November 20th, 2007
Note To Self 23: Free vs. “Free”
With Windows programs so easily and frequently cracked and copied, I can’t see how some people manage to voice this argument (that Linux will never have wide support because Linux users want everything to be free) while keeping a straight face.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Umm… Firefox is free… Perhaps you meant Opera.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am
Not true. I’ve written to Adobe, Solidworks, and other companies and told them that I’m willing to pay for quality software on Linux. See here:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/linux_compatibility.php
November 21st, 2007 at 2:03 am
Yeeeeah…
In one of my classes a week or so ago, the same argument surfaced… A few of the classmates started talking about how all Linux users are supposedly hackers and that we’d neeeeeeever invest a dollar in a well crafted piece of software.
Of course, having talked to these people before, they’ve told me that they’ve downloaded several games to “try” them out, and never bought an legit copy.
Yeeeeah. Wacky, eh?
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Rich, he was being sarcastic, and its very true. As an Ubuntu/Debian user for 2 years I have been appalled at this trend of thought. And Shara is right; I have friends who routinely get torrents of games for free. They seem to be living a double standard.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 am
If I recall correctly, the term “free” in regards to linux/unix software refers to the open source nature of the software, rather than the actual cost of the software. Many companies sell linux operating systems for profit.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Free software for linux: http://directory.fsf.org/
November 30th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Mark, linux companies cannot sell linux for profit, read the GPL. They sell “support” for profit.
Linux users, like windows users, would purchase software - linux is like no other operating system and in fact most people “feel” like windows is free because the cost is hidden in the purchase of their computer, it’s only when upgrade time comes around that they start feeling the sting of windows cost.
anyway, i think that this is a stupid argument and i really think that anyone who actually believes this should be forced to buy windows vista.
in my opinion (and many other linux users) is that the OPERATING SYSTEM should be free - a computer hardware and all is not useful without an operating system - so it only makes sense that the operating system is free. any add on software from there is fair game.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
@ejes
The GPL allows you to sell “free” (as in freedom, open source) software. Red Hat sells their distribution, Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, due to the terms of the GPL, someone could recompile the source code under a different name and then give it away or sell it as their own.
Strange, yes. Pointing towards software decommercialization, yes. That’s the good thing.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 am
Does it really matter whether some people download games and such? The PC Game industry has a yearly revenue counted in billions of dollars.
The problem with Free Software at least when viewed with consumer protection and satisfaction in mind is that in many countries companies supplying free stuff is not liable for any repairs needed or faults in their products. By paying for the product and receiving a legit license code, you have “proof of purchase” which is the entry point for all legislation concerning consumer protection.
And furthermore, revenue based on the success of your product is a measuring point used by a lot of companies when they decide what infrastructure to build and maintain in their company setup. For them support, maintenance, and a legally responsible party with an inclination to stay in the market is a strong argument. People who can just close up shop and leave you hanging is not considered a viable solution by a lot of professionals.