PDA

View Full Version : How bad is the stigma about us all being cheapskates?



FoolsGold_MKII
July 3rd, 2007, 02:28 PM
I was wondering, is the stigma about Linux users being the kind of people who would be unwilling to pay money for software damaging our chances of obtaining more commercial software/games?

The stigma is still definitely there, I just don't know if it's getting better or worse. I wouldn't mind paying for software, but if companies who are considering releasing Linux versions of commercial products are given the impression that we're such zealots that we'd never bother with software that costs money, then they might not bother.

Warpnow
July 3rd, 2007, 02:29 PM
Meh, its true with me. Very few software do I think is worth paying for.

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Stigma that we don't spend money on things we can get for free?

Stigma that we don't pay for inferior software?

Stigma that we can do math better than the average computer user? ($000.000 < $150.00)

Sunforge
July 3rd, 2007, 02:40 PM
I always had Linux users pigeonholed as the geeks who liked to tinker with things rather than a bunch of cheapskates.

There is a cost to open source: your time. That ain't cheap by a long shot.

And for the record I'm a geek that likes to tinker with things.

Kowalski_GT-R
July 3rd, 2007, 02:43 PM
not in Italy

Linux is used by University students and, generally, smart-above-average people.....

no stigma in sight......


Want to hear how much Vista costs in Europe? :biggrin:

argie
July 3rd, 2007, 02:48 PM
I don't know, but there are a lot of people who say that Linux users are unwilling to spend money. This is obviously false. We buy the hardware, no? That doesn't come free. Make something that's much better than a free alternative and you'll be okay. Mediocrity isn't rewarded in our world, sorry.

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2007, 02:49 PM
not in Italy

Linux is used by University students and, generally, smart-above-average people.....

no stigma in sight......


Want to hear how much Vista costs in Europe? :biggrin:

How much?

starcraft.man
July 3rd, 2007, 03:00 PM
I definitely don't think I'm cheap. For over 15 years I've paid for software suites I needed on Windows and pc/console games. I will pay for a software if there is something I need/want. The question is, is there a proprietary product I need/want on Linux? The answer to that is no. I'm content with k3b and devede for my burning so I won't pay for Nero (which from what I seen is mediocre). I won't pay for Adobe suite (it's exorbitant now) if it comes I've started using GIMP (new version) and krita and am happy. Overall, I've found all the software I need to be happy thats what's important to me.

One of the problems on Windows is that there are few (overall), if any free good software for doing things, ergo, proprietary companies can get away with inferior and bloated products (Norton, Macaffe, Nero, Roxio, all come to mind). People have fewer options, and even if they are there (like GIMP for windows) so few people know or bother that companies continue to make money (Adobe PS).

Since coming to Linux, I will no longer pay for mediocrity or slightly better, I have access to free programs that do everything I need. If a company cannot make a substantial reason for me to buy their product then I don't see any reason for them to be on Linux.

Kowalski_GT-R
July 3rd, 2007, 03:01 PM
How much?

490 Euros, which equates to 666.895 USDollars for Vista Ultimate full

not that Apple is cheap though :)

I also agree with Sunforge

Sunforge
July 3rd, 2007, 03:02 PM
Windows Vista Ultimate Full version 322 (www.amazon.co.uk), which equates to $649.

Amazon.com sells the above at $359

Uhm - not sure that the UK version is worth double the US version.

Is there a tax expert in the house to explain that one?

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2007, 03:04 PM
Windows Vista Ultimate Full version 322 (www.amazon.co.uk), which equates to $649.

Amazon.com sells the above at $359

Uhm - not sure that the UK version is worth double the US version.

Is there a tax expert in the house to explain that one?

Microsoft.

notwen
July 3rd, 2007, 03:04 PM
As far as free software goes. I'm w/ this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman).

starcraft.man
July 3rd, 2007, 03:04 PM
490 Euros, which equates to 666.895 USDollars for Vista Ultimate full

not that Apple is cheap though :)

I also agree with Sunforge

LOL! Don't buy the Ultimate version, it is complete BS, the only extra features are Poker and bit locker (rest irrelevant). Unless you need it in VM... And MS is most certainly ripping you guys off at that price.

Link. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070702-microsoft-apologizes-for-ultimate-extras-embarrassment.html)

smoker
July 3rd, 2007, 03:07 PM
Windows Vista Ultimate Full version 322 (www.amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk)), which equates to $649.

i don't think there is a stigma here, except perhaps, that linux users are more sensible with their disposable income!:D

macogw
July 3rd, 2007, 03:08 PM
I don't know, but there are a lot of people who say that Linux users are unwilling to spend money. This is obviously false. We buy the hardware, no? That doesn't come free. Make something that's much better than a free alternative and you'll be okay. Mediocrity isn't rewarded in our world, sorry.

However, most commercial software is either mediocre or no better than the free stuff. Let's call that a challenge to commercial developers. Gates said in the 70s that programmers working for free couldn't do it. If all those paid developers are just as bad (;)) as the free kind, maybe those companies need to do something differently. They should either come up with better ideas and ways of implementing their ideas or the programmers should should admit they're not worth their salaries if they can't do, in their work time, what others can do in their free time.

If a program is reasonably priced and really good, I'll pay for it. When I saw that video games that work in Cedega were $50 I said "heck no" though, since most other games are $30. $50 isn't a reasonable price. $600 for Photoshop isn't a reasonable price. $150? Yeah, sure. Paint Shop Pro is $100, and Photoshop doesn't have a lot on PSP8 (PSP8 has about as much as the GIMP, maybe slightly more). Not $600 though; not when 90% of it is available free through GIMP and I won't even use that 90%. It's not worth it.

Tomosaur
July 3rd, 2007, 03:13 PM
The software industry takes the ****. Let's look at some figures:
Photoshop CS3 bought from the US shop: $649 USD, which is 321.954 GBP
Photoshop CS3 bought from the UK shop: 569.88 GBP, which is $1,149.03 USD

It is discrepencies like this which make me so damn hateful about the industry in general. I had one guy lambasting me when I said I wouldn't pay for Photoshop because Adobe used arbitrary prices which bore no relation to the quality of the software (as the above figures prove, and are illustrated perfectly by the price of GIMP (0), which, although maybe not the same quality as Photoshop, is certainly showing Adobe up for the greedy company they are), saying that I had no respect for the people who worked on it. I DO respect the people who work on Photoshop, it's a great product - but when I can get something for free which does many of the things Photoshop does, to a very, very respectable standard, and when I see the arbitrary price that Photoshop goes for, then it's not hard to see why I laugh at the idea that I'm cheap.

Sunforge
July 3rd, 2007, 03:13 PM
I'd agree with Ultimate version but being the most expensive version of the OS but I thought it would get people's attention more quickly.

I have to say looking at the comparison between the Vista offerings, Ultimate looks a little out of place unless you're a completist and want to encrypt your hard drive (Ack).

Oh and isn't there a Bill Gates signature edition, where Bill comes over to install Vista for you personally?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

starcraft.man
July 3rd, 2007, 03:18 PM
The software industry takes the ****. Let's look at some figures:
Photoshop CS3 bought from the US shop: $649 USD, which is 321.954 GBP
Photoshop CS3 bought from the UK shop: 569.88 GBP, which is $1,149.03 USD


HOLY ****!!!!!!

The jerks are charging ya double for JUST PS! *just lost serious respect for Adobe*

macogw
July 3rd, 2007, 03:18 PM
I'd agree with Ultimate version but being the most expensive version of the OS but I thought it would get people's attention more quickly.

I have to say looking at the comparison between the Vista offerings, Ultimate looks a little out of place unless you're a completist and want to encrypt your hard drive (Ack).

Oh and isn't there a Bill Gates signature edition, where Bill comes over to install Vista for you personally?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

Is Business Edition available pre-installed for individuals or only companies? I don't think you can get Aero on the Home editions. There are supposed to be extra bonuses for Ultimate users over time, and they promised them to be really nice extra features. So far there've been 4, I think, and one was a LANGUAGE PACK. Which, really, WTF?! That's a bonus? How many people are going to use that? And aren't language packs free to begin with (if not, that's stupid)?

dca
July 3rd, 2007, 03:23 PM
I think we're missing a common frame of reference in this thread. Okay, most PC/laptops purchased come w/ and OS already installed generally one of the many great [sic] flavors of Vista. So, price isn't really a concern because it's subsidized and factored into the cost of the product. The funny thing is people expecting to save money from buying a pre-loaded Ubuntu Dell and ending up paying more for it than a Windows box... ugh...

That being said, we can now talk about everything else. I'm one of people that will argue that MS products are WAY over priced for what they do. It's not my fault they have over twenty thousand paid programmers on staff, pay a ton on R&D (which equates to how they can beat the system in the end whether it be anti-trust, etc), marketing, and the millions they spend on lobbying in the US.

Open source = cheapskate? Hmmm, no...

Tomosaur
July 3rd, 2007, 03:25 PM
HOLY ****!!!!!!

The jerks are charging ya double for JUST PS! *just lost serious respect for Adobe*

Exactly. You can see the same on pretty much any website which sells software. The whole industry uses an arbitrary price system driven virtually entirely by greed. It is rare to find software which has anything like a respectable price tag. The industry has gotten away with this kind of thing for a long, long time, and only by getting people to switch to free software will anything ever change. Charging for software as a product has made a few people incredibly rich, but I for one won't be taken for a ride.

Sunforge
July 3rd, 2007, 03:25 PM
Well with previous versions of Windows, starting with 95 you had the plus pack. At this stage I'd assume that Ultimate is their "plus pack" and I expect M$ to support the people that buy it if enough people buy it. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to Microsoft.

The windows footnotes really spell out the differences:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/footnotes.mspx

Interesting that you can only join Vista to a domain if you buy business or ultimate so no network on the cheap for you.

Ah the happy days of Windows for Workgroups where it all came on a bunch of floppies and fell over several times a day. No one cared because anything was better than DOS.

macogw
July 3rd, 2007, 03:26 PM
I think we're missing a common frame of reference in this thread. Okay, most PC/laptops purchased come w/ and OS already installed generally one of the many great [sic] flavors of Vista. So, price isn't really a concern because it's subsidized and factored into the cost of the product. The funny thing is people expecting to save money from buying a pre-loaded Ubuntu Dell and ending up paying more for it than a Windows box... ugh...

