Would you use Linux if it was not free?

[binarybit]

With everything else regarding GNU/Linux kept the same, would you use Linux if it was not free [as-in-beer]?

I know its a bit of contradiction with the GPL License, but for the sake of the argument, if Linux cost 1/2 of a Windows OEM License, would you choose it over Windows?

In my experience, I've found that a considerable amount of people choose Linux purely for psychological reasons of being part of a larger group / community [being part of something, rather than nothing] and having a common enemy [being the underdog, fighting against Microsoft]... With the moral issues involved only being secondary, admitted or not.

With a smaller amount using Linux just for having something they can tinker with.

And the smallest amount using Linux professionally.

[bufsabre666]

i would i guess, although id prolly find a way not to pay for it


remember bufsabre666 does not advocate piracy ever, never ever ever ever

[jrusso2]

I have paid for Linux before when I was on dial up I used to buy the boxed versions of Slackware, Red Hat and Mandrake.

I would buy it now if the price was right and it provided more then the free versions.

[verb3k]

If Linux wasn't free it will be different from what it is now (hint: worse)
ok.... what about this:
Would you use Windows if it is free? :lolflag:

[bufsabre666]

i do use windows free ((well i own 2 liscences from computers i dont use anymore so as far as im conserned i paid for my copy of x64))

[binarybit]

Would you use Windows if it is free software?

With everything kept the same on the Microsoft and Linux side, and all MS products where free, that's probably all I would use.

I use Linux primarily for cost issues involved... All my sites run on a CentOS VPS I pay $20/month for. If I had to use a dedicated MS Server 2008 box, it would probably cost me 10-20x more.

[Linuxratty]

I have paid for Linux...And I support it by buying distros on line..So yes.

[verb3k]

With everything kept the same on the Microsoft and Linux side, and all MS products where free, that's probably all I would use.

I use Linux primarily for cost issues involved... All my sites run on a CentOS VPS I pay $20/month for. If I had to use a dedicated MS Server 2008 box, it would probably cost me 10-20x more.

I wouldn't risk my site's security with MS server 2008. That's a bad idea even if it's free.

[mr.propre]

Today, "yes"

But I would never transfered to Linux if it wasn't free.

[EXCiD3]

I doubt I would have ever started using Linux if it wasnt free. My reasoning would have been why use an OS that i have to pay for that isnt supported by near as many developers. But, if i really ran into trouble with Windows i might have tried out Linux to see what it was like but then decide it wouldnt be worth it because of the few amount of supporters compared to Winblows.

[Praadur]

I see a few people have taken this as free, as in freeware and not having to pay for it? I think the question though was more in regards to if it were not FOSS, as in free rights.

It's true that Linux can be paid for but in such a case, one is never actually paying for Linux. Instead, one is paying for human resources, physical resources, delivery, and possibly support and nothing else. By its very nature, Linux is not something that can be 'sold'.

So if Linux were not Free... well, I think that goes beyond simply being a contradiction of terms and into the realm of the impossible. The real question here is: How could something like Linux (in its current form) even exist were it not free?

Many of the projects out there rely on open architectures, with sharing providing for an optimal and efficient environment for developing software. To not be Free would opposedly mean that something were proprietary, and in this case how would other projects borrow code from it and implement it without the need of any form of licensing?

In that kind of stifling and suffocating atmosphere, the beast that is Linux could not exist, and any attempt to sustain its life would likely result in failure. Linux, by its very nature, has to be Free in order to exist if you ask me.

So a question like this, to me, is akin to asking one if they would choose to fly in aeroplanes if they didn't have wings.

[GSF1200S]

Yes, I use linux for moral reasons. Yes, I use linux because I can do almost infinite things to it. Yes, I feel that im a part of a noble cause, even if we fail in the end. Yes, I like the openess and the freedom.

Finally, yes, I would pay TWICE what I would pay for an MS product. If Linux needed to do this in order to pay for lawsuits and development costs, I would gladly throw some money down....

[Mad_Dawg]

Probably, just to avoid the viruses.:biggrin:

[gn2]

Theoretically speaking if Linux was only available by paying, I would happily pay.

[aaaantoine]

Not yet, I wouldn't.

For being relatively rare compared to Windows, Linux needs to be free at least long enough for newcomers to get over the learning curve.

