How much will you pay for Running linux?

[mangar]

If gnu/linux distributions cost money how much where you willing to pay for annually?
(windows costs ~15$ a year, if upgrading whenever a new version is available
osX costs ~ 120$ a year, if upgrading whenever a new version is available,
gnu/linux currently cost 0).

Let's refine the question:
If ALL Linux distribution were pay-for-use, how much were you willing to pay for a license?
Please ignore hypothetical forks or other deus-ex-machina solutions.

[smartboyathome]

I would not be able to pay (as I don't have paypal, nor a credit card) so I have to stick with running it free. If it hadn't been free, I would have never used it anyway.

[Wiebelhaus]

I could see myself paying 30 bucks , More for full .exe support.

I don't understand your logic tho' , Vista for the full version is close to 400 bones , Xp pro right now if you can find it close to 200.

[%hMa@?b<C]

I would not be able to pay (as I don't have paypal, nor a credit card) so I have to stick with running it free. If it hadn't been free, I would have never used it anyway.

I'm in the same boat. I would probably switch to freebsd or continue to use and develop an old GPL'd version of linux kernel.

[Ralob]

nothing. i love Linux, but being a student means that money is at a premium. between food and Linux? Well....food edges it out.

[raul_]

Err...my vote was erroneous. Firefox didn't display the page correctly So i guess my vote ended up in the 100+ :mrgreen: Of course, i woulnd't pay anything if I could get it for free.

But I also think that companies have every right of trying to make money with Open Source / Linux.

[a12ctic]

If they all costed 200$ I would easily take linux over windows and osx.

[euler_fan]

As much as I like the idea of Linux being "free as in speech, free as in beer" I also feel like it is a reasonable thing to pay $10/year to support Linux development or a fund to provide grants to open source projects. Especially the later since I use a variety of software and it is more efficient to give to one or two big pots that distribute grants than to donate a few dollars here or there to a larger number of individual projects.

[vwbeamer]

Now that I have tried it, I would pay.

But if i had to pay upfront, I never would have tried it.

[Hex_Mandos]

I'd never pay for "Linux". I WOULD pay for a good distro, though. I'd pay up to $10 Arg for any reasonably normal distro (Like Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora). I'd probably pay up to $50 Arg for a distro that managed to capture my interest (though I'd have to be really interested in getting it for some reason... maybe great gaming support, or seamless upgrades, or being 100% free as in speech without losing any functionality).

[zero244]

Well I paid 90 dollars I think for Linspire but didnt like the CNR or was that CRN. I was trying Ubuntu at the same time and didnt see any real advantage using Linpsire I have to give them credit they gave me my money back.
Now that I have used Ubuntu I would definately pay for it.........I think anything in the 100 dollar range would be worth it.
It would be nice if they spread the wealth around to all the very generous programmers who give us all the great apps and of course the OS itself.

[Motoxrdude]

I would pay like $10 or so, but i would rather just donate.

[cobrn1]

nothing. i love Linux, but being a student means that money is at a premium. between food and Linux? Well....food edges it out.

I couldn't agree more. I love linux, and maybe when I have more money I'll donate some to linux dev, however at the moment I couldn't pay.

could I also point out (the rather dirty fact) that many people who use windows do so for free, so if linux started to charge it would cost them more (or they would resort to piracy just as they do with windows)...

Forcing people to pay is bad. Reminding peopel that it's ok to donate is good.

[Nezing]

cobrn,that is a good point,that probably a lot of people may be using hacked copies of Windows.However,if Microsoft change the way Activation works (sneeky bas$$$ds),then they will have to go to all that trouble,of trying to download "a cure".Never mind the nasties which might sleep in that.As Mark Shuttleworth has said,Ubuntu will always remain free.So download as many copies as you want,and give a friend a copy.Hey,send one to Bill :o
The Ubuntu community will never have to worry about using pirated copies then,as every "free" download is legit,which is great for us.Give a dollar,pound,Yen,for research.Probably.

[ssam]

mac os x releases have slowed down. its more like a release every 1.5 to 2 years.

i already donate every now and then, so it would not make much difference to pay.

[23meg]

The standards of quality and freedom set by Debian, Red Hat and slackware and maintained in today's Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE and the like mean that I probably won't ever have to pay a licensing fee to use an OS; nor would I want to.

