Would you pay for Linux?

[slimdog360]

Like the title says, would you pay for it? I'm not talking a million dollars here but say ~$50, which included all upgrades for two years or so.

I personally would so long as the distribution was as supported as Ubuntu, Suse, RedHat et al. In fact I'd pay more then that, but I would also expect a few lacking features taken care of.

[blah blah blah]

No, why pay for something free.

[scrooge_74]

I for myself paid to get a copy of Cross Over Windows (wine commercial version) so I could run my accounting program (it used to work on wine, but changes in versions prevented this later on).

The only times I payed for Windows was because I got a cople of compaq computers, I am not sure which one was worst. I always said it was unfair to have to pay so much money for such a lousy software. Linux deserve to receive at least the $50.00 if you use it as an enterprice software

[Bachstelze]

Yes, as long as I do not have to and am doing it on a volunteer basis, to support the project.

[a12ctic]

Yes, I would, I accualy like ubuntu more than winxp and mac osx. regardless of the price.

[Clay_Banger]

i would, but if there was a price attached to ubuntu, i prob wouldnt be here, and so would many others.

[reyfer]

Yes, as long as I do not have to and am doing it on a volunteer basis, to support the project.

QFT

[adza]

yeah, i would happily pay for linux... it's actually a much better way of running your machine. I do tend to think that putting a price beyond a voluntary contribution (as hymm mentions - to support the project) would, i think, ruin some of the magic though... :)

[yabbadabbadont]

I have spent more money on various linux distributions than I have on Microsoft OS's. Probably what I spent on the professional versions of SuSE alone would be more than what I spent on DOS/Windows.

[NeoLithium]

I'd say yes, the same as a lot of people though, and stick with being a donator instead of being required to pay for it. Sure, it is very much worth it; but it's also something about freedom of choice. Man...if I had to pay for every distro that I've tried and ditched for Ubuntu....I'd have enough cash to pay for Vista Premium.

[HotShotDJ]

I love Linux. Have used it for over 5 years. I would never pay for open source, even though it produces some of the highest quality software available today. I WOULD, however, pay for support.

[Celegorm]

I wouldn't pay for it, I'd just find some other free distro that I like. I'd consider donating though, whether in dollars or some other sort of contribution.

[steven8]

If I wanted it, and had the money, I would pay for it. The whole difference being the license it is produced under. You wouldn't just be paying for a license to use it on only one machine and perhaps you would be held criminally liable if it was loaded on another machine. You would be paying for an OS that you would then OWN. As it should be.

[weird_c00kie]

No, I wouldn't. Ubuntu is an awesome OS, given that it's free, but to me it wouldn't make much sense to pay for an OS that lacks so much in hardware support. I know that isn't Ubuntu's fault, but it doesn't change the fact that I still can't connect my PDA to it or access all of my printer's custom settings because I can't install the software for it.
If I had to pay for it I would at least demand to have my hardware supported, as it is in Windows.

As someone else said further up, I wouldn't pay for the OS, but I might consider paying for support. But even then, these forums are so good at providing support for free that it wouldn't make sense to pay for something that's already available for free.

So no, I wouldn't pay for Ubuntu. I find that much of the magic of this OS is in calling a friend over and showing it off, all the while hammering in that it's 100% free, as opposed to their MS Windows.

[eklitzke]

I wouldn't pay for a Linux distribution because there are plenty of good free as in beer options. If Canonical charged for Ubuntu I'd be using Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, or something else, instead. It's also not too hard to just download programs and compile them yourself (or build .debs) -- between my personal computer and the servers I use at work I'm probably using a few dozen debs/rpms that I've built myself. I can throw together a .deb pretty quickly, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to pay for the convenience that a distro like Ubuntu offers when I can grab another free distro and build anything that it doesn't provide myself.

That said, I'm not totally against paying in a business situation if there are compelling benefits. I've worked at places that paid for Red Hat licenses because the companies had specific needs that could only be addressed by purchasing a license. Likewise, the company I'm at right now uses Ubuntu and doesn't pay for support, but if the time comes down the road when there's some really compelling reason to pay for support we'll do that.

[adamklempner]

I paid $100 to help Linspire (then Lindows) fight M$ in the European courts. That also got me a lifetime subscription to all of their products, none of which I am currently using though.

[foxmulder881]

No. Because I believe Linux operating system development is at a stage where nobody needs to charge for it.