I would pay for Linux software/hardware to guarantee hardware compatibility. But it'll be a long time before I buy another computer... Unless this one explodes.

[swoll1980]

Now that I know how it works I would. Had it cost money I never would have tried it though.

[SunnyRabbiera]

probably not, as i would probably be using a mac now.
But nowadays i have been thinking about purchasing a linux distro, such as mandriva as they are one of the only commercial linuxs out there who have not sold their soul to microsoft...

[Pandemic187]

I see a few people have taken this as free, as in freeware and not having to pay for it? I think the question though was more in regards to if it were not FOSS, as in free rights.

It's true that Linux can be paid for but in such a case, one is never actually paying for Linux. Instead, one is paying for human resources, physical resources, delivery, and possibly support and nothing else. By its very nature, Linux is not something that can be 'sold'.

So if Linux were not Free... well, I think that goes beyond simply being a contradiction of terms and into the realm of the impossible. The real question here is: How could something like Linux (in its current form) even exist were it not free?

Many of the projects out there rely on open architectures, with sharing providing for an optimal and efficient environment for developing software. To not be Free would opposedly mean that something were proprietary, and in this case how would other projects borrow code from it and implement it without the need of any form of licensing?

In that kind of stifling and suffocating atmosphere, the beast that is Linux could not exist, and any attempt to sustain its life would likely result in failure. Linux, by its very nature, has to be Free in order to exist if you ask me.

So a question like this, to me, is akin to asking one if they would choose to fly in aeroplanes if they didn't have wings.
Praadur has made some of the very same points I would have made. Plus, in terms of total market share, Linux still is not used by very many people even today. If it was not free, it may not have survived as long as it has because its licensing cost may have prevented it from catching on. As some others have said, they might pay for Linux now if suddenly it was no longer free, but they likely wouldn't have made the switch had it not been free when they started using it.

Personally, I wouldn't have either. Why should I pay for something that not only has a learning curve, but requires the use of some underdeveloped applications and some that, years into the development of Linux, still have yet match those used in Windows? I don't mean to demean Linux; I use it more than I do Windows, but I believe its open-source nature is essential to its existence. The fact that it is open-source fosters its communal aspect, thus making it an effort by a large number of people who are working together to improve Linux as a whole, rather than being like Windows, which is more of a retail product that happens to make the use of computers a user-friendly experience. But God forbid, try and modify and redestribute Windows, and you can kiss any sort of financial soundness you may possess goodbye.

That's where Linux is superior to Windows. It isn't a product designed to generate revenue, but a tool designed to continually improve the computer user's experience. Taking away the free aspect of Linux would mean it would hardly be better than Windows, and I think that would seriously hurt the communal aspect of it.

[Pandemic187]

probably not, as i would probably be using a mac now.
But nowadays i have been thinking about purchasing a linux distro, such as mandriva as they are one of the only commercial linuxs out there who have not sold their soul to microsoft...
Can I ask - what do you mean by the part I have bolded?

[gn2]

Can I ask - what do you mean by the part I have bolded?

I'm puzzled by that as well because Mandriva now allows access to everything for free now, you no longer have to pay a "Club" subscription.

[lespaul_rentals]

No, if I wouldn't pay for it. Linux is the closest thing to socialism in the software world, and if they started charging money for it I know FOSS programmers would most likely receive little or nothing.

However, I do feel that Red Hat, Novell, and the like aren't horrible scum. The two "corporate Linux" companies have done amazing things for development, and let's face it, Linux wouldn't be where it is today if they didn't give back to the community like they do. Novell, while they may have "sold out to the devil," has made it almost seamless to get Windows workstations running with Linux servers. The average person is accustomed to Windows, so it offers the stability of a Linux backbone with the familiarity of Windows end-devices.

[dgray_from_dc]

I use Linux for some of the more advanced features it offers over the desktop Windows editions. But to be honest, I'd probably use FreeBSD if Linux weren't free.

Think of Lindows/Linspire/Freespire or whatever. I liked what I heard about it early on, but only wanted the free version. I figured out that without the paid services, it wasn't up to snuff compared to free distros. It was difficult to customize as you would a normal distro and locked into the Linspire way of doing things. As such it didn't do what I needed and I went to another distro.

I use Linux because it does what I need it to do. Would I pay for it? ............ Yes. But that's mainly because I understand that there's more to it than pretty GUI's.