Dellbuntus are cheaper than Windows Dells. Emperor Linux and all the other Linux-only companies are more expensive though. That's because unlike System76 and Dell, they buy regular, pre-Windows-ed boxes then format and reinstall then mark it up again. Dell & System76, since they make it themselves, don't have the overheard of buying an already-at-market-price computer.

insane_alien
July 3rd, 2007, 03:27 PM
meh its not so bad. the usual reason for me getting called a skinflint(cheapskate) is because i'm scottish rather than a linux user.

i don't open my wallet to protect the sentient society of moths that has evolved there, honest.

Footissimo
July 3rd, 2007, 03:40 PM
My best friend is going out with a game software developer type - I jokingly mentioned to her that she should try and pursuade him to make ports for linux...and she replied with the ONLY thing I have ever heard her say about linux - and that is that we don't like to pay for software!

Oh and someone should write to LGP / Tuxgames and see if they think that we are much into buying commercial software - some of the figures that have been put around for sales of linux game ports are just shameful and depressing.

Tomosaur
July 3rd, 2007, 03:50 PM
My best friend is going out with a game software developer type - I jokingly mentioned to her that she should try and pursuade him to make ports for linux...and she replied with the ONLY thing I have ever heard her say about linux - and that is that we don't like to pay for software!

Oh and someone should write to LGP / Tuxgames and see if they think that we are much into buying commercial software - some of the figures that have been put around for sales of linux game ports are just shameful and depressing.

But then you have to understand that Linux still has an incredibly small percentage of the desktop market (ie, the people who are most inclined to buy software such as games etc). What's the percentage of people who buy stuff like games on Windows regularly? 30%? More? Either way, I wouldn't say more than 50% of Windows users buy games as a regular thing (gamers tend to think that they're a majority, but in reality, I know very, very few people who buy ANY software regularly, even though most user computers almost daily). So, while Windows still has maybe a minority of people who regularly buy software (regularly enough to support an industry), that number is still incredibly large, compared to Linux, which has both a very, very small number of desktop users (compared to Windows), and only a very, very small proportion of that is prepared to buy software regularly. It is my belief that if Linux had more users, the percentage of users willing to buy software would stay about the same, but this means that the actual number of people buying software increases. It's all just statistics. I don't think Linux has enough users right now for the software industry to make such claims. Yes, a lot of current Linux users don't buy software our of principle, but if Linux took market share away from Windows, then obviously all of these new people may not have the same principles, and don't mind buying software.

argie
July 3rd, 2007, 06:17 PM
However, most commercial software is either mediocre or no better than the free stuff. Let's call that a challenge to commercial developers. Gates said in the 70s that programmers working for free couldn't do it. If all those paid developers are just as bad (;)) as the free kind, maybe those companies need to do something differently. They should either come up with better ideas and ways of implementing their ideas or the programmers should should admit they're not worth their salaries if they can't do, in their work time, what others can do in their free time.
...
Exactly, that's what I was trying to say. No one who uses Linux is going to pay for sub-standard software. It has to be good.

prizrak
July 3rd, 2007, 06:46 PM
Never have I ever heard of that. Linux users are considered geeks that's for sure but never heard of them being considered cheapskates/

@trophy
July 3rd, 2007, 07:03 PM
Yeah and we wonder why there's no Photoshop/AutoCAD/games/etc for Linux.

If I were a developer, I'd be very scared by this thread. To make it worthwhile to port my whatever to Linux, I'd have to believe that my target market of "Linux Desktop users who like FPSs and who are willing to pay for software" is going to even break even with the effort I've put into it.

Let's say I was a game developer.

Let's say there's 1000 computer users in the world.
I'd say maybe 100 of them use Linux at either work or home.
Maybe 60 of those use Linux on the desktop at home.
Of those, maybe 20 play commercial games.
Of those, 19 have access to a Windows machine, which is where they do most of their gaming.
Which leaves one person who's definitely in my target market.
And as this thread proves, he/she might be unwilling to pay for any software for Linux, regardless of quality.

I would conclude that porting anything to Linux just isn't worth it.

THIS is why we need to be out there buying Ubuntu Dells. And buying ports of games we don't even like. Or else pouring our time, effort, and MONEY into making Tremulous, Frozen Bubble, Planet Penguin Racer, etc better.

hardyn
July 3rd, 2007, 07:09 PM
Of the linux users that have posted here about "free" software (Stallman should have chosen his words more carefully) who would still be using it if we did have to pay a reasonable fee for it?

I can honestly say that i would... any body else?

@trophy
July 3rd, 2007, 07:11 PM
I would... or perhaps better stated, I *should*.

There's lots of projects out there I could donate my money and/or time to.

Unfortunately I'm sort on both at the moment...

mdsmedia
July 3rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
Never have I ever heard of that. Linux users are considered geeks that's for sure but never heard of them being considered cheapskates/I think the stigma may be caused by the Windows users who are trying to change to Linux as a "free Windows replacement" who then complain that Linux is "not ready for the desktop" because they can't use their bought (or pirated) windows-only software.

Those people are not your regular Linux user. They are your cheapskate Windows user.

starcraft.man
July 3rd, 2007, 08:05 PM
Of the linux users that have posted here about "free" software (Stallman should have chosen his words more carefully) who would still be using it if we did have to pay a reasonable fee for it?

I can honestly say that i would... any body else?

I dunno, depends. If it was more of a donation and I knew it went to funding the project (Linux/Ubuntu, devs wherever), no qualms I'd give what I could. If it was some sort of attempt to make licensing (like keys) I would be very cross. Those kinds of licensing have lead to the draconian activation schemes Windows and Adobe products have all lead to, they don't stop piracy either.

Sunforge
July 3rd, 2007, 08:06 PM
C'mon guys and gals, there's a lot of Linux development going on out there. How many techs use a linux appliance at work: firewall, mail filter, mail device, web blocker, NAS unit?

How many home users use linux? Tivo anyone?

Linux has gone all over the place but not, curiously, on the desktop because it wasn't being pushed that aggressively by that many companies until relatively recently. I'd be the first to admit it was there; you could buy Red Hat way back when if you were keen but it just didn't make that much sense to.

Open source is doing just fine and developers are making money but they're not making money out of the desktop....at the moment.

dca
July 3rd, 2007, 08:11 PM
Dellbuntus are cheaper than Windows Dells. Emperor Linux and all the other Linux-only companies are more expensive though. That's because unlike System76 and Dell, they buy regular, pre-Windows-ed boxes then format and reinstall then mark it up again. Dell & System76, since they make it themselves, don't have the overheard of buying an already-at-market-price computer.

check out the $499 Ubuntu 530 Dimension here on the left:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Now config a Windows based unit w/ same specs (just upgrade the CPU from Celeron) and it comes in around $429 to $449... Too bad it's Vista Basic...

saulgoode
July 3rd, 2007, 08:40 PM
Dca, I came up with the Ubuntu system being significantly less expensive. Are you sure you included a monitor in your Vista setup (and an nVidia graphics card)?

Adamant1988
July 3rd, 2007, 08:46 PM
I think the stigma in the general public is that we're 'geeks' first. Companies are the ones that believe all Linux users are 'cheapskates' who won't pay for anything... and I actually find that to be true.. myself.

Most Linux users I know either illegally download things knowingly just to save money or do it to make a point. Eitherway, they rarely pay for music, movies, or any form of media available in digital form. They buy parts from newegg to save a few bucks on their PCs, etc. Truthfully, I know very few Linux users who actually pay for things if they can avoid it, and if they do pay for it they'll be the ones using cheapskate deals, and ebay, etc.

euler_fan
July 3rd, 2007, 08:47 PM
I think we're missing a common frame of reference in this thread. Okay, most PC/laptops purchased come w/ and OS already installed generally one of the many great [sic] flavors of Vista. So, price isn't really a concern because it's subsidized and factored into the cost of the product. The funny thing is people expecting to save money from buying a pre-loaded Ubuntu Dell and ending up paying more for it than a Windows box... ugh...

That being said, we can now talk about everything else. I'm one of people that will argue that MS products are WAY over priced for what they do. It's not my fault they have over twenty thousand paid programmers on staff, pay a ton on R&D (which equates to how they can beat the system in the end whether it be anti-trust, etc), marketing, and the millions they spend on lobbying in the US.

Open source = cheapskate? Hmmm, no...

+1

phrostbyte
July 3rd, 2007, 08:49 PM
If you feel like a cheapskate or a leech there is some things you can do

1) Donate $$$ to open source projects you use
2) Create open source software, artwork, documentation (time = money; giving your time to support a project is a perfectly valid form of payment)
3) Promote open source to people (marketing)

You'll feel much better about getting "free" software if you do stuff like that.

@trophy
July 3rd, 2007, 08:54 PM
I think the stigma in the general public is that we're 'geeks' first. Companies are the ones that believe all Linux users are 'cheapskates' who won't pay for anything... and I actually find that to be true.. myself.

Most Linux users I know either illegally download things knowingly just to save money or do it to make a point. Eitherway, they rarely pay for music, movies, or any form of media available in digital form. They buy parts from newegg to save a few bucks on their PCs, etc. Truthfully, I know very few Linux users who actually pay for things if they can avoid it, and if they do pay for it they'll be the ones using cheapskate deals, and ebay, etc.

So are there others out there besides me who fit the above description perfectly, but are also willing to actually pay for something to make a point?

For example: as soon as I can scrape $279 together, I'm getting an Ubuntu Dell. I'm dirt poor at the moment, and really can't afford it, but I want to do my part to build recognition that there *is* a market for Linux PCs.

Old Pink
July 3rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
Unlike Windows users, who pay for every single piece of software they use, and never use cracks or serial gens. ;)

M$LOL
July 3rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
Just based on the forum title, I have to post this. I came across this recently, and the sad thing is that it's only one of the hundreds of similar posts by different people

About Linux:

What is peoples obsession with finding 2nd rate OSes

Windows will always be the best

I know, it is cause most of you are cheap?