[steven8]

No. Because I believe Linux operating system development is at a stage where nobody needs to charge for it.

Not sure what you mean by that. Too soon, or too far?

[foxmulder881]

Not sure what you mean by that. Too soon, or too far?

Well, I mean: If something is a new project and requires a huge amount of effort, then yes, there should be a fee. But I believe Linux development has gotten to a point where the work involved between incremental releases is not as demanding as starting from scratch.

Hope this explains what I mean.

[steven8]

Well, I mean: If something is a new project and requires a huge amount of effort, then yes, there should be a fee. But I believe Linux development has gotten to a point where the work involved between incremental releases is not as demanding as starting from scratch.

Hope this explains what I mean.

I see. That makes sense. I just think it would be used to get and support more devs. Allow for maybe some advertsing to get it out there more, etc.

[atria]

Most probably not, since there will always be free distributions ;)

[jonfenton]

$50 would still be cheaper than the last security suite I bought for XP. Seems like a good deal to me if it helped the cause.

[Chilli Bob]

I'd pay $50, but I'd expect to get legal versions of all the restricted codecs, and better hardware support. And a repository DVD or two would be nice.

Actually, I'd pay to get a DVD of the latest Upgrades sent every few months. This would be good for those with no/slow broadband access.

[kevinlyfellow]

I paid $50 for a Red Hat book back on 02. Once I learned the Unix way of doing things, I probably would just end up using a BSD. Why have fun for 50 bucks when you can have it for free. Besides I'm a distro *****, Linux is great because I can pursue a hobby full fledged without having to worry about shelling out tons of cash. Linux is worth $50 bucks though especially if you use your computer only for useful things.

[odiseo77]

I wouldn't pay for linux simply because it's against my philosophy and the linux philosophy as well. If you read the debian license (if it has not changed; I read it like 1 year ago), it clearly states that there must not be any type of limitation for the use of debian and it must be freely available for everybody. On the other hand, the linux philosophy is related to the democratization of knowledge, meaning the knowledge derived from it must be available for everybody without any type of restrictions... so no way I would pay for linux, and not because it's beta or experimental software as some people say (which is not; in fact, as we know, is more developed and more advanced than other OS's like windows)... in fact I'd find paying for linux like hmmm, don't find the expression; prostituting it??

[steven8]

Well, I did spend 50 bucks on the Ubuntu Unleashed Book. Good book!

[bamesah]

i will not pay for linux, but i may consider donating

[odiseo77]

i will not pay for linux, but i may consider donating

You're right, donating is a GREAT idea to support the community and developers, but paying for it (buying it) is the worst thing could ever happen to this wonderful OS. :)

[Tundro Walker]

A lot of the distro's just re-package stuff already out there, then tweak it all to work the way they like for their distro. It's not like they're inventing a totally new OS from scratch. So, I don't think I could justify paying the kind of cash I'd pay for something totally new.

I *could* justify paying a nominal subscription fee to a group that maintained repo's, made sure new things added were compatible with their distro, helped roll-out security fixes and updates, etc. I think a $50/yr subscription would be a nominal charge. However, at that amount, you'd have to deal in a very large volume to support the folks supporting the distro.

EG: 1000 people using your distro @ $50/yr is only $50,000/yr income. Subtract overhead for offices and other things, and you don't have much left to pay even a single programmer what they're worth for working on this as a full-time job. But, as volume of users goes up, the income increases, and you don't need THAT many full-time folks to keep a distro going. I think Canonical has like 5-10 right now.

I could see Ubuntu switching to a subscription model quite easily. You can d/l and get a "basic" version, which would include web-browser, email, light office apps (abiword and maybe gnumeric), XMMS. You could use that indefinitely. However, to have access to their repo's for more d/l's, or for updates, you'd have to subscribe to help support them. Sadly, you usually have to "force" folks like that, because if you operate on a "donations only" system, most folks won't donate, and some will donate only paltry sums. It's the rare person that donates quite a bit, but usually not enough to average out to much when you figure in everyone using your (whatever).

Of course, in Linux-land, it's hard to do that when you've got distro's based on Debian, since you could take the base Ubuntu distro, and hook into a 3rd party repo to d/l and install everything you need, bypassing the need for a subscription (except maybe for security updates and such).