[s-lime]

Yes, I would pay reasonable price (up to 70$)... However, I would never switched to Linux if it wasn't free. Maybe I would try it, but I wouldn't try to get used to it.

The main reason why I switched was system speed, reliability and security (virus-free)...

[wthanna]

Absolutely. If it was the same price as VISTA Ultimate, I would still use it. It is far more secure, scalable, customizable to your hearts content.. The apt-get system is absolutely awesome. The ability to compile everything from your own applications to the kernel. If you are any kind of "power user" at all.. or system administrator.. run web, mail, or file servers.. and have tried the alternative.. are told to "reboot" or "reinstall the operating system" by Microsoft when you have problems, as opposed to being able to dig in and fix things.. this isn't even a question you would think twice about. Would it "always" be Ubuntu? No. That's the beauty of Linux and the BSDs. There is a great fit out there for your needs in one distro or another, whether that be for a file server or a firewall. YOU are in control of your systems... so for me, YES, NO DOUBT.

[lisss001]

No, as a native windows user I wouldn't even give it a chance.

[karellen]

probably I wouldn't...

[iPower]

umm no

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

yes I would use Linux even if I had to pay for it.

The advantages it offers are worth economic value.

[rumour88]

Yes, Kinda did for 7.10 as I ordered it with 6 DVDs of repository's as my net connection was dreadful at the time. But it was defiantly worth it and would do it again (and probably will).

[koleoptero]

I wouldn't pay for support and subscriptions and stuff like that, cause I prefer the community. But I would gladly buy ubuntu in a box with an original cd or dvd and some nice documentation in it just for the satisfaction of having it original (and not just a cd I burned).

[Spr0k3t]

I have in my possession 20 XP Pro Corporate licenses. I use one, inside a VM for penetration testing and internal virus research. It's amazing the level of development you learn by researching virus source code. If Linux was not available for free, I would gladly pay for it. Last year I donated about $300 to various F/OSS organizations. I'm looking to double that this year if I can. This doesn't include the time I've spent testing and contributing to the cause.

[Pandemic187]

Can I get one of those licenses? :lolflag:

[aysiu]

I know its a bit of contradiction with the GPL License, but for the sake of the argument, if Linux cost 1/2 of a Windows OEM License, would you choose it over Windows? The GPL allows you to charge money.

Some Linux distros do, in fact, cost money (e.g., Linspire, Xandros, RHEL, etc.)


When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

[GavinZac]

if it wasn't free, I doubt any of the great applications would be free either. Linux would've died already. No. I'd use Jim's Unix or Bob's Unix or whoever made a *nix for free instead of Linus

[trav5]

I actually bought my first two distros off ebay before I found out I could download it for free. I have contributed to ubuntu and envy (tselliot is a godsend!!!) so Yes!!!

[Speidereyes]

I have bought distros in the past (mostly Suse), but the need to pay for a distro is less and less compelling. I would only pay if I needed proprietary codecs or emulators for gaming that I could not obtain legally otherwise. I hate having to pay these patent taxes but would grudgingly do so if it at least made widespread Linux adoption more likely.

[Techwiz]

I would probably still use Linux if it was not free so I could be part of the community. But one of my main reasons for choosing it for my desktop was the price tag.

[Flying caveman]

I would still use it, but I would want someone to bitch at when I can't get my web cam or whatever to work. Would I have tried it if it wasn't free, Yes.

[Laibcoms]

With everything else regarding GNU/Linux kept the same, would you use Linux if it was not free [as-in-beer]?

I know its a bit of contradiction with the GPL License, but for the sake of the argument, if Linux cost 1/2 of a Windows OEM License, would you choose it over Windows?

In my experience, I've found that a considerable amount of people choose Linux purely for psychological reasons of being part of a larger group / community [being part of something, rather than nothing] and having a common enemy [being the underdog, fighting against Microsoft]... With the moral issues involved only being secondary, admitted or not.

With a smaller amount using Linux just for having something they can tinker with.

And the smallest amount using Linux professionally.

I haven't really read GNU GPL word by word but I don't recall GPL stating that any software released under GPL must be gratis.

---

More likely than not, Linux as where it is now won't be here if GNU/Linux is not gratis. A huge part of its success is it is a gratis OS. Humanity loves gratis stuff, who wouldn't?