I would, however, pay whatever reasonable amount I can from my modest income to support free software projects that make up these free distributions. I've donated about 200$ this year to various projects.

[cobrn1]

cobrn,that is a good point,that probably a lot of people may be using hacked copies of Windows.However,if Microsoft change the way Activation works (sneeky bas$$$ds),then they will have to go to all that trouble,of trying to download "a cure".Never mind the nasties which might sleep in that.As Mark Shuttleworth has said,Ubuntu will always remain free.So download as many copies as you want,and give a friend a copy.Hey,send one to Bill :o
The Ubuntu community will never have to worry about using pirated copies then,as every "free" download is legit,which is great for us.Give a dollar,pound,Yen,for research.Probably.

hum - true, all true.

But, pirates are (almost) always one step ahead, and they would easily get around any increased WGA crap. Especially if it was a half-baked add-on to XP. Just look at vista. THat had WGA baked into the core of the OS, so the pirates upped their game and have released the most fully cracked version of a windows OS ever. I am, of course, talking about the NoPE version (which can be found at a torrent site near you) which doesn't even need activating. Updates work fine, etc...

_ANYWAY_, linux works better free, as does all software (in general).

[lexarrow]

There's no free lunch...somebody pays so the users don't have to. I would definitely donate to keep it free. If a good donation system is set up, open source can become really self sustained.

[sad_iq]

So...we've all installed linux to get rid of Microsoft's ways of squeezing money from us and you people talk about paying(donating should be a good thing thou) linux developers to give better support for some apps or even games that run in Windows? :confused:
If I were rich I would invest a fortune in Linux...to improve the way it works...to make things easy...so that many more could escape that Microsoft(TM) 'chroot' they live in...but as I'm poor...and have to do some serious hard work(not computer related) to pay my food, I can't donate at the moment...but I'm trying to help as many people as I can!!! So my vote goes for 0$ payd for a linux distro ... linux is supposed to be free...development should be free...the same should be for the distro!!!

[Kingsley]

I love Linux but wouldn't pay a single cent. Sorry, I'm just cheap :D. I'd probably even look for a pirated version.

[rocknrolf77]

I'll rather donate.

[arashiko28]

Hmm... let's see... XP costs US$200 in my country that's minimum monthly payment. I'm a student, so I don't even have that. Had XP becuse it came with the laptop... Vista $400... I rather donate or I could afford some 30-50 dollars a year, but hey, the fact of not having to pay all my money on an OS that has more crushes than running time, that I needed to pay $70 a year for a good antivirus since one of the most expensives didn't worked and a virus deleted 26GB of very precious material of work... It's very attractive. As long as it works, I'm willing to pay, but over 100, is over my reach for the nexts... maybe 5-7 years... (Med student with huge loan).

[original_jamingrit]

I'd rather donate and/or pay in brain power.

[mangar]

Need updated data, please vote.

[jpeddicord]

Since when was Windows $10-$20?

[mike1234]

Since when was Windows $10-$20?


I think he meant to have Win media apps, codecs, etc. As for paying for Linux? Maybe. But how would that be fair to everyone who contributed to open source? Would they get a percentage? Doesn't seem fair to profit off other peoples efforts.

M.

[jd sanderson]

The way i see it is that Linux is worth $100 per install. Thank everyone who makes it free. It is with out any proper expression that we may use an os that is sound functional and useful, (sometimes missuseful), and yes free. However everyone should have some morral obligation to support the cause in the capacity that they are able.

Help a friend

Help a stranger

Convert muggles (Redmond Users)

Just do something to make the world a better place to be:)

[RiceMonster]

Anywhere from $0 to $0

Why pay for what I can get for free legally?

[olejorgen]

I'd rather donate (as I do now) to a few (application) projects(*) than pay for a distro. As great as it is to have a somewhat tested set of applications; a distro is notthing without the applications.

A neat way to "donate", btw, is to use sponsor links. Wine comes to mind:
http://www.winehq.org/site/contributing (bottom of page)

(*) or some fundation distributing grants. (this may be a distro). eg. http://www.linuxfund.org/



Anywhere from $0 to $0

Why pay for what I can get for free legally?
Consider this question homework till tomorrow

[mangar]

10$ is the average cost per year of an OEM version (that's where most windows users get their OS), divided by the average lifecycle of a computer.