IE -- Less memory usage
IE -- Not a addon
IE7 -- Has Tabbed Browsing

FireFox -- Clutterware
FireFox -- Addon to the Microsoft OS
FireFox -- Needs all new addons for evreything like flash or java
FireFox -- Unneccesary

Opera -- Addon to the Microsoft OS

MicroSoft Windows -- The Best Most Supported Most Usable OS

Adamant1988
July 3rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
So are there others out there besides me who fit the above description perfectly, but are also willing to actually pay for something to make a point?

For example: as soon as I can scrape $279 together, I'm getting an Ubuntu Dell. I'm dirt poor at the moment, and really can't afford it, but I want to do my part to build recognition that there *is* a market for Linux PCs.

Interestingly enough... I don't like the idea of doing that. If we create a market that doesn't exist, and won't be sustained, then we will end up costing people money and jobs.

Old Pink
July 3rd, 2007, 09:03 PM
We all know there's some weird conversions going on.

Price of an 80GB iPod in America = ( Price of a 30GB iPod in the UK - $10 )

It's retarded. :)

@trophy
July 3rd, 2007, 09:16 PM
Interestingly enough... I don't like the idea of doing that. If we create a market that doesn't exist, and won't be sustained, then we will end up costing people money and jobs.

I prefer to think that the market either does, or at least could exist.

I think supporting Linux monetarily is a lot like feeding starving children in Africa. We all know we should, but nobody ever does. So a lot of them never get fed.

The difference here is that we are the starving kids in Africa, so to speak. If we don't create a market to support it, there's no reason for ATI to ever release any drivers for Linux at all. I have a Radeon AIW 7500 that I've wanted to use in a mythbox for years. That was actually my original reason for getting into Linux. It isn't going to happen, because there are no linux drivers, free or otherwise, which give me full functionality (please don't send me links to GATOS... it doesn't do what I need it to).
I'd be willing to continue buying Dells down the road if it meant that the situation might change. And I bet there's probably others out there that can't do X with Linux because of "lack of demand" that would be willing to pay to change that perception. Whether that's sustainable or not depends on if enough of us are willing to pay to get hardware manufacturers to open specs, etc.

nphx
July 3rd, 2007, 09:18 PM
Cheapskate, thats a new one.

DoctorMO
July 3rd, 2007, 09:59 PM
doesn't matter what the names are; what the stones are made from; the fact is that Free and Open Source Software will cannibalise most of the existing software market; all the of the market that sells products to people. and most products sold to businesses.

Get it through your skulls people, this is a new era that requires you to put the money up to ensure things move forwards. you not expected to buy a packaged dvd in a box full of software, music or films; you'll be expected to buy into productions, support creation with subscriptions of your favourite studios or programmers.

Software will be first, but you better be ready for the rest because it's not going to look like anything we currently have; but you going to be able to do a hell of a lot more with it once it's made.

vambo
July 3rd, 2007, 10:02 PM
Proud to be a cheapskate :D:D:D

Lord Illidan
July 3rd, 2007, 10:05 PM
Well, I am a bit of a cheapskate. As a student, I don't get plenty of money.. However, I could always obtain cracked versions of propietary software. Also, Windows was available at a very cheap price because of a Government agreement with M.S.

So, I don't think it is the cheapskate thing. Two days before I just plonked down money for Starcraft and Broodwar - I've been playing them cracked for ages now in wine. I just happen to like linux, that's all..

Fenryr
July 3rd, 2007, 10:29 PM
I've got no problem with paying for some stuff...Games, for instance, still have a seriously untapped market on this side...I've been in FFXI since it was released in the US, and since it's an MMORPG, I don't see how it matters that much to SE which OS I run, since they make their money in the monthly FEE I pay to play in their world...WoW would be the same, I imagine, or any other persistent-world server hosted game environments...For that matter, I wouldn't mind paying for stand alone games, either, since for the most part GAMES are the only reason I still KEEP Windoze on hand...Everything ELSE I do with OSS packages of some sort anyway...

Since this is an aesthetic opinion and not a technical one, I think I'm safe in saying that so far the GAMING under linux has left me seriously unimpressed....

ThinkBuntu
July 3rd, 2007, 10:45 PM
I think that image is unfair. I'm willing to pay for high quality software. For example, I paid $30 to register my copy of Transmit on my Mac, because it performs better for me (by far) than any other Mac or Linux FTP client. Now, if I'm a cheapskate because I'm reluctant to pay $1500 for the Adobe Suite (although I'll probably sucker myself into paying the $100~ for Photoshop at Education cost), then the standard for me being a cheapskate is a bit flawed.

Tundro Walker
July 3rd, 2007, 10:55 PM
Software has turned into the modern-day literature. Folks will skip out paying for a book if they can surf the web and find practically the same info for free.

However, it's not like folks will always go for the cheap-o solution. Folks will still pay good money for good stories or good writing or useful information. This equates to good games and really useful software. Folks are willing to pay for it. But, not willing to pay overly outrageous sums for it.

Of course, folks still need a lamp to read by, so they have to shell out some money on hardware (computer). And, they need a bulb (OS) in the lamp to read by. It just so happens that some folks prefer to get their bulbs for free (Linux), while others prefer to spend $400 on theirs.

As the price of "lamps" (computers) goes down, and "bulbs" (OS) are free, and quite a bit of common literature (software) is free, then folks won't mind popping some dough on games or other software or training. All the money that used to go just into the "lamp" and "bulb" will get diverted somewhere else. For some folks, that means they'll actually go out and buy a copy of a game instead of d/l'ing a hack copy.

juxtaposed
July 3rd, 2007, 10:58 PM
Linux users will buy games more then windows users will, as linux users seem to hate piracy (well, everyone but me...).

But that might mean linux users would buy less because of a lack of "pirate to try before you buy" kind of thing.

ThinkBuntu
July 3rd, 2007, 11:04 PM
I agree. I always want my software to be authentic, whether it's free or costs money. I won't entrust my computer security to a pirates, possibly malicious app.

old_geekster
July 3rd, 2007, 11:06 PM
Ya know, if there is a stigma about using Linux, all I can say is, "Who cares"?

If I can get a quality product (OO, for instance) that will do what I need for FREE, wouldn't it be foolish to not use it because of a stigma? In my opinion, yes!

I have been using XP Pro for gaming. Now, I have been having problems with games not running correctly. So, I am considering no more game purchases. My computer is fully Vista ready, but still won't run year old games. It is time to make some changes. No, not to Vista. Never. Ubuntu for me.

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2007, 11:11 PM
Linux users are poor. Why else would anyone want a free OS, right ?

macogw
July 3rd, 2007, 11:22 PM
check out the $499 Ubuntu 530 Dimension here on the left:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Now config a Windows based unit w/ same specs (just upgrade the CPU from Celeron) and it comes in around $429 to $449... Too bad it's Vista Basic...
The Dimension 530 is no longer available, but on the release day:
Ubuntu: $749
Windows: $369
Then it turned out the Windows one had a Celeron and the Ubuntu one wasn't available as Celeron OR Pentium. With the exact same processor, the Windows one was $829, which is $80 more than the Ubuntu one.
You linked to the new Inspiron Desktop 530. I just went through and configured a Windows and an Ubuntu Inspiron Desktop 530 so that they are identical. Here's the result (remember N means it's the Ubuntu one). You weren't paying any attention to the options if you thought the CPU was the only difference. Graphics, optical drive, memory, and a few other things were different.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/macoafi/winbuntu.png
Ubuntu is $100 less.

juxtaposed
July 3rd, 2007, 11:30 PM
I agree. I always want my software to be authentic, whether it's free or costs money. I won't entrust my computer security to a pirates, possibly malicious app.

I'd trust a pirated and cracked version of almost anything over a genuine one.

macogw
July 3rd, 2007, 11:51 PM
I think the stigma in the general public is that we're 'geeks' first. Companies are the ones that believe all Linux users are 'cheapskates' who won't pay for anything... and I actually find that to be true.. myself.

Most Linux users I know either illegally download things knowingly just to save money or do it to make a point. Eitherway, they rarely pay for music, movies, or any form of media available in digital form. They buy parts from newegg to save a few bucks on their PCs, etc. Truthfully, I know very few Linux users who actually pay for things if they can avoid it, and if they do pay for it they'll be the ones using cheapskate deals, and ebay, etc.

Er, I don't know about that. It seems to me that we're the ones least likely to pirate software. Windows users go get all their stuff off KaZaA. At least we get ours legally.

I don't usually download music illegally either (last time was because I formatted my hard drive with my cd collection 250 miles away--then I only downloaded the songs that I knew I had already bought in cd form to give me something to listen to until I was able to get my cds back). I've bought nearly every song I have as a digital file in some sort of physical form AT LEAST once (often times twice--once cd, once vinyl--or 3 times--cd single, cd album, vinyl album--or more--I have AFI's Sing the Sorrow album on cd 3x [red from Japan, silver which was half of the first press, black "tour edition" limited to 2500], on vinyl once, and then 4 cd singles from it and 2 vinyl singles). There's probably 10 songs total that I didn't buy which are random singles from 70s/80s bands. I have a few hundred mp3s that I didn't pay for but are legal. A Bosnian record label put the complete collections of their artists which broke up in the 80s online in mp3 format for free. I never download movies. I either rent them, borrow a friend's DVD to watch (but not copy!), or go buy it.

Like I said, if the software is worth it, I'll buy it. I don't play many video games, but I really like the Sims, so if that was available for Linux, I'd buy it. Since the Sims is so fun, I'd probably pay more than $30 for it (heck, up to $60). Games where I haven't played and don't know how fun they are or whether I will be able to get them working in Cedega, I would not spend more than $30. $50 when I don't know if I'll like it or if it'll work? No way!

Requirements for me to pay for software:
1. Very good quality
2. Does more of what I need than something cheaper does (if it's more featureful, but I won't ever use those extra features, that's a waste)
3. The price fits the usefulness and the quality

If it's junk, overprices, or useless (or, as happens all too often, all 3), I don't want it.

BoyOfDestiny
July 4th, 2007, 12:41 AM
I'd trust a pirated and cracked version of almost anything over a genuine one.

I'd say it's more hit and miss. It's like "blackbox" and "blackbox". You can't really be sure what the software is doing.
In cases where there is phone home / let me past your firewall... Spyware is spyware I suppose, whether or not it's declared in an End User License Agreement...

Anyway to answer about cheapskates. I find it ridiculous for an Operating System (restrictions aside) to be so expensive compared to the hardware.

