What is your stance on paying for Linux ?

[xXx 0wn3d xXx]

What do you think about having to pay $ 49.99+ for some Linux Distros ? I personally don't like it (I am not completly against it) but I wanted to see what everyone else is thinking.

[Sheinar]

I have nothing against it, though none of the pay-for Linux distros fit into what I'm after.

[Omnios]

I guess it would count on what I got for my $49.99+

[RavenOfOdin]

As the old saying goes, free as in freedom and not as in beer.

I'm OK with 5 to 10 dollars for putting it on a neatly packaged CD or CD's (source included, of course!), and if I get some cool stuff - with tech support too - then probably more. But let me make clear, I don't wish to pay 400 dollars for ANY OS, whether it be Linux or not.

[Reaver]

I don't think it's a bad thing, and it mostly seems to be apparent in the case of enterprise use. In the future i think we'll see more distros like Suse that give you the option of a fully packaged OS that includes proprietary software OR the free open versions, the more choice, the better. The more alternatives to windows that people can see, especially on a shelf where your average 'home user' will get their software, the more they'll benefit and the bigger the acceptance and uptake of linux will be.

[glotz]

I'd gladly pay something for my OS. However, I'm a 'rich western kid' so probably not everybody's going to agree with me. And now I can decide to donate. However I love the free as in beer and as in talk idea.

[Kindred]

I don't have anything against it, but I wouldn't personally pay for a Linux distro.

[aysiu]

I would pay US$50 for a distro if that was pretty much it. I would pay $50 for Hoary, $50 for Breezy, then $50 Dapper, then $50 for Edgy.

One of the things that turned me off to Linspire is not its initial cost but its continuing cost (CNR).

[ThirdWorld]

I will pay for Linux ubuntu when everything just work out of the box without a command line, when I can just conect a printer and print good quality paper, and when all the standard applications that come with gnome are equal or better than the ones you use everyday in windows: Itunes, MSN messenger, windows media player, Microsoft money, and of course when Linux become a 100% GUI OS like windows is today. The console should be there but as an option. Only then I will pay for linux so the developers and volunteers can earn money and keep inprooving this marvelous OS.

[Lovechild]

I much prefer as a single personal user to donate to projects - if I was to set up a larger network I would in no way be against paying for services and tech support. In much the way RHEL works, I pay for a service not the software.
I repay with bugreports, donations and occasionally a bit of code.

I doubt you'd ever see me fork over money for Linux. I simply don't see it as a viable business model.

[kop316]

One thing I have always thought would make it an advantage is the fact that if it were paid for, even with a nominal fee (like 10$), then it would actually appear on retailers shelves (granted they would bother with Linux), since they would not bother to put it up for free (unless they got something out of it). At least then when people go to the store they would see Linux as an option.
But when you start getting to the 70-100$ range, that is when i look for another distro.

[Hygelac]

One of the things that 'sold' me on Linux was the price of distros such as this ('free' as in beer). I would never have started experimenting with Linux had I had to pay for it; I do not want to toss money into the unknown. [-( Thanks to not having to pay for Linux and having an outdated computer taking-up space in a closet, I was able to start experimenting, and now Linux is the main OS I use. :mrgreen:

That's just me though...

[briancurtin]

ive paid for SuSE twice in the past, and if i felt like continuing to use SuSE, id probably pay for it again. i liked what i got in the DVD/CDs they offered, as well as the great printed materials. since SuSE ive used a bunch of distros that ive just downloaded, but if some of them were available with printed materials, id probably throw some money towards them since most of it is a donation anyways.

im not against paying for linux at all. i definitely prefer things to be free as in freedom first, free as in beer second.

[enopepsoo]

I am against paying money that I am not already paying for my internet connection.
I do not care for economics at all, and any notion of paying 'with my time' is an insult to what my time is worth to me. Screw Milton Friedman, long live Linux!

[briancurtin]

^doesnt make any sense at all

[Christmas]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch. Is that true? Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money? Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.

[helpme]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch.

That's simply wrong. What you are probably refering to is that programs that use code that's under the GPL also have to be published under the GPL. This however does not mean that you can't sell them, it simply means that you have to make the source code accessible to those who pay for a reasonable fee and that you have to grant them the rights to basicly do with the code what they want.



Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money?

First off, again, free software does not refer to not costing money, but to having the rights to basicly do what you want with the program. However, it's of course perfectly possible to offer non-free software for Linux, as the games you mention show.



Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.
They are not licensed under GNU, but under the GPL or the LGPL (which allows you to link against programs under the LGPL without having to GPL your program) and of course under a host of other open source licenses.
Also, asking money for free software is as already mentioned absolutely within anyones right. In fact, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) even encourages people to make as much money with their free software as they want and can.

[Virogenesis]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch. Is that true? Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money? Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.
Well You can make commercial apps for Linux, Zeus webserver is just one of the many commercial apps for linux.
Well you can make a distro and ask for money for many reasons eg: the service they provide, burning the cds, support, manuals....etc

What the GNU states is that GPL work always has the source code provided for example ubuntu gets around that by offering the source code online.

I would pay for Linux for a polished disto, I've used suse in the past and the polish was incredible.
I have a redhat 5.3 box set and thats also good as that comes with a manual.

[jethro10]

I've paid for Suse in the past.
However the best distros are free..........
Like this Ubuntu thingy, automatic updates, click and install, it's got almost everything.
Makes it difficult to think why i'd pay for something else.