The OEM version of windows costs ~50$, and the average lifecycle of a computer is between 4-5 years.

[Heinzelotto]

i wouldn't pay for linux but consider donating to several open source projects.

[ukripper]

If gnu/linux distributions cost money how much where you willing to pay for annually?
(windows costs ~15$ a year, if upgrading whenever a new version is available
osX costs ~ 120$ a year, if upgrading whenever a new version is available,
gnu/linux currently cost 0).

I'd move to openBSD if I'd to pay for GNU/linux or probably move to more extreme -KolibriOS http://www.kolibrios.org/

[Bachstelze]

The question makes no sense anyway. Free as in beer is a logical consequence of free as in speech. Look at e.g. Xchat.

[olejorgen]

Eh.. Couldn't eg. debian charge for access to apt repositories? I'm also quite sure they could deny you the right to distribute the _binary_ package.

[mangar]

@HymnToLife
Wrong.
RedHat's license costs 370$ a year per server.
WindRiver Linux costs a substantial subscription fee.
Mandriva have its Power whatever club.
If I recall correctly, RMS originally sold the GPL'd emacs on tapes for about 3000$ per license.

Libre is not Gratis.

[Linux&Gsus]

Isn't the idea of Linux to be free of charge?
Pay? No.
Donate? Yes. But that isn't an option in the poll, so I don't vote.

If I would have the need I would not hesitate to pay an appropriate amount of money for a support contract.

[cardinals_fan]

@HymnToLife
Wrong.
RedHat's license costs 370$ a year per server.
WindRiver Linux costs a substantial subscription fee.
Mandriva have its Power whatever club.
If I recall correctly, RMS originally sold the GPL'd emacs on tapes for about 3000$ per license.

Libre is not Gratis.
True, but projects will simply be forked to provide a free version. People pay for Red Hat because they want support.

[Northsider]

I would pay $0. Nothing. I'd go back to pirating if it weren't for linux and freeware.

[qazwsx]

Nothing.

I don't need commercial support and I like to tinker my system myself.

[randancing]

10$ is the average cost per year of an OEM version (that's where most windows users get their OS), divided by the average lifecycle of a computer.

The OEM version of windows costs ~50$, and the average lifecycle of a computer is between 4-5 years.

Let's take that a step further. $50 for 'one' computer for an oem. But with Linux, free, as in free to use, means that if you have four computers (which I do. I don't throw things away) then legally you don't have to pay $50 dollars each.

Considering the cost of packaging and everything else involved, a distro with dvd and a really 'good' manual would well be worth $100 dollars for someone who had multiple computers (even one desktop and one laptop).

I think 'free beer' is okay But I also believe that the worker is worth his wages. Free, and donations, and voluteer or all the rest are wonderful from the stand point of anyone who wants give it, but there is little that can be said against any group or company that puts together a good package and requires a price for that package.

Having to call India and talk to one of those nice ladies just to re-install Windows from my legal copy is what got me started with Ubuntu. I don't want to get something for free, but I do want to have my freedom.

Jim Bronaugh
#ubuntu-us-nm

[mangar]

Let's refine the question:
If all Linux distribution where pay-for-use, how much were you willing to pay for a license?
Please ignore hypothetical forks or other deus-ex-machina solutions.

[jimi_hendrix]

i wouldnt be on linux if i had to pay...it started as a hobby because it was free and i wanted to try it and now i use it 50/50...id use it more but im a gamer and you have to keep windows for that

[davidryder]

I wouldn't pay. I would go back to Vista or get a Mac.

One of the things that entices people to Linux is the cost.

[lukjad]

I would not be able to pay (as I don't have paypal, nor a credit card) so I have to stick with running it free. If it hadn't been free, I would have never used it anyway.
+1
Also, I am not too sure why or who I would pay. I try to "pay" them back with time and effort with trouble shooting when I can.

[Bachstelze]

If I recall correctly, RMS originally sold the GPL'd emacs on tapes for about 3000$ per license.

