4 ms·

There is little to no evidence of this. I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an

There is little to no evidence of this. I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform.

detaro 8y ago
> So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform. which would mean they aren't interested in a paid proprietary product, just like the parent said? They didn't say people choose Linux because it doesn't cost money. (Although in my experience, some people absolutely do choose Linux because it's free as in beer, especially at first)
coldtea 8y ago
>I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many.
- Thomashuet 8y ago
  It improved a bit recently but in most countries it is difficult to buy a laptop without paying for Windows with it. When you install Linux on such a laptop, you obviously don't do it for the money. And given the availability of non Windows laptops, I would think this is the most common case for linux on laptops.
- simion314 8y ago
  >Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many. Source? Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too. I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying. In a world when most things are based on money, you need proof that cost, and even more importantly, free, is a factor? I, for one, have used OSS tools that are free over better paid tools, because cost is a factor. (I've also used others because they are better or because they have bigger community -- but cost has always been a factor). >Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too. That's not an option on professional servers and businesses -- which is where I'm mostly basing my statement. If they started paying for the free stuff they use (not even going from Postgres to Oracle, but from e.g. Centos to RedHat) they'd be closing shop.
    - simion314 8y ago
      OK, I was refering at the desktop users, the one that wipe the valid Windows installation on the PC and put Linux on it, it is not the money in this case. For enterprise software everyone not only users but companies will first try the free stuff, but honestly even if my companies pays for a library if there is an open source alternative I will try that first because many time we hit bugs in closed source stuff and we could not fix that ourselves and the product was abandones.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I'd wager that over 90% of desktop Linux users are running it on a machine that came with a Windows license and Windows preinstalled, and went to the effort of wiping it despite the fact that they paid for it and legally own it.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    The cost of Windows is assumed to be part of buying the laptop (and it's the OEM version anyway). I never myself cared for the sub-$100 Windows license attached, given that I bought a $1500+ laptop. Since there were always few (and usually subpar) selection of Linux-first machines (especially here), having a Windows license was just the normal across all laptop brands -- so it was not a deciding factor in comparing prices. It was either paying that, or being constrained to pick from 1/50 the machine selection. This doesn't extend to buying software in general.
- trash_panda 8y ago
  True! A lot of people use Linux and the ecosystem because it's free. And that's a good thing! It's great to have this open alternative where people without economic resources can rely on solid systems without having to worry about licensing and stuff. On the other hand, I try to pay/donate for products I use; my distro, Wikipedia, whatever. I think this is something that those who can should do more, we usually complain about advertising and personal data mining but in the world we live on those are the things companies need to do to offer free services! Unless we're delusional that we're gonna change the whole structure of our society, then we need to directly pay for our stuff! No matter the amount, support the main projects you rely on with cash!
dorfsmay 8y ago
I paid for OS/2 and Next, but ended going to Linux because it had all the apps I needed and was getting patched a lot faster. Also, I have bought brand new laptops which come with a version of windows, so if money was the issue I'd just use that, but I'm much more productive with Linux, so I install it as a first step on all my machines.
theoh 8y ago
If you compare "getting into Linux" with "getting into Adobe CS" then I think the cost does have an effect. For example I'm interested in digging into the functionality offered by both, but I've never felt that I could justify the cost of the Adobe tools. So the fact that Linux is free was a strong influence. Curious people could speculatively purchase a lot of things, books for example; cost is often, naturally, a constraint. In the days when Netscape Navigator was a closed-source binary blob on Linux, everyone ran it anyway (it was free). It was the only way to get the functionality.
at-fates-hands 8y ago
I would add stability. My Ubuntu distro never seems to go down, crashes, has weird bugs, or random updates. It's just rock solid and something I've come to truly appreciate when I have to use my Windows 10 work laptop and have to deal with all the quirks Windows comes with by default.

detaro 8y ago

> So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform. which would mean they aren't interested in a paid proprietary product, just like the parent said? They didn't say people choose Linux because it doesn't cost money. (Although in my experience, some people absolutely do choose Linux because it's free as in beer, especially at first)

coldtea 8y ago

>I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work). Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many.

Thomashuet 8y ago
It improved a bit recently but in most countries it is difficult to buy a laptop without paying for Windows with it. When you install Linux on such a laptop, you obviously don't do it for the money. And given the availability of non Windows laptops, I would think this is the most common case for linux on laptops.
simion314 8y ago
>Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many. Source? Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too. I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I do not have data with numbers but please provide yours since you accused people of lying. In a world when most things are based on money, you need proof that cost, and even more importantly, free, is a factor? I, for one, have used OSS tools that are free over better paid tools, because cost is a factor. (I've also used others because they are better or because they have bigger community -- but cost has always been a factor). >Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too. That's not an option on professional servers and businesses -- which is where I'm mostly basing my statement. If they started paying for the free stuff they use (not even going from Postgres to Oracle, but from e.g. Centos to RedHat) they'd be closing shop.
  - simion314 8y ago
    OK, I was refering at the desktop users, the one that wipe the valid Windows installation on the PC and put Linux on it, it is not the money in this case. For enterprise software everyone not only users but companies will first try the free stuff, but honestly even if my companies pays for a library if there is an open source alternative I will try that first because many time we hit bugs in closed source stuff and we could not fix that ourselves and the product was abandones.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I'd wager that over 90% of desktop Linux users are running it on a machine that came with a Windows license and Windows preinstalled, and went to the effort of wiping it despite the fact that they paid for it and legally own it.
- coldtea 8y ago
  The cost of Windows is assumed to be part of buying the laptop (and it's the OEM version anyway). I never myself cared for the sub-$100 Windows license attached, given that I bought a $1500+ laptop. Since there were always few (and usually subpar) selection of Linux-first machines (especially here), having a Windows license was just the normal across all laptop brands -- so it was not a deciding factor in comparing prices. It was either paying that, or being constrained to pick from 1/50 the machine selection. This doesn't extend to buying software in general.
trash_panda 8y ago
True! A lot of people use Linux and the ecosystem because it's free. And that's a good thing! It's great to have this open alternative where people without economic resources can rely on solid systems without having to worry about licensing and stuff. On the other hand, I try to pay/donate for products I use; my distro, Wikipedia, whatever. I think this is something that those who can should do more, we usually complain about advertising and personal data mining but in the world we live on those are the things companies need to do to offer free services! Unless we're delusional that we're gonna change the whole structure of our society, then we need to directly pay for our stuff! No matter the amount, support the main projects you rely on with cash!

dorfsmay 8y ago

I paid for OS/2 and Next, but ended going to Linux because it had all the apps I needed and was getting patched a lot faster. Also, I have bought brand new laptops which come with a version of windows, so if money was the issue I'd just use that, but I'm much more productive with Linux, so I install it as a first step on all my machines.

theoh 8y ago

If you compare "getting into Linux" with "getting into Adobe CS" then I think the cost does have an effect. For example I'm interested in digging into the functionality offered by both, but I've never felt that I could justify the cost of the Adobe tools. So the fact that Linux is free was a strong influence. Curious people could speculatively purchase a lot of things, books for example; cost is often, naturally, a constraint. In the days when Netscape Navigator was a closed-source binary blob on Linux, everyone ran it anyway (it was free). It was the only way to get the functionality.

at-fates-hands 8y ago

I would add stability. My Ubuntu distro never seems to go down, crashes, has weird bugs, or random updates. It's just rock solid and something I've come to truly appreciate when I have to use my Windows 10 work laptop and have to deal with all the quirks Windows comes with by default.