Jeff

[Christmas]

Thanks for the explanations guys. So basically you can make programs from scratch for Linux and sell them but provide the source code too. You can also use other programs/parts of code and modify them and sell them but provide the source code too. Is that correct, I've got it?

[christhemonkey]

Personally i wouldnt mind paying for linux,
except

why pay when you can get it for free?

And even sent to your house as well!



*thanyou shipit*

[helpme]

Thanks for the explanations guys. So basically you can make programs from scratch for Linux and sell them but provide the source code too. You can also use other programs/parts of code and modify them and sell them but provide the source code too. Is that correct, I've got it?
Yes, but you can of course also make closed-source programs for Linux.

[ubuntu_demon]

I voted "no" because I see no problem.

But I prefer donating (probably to bounties) over paying so everyone can use it regardless of whether they have money.

[fuscia]

i'm glad ubuntu is free and i'm glad there is a lot of free software available, but i don't get the objection to someone wanting to be paid for the software they've written.

[Kvark]

As long as there are alternatives that doesn't cost anything the ones selling must provide services that are worth their price. If I needed those services (CDs by mail, paperbooks, support, online services etc) then I'd pay.

But I would perfer to pay in the form of a bounty on some feature I want. You know "I wish there was a small firefox/gimp/xchat/whatver plugin that could..." or whatever detail it is that annoys you the most in Linux. That way I and everyone else would get exactly the small feature I want the most.

Ok, most can afford to pay for only small projects that way but the right modification can cure a lot of annoyances. If there was a big network of users who pool bounties then it'd be possible for others then space traveling millionaries to ask for something big too.

[ubuntu_demon]

As long as there are alternatives that doesn't cost anything the ones selling must provide services that are worth their price. If I needed those services (CDs by mail, paperbooks, support, online services etc) then I'd pay.

But I would perfer to pay in the form of a bounty on some feature I want. You know "I wish there was a small firefox/gimp/xchat/whatver plugin that could..." or whatever detail it is that annoys you the most in Linux. That way I and everyone else would get exactly the small feature I want the most.

Ok, most can afford to pay for only small projects that way but the right modification can cure a lot of annoyances. If there was a big network of users who pool bounties then it'd be possible for others then space traveling millionaries to ask for something big too.
I agree.

a linux bounty network seems like a good idea :)

[Stormy Eyes]

What do you think about having to pay $ 49.99+ for some Linux Distros ? I personally don't like it (I am not completly against it) but I wanted to see what everyone else is thinking.

I used to buy SuSE Linux professional when I had dialup for both the convenience of having everything on disc and for their printed manuals. Their 400-page reference guide was especially useful to me. Now that I have broadband, I don't need to buy Linux on disc, and I'm experienced enough that a bit of Googling can answer almost all of my questions.

I wouldn't buy Linux for home use. If I was running Linux in a business setting, I'd buy Linux from Novell or Red Hat in order to have paid technical support (for my boss' comfort).

[nocturn]

I am against it in principle.

What I do approve of is offering ISO's for download for free, but offer boxed version that contain extra stuff like a printed manual (which was very nice on SuSE 5.3-7.x when I used it).

[nocturn]

Thanks for the explanations guys. So basically you can make programs from scratch for Linux and sell them but provide the source code too. You can also use other programs/parts of code and modify them and sell them but provide the source code too. Is that correct, I've got it?

You can write programs for Linux (or any other system) from scratch and charge money and even keep the source secret (proprietary).

If you use any GPL code however, you can still charge money, but your buyers get all the rights set out in the GPL, that includes the right to modify and copy your program.

And off course, you can choose the GPL for your own programs too.

[MasonM]

I am against paying for a Linux distro. Paying for support on the other hand, I don't have a problem with at all. For a business, good support is essential and worth paying for. For a personal home computer like mine, I can find all the support I need online.

I really feel that when one pays for a Linux distro, one is really paying for the support anyway.

[commodore]

If I would have money I would WANT to pay for a good Linux because then the developers will get their reward for such a great thing they have made, but I wouldn't pay 90$ for Xandros. I think the cost of it is more than the value is. I would pay for Ubuntu for instance.

[Mathias-K]

I'm not against making a marketed and fancy box with marked CDs and a manual. If they got you the proprietary codecs and full out of the box functionality, i think it's fair.

But i don't think that a Linux distribution should cost more than the average computer game. 30-40$ or so.

[PrimoTurbo]

If it was something that was good, well developed and worked out of the box then I would pay for it, but not anymore then $100.

[Omnios]

I would be willing to pay for Multimedia player codex royalties if they can get multi media working seemlesly on the web,

[truthfatal]

I'm not adverse to paying for a packaged distro.

[hermesrules]

This is a very serious question. However, you may want to reconsider how it is asked and what options you present. Here is my suggestion:

--------------------------------------
Why would you personally be willing to pay for a Linux operating system and/or software?

- I think that Linux operating system and software should always remain free to the end user.

- I would not pay for the operating system, but I will be willing to pay for proprietary applications, if this is the only way to use them on Linux.

- I would be willing to pay for the operating system and/or the software in exchange for free support and a guarantee for a solid and reliable system

- I would be willing to pay to support continuing development of my favorite Linux distribution.

------------------------

I think that, if asked in this way, the poll is more meaningful. There is yet another detail you may want to consider, but I don't think it would be a good idea to mix it in the current poll, namely whether users would be willing to pay depending on whether they use Linux on their home computer or in the office/for business purposes. I think this also makes a difference.

Other than that, I welcome the idea of such a poll, and thank you for starting it.