Why can I get a full desktop for for like $500, and the OS cost like a 1/3? Go back a decade or two, it wasn't out of the question to spend $1000-$2000 for a desktop, with the OS being a small part of the cost.

Perhaps it's not a question of being cheapskate, but rather disapproval for spending money on something that you not only can get for free, but get a better product, and the benefits that Free Software allow.

Hey look at me, I can use the same CD to install my OS on all my computers! ;) Yes, i get to choose what hardware to put it on, I don't need "permission". :P Want a copy, sure! Yes it has an office suite, browser, 20,000 plus packages that you can install off the web... Yeah with security updates. Yeah next release updates it all... Tongue in cheek... :)

EDIT: Just thought I'd add a little bit more. The bottom line is I do not want to use MS Windows. Thus, I don't buy a copy. Therefore, I don't want to spend money on software that requires Windows to run. Some people do of course due to WINE or they can stick it in VM. There may not be a good Free alternative, although in time that tends to change. I have no qualms paying for good software/hardware.
Although in the software arena, it tends to be for consoles. One way or another they get "opened up" as emulation has shown, so I can still get good use out of the games even if the hardware becomes obsolete. Same goes for my old PC games.
So I'm willing to make an exception as I don't feel I'm getting ripped off, nor is my PC (Personal Computer!) being locked down with checks that even police couldn't do without a warrant...) I think a PC should be as open as can be.

IYY
July 4th, 2007, 01:24 AM
I was wondering, is the stigma about Linux users being the kind of people who would be unwilling to pay money for software damaging our chances of obtaining more commercial software/games?

The stigma is still definitely there, I just don't know if it's getting better or worse. I wouldn't mind paying for software, but if companies who are considering releasing Linux versions of commercial products are given the impression that we're such zealots that we'd never bother with software that costs money, then they might not bother.

95% of Windows users I know download all of their software illegally.

VChief
July 4th, 2007, 01:36 AM
See...I wouldn't say we're cheapskates so much as we're smart. Why pay hundreds of dollars for an OS (an inferior one at that) or office software, etc... when we can get it for free (and we own it, it's not licensed to us). Not only that, but when I was building my computer, instead of having to factor in costs for software, I was able to put more money out for better hardware.

FoolsGold_MKII
July 4th, 2007, 01:47 AM
95% of Windows users I know download all of their software illegally.
Yes... but that doesn't stop companies making commercial-grade software for Windows does it?

Games are pirated like hell on PCs, but they STILL GET MADE. Windows users are very often cheapskates, but there are enough paying customers to make things worthwhile for the companies that produce said software. The same needs to be said for Linux as well, otherwise - we won't have commercial grade software, and that's the point of this thread.

hardyn
July 4th, 2007, 01:48 AM
See...I wouldn't say we're cheapskates so much as we're smart. Why pay hundreds of dollars for an OS (an inferior one at that) or office software, etc... when we can get it for free (and we own it, it's not licensed to us). Not only that, but when I was building my computer, instead of having to factor in costs for software, I was able to put more money out for better hardware.

we don't own it... it is still licensed to us; is just a different license.

At some point the open source developers still have to eat, they either do it by working for companies which have a fee for their licenses, or they have to do other things, and work on the open source stuff in their own time.

The real value of open source software is that the source code is free-libre; having to pay a license fee for open source software is something that me might all have to start getting used to.

steven8
July 4th, 2007, 02:11 AM
To be a cheapskate, I would have to have money and be unwilling to spend it. I do not have money, therefore, I am not a cheapskate.

Extreme Coder
July 4th, 2007, 02:27 AM
100% of my Windows-using friends all use pirated software, including the OS. I used to, before I moved to Linux.
I bought Neverwinter Nights, Tribal Trouble,I was going to buy Pixel before I found out it wasn't going to be updated, and I saved the money for Quake Wars already.
If I need a program to fulfill my needs which aren't fulfilled by a free program, then I'll buy it. End of Story.
IMO, programs should mainly be free, the only thing worth paying for are games.

mdsmedia
July 4th, 2007, 02:28 AM
Yes... but that doesn't stop companies making commercial-grade software for Windows does it?

Games are pirated like hell on PCs, but they STILL GET MADE. Windows users are very often cheapskates, but there are enough paying customers to make things worthwhile for the companies that produce said software. The same needs to be said for Linux as well, otherwise - we won't have commercial grade software, and that's the point of this thread.Then that's got nothing to do with any sort of stigma on Linux users. It's got to do with marketshare.

If Windows users are known pirates and cheapskates, but Linux doesn't have the marketshare for it to be worthwhile, what does that have to do with Linux users. That's basically saying "Windows users are cheapskates, but we can afford that because enough Windows users buy our software that a few pirates won't matter"

If that's what the thread is about, it's about marketshare and got nothing to do with any sort of stigma.

mdsmedia
July 4th, 2007, 02:35 AM
100% of my Windows-using friends all use pirated software, including the OS. I used to, before I moved to Linux.
I bought Neverwinter Nights, Tribal Trouble,I was going to buy Pixel before I found out it wasn't going to be updated, and I saved the money for Quake Wars already.
If I need a program to fulfill my needs which aren't fulfilled by a free program, then I'll buy it. End of Story.
IMO, programs should mainly be free, the only thing worth paying for are games.I have a pirate copy of Office 2000 but I have OpenOffice installed in Linux and Windows and do not have Office installed.

Does that make me a cheapskate?

I helped a friend setup his new XP computer and installed OpenOffice on the computer. I told him that I had the copy of Office but that I wouldn't install it for him. He complained about the way OOo handled powerpoint slideshows so I downloaded the free powerpoint viewer, which doesn't work properly either, but I wasn't going to give him Office.

Does that make me a cheapskate?

He, a Windows only user, would quite happily install a pirated program because it would do what he wanted. I refused. He accepted that.

AdamG51172
July 4th, 2007, 02:39 AM
I think it's a whole lot more complex than just being cheap. The commercial IT/electronics industry have just worked together for so long in their marketing strategies. Hardware company X develops drivers for OS company Y, and both go to the Software developer and show how there product is going to benefit if they code for specific configurations, or sometimes the Software company goes to them! And they both get to put that little sticker on their package with the OS logo on it! The Hardware company gets more sales 'cause users "need" a beefier video card to play the new Zoo Tycoon or whatever. The OS then gets to say they have so many thousands of programs that run on their system, and give you another reason to upgrade totheir new product.

We, in the Open Source world all get hung out to dry driver-wise, so I think, also, from the standpoint of sales, support, etc., there's no guarantee that this product would work on any given user's system. Since every distro out there does not use the same kernel, repositories, package management, and usually doesn't ship with proprietary drivers, there's no telling what each end-user experience is going to be like. Besides, Linux is known for support of older devices and configurations with less processing power, memory, and drive space. Of course, as the user base is shifting a bit now, there is more likelihood of users with newer, higher-end machines, with drivers that work (this year, please, ATI!)

The GPL might figure in here, too, since it states that any code under GPL that is modified also has to be redistributed as Open Source. So however that piece of software interfaces with the system, they might give away some of their "Intellectual Property"

So I don't think necessarily that the Linux community are considered cheap, just hard to pin down and market to.

FoolsGold_MKII
July 4th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Then that's got nothing to do with any sort of stigma on Linux users. It's got to do with marketshare.

If Windows users are known pirates and cheapskates, but Linux doesn't have the marketshare for it to be worthwhile, what does that have to do with Linux users. That's basically saying "Windows users are cheapskates, but we can afford that because enough Windows users buy our software that a few pirates won't matter"

If that's what the thread is about, it's about marketshare and got nothing to do with any sort of stigma.
Alright, it's a matter of both then. I propose to you the lack of marketshare is probably related to the stigma. They go hand in hand, along with other factors.

@trophy
July 4th, 2007, 07:24 AM
So I don't think necessarily that the Linux community are considered cheap, just hard to pin down and market to.

Exactly. As I said earlier, if I were a developer looking at the current situation I'd have to say "You'd have to be a lunatic to attempt marketing to Linux users."

Example: a good 95% of people that I know that dual boot with XP have one reason and one reason only in common for doing so: Photoshop. This would seem to indicate that for Adobe, porting Photoshop to Linux would be a liscense to print money. Unfortunately, all of them pirated Photoshop, and would almost certainly pirate the Linux version the week before it came out.

Thus, I remain convinced that the situation won't be changing any time soon, due in no small part to Linux users not being willing to create a market for the stuff that they want.

Fenryr
July 4th, 2007, 07:33 AM
Example: a good 95% of people that I know that dual boot with XP have one reason and one reason only in common for doing so: Photoshop. This would seem to indicate that for Adobe, porting Photoshop to Linux would be a liscense to print money. Unfortunately, all of them pirated Photoshop, and would almost certainly pirate the Linux version the week before it came out.
.

I've never really understood that, now ya mention it...I'm a photographer/editor, and I've NEVER used Photoshop...I started with PSP way back when, and haven't had any trouble adjusting to GIMP...Form follows Function, after all, and any dozen tools designed to do the same JOB are pretty much gonna do it the same WAY...Why this fixation on ADOBE? It's no BETTER and no WORSE than any OTHER decent photoeditor out there...

jiminycricket
July 4th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Example: a good 95% of people that I know that dual boot with XP have one reason and one reason only in common for doing so: Photoshop. This would seem to indicate that for Adobe, porting Photoshop to Linux would be a liscense to print money. Unfortunately, all of them pirated Photoshop, and would almost certainly pirate the Linux version the week before it came out.


That's a very sweeping statement. How about businesses or self-employed people using Linux and the hypothetical Adobe Photoshop? The BSA wouldn't be happy with that (although of course the BSA always recommends Microsoft software as a way to cure any past misdeeds, all other companies should really break off from them).

mdsmedia
July 4th, 2007, 07:57 AM
Exactly. As I said earlier, if I were a developer looking at the current situation I'd have to say "You'd have to be a lunatic to attempt marketing to Linux users."

Example: a good 95% of people that I know that dual boot with XP have one reason and one reason only in common for doing so: Photoshop. This would seem to indicate that for Adobe, porting Photoshop to Linux would be a liscense to print money. Unfortunately, all of them pirated Photoshop, and would almost certainly pirate the Linux version the week before it came out.