If GNU/Linux is not gratis, probably it will take another decade for it to be where it is now.

So probably I wouldn't use it for desktop/day-to-day computing needs. But who knows? If GNU/Linux is not gratis but is backed by dedicated developers like what Apple and MS have, then Linux might have overtaken that other two already, so maybe I'll be using it earlier for desktop computing ;)

[drascus]

I would pay for linux but not if it was licensed like *icrosoft only if it was free software.

[raymac46]

I needed something to install on an old Dell running Windows Me a couple of years ago. I went to a local clone shop and asked if I could buy a copy of Linux. The guy gave me a free Live CD of Breezy Badger. So I was willing to pay but didn't have to.
Now I certainly would pay as Linux is the only real good solution to recycle old hardware with.
My latest desktop is Linux only, and it flies with Gutsy on board.

[Mateo]

no, period, end of discuss. I would use bsd.

[hhhhhx]

i would gladly pay the worth of two version of vista for one of ubuntu ( assuming that all other distros cost that much)

[bruce89]

I know its a bit of contradiction with the GPL License, but for the sake of the argument, if Linux cost 1/2 of a Windows OEM License, would you choose it over Windows?


The GPL allows for the selling of software under it, like the GIMP.

Freeware where the source is withheld seems the most pointless thing since plain toast. Surely if you're giving a program away, you'd like to get contributions from other people.

[ARhere]

I base what I pay for vs. what I get. I see absolutely no reason to not pay someone for a good software product. I have used DOS/Windows all of my life but I have switched my entire family to Ubuntu (My wife, my game box, server, and laptop) because...

1. Knowing Linux is good for my career as an engineer. At work if we need an embedded OS, embedded Linux is always the solution.
2. I am growing sick of the business practices of M$. I know the goal of every company is to make money, but all companies are made of people, that work to make life good for themselves. When a person wants to make life good at the cost of others, this crosses a serious moral line with me. I could go on forever about this, but I won't.
3. M$ is going to phase out WindowsXP soon for Vista. I don't want to pay $200 for a new OS (plus $350 for Office) when I think Ubuntu is just as good, and for free.
4. I have been a computer geek for over 20 years. It seems like I have been able to help some people here online, and I like it.

In short, if Ubuntu was sold for $50, I would buy it if I see the money was well used to improve Ubuntu. If it appears to me that the $50 per licence just made a few corporate big-head rich, then I would move on. I did pay $50 for Linspire because it followed what I am talking about. (too bad the OS was terrible!)

I guess I am getting old, but I am getting less and less tolerant of the "full-of-energy climb the corporate ladder to make it big!" type personality. My goal is to use my engineering skills to better mankind, not to step on the weak. If I make enough money to live nice, that is good. But I feel pretty good with what I have, and what I have done, even though I am not rich. My best example of this, who thinks Paris Hilton is worth her weight in water? :)

-ARhere

[angry_johnnie]

Given you mean free as in beer, yes. I would still use it. If it wasn't free as in speech, then it just wouldn't make any difference whether I had switched to Linux or stayed with Windows.
But, since Linux is, in fact --and fortunately--, free as in beer as well as free as in speech, then i think it's only decent that we, the users, paypal a few bucks to support the people who have made it what it is.:guitar:

[zipperback]

With everything else regarding GNU/Linux kept the same, would you use Linux if it was not free [as-in-beer]?



I have purchased official distribution cd's more than once in the past for both my personal and business needs.

I use Linux because it is the best and right choice for my business and personal needs. I use it on a daily basis. My wife uses it on a daily basis.

It isn't about the money at all, for myself, and my family, and our businesses, it's about Freedom.

Given the fact that Linux IS in fact Open Source, it will REMAIN open source.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

[TeaSwigger]

$? Yes.

Freedom? No.

[CJ56]

Yes, without a doubt, because at the moment I find Ubuntu (can't speak for the others) a vastly better product than the M$ alternative. I'm not sure I don't even think it a bit better than OSX.

The snag is that once you end the principle of free-as-in-beer does that inevitably lead to compromises in other areas?

- If you have to pay for Linux how much do you pay? Just enough to cover the overheads? Or enough to pay all the developers as well?

- What does this mean for ownership of the various intellectual properties involved? Does it automatically lead to copyrighting and gradual closure of the source material? And limitations as to use and reduplication of the OS?