I personally think Canonical should stick with their plan and keep offering their OS / distro for free, charge for tech support on it, but focus on investments in Linux-based hardware and culture that springs up around the free distro. Afterall, it's the "free puppy" syndrome. Ubuntu is giving you a "free puppy". But, you need a computer that can run it, you need a pretty decent internet connection for repo d/l's, you need Linux experts to help you some times, etc, etc. Like Mark said, there's a whole culture that springs up around the "free puppy" that you can make a side profit on. It's a win-win situation, since you get a "free puppy", and they make a decent profit on things related to that "free puppy".

I'll use my mp3 player as an example. I got a "free" mp3 player for my birthday. So far, it's cost me about $150 for that "Free" mp3 player, because I've bought all kinds of accessories and such for it. (I don't use iTunes or what-not, but the cost of that free mp3 would be going up even further if I did.) Granted, mp3 players are not normally free, but even when you get something at little or no cost, you may end up spending lots of money on it. The "free" is simply an enticing gateway to lure folks in. I just hope Mark & Canonical don't try to use Ubuntu to lure folks in, then once they're here, lock them in somehow like MS has done Windows users, and start ramping up prices for everything "involved" with Ubuntu. "Great, now that you're using Ubuntu, and have all this hard work on it, you get to pay us $200/month for security fixes! And, we're using behind the scenese information gatherers on your computer to see how you use your computer, and selling the info to companies to market things to you! Have a nice day!"

[foxmulder881]

I just think if companies charged for it, would create more money hungry businessmen like Bill Gates. And it would bring Linux to the same level as Microsoft. Now we don't want that now, do we...

[Elijah]

I would if there is full support for my hardware, skype w/ video, and better wine.

[thisllub]

Yes, I paid $80 for SUSE 6.0.

If it were the only way to get it I would happily pay.

[Turgon]

Yes, ubuntu and other linux distro's are quality OS'es and are therefor very much worth a fee around 50$ or even more. I seriusly consider to donate an amount like that to ubuntu, because I absolutly think they deserve it.

[%hMa@?b<C]

I would just switch to BSD

[insane_alien]

i would pay for linux but it would need to have something damn special over ubuntu and the rest of the distros.

if it wasn't special, i'd stick with ubuntu, gentoo, knoppix, DSL, puppy, sabayon or one of the many other distros i've tried out. still keep coming back here. its like the linux version of crack.

[guitarmaniac]

Only to support it, if I had too, then probably not (unless there werent any alternatives).

[daynah]

I woulldn't pay for Linux cause I can get Windows for free.

Not stealing. :P Just... every college I'v one to has given it to me. I suppose you coeld argue both ways whether it was free or noi but none the less, I got Windows CDs out the wazoozle. They're like AOL trials to me.

[smoker]

i wouldn't pay for linux, i believe it should stay free, and besides, when money-men and accountants get involved, what happens then...

donations are fine, and are a way to show your appreciation, as long as they are voluntary.

[ThinkBuntu]

I'd sooner pay $300 for Debian than for OS X, assuming some degree of support were included. This is largely because it allows me access to thousands of free applications, is famously stable, and allows me free upgrades for life. Now, if I'm expect to shell out $129 each new version, it'd be a tougher call.

[karellen]

I woulldn't pay for Linux cause I can get Windows for free.

Not stealing. :P Just... every college I'v one to has given it to me. I suppose you coeld argue both ways whether it was free or noi but none the less, I got Windows CDs out the wazoozle. They're like AOL trials to me.

how do you get windows for free? (original cd's I mean)

[Maupertus]

No, I wouldn't pay for Linux as it would be (and is to my opinion with certain distro's) a fundamental change to the community approach, which i find so important within Linux.

However, I would pay for certain standard propriatary software included in the bundle, and I would pay for support options (if I needed it, say in a bussiness environment).

I have no problems with donating a certain amount to a program, distro or wossname that I find important, and have done so in a number of cases.

[Adamant1988]

I would pay, and pay willingly but I expect a few things from a distro that I'm willing to pay for:

Be different: I DO NOT want a Windows or Mac OS X clone.

Everything should be supported: Find a way around the GPL to bring full support to customers for the things we need.

Support

ISV support.

[Countryboy123]

I would not pay for linux. I might give a donation, when I have it, but I would not pay for it.

My experience with paid software is you buy it and somewhere down the line you are expected to pay for renewals or updates .

