

They make money from selling support

[NoaHall]

Welcome to Open Source. Stallman might be a crazy old guy, but there's no denying his moral code(well, some of it) is good.

[RiceMonster]

Agreed.

It's wrong to charge money for an operating system.

wow...

Damn those evil developers wanting to make money!

[openuniverse]

.

[ikt]

Why is ubuntu free?

You'll want to look into open source:

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

[JohnnyCbad]

Besides every other point, Cononical is pretty rich and can even afford to send out free CDs. Also, it's not like they designed every part that makes up ubuntu, very little of it in face.

[Frak]

Welcome to Open Source. Stallman might be a crazy old guy, but there's no denying his moral code(well, some of it) is good.
He.Hates.Children

He.Eats.His.Own.Toenails

He.Eats.Crap.From.His.Beard

Also, as for why Ubuntu is free. Well, a bunch of people make little parts for free, Debian takes all those parts, packages them so they can run together, then Canonical takes that, skins it, and releases it in hopes they can sell support.

In the end, Canonical does 1% of the work. They stand on the shoulders of giants to sell a service.


Besides every other point, Cononical is pretty rich and can even afford to send out free CDs. Also, it's not like they designed every part that makes up ubuntu, very little of it in face.

Canonical isn't rich. They can't afford to send out free CD's. They just do it anyways. As it stands now, Canonical is a deficit company.

[Aflack]

because its very incompatible and buggy, (i still use it everyday though)

[0faber]

Non-facetious partial answer:
Take a look at the Who Writes Linux (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf)report (pdf) from the Linux Foundation (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/). Explains who contributes to the operating system kernel, and, to a certain extent, why. For other major components of Ubuntu see the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/), http://www.gnome.org/, and, of course, Debian (http://www.debian.org/).

Ubuntu is of course very complex, and the software that makes up a standard Ubuntu install, or is included in the repositories, comes from the contributions of a large number of organizations, individuals, and corporations who have many different reasons for doing so.

Commercial Linux distributors like Canonical make money by charging for tech support (sold mostly to corporations who use it on their servers.)

You don't have to pay for it, but you can invest (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/donations) in it if you want to help make the next release of Ubuntu a little bit better. And there are other ways besides this last link to do this.

[Frak]

Non-facetious partial answer:
Take a look at the Who Writes Linux (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf)report (pdf) from the Linux Foundation (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/). Explains who contributes to the operating system kernel, and, to a certain extent, why. For other major components of Ubuntu see the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/), http://www.gnome.org/, and, of course, Debian (http://www.debian.org/).

Ubuntu is of course very complex, and the software that makes up a standard Ubuntu install, or is included in the repositories, comes from the contributions of a large number of organizations, individuals, and corporations who have many different reasons for doing so.

Commercial Linux distributors like Canonical make money by charging for tech support (sold mostly to corporations who use it on their servers.)

You don't have to pay for it, but you can invest (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/donations) in it if you want to help make the next release of Ubuntu a little bit better. And there are other ways besides this last link to do this.
Donating to a company feels wrong.

[ikt]

Donating to a company feels wrong.

Can always buy something in the ubuntu shop :)

[LowSky]

Money is a horrible thing. We use paper and now digital ones and zeros that supposedly hold value because a bank says they do.

Value comes from perception, if you think it is worth something than you give it a value. But giving something away for free doesn't impose it has no value but that its value is inconceivable therefor putting a price upon in degrades its worth.

The best way to pay for Linux is to help support Linux. It's a simple barter system. You download Linux and come here for support, in turn you someday help someone else or maybe beta test an application.

[benj1]

Money is a horrible thing. We use paper and now digital ones and zeros that supposedly hold value because a bank says they do.

Value comes from perception, if you think it is worth something than you give it a value. But giving something away for free doesn't impose it has no value but that its value is inconceivable therefor putting a price upon in degrades its worth.


why is money horrible? its the best mechanism we have for apportioning scarce/finite resources, i agree software is a lot less scarce than any physical good, but there is still a marginal cost attached to every download that needs to be covered.
anyway it doesn't have value because a bank says it does, it has value because you and I, the buyer and the seller perceive it has value, as you say in the next paragraph, although i disagree that putting a price on something intrinsically "degrades its worth", thats just a symptom of a mismatch between two peoples perceived value of a good, the opposite could also happen, the price/worth could be higher than the value you attach to it.