- Does it mean, by the same token, that the number of people involved in the project starts to shrink & the product declines in quality and interest (who's going to write software for free when someone else is being paid)?

- This in turn leads to a reduction in the number of viable distros. This could be a good thing, sharpening the focus against M$ and helping to reduce senseless diversity. But it would be a real shame if it killed off the community spirit & the share-and-share-alike ethos that currently exist.

On the other hand

- One of the headaches Ubuntu suffers from, chronically, arises from the fact that so many of us download & burn our own CDs. While this is great from the DIY/immediacy point of view, it introduces a layer of difficulty (dodgy downloads, iffy burn procedures) which Ubuntu could well live without. Can you imagine M$ doing it this way? If we had to buy a perfect-as-it-can-be-made professional DVD with extras thrown in, that would be one drawback dealt with.

- People like to pay for stuff. It makes it more real. A free OS you stick on a blank CD? Sounds like a hobby; sounds like something from some bloke's garden shed. A DVD costing £25 from a well-known site like Amazon or Dabs.com, all packaged up and nice-looking? That's got to be proper: I'll give it a try.

- An extra income stream for Canonical (if they use it properly) ought to be a good thing for Ubuntistas everywhere. Probably.

I'm sure there's more. I'll bore everyone with it when it comes to me.

[Lord DarkPat]

i dunno. I gues linux wouldn't be linux if it was paid linux.
Even support kinda makes the forum experience boring

[Bruce M.]

Windows crapped out on me, many times, but that last one was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't pirated either.
So I came to Linux (Ubuntu is the only flavour of Linux I've tried)

Would I pay for Linux: YES!
Would I use Windows, again, if it was free: NO!

M$ had their chance, and it cost me a lot of time, money and frustration.
So if M$ Products were free tomorrow it would be:

Too little, too late! I have Ubuntu now, thank you very much Bill Gates!

Now if (dreaming here) M$ did something about their insecure, virus-infected, malware magnate software ... I "might" consider it under duress. Like I said, they had their chance, for roughly 20 years. I think I'll give Ubuntu the same time frame. (If I have that many years left)

[ARhere]

I wouldn't pay for support and subscriptions and stuff like that, cause I prefer the community. But I would gladly buy ubuntu in a box with an original cd or dvd and some nice documentation in it just for the satisfaction of having it original (and not just a cd I burned).

AGREE! Just got to get the stores, like Fry's, to quit taking bribes from M$ to not carry Linux.

-AR

[Linuxratty]

Windows crapped out on me, many times, but that last one was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't pirated either.


Been there,done that,pitched the XP disk in the trash.



Like I said, they had their chance, for roughly 20 years. I think I'll give Ubuntu the same time frame. (If I have that many years left)

That's my beef with them...After 20 years you would THINK they could fix
the dang thing...But noooooo!

[paintba||er]

I doubt I would use it if it weren't free. I would pay $1,000 to use it if the only options were Linux and Windows, but I'm primarily a Mac user so I really don't have a need for Linux, I just use it to screw around on. And I doubt I would've ever tried it if it weren't free.

[billgoldberg]

I don't think so.

The thing is I would never started using linux if it wasn't free.

Now I would be happy to pay some money (€20 -€50 ) for a distro like ubuntu.

So, no, I wouln't be using linux if it wasn't free. And I doubt i'm alone on this one.

[quinnten83]

Windows crapped out on me, many times, but that last one was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't pirated either.
So I came to Linux (Ubuntu is the only flavour of Linux I've tried)

Would I pay for Linux: YES!
Would I use Windows, again, if it was free: NO!

M$ had their chance, and it cost me a lot of time, money and frustration.
So if M$ Products were free tomorrow it would be:

Too little, too late! I have Ubuntu now, thank you very much Bill Gates!

Now if (dreaming here) M$ did something about their insecure, virus-infected, malware magnate software ... I "might" consider it under duress. Like I said, they had their chance, for roughly 20 years. I think I'll give Ubuntu the same time frame. (If I have that many years left)

Actually I think they might change their Kernel architecture to stop the wild spread of viruses and boost speed in their next release.
They were supposed to be doing so for Vista allready, but guess they changed their minds.

