How can one say Linux is $-free . . . ?

[Serg B.]

First: There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask them.
   -- The Simpsons

I think it was from The Simpsons.

Now I shall begin my rant (after trying to get stuff on AIX to work I
deserve it).

MS Windows is free since you put the CD in and it works right?
Obviously it's right if we follow your logic here.

Or maybe it's not. After you install Windows you then need to install
virus and malware scanners, Office products. FireFox if you have at
least half a brain, the list goes on. You need to swap out the media,
you need to pay for that media, etc.

Linux integrates all of the above and allows you to do it with few
commands that will take maybe 10 minutes of your time depending on the
bandwidth.

Of course it will cost you in regards to time. Everything you do in
life takes time.

When we use a phrase "Linux is free" some people understand it in a
way that they do not need to pay money for it, it's one way to look at
it but it is not an entirely accurate one. Since some people who need
support or priority patching will still need to pay.

Correct way to look at it is that you are free to modify it however
you want. This is the definition of Open Source. You are free to
install a single copy of the OS (or whatever) on any amount of CPUs
and as many times as you want (*thinks of Vista and vomits dead
puppies), etc.

No one is saying that Linux is free in terms of cold hard cash. It can
be in the case of Ubuntu but if it is used in the enterprise you will
still pay for something or other. It is however free in regards to you
doing whatever the hack you want with it after you get the software.
Unlike MS Windows that not only dictates on how many machines you are
allowed to install it but how many times as well (pukes again, dead
kittens this time).

Finally, on a more intimate and personal level - no! I am not going to
strip for any of you (well, maybe some). Open Source is great but to
majority of people (not me) it doesn't mean a thing. What does hold
some weight is that it is a far superior operating system to anything
else available on the market to date (that runs on x86 hardware). Mac
and Solaris users: please don't hurt me, there is more of us!

Open Source is an alternative business model and like in any business
it is there to make money. Free in this case refers to the right
granted to you by the author(s) to do anything you want with it/to it
after you have acquired a copy.

Hence, what I said at the start - stupid $-question+$.

I am not exactly a newbie on most of the *NIX systems and it still
takes me about a week to setup a KUbuntu desktop (from scratch) the
way I like it. When I used Windows it was the same. Not because one is
harder then the other and what not, but because I know too much to cut
corrners and I think you are in the same position.


Okay, the rant is over.

   Serg




On 26/10/06, wade at wadesmart.com <wade at wadesmart.com> wrote:
> 10262006 0638 GMT-6
>
> Free is easy. IT is free. It being the OS. Install is free to - of
> money.
> You can count your time.
>
> wade
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > On 10/26/06, YAGNESH N DESAI <ynd at hzw.ltindia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Friends;
> > >
> > > I just shifted to Linux and have tried on laptop read a lot about the
> > > meaning of Free. But just was wondering is it really $-free . . . ?
> > >
> > > I have invested 40hrs and still counting on getting and installing Linux and
> > > trying to make it work. (Though it was fun but its not yet working to my
> > > full satisfaction and I am at it).
> > >
> > > While above time does not includes my time participating in such discussions
> > > and preparing pages on my experience.
> > >
> > > Replies awaited . . .
> > >
> > > Yagnesh
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>