Do you realize how stupid what you just said is? If you pay for a license, it means you pay for the right to use the software, which is the exact opposite of what Free Software is all about.

What RMS sold was the service of providing those tapes to people when not everyone had an internet connection, not the software itself.

[lswest]

I'm comfortable with setting up my own system, but if I had to pay, I'd pay whatever offered me the best quality, and therefore it really depends on what other offers there are.

[qazwsx]

If I had to pay then it would be FreeBSD (including PC-BSD etc)...

[mangar]

@HymnToLife
a. Please note the "If I recall correctly" prefix.
Since emacs predates GNU, it is not correct to infer that since it's GPL'd now, it was always the case.

b. That required some serious digging..
I didn't recall correctly, the price was 200$ per tape.
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/contrib/epoch/epoch-4.2/etc/DISTRIB

Edit:
Here's the first version, from 1986
http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt
Notice that 5 out of 9 items in Stallmans wishlist are "Money", "Money", "Money", "Money" and "More money".
Libre is not gratis.

[Bachstelze]

Notice that 5 out of 9 items in Stallmans wishlist are "Money", "Money", "Money", "Money" and "More money".
Libre is not gratis.

If you have to buy the right to use software, it is not Free, period. Is that really so hard to understand? As much though as Free software projects are in need of money, they never put it as a sine qua non condition to use it. Simply because if they did, it would not be Free anymore.

[david_lynch]

The question is worded oddly. "The right price" is whatever the market will bear, strictly speaking. I would pay whatever the cost of linux, as long as it is within my means, so I marked the highest choice.

Currently the price of linux is quite reasonable, to say the least, which is a nice feature, but price is *not* the reason I'm using linux.:KS

[mangar]

@HymnForLife
Read the GPL again please. It's not written anywhere that Free (libre) software needs to be free (gratis). The GPL and other free licenses are copyleft licenses. They grant the licensees several rights, including the rights for resell, modify, and distribute.
The current state of affair, when Free Software is also free is a consequence, but not the intent, of the license.

[ModelM]

I guess I'm one of the few folks here who has paid for GNU/Linux. I've bought both Red Hat & SuSE off the shelf in a computer store - and more than once.

I'm just goofy enough to like it well enough to pay for it, I guess.

When I recently took delivery of a Dell computer with Ubuntu installed I had folks ask me if it cost less than the same machine with Windows installed. They were shocked at my answer, "I don't know".

I haven't used a Microsoft operating system in many years & have no interest in them. I didn't check the price of a machine with Windows installed just as I didn't check the price of fresh tuna. I have no interest in either. I wanted a computer with Linux installed & so that's what I ordered.

[hellion0]

If all Linux distros went pay, I'd switch to a free BSD variant, or OpenSolaris... or I'd pirate Linux.

The good thing is, even if that did happen, someone could turn around, change some of the code, and then release it gratis. $deity bless the GPL. :P

[davidryder]

I actually bought Red Hat 4. It came with a book on Linux. Talk about fun!! It took me hours to install that thing.

[billgoldberg]

If they all started charging, I would go BSD or Solaris.

That will of course never happen.

[bufsabre666]

id pay as much as i would for a windows license. i own a copy of opensuse 11, i paid 60 for that, i deem it to be well worth the cost so i have no regrets

[alberto ferreira]

I only use linux because it's free and you can improve it legally and benefit from each other's efforts. If I had to pay I would either keep using the old linux (free) or switch to windows to play games and have less headaches installing things and make movies, because linux still lacks some functionality.

Even if linux was 100% usable (don't flame me, I love linux but it has some flaws - lack of applications that I need to use) I wouldn't pay for it I've switched from windows to linux for monetary reasons and to fight Microsoft's monopoly! :D Because if everyone uses it and there are no 'adversaries' software development would stall because you would be in their hands.

[Hyper Tails]

I love when Thing like software and stuff is free

[tsali]

If I could be sure that it would work reliably and I could get solid professional support, I would pay a significant amount.

In fact, I bought OpenSUSE 10.1 for $80...only to find out that it wouldn't do half of what it supposed to without having Gandalf the Wizard set it up. Their so-called "professional" support was pathetic. I had even built the computer to OpenSUSE HCL Spec...and it STILL didn't work.