This is the current list of software I wasted money on:

3 licenses Adaware Plus (bought for 3 different computers)
1 license TrojanHunter
1 license Registry Mechanic
1 license Avg Antivirus
1 license Outpost ( One or two renewals)

The bottom line, " All the programs above have free alternatives, sometimes with more downloads than the paid for software". I figure the more downloads , the more likely it will work on my computer.

--------------
When I say license I mean right to use the program, just in case I have my terminology used wrong. I do not have a EULA handy. (YAAA!!!!)

[IceVapour]

If Puppy Linux (the distro I use most) wasn't free, I'd switch to one that was. However, if the creator sent out a rallying call saying he desperately needed the money or the project was going down, I'd donate $50 without batting an eyelid. Probably even $100. I object to being told that I HAVE to do something. Hence my permanent move from Vista to Linux.

[igknighted]

I would definitely pay for Linux. I would be sad because it would cut down trying out distro's, but it is the best OS for my needs so I would definitely buy it. If it came to that I would like to see some improvements (pay for codecs for DVD and other formats for one, at least as an option to install), because the fact that there is no good option for these hurts linux users and adoption both. I certainly don't want any restrictive licensing, I don't want any "dumbing down" of linux to promote adoption... but there are things that can be done with a little money that would go a long way towards improving the status quo.

[goumples]

No.

[nodcero]

I'd pay for Linux.
As I would pay for air.

If I were somebody who'd enjoy his breathers rather filtered and oxygenised and spiced with a fashionable aroma of the day.

On the other hand I'd be rather seen dead than visiting an oxygen-bar.

And same as the future air-wise, methinks, lays rather in the fight for free clean air for everybody (before we will all be seen dead if not in an oxygen-bar *g*), the future software-wise should see an ongoing struggle of the community for free information, and software, for everybody.

Which still leaves room to charge for bespoke business-solutions, support, specialist know-how, and the like without leaving a bad taste in one's mouth. Fair dues.

But not for Linux as such...

[lamalex]

only if it remained free (libre). if it's no longer GPL then I'm not interested. I'm happy to donate some money to canonical for their product, but source code needs to remain available to read, study, modify, and redistribute.

[BrokeBody]

I would pay for it as long as it's free. ;)

[prizrak]

I would and I have. My first even Linux distribution was RedHat 6.2 that I paid for. I was very much prepared to pay for SLED after I have tried it out. However I was unable to successfully download the DVD so I scrapped that project. I would have no problem with OEM preinstalled machines that use pay-for Linux distro included in the price.

I have no problem paying for things I consider worth while, I have a problem paying for substandard piece of crap that restricts my ability to do what I want with it. (Hence my hate for the Mac)

[DoctorMO]

Bah you guys are thinking so 80s about software:

The existing software is £0 to copy and use; there is almost no cost is giving people existing software; the people that paid (volunteers or businesses) to move the software into that position have already paid because they wanted it there.

Now in the FOSS world you pay for the following things:

* Software Support
* Training
* Increased Interest (proponents that want to put adverts up etc (mostly donations))
* Movement

now for some odd reason users don't seem to get this element of Movement; what it means is, if you want a feature so badly you will be quite willing to pay a developer to write that feature and thus the code moves forwards and everyone benefits. you can do this with bounties too where more than 1 person puts a bounty on a bug or feature so the amount is sizeable but the amount per person is small.

There was a person complaining that his pda and printer extra settings don't work. why arn't you doing something about it? this isn't a leech community; if you want to see the software move forwards you have to put your money or your time where your mouth is.

I hope you all will consider contributing more to FOSS development.

[Extreme Coder]

Only if some the revenue the Linux distro gets goes back to the software its using in its distro. For example, some of the revenue (Novell/Canonical/Fedora/Mandriva) would get would be donated back to OSS projects like KDE, GNOME, Pidgin,etc..
You could consider buying the distro a donation, but they'd send you the distro with some freebies too :P
Also, I use Linux, not because I'm cheap, but because it's the best OS available IMO.

[el_itur]

I won't pay for linux it self neither for any app that runs on it. But I would pay for services related to FOSS. Like Training.
I believe that's the major difference in comparison to closed source. is it's business logic. You don't sell licences you sell services. :)

And that's a good thing

[RudolfMDLT]

In terms of quality of a stable product i think Linux should be asking a lot more than windows - though I believe that the product that the open source community has produced outstrips the commercial one on multiple levels so lets keep that going!