[BuffaloX]

Wow 25 responses, and only two offering any actual info on the question. :oops:

Here's my attempt at an explanation.

To answer the "how" you need to understand the "why".

Open source software has been around since the beginning of computing.
Software was mostly a science, and scientists share their research.
Back then it was mostly released as Public Domain Source Code.
Software ran on big expensive computers, that were bundled with software with the source available.
More and more commercial software was made, and closed source software became much more common.
Many people saw this as a problem, because closed source locks you out, so you can't fine-tune it for your own purposes, or correct bugs if needed, and you cannot examine the code and learn from it.
This is unfair, since closed source developers have access to the open source software, they can examine learn and use all they want.

One of these unhappy guys was Richard Stallman, who devised a clever plan, to ensure that open software stayed open, the plan was to use copyright law, to prevent the closing of software once it had been opened. This is called the GNU General Public License, if you release software under this license, companies can't legally close it.
But not only did he create this ingenious license, he also wrote an enormous amount of programs himself, which he of course released under this new license.

Millions of people around the world participate in all kinds of FOSS projects for different reasons, as a hobby or research or because they want the program themselves.

This brings us to the "how".

The combined efforts put into FOSS by an enormous amount of developers, helped by the rise of the Internet, resulted in many FOSS programs that has quality and functionality comparable to commercial closed source software, but with the benefit of being open source and free.
Many companies use FOSS today, either as part of their infrastructure, or in products they sell. This means that the amount of FOSS software developed by programmers that are paid by these companies is increasing rapidly. Today FOSS isn't just hobby or science, it is also business.

Fedora is backed by Red Hat,
Open Suse is backed by Novell,
Ubuntu is backed by Canonical.
These companies sell support and services for Linux, helping Linux helps business.

Still Ubuntu is a little different.
Ubuntu has ship it, which will send you free Ubuntu CD's on request.
Ubuntu's goal is to be usable by average users, and penetrate the Desktop/Laptop market, and become a viable competitor to Windows, and eventually become financially self-sustaining while remaining free.

[Raijin8]

Why not? Wouldn't you love helping someone in such a huge way and asking for nothing in return (or millions or people in this case)? I would give anything to help develop popular, successful software for free. Someday I almost certainly will. (after I go to college and can actually program something from start to finish anyway...):)

[thatguruguy]

Why not? Wouldn't you love helping someone in such a huge way and asking for nothing in return (or millions or people in this case)? I would give anything to help develop popular, successful software for free. Someday I almost certainly will. (after I go to college and can actually program something from start to finish anyway...):)

Giving stuff away for free is a heckuva way to make a living.

[baddog144]

Magical elves.
I swear.

[3rdalbum]

Selling software is not wrong.

Selling a license to use a piece of software is wrong.

[SoFl W]

It's wrong to charge money for an operating system.


Yea! free EVERYTHING!

Well except I should be paid a zillion dollars a year. and if you make more than me you are greedy.

[JDShu]

Giving stuff away for free is a heckuva way to make a living.

Did he say he was going to make a living out of it? Humans like to give, it makes them feel good. Probably one of our better traits.


Selling software is not wrong.

Selling a license to use a piece of software is wrong.

Theres nothing moral about selling anything... unless its something illegal.

[ubunterooster]

Agreed.

It's wrong to charge money for an operating system.
Actually I don't have a problem w/ charging but the reason for free is: Bob makes software and thinks not bad but Tim can really help. Tim does similar, hands to Mark.....
Abra kadabra Ubuntuzammo!!! :D

[BuffaloX]

Selling software is not wrong.

Selling a license to use a piece of software is wrong.

Why? Isn't it a lot like borrowing books at the library or renting movies? You are granted the right to use it, but with some provisions.

IMO closing the source is wrong.
When I connect a Webcam to my PC, I'd like to be sure that it's not controlled by the government of a foreign country, or the supplier of the OS, or the supplier of the Webcam/driver, or for that matter some random hacker.
When I buy any kind of hardware, I'd like to be sure I'm the one controlling it.