Thus, I remain convinced that the situation won't be changing any time soon, due in no small part to Linux users not being willing to create a market for the stuff that they want.I'd be questioning your circle of friends then, rather than any sort of stigma on Linux users.

They seem to be the people who use Linux because it is free as in beer, and are looking for a free Windows clone, and free everything else. Not because Linux users are cheapskates but because some Windows users who use Linux are pirates and thieves.

I'd strongly suggest that your 95% figure is way over the top, because there are alternatives to Photoshop such that MOST wouldn't need Windows if that was the case. Granted, GIMP doesn't do all that Photoshop does, but if it's 95% of dual-booters then most of them don't need the functions in Photoshop that GIMP doesn't provide.

A large percentage are gamers and probably a large percentage of those don't give a hoot about photoshop.

I dualboot and I've never used photoshop. I also have one game that I play on Windows but if my tax software was ported to Linux I wouldn't play that game and I'd have no need for Windows.

Tundro Walker
July 4th, 2007, 09:50 AM
Thus, I remain convinced that the situation won't be changing any time soon, due in no small part to Linux users not being willing to create a market for the stuff that they want.

This is a chicken and egg issue...

It's hard to create a market when the first thing they do is over-price the software beyond the reach of 2/3's of the people that want to use it. $50 for some software is fine for most folks, but $800 is freakin psycho (you can get a new, pretty good comp for that much).

Thus, folks who would normally be willing to pop $50 for it, but can't afford the $800 asking price are reduced to pirating a copy from somewhere. This leaves Adobe complaining about how many folks are pirates, and how little profit they're raking in. So, the next version has to be even more expensive, thus creating even more pirates and more complaining from both customers and Adobe.

Now, take that and reduce it down to the Linux consumer scale, and Adobe probably feels it just isn't profitable enough to maintain a port of the software.

This is a classic case of supply and demand, except Adobe isn't the only one controlling the product flow...software pirates also control the product flow. So, it comes down to how much money Adobe charge before a person's moral fiber is broken and they steal the product instead of paying for a legal copy.

FoolsGold_MKII
July 4th, 2007, 10:01 AM
Thus, folks who would normally be willing to pop $50 for it, but can't afford the $800 asking price are reduced to pirating a copy from somewhere. This leaves Adobe complaining about how many folks are pirates, and how little profit they're raking in. So, the next version has to be even more expensive, thus creating even more pirates and more complaining from both customers and Adobe.
Believe it or not, there is a method to Adobe's madness.

The only people who can realistically afford the cost of Photoshop would be professional photographers, photohouses and other graphics-based companies. Regular folk, student, amature photographers, they can't possibly afford it, so they pirate it. They get used to it, they like using it, and so if they advance into a position where they need to use a tool to do their work legally, they'll be in a position to purchase it now. It's considered an industry standard, and it's industry where Adobe makes there money and can ensure legitimate use of Photoshop is upheld.

There's a reason why a lot of commercial software has discounts for students/universities - they want to you get used to their software so that in the big wide world, you'll have a preference for their software. Pirating the software is perhaps not as favorable, but hey, if it still means you get a preference for their software, all the better for Adobe.

Doesn't quite explain the pricing scheme for Vista though. :)

@trophy
July 4th, 2007, 02:26 PM
I'd be questioning your circle of friends then, rather than any sort of stigma on Linux users.


Then you'd probably question me as well. I'm definitely on the list of people using pirated Photoshop. Anyway these aren't people who are just looking for a cheap windows. They are poor college students who like good software. Which is why they use Linux whenever possible: because it's better at what they're doing. Not because it's libre or gratis, but because it does the job they need it to do better than Windows. With the exception of gaming and PS. And on those occasions, they use Windows. I do as well, but I whine about it. I don't like having to keep an inferior operating system around just for one thing.

As for why we don't all switch to the GIMP... each one probably has a different answer. Mine is that I've tried switching a few times, and I have found that I have too many years invested in learning how PS works to simply do a mental purge and start all over again, and also I actually do use some of the features that PS has and the GIMP doesn't.

The prices that Adobe charges for Photoshop are so rediculous that I'd almost consider pirating it an act of civil disobedience, but the truth is that everyone pirates it simply because it's really good software and because pirating stuff is easy. If it cost < $100 I'd buy it, but I'd bet most people would still pirate it.

euler_fan
July 4th, 2007, 04:07 PM
. . . Anyway these aren't people who are just looking for a cheap windows. They are poor college students who like good software. Which is why they use Linux whenever possible: because it's better at what they're doing. Not because it's libre or gratis, but because it does the job they need it to do better than Windows. With the exception of gaming and PS. And on those occasions, they use Windows. I do as well, but I whine about it. I don't like having to keep an inferior operating system around just for one thing.


There is plenty of truth in that statement. :) Speaking for myself, when I switched to Ubuntu I wasn't looking to replace Windows with it. I was looking for an inexpensive environment--time is cheap when you're in college--where I could get the tools to do some research. After a couple of weeks on Linux (the rumor that it's hard to use made me switch early so I could get used to it prior to working on it) I simply stopped using Windows for anything but the occasional Windows only program or making sure the projector at a conference would work with it, etc.

Wiebelhaus
July 4th, 2007, 04:17 PM
I have two custom pc's in my home , I have Xp pro & vista ultimate & Office 2003 & 2007 for both pc's and CHOOSE to use Linux , Because windows sucks *** and someday I might learn to not fall into their propaganda and buy their craplets.

macogw
July 4th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Believe it or not, there is a method to Adobe's madness.

The only people who can realistically afford the cost of Photoshop would be professional photographers, photohouses and other graphics-based companies. Regular folk, student, amature photographers, they can't possibly afford it, so they pirate it. They get used to it, they like using it, and so if they advance into a position where they need to use a tool to do their work legally, they'll be in a position to purchase it now. It's considered an industry standard, and it's industry where Adobe makes there money and can ensure legitimate use of Photoshop is upheld.

There's a reason why a lot of commercial software has discounts for students/universities - they want to you get used to their software so that in the big wide world, you'll have a preference for their software. Pirating the software is perhaps not as favorable, but hey, if it still means you get a preference for their software, all the better for Adobe.

Doesn't quite explain the pricing scheme for Vista though. :)

Microsoft does that too. It's why they ignored piracy for so long and only kicked in now. Now they know they've got 90% of people hooked like Windows is crack!


There is plenty of truth in that statement. :) Speaking for myself, when I switched to Ubuntu I wasn't looking to replace Windows with it. I was looking for an inexpensive environment--time is cheap when you're in college--where I could get the tools to do some research. After a couple of weeks on Linux (the rumor that it's hard to use made me switch early so I could get used to it prior to working on it) I simply stopped using Windows for anything but the occasional Windows only program or making sure the projector at a conference would work with it, etc.
I switched early for that reason too, a month and a half before school started. I couldn't figure out dual-booting at the time (resizing NTFS is darned near impossible, I swear...much better to partition first), so it was straight into Ubuntu and hope I figure it out before school starts. Wasn't too bad, really, except that totem has gstreamer by default and gstreamer is crappy for DVDs and my mp3 player was an MTP device.


Given the side discussion on photo-editing, over the years, due to making dolls like this:
http://geocities.com/dollzrgr8/dollz/ataridoll.gif*
I've tried a bunch of different ones. I got the free trial of Paint Shop Pro 7, and that was great. When it expired, I stopped using it. Then I started using VicMans, and that was OK. It couldn't export gif, so I had to make them bmp and put them through Ultimate Paint, which worked well. For animation, I used something horrible that would only import jpgs for the frames, and then AniMagic. AniMagic worked really well, so for a few years I used the VicMans + Ultimate Paint + AniMagic combination. Eventually I got a pirated Paint Shop Pro 8, and I absolutely love that program. I had to use Photoshop in a web design apprenticeship, and I hated it. When my step-brother got us a new computer, he put Photoshop CS on it (he had a mass-volume license thing from work), and I installed the pirated PSP8 because PSP8 is much easier to use than Photoshop CS. It has all the stuff you need in easy-to-find places. All the extra crap that's just really confusing about Photoshop is either put into a much easier configuration setting or not there. One thing I really miss when using Photoshop is that you have separate dodge and burn. Why? On PSP you left-click for dodge, and you right-click for burn. That's how all of the tools are in PSP. Left-click does one thing, right-click does the opposite. It makes perfect sense. So when I switched to Ubuntu, I learned to use the GIMP. Like PSP (and unlike Photoshop), it's easy to use. I can use the GIMP better than I can use the others now, I think. For example, I was at work where I have the GIMP installed (note that this MacBook was purchased instead of an Ubuntu Dell because "I NEED a Mac! They're good for graphics and I NEED Photoshop!" but she A) doesn't do anything with graphics [she writes up invoices, and sometimes I crop an image to make a flier] and B) she doesn't have Photoshop!), and the photo she took had the framed image not being straight-on (to avoid her reflection showing in the glass). I wasn't so sure you could yank things that had perspective on them making them messed up back into straight-on angles, since I'd never found a way to do it in PSP or Photoshop. Turns out that GIMP has a tool specifically for that, so that's great. It was easy to find to too. It's in layers > transform, I think. I would've been hunting for a while to find it if she had had Photoshop installed. I also would probably have installed the GIMP anyway even if she did have Photoshop because, as I said before, I hate Photoshop.


*base by If Looks Could Kill

Ralob
July 4th, 2007, 10:55 PM
I wouldn't necessarily call myself a cheapskate, but I am somewhat frugal with my money. Why spend it for unnecessary things when you can save it for something meaningful? I am more than willing to dish outt he cash for something worthy. The reason Linux is so attractive to me is the software is not only free, but updated free of charge
at a greater rate than closed source.

I think people see Linux users as more geeky than cheap. I happen to see them as enlightened. :D

vegetable
July 6th, 2007, 01:15 PM
This is not at all about money, in my case. But if someone were to call me cheap because of my os choice, i would just call them a mindless, lazy ****, because of theirs ):P

cobrn1
July 6th, 2007, 04:53 PM
To briefly answer the original question, I think linux users are sometimes identified as being cheapskates, but in general they are no more cheap thean the average windows user. Linux is a _legit_ free OS. Most windows users use _illegal, pirated_ XP OS. If you are paying full price for it then you are a fool (unless you have a _very_ good reason) as linux is better for almost everything now.