[regomodo]

yes and no.

yes, you can pay for a linux distro

no, it shouldn't be compulsory

[klato]

I voted 'No' because I'm not 100% satisfied with the way some of my hardware works in Linux. I hate to say it but I know that if I paid for Mac OS X or Windows (maybe not Vista based on what I've heard), that my hardware would work all the way without me having to tinker with it and screw around with config files hoping that I didn't make a typo.

That being said...I still love Ubuntu and it's the only OS on my laptop...

[cunawarit]

For me it really depends on the return that I get.

If the $50 Linux doesn't give me anything extra from plain gratis Debian or Ubuntu then I wouldn't pay anything for it... I'd rather support the one that is nor charging me.

Conversely if I'm a company that can make $1,000,000 out of it I'll gladly pay $100,000...

[Motoxrdude]

I would pay for linux/gnu. I would want it so if i pay $50 then i would have dist-upgrades for a few years and can install linux as many times as i want!

[Andrewie]

When Alsa supports the sound card on my laptop then I have nothing against paying 100 plus dollars...I can get sled 10 for 125 dollars with 3 years of support

[DigitalDuality]

d

[Pollywoggy]

Like the title says, would you pay for it? I'm not talking a million dollars here but say ~$50, which included all upgrades for two years or so.

I personally would so long as the distribution was as supported as Ubuntu, Suse, RedHat et al. In fact I'd pay more then that, but I would also expect a few lacking features taken care of.

I have paid for Linux before and I expect to buy the next version of Linspire, which will be based on Ubuntu.

[Nekiruhs]

I voted 'No' because I'm not 100% satisfied with the way some of my hardware works in Linux. I hate to say it but I know that if I paid for Mac OS X or Windows (maybe not Vista based on what I've heard), that my hardware would work all the way without me having to tinker with it and screw around with config files hoping that I didn't make a typo.

That being said...I still love Ubuntu and it's the only OS on my laptop...
Obviously, you and I have had very different experiences. I reinstalled XP from an OEM install CD, an ORIGINAL ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURER CD. Thats straight from Gateway themselves
.
Things Not Supported:
1. Creative Sound Card
2. nVidia Video Card
3: OEM Network card + Router
4. OEM Keyboard
5. OEM Media Reader
6. Printer

All of that came preinstalled in the computer, I only added the printer The list could go on. I installed Ubuntu 6.10 and all my hardware was supported, even the Media Reader. So yes, if Linux gets hardware support like that, then I will pay for it.

[qamelian]

Sure I would and have done in the past. I have no objection to the idea of paying for any F/OSS software. In the past, when I used SuSE and Mandriva/Mandrake, I used to purchase every second release of whichever one was currently my distro of choice. The printed documentation that both distros provided was more than worth the price of the package.

[NfF]

I'd say yes, the same as a lot of people though, and stick with being a donator instead of being required to pay for it. Sure, it is very much worth it; but it's also something about freedom of choice. Man...if I had to pay for every distro that I've tried and ditched for Ubuntu....I'd have enough cash to pay for Vista Premium.

Yep, being a donator is better than being required to pay for it. I'd say yes. Expect some bugs though

[weird_c00kie]

I'd pay $50, but I'd expect to get legal versions of all the restricted codecs, and better hardware support.
very good point there


Tundro Walker's post it the best I've read so far
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2878981&postcount=29

I think charging for technical support and specialised needs would be the way to go, if any charging had to be done at all. Offering special treatment to companies and organisations for a price could entice them to adopt Ubuntu as their primary OS. Let's face it; huge organisations will, in the long run, yield a lot more profit than a few home users here and there. As more businesses take up Ubuntu, the prestige of the distribution should also rise, thus attracting even more people.

At least that's how I see it working in my little perfect-world brain :)

[weird_c00kie]

now for some odd reason users don't seem to get this element of Movement; what it means is, if you want a feature so badly you will be quite willing to pay a developer to write that feature and thus the code moves forwards and everyone benefits. you can do this with bounties too where more than 1 person puts a bounty on a bug or feature so the amount is sizeable but the amount per person is small.

:shock:
what an awesome idea! that would give a whole new meaning to being a bounty-hunter heheh
that would be pretty cool to see implemented.
a website set up where people go and list the bug they want to get rid of along with how much they're paying for it and then the 'bounty hunters' apply for the job and set off to complete it.
that'd be cool :D

[BOBSONATOR]

If i could play games and ANY windows program on it, yes.