Anyone could easily sell open source licensed proprietary software, it would still be copyrighted, so others couldn't just steal your work.

[BuffaloX]

Giving stuff away for free is a heckuva way to make a living.

Yes that would suck, but that's not what FLOSS is about.
It's about you can use what has been made for free, and you share your improvements.

Many successful companies are involved in FLOSS today, as I'm sure you already know, it doesn't have to be on a personal level, like coding for free and not earning any money.

[MasterNetra]

why is money horrible? its the best mechanism we have for apportioning scarce/finite resources, i agree software is a lot less scarce than any physical good, but there is still a marginal cost attached to every download that needs to be covered.
anyway it doesn't have value because a bank says it does, it has value because you and I, the buyer and the seller perceive it has value, as you say in the next paragraph, although i disagree that putting a price on something intrinsically "degrades its worth", thats just a symptom of a mismatch between two peoples perceived value of a good, the opposite could also happen, the price/worth could be higher than the value you attach to it.

We can do better then using money these days. And because of money we create the scarcity. The more scarce something is the higher someone can charge for it. Addtionally Products are designed to fail so people will continue to buy more and continue the cycle of cyclical consumption... If it wasn't for the monetary system we would have Vastly superior/effiecent homes, vehicles, and other products. Not to mention be able to actually end world hunger after all there is enough food being produced for everyone, just not everyone can purchase it. Money may of played a useful part in the past but its crippling us today.

[Simon17]

Theres nothing moral about selling anything... unless its something illegal.

The law has nothing to do with morals.

[earthpigg]

In the end, Canonical does 1% of the work. They stand on the shoulders of giants to sell a service.


just quoting that to make sure the OP doesn't miss it. that is a very good two sentence summary of the how and why.

[k64]

Please help a stupid noob. Why is ubuntu free? What I mean is, it takes a lot of hard work to make something so good, so how can it be free? Don't get me wrongI'm over the moon it's free and I am telling anyone who will listen just how good it is but, how?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

This is the license that Ubuntu is under. As you can see, it is all about the user's freedom. Ubuntu, unlike Windows and OS X, is copyleft ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft') rather than copyright. It uses copyright law to protect the user's freedom rather than the owner's freedom. Translation: "Open Source" and "Proprietary" are antonyms.

[Frak]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

This is the license that Ubuntu is under. As you can see, it is all about the user's freedom. Ubuntu, unlike Windows and OS X, is copyleft ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft') rather than copyright. It uses copyright law to protect the user's freedom rather than the owner's freedom. Translation: "Open Source" and "Proprietary" are antonyms.
I think he's talking about the price, not license scheme.

[isantop]

To overthrow greedy software giants like Microsoft (and Microsoft, and also Microsoft). See in launchpad for Bug #1 in Ubuntu.

Who charges $300 for something that technically doesn't even exist? Software is soft, cloudy, non-physical. If it's physical, it becomes hardware.

Charging for hardware makes sense. Charging for software, doesn't.

Also, who says Canonical makes no money off of Ubuntu? Who says Novell makes no money off of OpenSuSE? It's what you're charging for. Support. Charge for services, like support, and you can be a very successful company.

Or, sell hardware with free software on it. We all love System 76, right?

[Simon17]

I think he's talking about the price, not license scheme.

Well then he should have said FreeAsInBeer.

[JDShu]

The law has nothing to do with morals.

OT: I was using it as a catchall statement, admittedly inaccurate. There is usually a moral reason if certain things are illegal to sell. Like drugs, or CP. In fact, now that I think about it, I completely disagree with you statement. The law often carries out the morality of the country.

[chapman.s87]

Well there is a good documentary on open source/linux which interviews essentially all the founders of the movement on netflix called 'Revolution OS'. You will get a pretty good idea on how open source works and the software philosophy behind it.

Open source is essentially a gear that makes the world efficient. Enterprises of any size can save substantial money usually by getting getting off the Microsoft I-V and switch to open source solutions. Create a solution for themselves and share it back out to everyone else.

I mean when Bill Gates say developers should be paid, he doesn't mean the individuals, he means himself. Because he had the smarts to give them employment and make them sign away all their innovations to Microsoft as then Microsoft's I.P. and resell these innovations that he never came up with at a large profit.