[nikolas68]

Been a M$ slave for too long...now came out of the dark and would never go back.
YES, i would pay for Linux if it wasn't free...

[bufsabre666]

Been a M$ slave for too long...now came out of the dark and would never go back.
YES, i would pay for Linux if it wasn't free...

you say that like they had you in chains forcing you to use their os

i use their os out of need but also out of choice. i need it for school and i want it for games

[quinnten83]

bundling is taking choice away, they bundle and if you tinker with the OS, you break the license. In that manner it makes you their slave. Do as we say or suffer.

I probably would not pay for it unless it was cheaper than windows and offered me some sort of support or I was allowed to copy it on as many PC's as I wanted for personal use.

I will gladly donate, though.

[snakeeyes]

I have paid for the box versions of OpenSUSE for my desktop and laptop. Though I must say OpenSUSE in the only Linux system I would ever pay for.

[Borbus]

Well I can get Windows Enterprise Server 2003 for "free" from MSDN if I want but I still choose to use Linux. So I guess if I absolutely had to pay for either Windows or Linux, then yes I would pay for Linux.

[brunolabs]

It depends on the price! ;)

[anandanbu]

LOL :)
If Linux cost 1/2 of a ********* OEM License, then i can tell you for sure there will not be this forum and you would not have asked this question :)

[Bruce M.]

LOL :)
If Linux cost 1/2 of a ********* OEM License, then i can tell you for sure there will not be this forum and you would not have asked this question :)

My personal opinion:

If Windows and Ubuntu cost the "same" I would pay for Ubuntu.

Windows has harassed my life enough.

And if Vista is any example of the future products from MS, I wouldn't put it on my worst enemies computer.

[markp1989]

i would pay now,because i like linux, but if it wasnt free i would not of tested it out in the first place

[benny bronx]

I have to agree with the above post. I only tried Ubuntu because my xp was unstable and my recovery partition disappeared. i figured I would give Ubuntu a try before I went out and bought the windows cd's. With that said, i doubt I will ever go back.

[afderrick]

Okay so I want to add my two cents even though I've not read everything on here and my view has been said in the first 2 pages.

If Linux were like it is right now and windows like it is right now and they cost the same thing i would still be running XP. One of the reasons I moved from Windows to linux was price and I think Vista in the next Windows ME and they are forcing it on the public. I would still be using Windows because of the ease of use and the third party application software. I don't have to go in and change configuration files to run World of Warcraft and the fact that 90+% of the world uses Windows (my little United States of America world anyway).

Having said all of that if they made Windows free right now with where I am at in life I would not go back to Windows anymore. I do like the open source and community sharing of linux and the way it is set up. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that I am having trouble learning how I can give back to the community. There is a program I use and want to help build, but I don't know Python. As far as other things I just don't have the experience and some of the bugs that people submit are SO confusing and I don't know where to start. That is my own problem and something I am trying to fix. I plan on going to buy a learn Python book this weekend.

[DeadSuperHero]

I probably wouldn't pay for Linux, unless it was REALLY worth whatever I paid for it.
That said, freeness is one of the biggest pluses of Linux.

[mr32123]

i would i guess, although id prolly find a way not to pay for it


remember bufsabre666 does not advocate piracy ever, never ever ever ever

Indeed :)

[gn2]

A DVD costing £25 from a well-known site like Amazon or Dabs.com, all packaged up and nice-looking? That's got to be proper: I'll give it a try.

Here you go, nice professional looking Ubuntu manual with DVD inside:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-Ubuntu-Book-Benjamin-Mako/dp/0132354136

It's also to be found on the shelves of PCWorld.
(but you have to look hard to find it)

[mquick6]

A few years ago I went to hooters and ordered wings with blue cheese and they charged me .40 for the side of blue cheese. This is the same feeling I get when I go into the local Apple store.
If linux gets to the point where its like apple I would still use it just not as enthusiastically.

[MelancholyStoo]

I switched to Ubuntu because I was so sick of microshaft, so i think I would have made the change regardless. Now that I've been using it for while I wouldn't even think about it - if i was told tomorrow that I had to buy a license for Ubuntu or buy Vista, I'd pay double to keep linux on my computer.

[theproc64]

After having the experience of using it for a few months I would be willing to pay double the price of windows but if linux cost money in the first place I would never buy it.