[fluffymikey]

I wouldn't, but I would happily donate.

Paying for, assuming that means buying, implies that I would be paying for a license for open source software, like with RHEL. If a license is applied, then that means I'm not free to use it as I wish.

[jrusso2]

I have paid for Linux many times, mostly before I had broadband I used to buy boxed versions of Redhat and Mandrake.

I would pay up to $50 now for Linux if it was a version that was clearly better then the free ones.

So far I have not found any that were clearly better then Ubuntu. So why pay?
If you want to make a contribution just send them the money.

[drivel]

Of course,I will but depend on how much.Under 50$ is OK.

[Tachyon_]

I agree with some people that had the idea of donating, but suggests it had to be voluntery act. That is, with free software. For a distro, I might, but for the applications, no, maybe donating.

Restricting end users to share the program for free would be against the philosophy of free software, also in practical sense, open source as information should be free. I would definitely use something else, if say, linux kernel of other fundamental application would become non-free as in beer (impossible with GPL). As long as all the FLOSS software is also free as in price or sharing, "linux" is free. However, charging for distribution that has a point of charging -support, license fees- I would be willing to pay for if it's within the spirit of free software and my interests. The market -users choosing a distro- make sure that the price is right with their decisions, as they have the freedom to change to other distro.

[mferr133]

no, it's a great idea and I like the fact that it's free source that's its strenght over windows or mac

[EXCiD3]

I would definitely pay, so long as its kept open source so that it can keep improving exponentially as it is right now.

Off to install Compiz Fusion... ;)

[h377r1d3r]

No i wouldn't; I wish one day when i finish studying i will be able to contribute, by developing, supporting or simply sending some money, but i will not pay for Linux.

How would you pay for it, who would you pay? All kernel developers, Linus. You can't just start licensing open source software this is to put it simply a dumb idea.

If you feel guilty or in need to give something back for using open source software which you have downloaded for nothing from internet, or better which you have installed from CD sent out to You by Canonical, then contribute - learn and help others, pick up some project help with testing, or development, do something in return which will require more from you than just entering 12 numbers of your credit card and pressing enter. :biggrin:

There should be an amendment to GPL "By using this software you agree to contribute to open source community" :biggrin:

[dca]

Never on the desktop versions... There are too many good distros out there...

As everyone's mentioned: In the enterprise, sometime it's worth it on the support level.

[mhenry35]

No - out of the box, as I have experienced it, I do not feel the value is there. For a prepacked commercial operating system, I would expect the initial experience to be less tech intensive, and include support for the most common proprietary formats.

As a free system, I think it's incredible that this project got off the ground and prospered, and amazing that for free you can get a system that works this well. It's understandable in this context that the proprietary formats aren't supported out of the box, as it helps keep the system free.

I finally have my system doing all of my basic tasks, and I'm moving forward to one new application. Once I have that running, I'll be at a stable software environment and will be able to concentrate on learning more about the system and how it works.

I run Ubuntu Studio Feisty - What a cool desktop, and also the Matrix screensaver is way beyond cool. When I go to the coffee shop to hit the internet - I always make sure people can see the screen when I boot it up. ;)

[DoctorMO]

a website set up where people go and list the bug they want to get rid of along with how much they're paying for it and then the 'bounty hunters' apply for the job and set off to complete it.
that'd be cool

You don't just say how much money, the money is held in escrow; after a length of time if the bug/feature is not claimed then the money goes back to you (normally within the system so you can reassign it without bank charges).

[23meg]

Would I pay to use a Linux based OS if the conditions demanded that I did, for example, if I needed support or other related services? Yes.

Would I pay to obtain Free software in a package that includes nothing other than the software itself? No.

[5-HT]

I have, and I would again. I use GNU/Linux because it's free-as-in-freedom and I simply prefer it to the other alternatives (though free-as-in-beer is definitely a perk). If someone wants to/needs to generate some revenue for their project I'd rather it be from support if that could suffice to keep it alive, but if the product is the one that's best suited for my needs I have no problem paying for it.

[ceelo]

Yes, so long as it was feature-rich and came with tech support. I feel pretty comfortable in troubleshooting my own problems in Linux at this point, and the community is very helpful, but if I'm paying for it, support should be provided. Those things given, I'd definitely pay for it.

