A question about "free" (0$) linux to current linux users

I am agreeing with you mostly that if it wasn’t free I don’t think it would have been able to blind side Solaris like it did.

Would have suffered the same fate as BeOS or Minix as a minor toy for hackers. Both where paid non OEM operating systems.

GNU and low barrier to entry made it the platform it is today.

Time was the only investment needed for Linux.

Unrelated: Would love for a $10-30 support service for when I want to be lazy.

Agreed. Most paid support seems enterprise only and is very expensive.

Remember Torvalds made Linux because he was too cheap to buy a Unix/-like OS for his computer.

If that doesn’t put the nail in the debate, not sure what does.

It is, but you have to consider that a lot of these payments not only go to support (tech support, that is) but also to financially supporting developers of open source software who would otherwise be unable to support themselves.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a cheaper option but you have to consider how far your money is going. (IMO, it’s going much farther than if you pay for a proprietary software and support plan)

What we are saying is a desktop teir would be pretty groovy. Lets say $20 for five support tickets per year.

That would be nice. I’m curious if someone would be willing to implement that, stipulate it as a personal license not applicable for businesses?

1 Like

Yeah because so far the focus just totally seems to be enterprise focused. Which may make people think this isn’t viable as a standalone product.

I’d totally pay $20 a year to be able to get specific issues that I couldn’t fix resolved.

2 Likes

That’s exactly what I think.

I started using Linux in end of the 90’s, still with floppy disks. Nowadays I have almost no problems with Linux in general, but the early days were full of problems, bad documentation, compatibility issues and so on. Not that these things are not around anymore, but it’s way easier now.

Anyway, I would never get into Linux if I had to pay for it.

1 Like

Discover…

Well…People obviously don’t have an issue paying money to run very limited software/hardware like on Macbooks and Surface tablets. We can extend that to phones.

Is it simply because of marketing? Or because people don’t know the alternative? Or because people don’t care? Or is it because of reasons (other than those) that actually merit consideration? Could one of those reasons be that privacy is dead the moment you connect to the net, so why sacrifice convenience when you never even have privacy in the first place? Is that a statement worth considering? If you are always recorded by the ISP anyways, why do/should I/we/you care about giving some of that data to Microsoft, and Google, and Apple? At least we get stuff that is actually useful, like GMaps, or w/e. I can see how 5/10 privacy is better than 1/10, but…yeah. I dunno. My thoughts are scattered.

What has been seen cannot be unseen. Once you know your OS is recording all the things you have and do on your PC, you automatically feel like you just don’t want to use the computer for anything serious, despite the drawbacks of the alternatives. This is what I feel personally. This also links well with the idea that I proposed a while back that considering these issues with Windows, a PC built for gaming today is basically an overpriced console with no bang for buck, since most common tasks outside of gaming should not be done on the windows spyware platform.

Now this is an interesting question. For me, I’m willing to pay more for hardware that comes with Linux. Generally you have to, as Linux doesn’t come “subsidized with extra software,” (read: bundled with crapware). I build my own desktops, but for laptops it’s System76 or bust. I might be doing servers through them in the near future.

Minix came with a book. and wasn’t really supposed to be anything more than a teaching tool.

BeOS however… I wondered if someone would bring it up.

It also wasn’t that great. Linux was better and didn’t cost anything.

Microsoft and Solaris already had an established development ecosystem. The Linux ecosystem grew like a weed, snaking into a lot of things.

1 Like

I would as long as I still get the source code and have access to it.

I dont think Redhat is free?

And low barrier to entry was it’s sunshine and water.

1 Like

No it costs like $100 $49 for personal desktop use.

For servers a service contract and higher base price.

Highest package they offer is $27,000 $15,000.

1 Like

Redhat Enterprise Desktop costs $49 USD.

But you are not paying for the operating system. You are paying for the commercial software that comes bundled with it.

Fedora is the FOSS version without the commercial software, and CentOS is the FOSS Redhat Enterprise Server.

You are correct. I was mistakenly thinking of the developer edition.

Hers the product lineup in case anyone was curious.

https://www.redhat.com/en/store/linux-platforms

2 Likes

Do you know what that commercial software is? I’m considering buying it. Just want to know if it’s worth it.

You can get rhel Dev edition for free. They offer a free license for 1 physical machine or 2 virtual.

1 Like

I’m meaning anything that would require a third party license. Though, upon further investigation, I am beginning to wonder if that’s the case anymore. What you are getting is either a support contract or you are getting the knowledge that RHEL is put together by industry professionals who are looking to make sure your systems stay up and running short of any act of God.

In the before times, it was for licenses for audio/video codecs, or other licensed software.

Well, my Linux story starts when I tried to make my Windows look like a Mac so…maybe :stuck_out_tongue:

If I had the option to either continue using Linux for a fee or use Window for an equivalent or lesser amount, I would surely use Linux