Personally, I am a student and so don't have oodles of cash to band around, so this might colour my view slightly. However, I just don't see the point in paying for software in general. I think that software/computer code has got to the point where it's more like maths, and patents are stupid - you can't patent trig, why can you patent code? Paying for hardware is different - it's not like maths - its not some truth, its a physical thing that requires resources to make, and you need to pay for them and the production cost (machinery). This is why in general, I don't pay for software - I dson't see why I should have to.

On the otherhand, I can see that there is alot of work put into something like photoshop and it's possibly worth paying for (but not at the prices they charge...)

I think games are worth paying for, by the same merit as (possibly photoshop) - a lot of time and effort goes inot it and its not really core functionality, even in the broadest sense of the word.

Pirating media is a slightly different issue - generally I feel that by using the internet as a distribution service the music (and film/TV, etc) industries could save themselves money and use the internet to pay for the media (ie, via advertising), benefitting both sides. The **AA released '10 inconveinient facts about piracy' and said that the torrent sites, tho claiming to be freeing people (of some such...) are making a packet of money off the advertising. EHEM! Why not set up the only legit torrent site - they would rake in the cash! Simple.

Pirating windows is not so great (because the advertising model doesn't work quite so well) but I think many people don't feel bad about pirating it because they are forced to by the monopoly, ie for gaming. They wouldn't use it if they didn't have to and they don't use it for anything else... They dont feel they should pay.

Any way, just my 2c worth - remember, all just opinions - something to think about...

macogw
July 6th, 2007, 11:07 PM
I think that software/computer code has got to the point where it's more like maths, and patents are stupid - you can't patent trig, why can you patent code? Paying for hardware is different - it's not like maths - its not some truth, its a physical thing that requires resources to make, and you need to pay for them and the production cost (machinery). This is why in general, I don't pay for software - I dson't see why I should have to.

It has always been math. That's why the EU doesn't allow software patents. The first programs were just for math (hence the word "computer"). I disagree about software not being something to pay for though. It takes tons of programmers hours of work for years to come up with great software. In FOSS a lot of that is done on the side, but for people who want to make a living, if they want to charge for it, let them, and pay them what they ask. You cited games and Photoshop. Those are both examples of things that involve 1000s of people's salaries to write the stories for the games, do the graphics, write the logic, plus management and usually office buildings full of electricity and water and heating. For a math comparison, you have to pay for your Physics book in Uni, don't you? You could just look over another kid's shoulder (borrowing his computer to play), but you'll probably want to buy your own so you can use it when you want instead of just when he lets you.

cobrn1
July 7th, 2007, 12:30 PM
I think you've been a tad unfair/interpreted what I was saying slighlty wrong. I'm saying in general the software isn't worth paying for - why are you paying for the ability to use the hardware you payed for? But like I said, I do recognise the amount of work that goes into certain products, which is why I cited certain programs (like photoshop) and games as worth paying for.

Gamnes - yes, pay for them. But other things like ripping a CD and converting FLV to MP3 (random example) why pay???

I think there's a fine line, and I don't like to deprive people of hard earned money, hence I use GIMP. Like I said, the OS is dodgy because if you are gamer then you are really forced to use it - that's not choise or a free market, you HAVE to use it to play games. While that doesn't change the time, effort and money put into making an OS like windows, it gives you (people) a different perspective to think about.

Out of interest, someone meantioned that people were able to make money out of open source programming. How are they doing this - i'd be very intersted to know (genuine question).

AdamG51172
July 7th, 2007, 01:56 PM
To answer your question, anyone can sell Open Source Software, as long as the original source code is made freely available. There are quite a few distros out there that make use of this. If you are so inclined, read the GPL (any version will do.) Just remember that the 'free' in free software is like 'free speech' or 'free will', not always like 'free samples'

cobrn1
July 7th, 2007, 02:19 PM
AdamG51172, while your point is true, open source is free libre, not necessarily free gratis, it kinda kills some of the point I'm making... the code itself should generally be free. EDIT: actually, i guess you were backing me up, if the code is free to view than its free gratis (beer). This is good.

I thought about it a bit and I've come up with a better way of expressing it.

I do value programmers time. Hell, I used to program too - I know the time effort, blood sweat and tears that it can take ;-) However, I believe that the functionality of the pc (provided my the software) should generally be free.

Think of it like this - the computer is a tool that i've bought, like a hammer. Why should I need to pay to use the hammer in a certain way, to unlock new functionality. I shouldn't - I paid for it and I can use it for what ever i like for free, ie, hammering nails, removing nails, killing people (might need to pay for bribing the jury tho... =) )

Certain software is sufficiently like a different tool to be worth buying seperately, ie games. You buy other equipment for your enjoyment (keep it clean please... ;-) ). Photoshop is a tool that has been designed specifically for one task, so it counts too.

However, generally, it should be free, but there is a very fine line and it is hard to draw...

Like I said, OS are a bit different and you can have a whole separate debate about that...

Also, I know that companies pay for support for ubuntu, but like I said, OS are different to other software (lots can go wrong). Do you really need support for photoshop. So is there any way to keep it free (libra and gratis) while making the programmers the money they deserve for their time?

cobrn1
July 7th, 2007, 02:21 PM
(sorry dbl post) AdamG51172, if the code itself is free (inder GLP) then there's nothing preventing you from compliling it yourself (ie, CVS cedega), right? That's ok i guess, but why would you pay (in general) when you can compile? Buying cedega is easier I'll admit, but what about in other cases?

cobrn1
July 7th, 2007, 02:40 PM
TRIPLE POST TIME!!!

To answer the original question, in generaly I don't think that linux people are seen as cheapskates who aren't worth developing for. The percentage who do/would pirate is probably about the same among linux users as it is among windows users. Like I said, at least we don't pirate the OS...

The real problem is the lack of market share which is a turnoff. GLP can also be seen as a turn off I guess (why let your competitors see the code and use it + why allow people to compile it themselves) however, it has the linus law advantage (bugs found and fixed quickly). Also, given that a competitor who uses the code and improves it will be forced to re-release it anyway, everybody benefits (its a bit like accelerated evolution), instead of clandestinly copying from eachother and worrying about patents (like how mac and windows copy off eachother and off linux) you can just improve your product to everyones benefit. Allowing people to compile might be problematic but I doubt it. You would likely buy it (and get support with it, no?) if you could afford it, and if you can't they aren't losing any money anyway - infact, they are getting a tester for free - bonus!

GLP is in many ways the way to go, and using it (for free) isn't being a cheapskate - it's just plain smart. As popularity grows, the cheapskate image will change (people are realising the real benefits of linux, not just the reduced cost) and the marketshare problem will diminish. The future bright...

AdamG51172
July 8th, 2007, 08:14 AM
Waaaaaaaay back, there was a GUI for the Commodore 64 called Geos, which I liked alot at the time. Well my little brother took my 5" floppy and played frisbee with it and was destroyed. So I taught myself a bit of BASIC and how to read joystick port (which was the only input device I owned at the time) and kind of engineered my own version. You could get magazines at the time, too, with a long list of machine code that you could compile yourself and in the end have useful software.
Yes, I bought the hammer and if I chose to learn how to use it, I might end up with a tree house. Or I could pay, bribe, or extort my friend or neighbor to build it for me. Either way, the choice was mine. Of course, as I graduated on to the Amiga, I found a community where everyone brought something to the party and shared.

Linux reminds me of this era so much. I can't write code from scratch, but I can do my part and share with the rest of the group what works for me. I share what was freely given to me. This I think, is far better support than any corporate entity could give on their product.

So when all is said and done, I don't mind horribly to have to pay for some things, like games, say, or something I might use on a professional level, but the value really should be there too.

The thing about Photoshop, though, is a reflection of who the original target market was, persons able justify it as a business expense. This software is developed for professionals. I remember my first experience with Photoshop vividly. The packaging alone had an aura about it. It said "You'd better run me on a better machine than you got, b**ch!!" What's unfortunate is that it has taken more than a decade for anyone to provide a less expensive alternative for the casual / home user. I mean, at the time, I didn't need genuine Pantone color, but I could have used a little more than what M$ paint provided.

I guess the BIG issue here is really that M$ really changed the whole PC landscape in a bad way. They duped the world into thinking that only engineers could make a personal computer do anything worthwhile, and there is a premium on that kind of expertise. And then, of course, they keep it closed source to protect their Intellectual Property, so you have to go back to them for support! The software developers just followed suit.

Like I was saying, with my Commodore, at least I had BASIC right out of the box, and from day one I could do:
10 INPUT A$ "Why is Adam so great?"
20 PRINT "Adam rules because" A$
30 GOTO 10

Now that's value in my book!

cobrn1
July 8th, 2007, 04:23 PM
I think we have quite a bit in common. My first programming experiance was using BASIC on a DOS-like OS on an amstrad. Then I used basic on a retro games console called a 'hitbit'. The best game was polar pass (has a penguin as the main character... :D)

I've also done some BASIC programming on the TI calculator - they really rock! I remember many programs like the one you describe, from 'school sucks', 'to cobrn1's great' and 'u suck at math, u dom u do'... good times. I can program in C++ a little, but nothing really useful. I might have another crack at learning it properly tho...

Getting back on point, some things are worth paying for, like photoshop and games, but most should be free (libre and gratis, seeing as with libre you can compile it gratis, like with cedega, you just don't get the support or updates...) It could possibly even work with online games, but ingeneral I thing you really should pay for games... Having an OSS version of photoshop would be great tho, because amateurs who want to learn could compile it free, and businesses can buy it with support.

I still have trouble with media and OSes tho - media because it could be free _legit_ over the internet if the companies could just get their heads together, and OSes because it's core functionality. The only reason I'd use windows is for gameing, which is hardly a free choice, but I guess you could argue that either way...

Lanning
September 21st, 2007, 06:08 AM
I was wondering, is the stigma about Linux users being the kind of people who would be unwilling to pay money for software damaging our chances of obtaining more commercial software/games?

The stigma is still definitely there, I just don't know if it's getting better or worse. I wouldn't mind paying for software, but if companies who are considering releasing Linux versions of commercial products are given the impression that we're such zealots that we'd never bother with software that costs money, then they might not bother.

