Would you pay for Linux or use Windows for free?

[RussianVodka]

Lets say that the only way to obtain Linux (any distro you want) was to buy it from Novell for $50 (I think that's what they sell their enterprise edition for).

And lets assume that Windows was exactly the same as it is now, but it was free (as in free beer).

Given thouse choices, which would you use?

If you said Windows, what would have to change for you to say Linux.

Me personaly, I'd pay for Linux. A month before I would have taken Windows, but I've seem to have grown out of playing games since I came to college (there is just so much more to do!).

What about you?

[MetalMusicAddict]

I have and would still buy linux.

[Perfect Storm]

I'll pay for linux. I don't mind paying for stuff or donate money to projects.
I'm still a silver member of Mandriva club whuch granted me access to Mandriva powerpack plus all the goods and properly do in the future as well.
The next release of Mandriva should be really good I've heard (v. 2007 which will hit release soon).

[zachtib]

I don't user Linux because it's free, I use it because it's a superior Operating System

That said, if Linux went closed source and fully commercial (which has absolutely zero chance of happening) I think it would fall behind pretty quick. It's the open source development model that makes Linux as good as it is.

[Kateikyoushi]

Would pay for linux, with gaming and full hardware support I would buy for all of my rigs.

Actually what you describe is similar to the current situation.
It is hard to buy a computer without windows, so windows can be considered free but to learn linux people pay with their time.

[slimdog360]

I felt sorry for windows. But if linux was only $50 australian Id get it.

[insane_alien]

linux for $50 compared to XP at $150 (or whatever it is in dollars) is an absolute bargain for what you get. by MS standards for the quality of linux you would probably be looking at $5000 per copy.

[Shay Stephens]

I don't use linux because it doesn't cost anything, I specifically use it because of the freedom it affords me. Windows has been taking freedoms away steadily since XP came out. I value my freedom. I value linux. I do not value Windows.

[newlinux]

There are a lot of technical reasons I would pay for Linux. But aside from all of those it just "feels" right. I've only been back using Linux for a couple of months, but I already avoid using Windows unless it's necessary on my dual boot box. I used to have an XP laptop. Now I have an Ubuntu laptop. I loved my XP laptop. Now I don't miss it at all with my Ubuntu laptop. I'll probably always have windows as a dual boot on at least one machine - but I'm a Linux user now, and would pay to do so (and I have) without hesitation.

[missmoondog]

i'd use winblows in that scenario. linux/ubuntu is still to user unfriendly. i have been using k/ubuntu for the past year as the sole os on most of my machines though. maybe, when the day comes that i think i know what i'm doing, i'd go the other way! i have donated to the cause a couple times for linux/ubuntu/these forums also.

[kripkenstein]

The question is interesting, but it can't really come about like that. For only Novell to sell Linux, would mean that Novell's product isn't GPLed anymore (or else someone else could distribute the source for free, as CentOS do for Red Hat).

So, this would be free-as-in-beer Windows vs. something that isn't quite Linux, since the GPL is a foundational issue for Linux.

But, ignoring this issue :), I would pay for Linux, rather than use free Windows.

[Minyaliel]

Given my budget, I'd be forced to switch to Windows in such a scenario.