That absolute disaster forced me to buy my first copy of WinXP...because I needed that machine working THAT NIGHT. WinXP installed perfectly and ran perfectly. I was an instant convert and the OEM cost of $99 seemed like a real bargain after what OpenSUSE had just put me through.

(BTW, I was using openSUSE and not Ubuntu because no version of Ubuntu prior to Gutsy would even BOOT on this machine!)

At least I was able to find someone to give me $40 for the OpenSUSE disks. Hope they work better for them than they did me.

[Phreaker]

I would never pay for a distro

[Deryk]

If I had not been advised to try linux by a fiend I would never have tried it. All adverts for soft ware tell you what you get when you use microsoft other packages are cheaper which in today's world means cheap and nasty. It seems that linux users are just a bunch of nerds with no intention of selling the idea that linux is not only good but better than microsoft.
Deryk

[Yownanymous]

Paying for it defeats the whole point of Linux and the GNU! That's why I don't like commercial distros like Xandros and Linux XP!

[olejorgen]

Paying for it defeats the whole point of Linux and the GNU! That's why I don't like commercial distros like Xandros and Linux XP!
How so? At the very least, couldn't it be reasonable that we should pay for the repository bandwidth usage?

And running a distro unfortuatly seems to be quite a job. You could argue that the people actually writing the software (I guess distros does a bit of that too?) should rather be compensated, but that's not really the point.

IIRC FSF actually encouruages making a profit from selling sotware. (They want you to donate back of course :))

[will1911a1]

Nothing. I only use it now because it doesn't cost me money.

[Ozor Mox]

Paying for it defeats the whole point of Linux and the GNU! That's why I don't like commercial distros like Xandros and Linux XP!

That's a classic misunderstanding of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).

If a Linux distribution provided something I wanted for a fee, then I would pay for it. I probably wouldn't pay for proprietary bits on top of the distribution though, because I like to run a system that is, as much as possible, free software.

It somewhat disturbs me when people say that all distributions/software should always be free (as in beer) and they would desert them at the first hint of having to pay. Do you not think that these developers' work is worth anything? As soon as I have some real money coming in, I plan to donate to several free software projects that I use a lot and also buy from the Ubuntu shop, because I think it's worth far more than nothing. In fact, the very idea that no money is expected for this software makes it worth more than if we had paid for it, right?

[olejorgen]

Me too, when the stockmarked have dobled from it's current level (~2 years?) I will realize some profit and dontate.

[alexhrdr]

I'd never pay for "Linux". I WOULD pay for a good distro, though. I'd pay up to $10 Arg for any reasonably normal distro (Like Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora). I'd probably pay up to $50 Arg for a distro that managed to capture my interest (though I'd have to be really interested in getting it for some reason... maybe great gaming support, or seamless upgrades, or being 100% free as in speech without losing any functionality).

Agreed. Linux itself would always be free, but for the support that Canonical provides and the community supported packages (w00t Synaptic/Adept) it might be worth money. If I did pay though I'd expect a little bit more from everything I think.

[cmay]

i had mandriva powerpack as the first distro. the big pack cost more than windows
i voted for macOS level then.
as for now. i called sun Denmark and asked for a cd set and i got it for free. so thats about how much i will pay right now for linux solaris bsd (which i have a boxset of) which means free but sometimes if i can get a really nice box set or a nice burned cd with a tux image on it or something i would spend a little. i drink my morning coffee from debian cups by the way. ;)

[Sonadow]

Bump to an old topic.

Considering that Mac OS X and Windows easilly set us back more than $200 in our currency, I would be willing to shell out about...$20-$30 bucks for a copy of Linux.

An alternative will be to get the distro free and pay like $10 a year for support via subscription.

Anything more than that and I will have to say no. If distros want to sell Linux to consumers for more than that amount, they better make sure that pressure is applied on hardware makers to release driver CDs or make available driver downloads (source code included for devs to integrate it into the kernel) for Linux.

[Queue29]

I'd give up $20-$40 (back in the day, when the packages were current) for Ubuntu Server 8.04 LTS, as it's the only truly stable Linux distro I have ever used. I certainly wouldn't pay for 9.04 or 9.10, and if recent trends continue, 10.04 LTS won't be something to get excited about.