Although I'm a recent convert to Linux, I've been using open source software for several years because I started to get annoyed with the frequently useless updates to MS Office that I kept installing in order to make my files readable by others. As a writer, I want to be able to produce text efficiently and configure my word processing application to do what I want it to -- fortunately the newer versions of OO are allowing me more freedom to configure toolbars. That user configurability is what got me to switch to Linux from Windows -- not the $$. I want to be in control of my machine! I've spent plenty on Windows in the past but was frustrated by too much restrictiveness and lack of room for creativity in fiddling with the look and feel of various MS programs. Now I don't get as much writing done as I did before I trashed Windows -- but I'm having a blast learning to use the Terminal and getting my computer penguined up.

As a teacher, I've also used valuable open source shareware and freeware tools that have made my teaching more creative and fun (Audacity, for one, is a great tool for teaching pronunciation; fonts developed for language and linguistics have also been invaluable to me). This kind of creativity is not always available in packaged, marketable versions.

As for stigma??? I couldn't care less! If nobody wants to market to me hopefully that means I am less likely to have to deal with advertising and in-my-face popups.

toupeiro
September 21st, 2007, 08:08 AM
I don't think linux users have any "stigma" of being cheapskates.. I've heard that stigma applied to those who choose to solely download music without buying CD's or DRM licenses associated with them, but never for the use of linux.

I think there is still some confusion for many people between "free" software, and "open source" software. "Open Source" software does not necessarily imply without cost, nor should it. In a nutshell, Open Source puts the choice back in the hands of the USER to pay for something, or make it work for themselves without being sued. (Wine / cedega v/s Windows/DirectX might be a good example of this.)

I am more than willing to pay, or donate (time or money), towards projects promoting well written software that is free AND open source.

I am not willing to pay the ridiculous cost of Microsoft Software any longer. Come on.. Microsoft Word.. its a WORD PROCESSING APP! Tools like that should be absolutely standard and included in 2007, not cost hundreds of dollars for it stand-alone or in an overpriced suite of tools providing similar basic computing necessities. Microsoft should be embarassed to put the price tag on vista and office that they have when you have OS'es like Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSuSE and office suites like OpenOffice out there which are capable of so much.

In the final coming of linux to the mainstream desktop populus, (and by that I mean the option to have it pre-installed on a multitude of brand-name PC's; as many as windows has today) I believe that people might actually be willing to pay a small premium for open source, but not in the same regard they do for MS Windows today. The OS'es and apps will remain open source and/or free, even the updates, but support contracts can be sold for set periods of time. I think the opportunity to download the OS for free without the support will always be available to those who wish to handle the install themselves., but a pre-loaded dell, IBM etc, ubuntu system could have a 1 year support charge included in the purchase at a reduced price, left up to the buyer to continue or not to continue.

Still, it will be hundreds of dollars less than what Microsoft charges you for software WITHOUT any implied technical support.


The difference described above versus the reality of today, of course, is the choice. A choice that most people buying a new PC do not have today; and that all windows users do not have today because Microsoft does not market their software in such a manner. If you want support on windows, or MS Exchange or Sharepoint or any other Microsoft solution, its 250 dollars a phone call without a support contract. The average end user will not fork out the dough for a Microsoft support contract on top of the OS licensing fees. it would end up costing them more than their computer did.

The choice there for the mainstream windows user is, pay the price per call or poke around on the net, find forums that want you to subscribe for a cost (like experts-exchange), call companies like the Geek Squad (http://www.geeksquad.com/services/category.aspx?id=231) at $99 per hour, or get very familiar with terms like GUID, CLSID, SID, RID and many more ridiculous achronyms that refer to non-relational naming making it a pain to fix your problem. Not to mention stay up on sites and software like this to no end! (http://www.symantec.com/norton/security_response/index.jsp)

The Choice for Ubuntu users is, call support (per your contract), or use forums like this with a very vast array of knowledge with clear and concise solutions.

Cheapskate? there's nothing cheapskate about making a sensible decision.

Mr. T
September 21st, 2007, 08:34 AM
I am not willing to pay the ridiculous cost of Microsoft Software any longer. Come on.. Microsoft Word.. its a WORD PROCESSING APP! Tools like that should be absolutely standard and included in 2007, not cost hundreds of dollars for it stand-alone or in an overpriced suite of tools providing similar basic computing necessities. Microsoft should be embarassed to put the price tag on vista and office that they have when you have OS'es like Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSuSE and office suites like OpenOffice out there which are capable of so much.
Let me stop you for a minute there. Now I agree that the cost of Word is expensive for the most part (depends on what deals you can get though, whether you're a student and so on). Same goes for Windows; it's not particularly cheap.

But what is easier though? Abandoning everything you've learnt so far and relearning a new operating system and office suite (i.e. Linux + OO) just to avoid the costs - or simply pirate the necessary software and expend very little extra effort/time in the process? There's a reason pirated software is so popular, and the reason why Linux needs to make headway against pirated software in Windows.

This argument doesn't quite work in a business of course, but the time spent relearning everything may not justify the savings - time is money and so forth. That's why a lot of people who refuse to pirate software (particularly business) see the costs of things like Windows + Office as reasonable - they're known as capital costs, and work out cheaper than retraining everyone to use a different platform. For the desktop the issue is clouded, but then again rampant piracy means it's more desirable to grab a torrent of Office than it is to reorganize to a totally new platform.

toupeiro
September 21st, 2007, 08:43 AM
Well, it doesn't really quite work in the windows world either. If you want to seriously calculate how much time you spend cracking the ever changing Genuine Advantage and online product activation implementing Microsoft has done with their products, go ahead. It's not even worth it to me to pirate it or anything else and waste my time, (or risk it) and it shouldn't be worth it to you. I had to install a pirate version of XP for a while because my CD got stolen, and my key wouldnt work because the version I had to install was OEM and my key was retail. So, even though I was legal in the sense that I had purchased a license to use their product, I was still being penalized like a pirate. That got old very quickly. So, my point is why pirate something if something better is available to you for free, unless you are truly a brand name loyalist? Then its not about anything technical, or sensible, its about loyalty to a name. Not to mention, you made reference to student discounts, yet said it's still not cheap. Doesn't being a student involve learning? Having been a college student not so long ago, this simply wouldn't scare me away. I would be happy to learn a free OS and office suite as opposed to paying for it given the tuition of colleges and cost of books and materials. In fact, that IS what I did! I was taking night college classes and working 40 hours a week (Windows NT 4.0 support) when I first started using Linux. I know your statement was in relation to discounting the cost of Windows, but as a student, Ubuntu and Openoffice are much more attractive from that vantagepoint I would think.


If you've seen the latest version of office, you'll agree with me, I think, that most people are going to have to retrain themselves to use it anyway. OpenOffice tools have a look and feel closer to traditional Microsoft Office apps than Microsoft office does now days. The Windows Admins I work with run OpenOffice at home, no joke. I think that is a pretty powerful statement in itself.

If Microsoft wants to charge me hundreds of dollars, their software should be worth it. Office 2007 and Windows Vista aren't. Windows XP was worth the cost of the license, which is why I bought it. What Vista and Microsoft Office offer I consider downgrades in the face of performance and my time to relearn how to use them. Ten years ago, I had no choice but to relearn how to use them and if it sacrificed performance, I'd have to consider new hardware to make it run better. This is not the case today. The only way Either of those two products will make their way into my home will be on business issued hardware. That is, of course, my personal stance and opinion. :-D

Mr. T
September 21st, 2007, 10:42 AM
Well, it doesn't really quite work in the windows world either. If you want to seriously calculate how much time you spend cracking the ever changing Genuine Advantage and online product activation implementing Microsoft has done with their products, go ahead. It's not even worth it to me to pirate it or anything else and waste my time, (or risk it) and it shouldn't be worth it to you. I had to install a pirate version of XP for a while because my CD got stolen, and my key wouldnt work because the version I had to install was OEM and my key was retail. So, even though I was legal in the sense that I had purchased a license to use their product, I was still being penalized like a pirate. That got old very quickly. So, my point is why pirate something if something better is available to you for free, unless you are truly a brand name loyalist? Then its not about anything technical, or sensible, its about loyalty to a name.
It depends. For example (don't ask me how I know this), the most commonly used pirated version of Vista is an OEM copy of Ultimate. It is the single easiest pirated version of Windows to use since Win 3.1. Why? Because it's a special OEM copy which is already pre-activated (so no cracking involved), and it doesn't even need a key! The cracker groups are the ones who do the heavy work, the end user just has to find what's got the most seeds and use that. I agree though, the measures being taken to limit piracy by many companies is outrageous. Whether it causes people to just pirate the software in response or look for a free alternative is the question though.

Keep in mind, if you move to a new system you have to do a lot of research to learn all the bits and pieces to get it to work the way you want. That takes time too. After all, Linux ain't Windows, and that in itself means work will be involved in the transition.


Not to mention, you made reference to student discounts, yet said it's still not cheap. Doesn't being a student involve learning? Having been a college student not so long ago, this simply wouldn't scare me away. I would be happy to learn a free OS and office suite as opposed to paying for it given the tuition of colleges and cost of books and materials. In fact, that IS what I did! I was taking night college classes and working 40 hours a week (Windows NT 4.0 support) when I first started using Linux. I know your statement was in relation to discounting the cost of Windows, but as a student, Ubuntu and Openoffice are much more attractive from that vantage point I would think.
Yep. Microsoft must know this too, I've seen those Office 2007 discs around where they were being sold for a significantly cheaper price at campus, provided you were a student. Then again, students are generally quite computer savvy and I bet piracy is a given then too, so unless they're morally opposed to piracy, they'll be more likely to burn a copy of Office than try a free alternative.


If you've seen the latest version of office, you'll agree with me, I think, that most people are going to have to retrain themselves to use it anyway. OpenOffice tools have a look and feel closer to traditional Microsoft Office apps than Microsoft office does now days. The Windows Admins I work with run OpenOffice at home, no joke. I think that is a pretty powerful statement in itself.
True enough. Some say the 2007 GUI is superior, but it does take time to learn. I'm undecided about whether this is worth the effort or not.