[h5290]

I have only had Linux installed for a few days....so I can't really answer the original question. I CAN say that I hate everything about Micros**t! I might purchase Linux if it were not too expensive. Anything beats Micro!

[Xbehave]

I honestly think i wouldnt have switched, now i have switched tho i definatly would.

[Erik Trybom]

I don't know. It would have lost a great part of its coolness if it wasn't free. I do like Linux better than Windows, but that's not enough - something has to tempt you before you're ready to take the plunge.

Being free is an intimate part of what Linux is. If I couldn't install a ton of great, free software just by typing a command, then what's the point in using Linux? If you couldn't modify the software at will, then what's to prevent programmers to insert spyware and make trial-versions valid for only 30 days just like on Windows?

If all those things were still free, but there was a price for the OS itself, then maybe I'd still use it. I wouldn't have given it as many chances though. I once tried Slackware, decided it wasn't for me, and installed Ubuntu a few years later. Imagine I would have paid for Slackware, decided it wasn't for me... Would I have paid for Ubuntu too? Probably not.

The great number of Linux distributions is due to the fact that (nearly) all of them are free. You can try one, change your mind, and try another - every step at the price of an empty CD. Now if the price was instead 100$ per distribution, then you'd better do your research thoroughly before buying one. Most of the smaller distros would die since no one would pay for anything other than the best known names.

[sujoy]

I don't know. It would have lost a great part of its coolness if it wasn't
..................
The great number of Linux distributions is due to the fact that (nearly) all of them are free. You can try one, change your mind, and try another - every step at the price of an empty CD. Now if the price was instead 100$ per distribution, then you'd better do your research thoroughly before buying one. Most of the smaller distros would die since no one would pay for anything other than the best known names.

I agree totally.

I would pay for linux it were only for the OS. However, I like the way things are now, and when I do get a job, I will surely support.

[KThrace]

Well yes, but to me, it would make no difference. Windows is not free and yet I treat it as such due to the fact I've been using pirated versions of Windows since Win NT 4. The cost of the OS wouldn't affect me because I'd get it free one way or the other.

[TorqueyPete]

Your question, as a question to the Linux community, is definitely one of the great rhetorical questions binarybit. :)
It is also moot.
It also answers itself.
You might as well ask, "Would you wear trousers if they were more like a skirt?" or "Would you have married me if I was someone else?"
There's a closed door between Linux and Windows (pun intended) for most people here, in an emotional sense, as you mentioned. But the financial side is clearly important, and draws people like myself, who, although merely 'users', aren't totally afraid to tinker.
I get frustrated with Windows primarily because I realise that some of the mishaps are my fault, but also because I paid the price for a product that turns out to be rather less than it says on the tin. And any guarantee that MS gave is in such interminable small print that no-one ever reads all of it, except various lawyers who are paid to do so.
I mean, if I bought a new car, you can be damned certain that it would be straight back to the dealer if there was a problem within the warranty period! Why should I have to fix it?? I know there are Windows communities and help sites, with fully conversant folks willing to help out, but, again, why should I have to fix it?
Yet with Linux costing either the price of a blank CD, or a few shekels for a pressed one, the whole thing becomes a bit of an adventure, with freedom featuring large. And the very existence of such friendly communities makes the whole prospect less daunting.

But a totally basic answer to the main question is yes if it's half the price, but no if it has a reputation for poor user friendliness.

The thing is, just to point out another slant for an answer, you're not asking the general PC buying public here, they probably haven't even heard of Linux and know less than they should about the machine they're buying. Just relying on it to work. And Dell (bless 'em) are the only ones I've heard of that offered Linux as an option. =D>


Mmm, time for lunch!
Laterr!

[barbedsaber]

I deleted this post before I got into trouble hehe

[RudolfMDLT]

I just had my first Vista Experience.... God as my witness I will pay DOUBLE for an Ubuntu License. Maybe I've just had a bad experience or something but... Really, Vista sucks.

[ellis rowell]

Yes, I would pay for Ubuntu, I am a pensioner and would pay up to half the exhorbitent price of Windows. I am still trying to get everything working, it does what I want apart from printing and scanning. Get those settled and I shall probably make a fair donation.

[TorqueyPete]

Good man Ellis, that's exactly the way I see it. As soon as I'm sure it I really can use it, I will donate more than just the £3.50 I paid for the CD. ;)