[Derek Djons]

I would rather see GNU/Linux distributions free but good support and hotlines which aren't.

[athertek]

I would pay $20-40 or so for a nice retail boxed copy to support the project, but that's it. And i would only pay if it was open source, and still had the same license meaning i could do whatever with it after i bought it.

[popch]

I did pay for linux because it came boxed, with a manual and the media already burned and with some support time included. However, that was 'back when' SuSe Linux 6.3 was brand new and internet connections slow and expensive.

Today, I just might pay for a Linux distro if it included something which was not open source but which I absolutely had to have, such as a driver of an unusual piece of hardware.

[Sayers]

The whole idea of Linux is Open Source...

[cmat]

I'd pay, for support of course.

[Sayers]

I provide free support / help with the computers I sell. I don't think you should have to pay for support that is already free.

[Extreme Coder]

The whole idea of Linux is Open Source...
Open Source != Free
Sigh... How many times does this need to be said?
Even the GPL encourages you to sell software.
RMS himself used to sell software.

[FuturePilot]

Yes I would but I would rather have it be voluntary and not a requirement.

[joep]

Yes I would pay £10 for Ubuntu if it was available in the shop in a boxed case and the money went straight back into Ubuntu . I would be willing to do this every release cycle (6 months)

It would be worth it. Ubuntu put the fun back in computing for me. :)

[sheol]

I'd happily pay $50 for a distribution if it were magically able to provide me with the following:
Complete 100% garaunteed full driver support for my hardware that works the way its intended 100% of the time.
I haven't already paid the windows tax.
The default installation is rock-solid, but I can get any unstable packages I want, and easily choose which programs I want the unstable updates of.
I recieve free updates for three years.
The user interface is flawless in the three major desktops (KDE, Gnome, XFCE).

In otherwords, if Ubuntu keeps doing what they are doing anyway, they might have a distro I'd consider paying for.

Otherwise, I'm sticking with installing my favorite free distro, and hacking my way through till my OS is as I desire.

[1/0]

Linus Torvalds would never charge for the trademark Linux so I guess its only the distros then.

Personally, no! I'm the kind of user that likes to do things by hand. (Yes I've used both LFS and Gentoo for long.) I don't really see myself paying for anything except, maybe, extra features, design as in Apple or maybe if it was a really good book that came with it. Not a book like the one I got with Red Hat Linux DeLuxe 5.1 ;-) or SuSE 7.1. Especially SuSE felt like a rip off. All those money for something that is old after such short time.

[vishzilla]

If Linux becomes paid, I would prefer Linux than other OS's. It would definitely be cheaper to the other OS's. But, in one regard it would hurt, it's the cyclic Upgrades.
As of now, I love Linux the way it is :)

[ZuruxKakyn]

if i have to pay linux for license, as in microsoft, then i would much less willing to. But if the case is to donate, i will, but not now, i am still a student now and working yet http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif

[Virgofenix]

I think he's asking if Linux is still worth considering as a viable OS option if it were a commercial product. In other words, the question is, "Did you move to Linux just because it's free?"

I think people migrate to Linux (, to any free alternative for that matter,) with different reasons. Some people, most notably charity organizations, prefer free software, some just don't have the money for commercial software, others want to support the free software movement, among a multitude of other reasons.

Regardless of their expectations, I do believe that what they come to find in Linux is a well supported, stable and able platform with a large potential for growth.

[fjfandino]

No, i would not pay for linux because i believe that free and open source produce better software. Anybody with a good idea can make it better.

[lyceum]

I say yes, but mainly for legal codex support in the US, which costs $$'s. Sadly though, the companies that charge for a Linux based OS are not worth buying, IMO. I would not give a dime for Linspire, SuSE or Red Hat just to name a few. I also wonder if one of the reason Debian and Ubuntu are as good as they are has anything to do with all the people, like those of us helping here in the forums, that work for free to help out with something we got for free. That said, if Canonical came out with a patch for, say $50, to install codex for movies, etc for those in the US so we could actually use our DVD drives, that would be great and I would pay.

[BDNiner]

Yes I would pay for linux. I was contemplating buying linspire, just so that i know i am legally covered if MS decided to crack down on end users when it comes to patents. I have come to realise that not everything can be free, I would like all systems to work well with each other, regardless of whether they are open or closed source. I would also purchase closed source software for an open source platform.