If Microsoft wants to charge me hundreds of dollars, their software should be worth it. Office 2007 and Windows Vista aren't. Windows XP was worth the cost of the license, which is why I bought it. What Vista and Microsoft Office offer I consider downgrades in the face of performance and my time to relearn how to use them. Ten years ago, I had no choice but to relearn how to use them and if it sacrificed performance, I'd have to consider new hardware to make it run better. This is not the case today. The only way Either of those two products will make their way into my home will be on business issued hardware. That is, of course, my personal stance and opinion. :-D
Well that's the thing about monopolies. You can charge whatever you like so long as there's no real competition. Thank goodness there are usable alternatives now. :)

You know what the main problem is though - piracy. Like I said, it's rampant, and most of all, it's seen by most as a "soft" crime. I'm actually thinking that if the laws are strengthened to make piracy really, really dangerous to partake in, or piracy becomes like a social stigma, then that'll in fact become a boost for the free software movement, and Microsoft will have to act on merit for a change.

karellen
September 21st, 2007, 10:53 AM
MS has no real intention to limit piracy, for obvious reasons (90+ market share). even bill gates once said (in china if I remember correctly) that if you want to pirate a product, pirate ms products :lolflag:

mikewhatever
September 21st, 2007, 11:26 AM
But what is easier though? Abandoning everything you've learnt so far and relearning a new operating system and office suite (i.e. Linux + OO) just to avoid the costs - or simply pirate the necessary software and expend very little extra effort/time in the process? There's a reason pirated software is so popular, and the reason why Linux needs to make headway against pirated software in Windows.

You are assuming that the easiest way is the best, which is not the case. It is easier not to breath because it takes an effort to inhale and exhale, and yet we do. You do not have to 'abandon everything' to learn linux and Open Office. You've presented it as if there were triangles instead of rectangular windows in linux, while the concepts of desktops and menus are really similar. Lastly, I think pirated software is popular because people do not know about the alternatives, or think they'll need to 'abandon everything ... crap' to master something new.


This argument doesn't quite work in a business of course, but the time spent relearning everything may not justify the savings - time is money and so forth. That's why a lot of people who refuse to pirate software (particularly business) see the costs of things like Windows + Office as reasonable - they're known as capital costs, and work out cheaper than retraining everyone to use a different platform. For the desktop the issue is clouded, but then again rampant piracy means it's more desirable to grab a torrent of Office than it is to reorganize to a totally new platform.

What a strange view again. Personally, I refuse to pirate software and choose open source. Nobody has to 'learn everything' ever, and with good open source alternatives, why care about the cost of Windows and MSOffice. I also think that 'rampant piracy' means it is easy to pirate things, and nothing else.

Mr. T
September 21st, 2007, 11:38 AM
You are assuming that the easiest way is the best, which is not the case. It is easier not to breath because it takes an effort to inhale and exhale, and yet we do. You do not have to 'abandon everything' to learn linux and Open Office. You've presented it as if there were triangles instead of rectangular windows in linux, while the concepts of desktops and menus are really similar. Lastly, I think pirated software is popular because people do not know about the alternatives, or think they'll need to 'abandon everything ... crap' to master something new.
I'm not sure the breath argument is appropriate - breathing is a (mostly) unconscious act, we don't notice the effort. I'm talking about the risks involved into venturing into the unknown. Will my .doc file be compatible? Will I lose anything? And so on. As for ignorance of the alternatives - yeah, that's true, but I know of the alternatives and yet I confess to continuing to occasionally pirate because I believe the superior quality of certain software is worth it.


What a strange view again. Personally, I refuse to pirate software and choose open source. Nobody has to 'learn everything' ever, and with good open source alternatives, why care about the cost of Windows and MSOffice. I also think that 'rampant piracy' means it is easy to pirate things, and nothing else.
We live in a Microsoft world. Some people choose to fight back by using alternatives despite the de-facto standards and occasionally are put up against a brick wall because of it; some people prefer to not bother fighting and live with how things are. I used to be the former, but now fit the latter. Yes it means I'm part of the problem, but damnit it's easier for me.

LT1Caprice57L
September 21st, 2007, 12:18 PM
490 Euros, which equates to 666.895 USDollars for Vista Ultimate full

not that Apple is cheap though :)

I also agree with Sunforge

:shock:

xpod
September 21st, 2007, 12:26 PM
meh its not so bad. the usual reason for me getting called a skinflint(cheapskate) is because i'm scottish rather than a linux user.

i don't open my wallet to protect the sentient society of moths that has evolved there, honest.
__________________


Proud to be a cheapskate

:lolflag:

And proud to be Scottish.:)
18 months on with computers at home for us now.....14 of them with Ubuntu & Co.I`m probably more astonished now that all this,and more comes for free than what i was at the time i stumbled across it.
XP & Vista have been kinda free for me too though so cost is neither here nor there....not from torrent sites though...tch tch:)

Us Scots are renowned for our love of Freeeeeeeedom anyway,just ask this poor sod:)
44000

regomodo
September 21st, 2007, 12:35 PM
me a cheapskate? Like i give a toss

toupeiro
September 21st, 2007, 05:51 PM
Mr T.

You bring up some interesting points around piracy, and I think for the greater equation of things as they are right now that you are right on the money, no pun intended. But there is a difference taking shape now in the exposure of the alternative, free, open source choice that is spreading which was not as available even 4-5 years ago. What time will need to determine, and I believe is fully capable and practical of determining, is whether people continue to pirate microsoft products when they learn of the free and legal alternative. I think its only fair to give that movement time, as it is working against decades of piracy with no other alternative to the purchase, especially if the software you needed was unaffordable to you then.

I go back a long way when it comes to accessing software by means other than disk or CD. pre-internet on dial-up BBS's when the thought of piracy was as dismissable as ripping the tag off of your mattress. It's a different matter today entirely in the realm of viruses, worms, trojans, and spy/malware you are exposed to as opposed to then. When you elect to pirate a piece of software, you subject yourself to the whole gambit of these types of programs as well. Back then, I could count on one hand how many people touched that software before it ever reached a computer. Today, that number is frightening! In order to still maintain control on that number, your involvment has to be at a level so illegal that you risk your freedoms and lifestyle for software should you get caught. Again, Software is not worth me losing everything I worked for. It is not as dismissable as it was back then. I know people personally who couriered for pirate groups that are in jail. I'm not willing to expose myself to that, not considering the cost to my life and the free alternative. I also am not willing to expose myself to software that has been modified by who knows how many people, to steal brand name choice when there is a less costly alternative in every aspect of the phrase less costly. People will get tired of spending their time trying to piece together stolen software, and cleaning up their systems. They will, eventually see how much time they lose fighting problems as opposed to using their computer productively. Linux really gives you all the fun of free software, except its 100% easier to obtain and get working, and you aren't going to go to jail for downloading it. I can't afford Adobe Photoshop CS, so instead of pirating it, I learned how to use GiMP and Inkscape. And, I am much happier with the result!

As far as OEM software not having a key, it actually does, you just aren't required to enter it. Windows XP had the same thing on its release and most of those widely pirated OEM versions were rendered useless on the first significant service pack. Then came Genuine advantage making it even more difficult to maintain updates if you ran pirate copies of Microsoft Software. Most anyone knows, if you don't maintain updates on a Microsoft OS its like whoring your PC out over the internet as far as the kind of things you are exposed to. I foresee the same events happening for those who are using pirate versions of OEM vista and office. I've been there, and done that, and now that PC's are pretty commonplace I'm sure more and more people have been there and done that. So I do think people will choose a free alternative as opposed to pirating as exposure to the free alternative grows. My nephew that will be going to college next year, who has never used ubuntu before except for the 2 hours on my IBM laptop, is going to buy a pre-loaded ubuntu dell laptop and is excited about that, and the cost savings as well. If that enthusiasm spreads, the result is pretty readable.

From a business standpoint, I've worked for some very large companies, and medium that were in the process of emerging to very large. I've first-handedly initiated some of the Microsoft "true-up" procedures to be legal with their microsoft licensing. It took the better part of 8 - 10 months and over 100,000 dollars (figuring in everything, server-side, desktop side, email, and database). That is a LOT of company time, resources, and money invested in software licensing. Companies are asking themselves the same question, are they tired of spending this time and money, knowing there is an alternative there which would eliminate the need? The Department of Transportation, the FAA, and many National (being the US) and foreign government office have made this decision for themselves and no longer use windows as their primary business OS.

You are right that it requires retraining either way; but the beauty of Linux is that if you do find yourself at the command line in your retraining, you can transfer that training to ANY linux distribution, and to UNIX as well. Whereas Windows will reinvent itself once a decade and it is transferrable to no place else other than Windows.

I don't think piracy will ever completely go way, but I don't think anyone should have to subject themselves to Microsoft playing cop. If they are so concerned about piracy, maybe their CEO shouldn't make quotes such as the one you mentioned. It's not my problem that millions of people in China pirate windows because Bill Gates told them to! :-D

mikewhatever
September 22nd, 2007, 04:05 PM
I'm not sure the breath argument is appropriate - breathing is a (mostly) unconscious act, we don't notice the effort. I'm talking about the risks involved into venturing into the unknown. Will my .doc file be compatible? Will I lose anything? And so on. As for ignorance of the alternatives - yeah, that's true, but I know of the alternatives and yet I confess to continuing to occasionally pirate because I believe the superior quality of certain software is worth it.


We live in a Microsoft world. Some people choose to fight back by using alternatives despite the de-facto standards and occasionally are put up against a brick wall because of it; some people prefer to not bother fighting and live with how things are. I used to be the former, but now fit the latter. Yes it means I'm part of the problem, but damnit it's easier for me.

The fact that an effort is mostly unconscious does not mean it is not made. Everything requires an effort and time, which can be translated to cost and money if one wishes. The correlation between easiest and best is very deceiving, and in my personal experience, although best is a highly subjective concept, never is it related to the easiest. The effort one has to make to switch to linux is neither terrible nor painful, unless one cultivates the following kind of thinking: Oh, how am I going to learn everything about linux! Oh, this button has a different color, everything is different!

Fighting MS is not a good way to put it IMO. MS is a legitimate company that's done nothing wrong. I think the real fight is about the choices we make and the way we make them. Hence, the fight is with oneself, but I suspect the majority prefers to externalize the enemy. Sometimes it is MS, other times Ubuntu. Believe it or not, I've seen people speaking unfavorably about Ubunt because they thought it was too popular.