2 ms·

The thing I don't understand is what does operating system have to do with paying for software? If I had need for professional level software that costs money,

The thing I don't understand is what does operating system have to do with paying for software? If I had need for professional level software that costs money, I would pay for it whether I'm using linux or windows. But, lot of software I need to use doesn't need to be that high level and for what I need plenty of high quality open source options exist. I have no problem paying for software, whatever os I use, if it's the software I need. But if an open source alternative with comparable or sometimes better features exists why wouldn't I use it? And games honestly, There are plenty I would spend money on if they supported linux and i've purchased ones that have interested me.

checkyoursudo 8y ago
I paid for MS Office in 2003 and in 2007. Apart from games, that's the only software I ever paid for (other than the Windows license presumably incorporated into the price of the handful of already-built computers I bought). I used open source software on Windows, and I carried that habit over when I switched to Linux. I have only ever paid for games on Linux, because everything I have needed has a satisfactory FOSS alternative. Hell, I bought a macbook a couple years ago, and I have never bought a piece of software for that either. It's not because of the OS. My gut sense is that open-source/paid-support model is an ideal, which also provides an incentive for the publisher to produce as good of software as possible. I don't know if Red Hat or Canonical are profitable doing that, but it would be nice if that were the way that everything could work (maybe, I haven't really thought that much about it and am open to rebuttal). I am averse to paying up front for something that I don't really know whether it'll be what I want and won't just be a pile of shit. I don't buy many phone apps either, for that reason.

checkyoursudo 8y ago

I paid for MS Office in 2003 and in 2007. Apart from games, that's the only software I ever paid for (other than the Windows license presumably incorporated into the price of the handful of already-built computers I bought). I used open source software on Windows, and I carried that habit over when I switched to Linux. I have only ever paid for games on Linux, because everything I have needed has a satisfactory FOSS alternative. Hell, I bought a macbook a couple years ago, and I have never bought a piece of software for that either. It's not because of the OS. My gut sense is that open-source/paid-support model is an ideal, which also provides an incentive for the publisher to produce as good of software as possible. I don't know if Red Hat or Canonical are profitable doing that, but it would be nice if that were the way that everything could work (maybe, I haven't really thought that much about it and am open to rebuttal). I am averse to paying up front for something that I don't really know whether it'll be what I want and won't just be a pile of shit. I don't buy many phone apps either, for that reason.