3 ms·
"but as a free OS..." There's a missing apostrophe there. It's "free" in that it doesn't come with a price-tag. It's being paid for, just in other ways. It
by JonFish85 13y ago
"but as a free OS..."
There's a missing apostrophe there. It's "free" in that it doesn't come with a price-tag. It's being paid for, just in other ways. It might seem nit-picky, but to me, at least, it's an important distinction. Facebook is "free" also, but you're paying for it by looking at ads. Google search/email is "free", but you pay for it with ads.
I personally hate the idea that something is "free" but you pay for it with your time/eyeballs. In some regards (like this) I am old-school. I like the simple model of I pay $X for Y product, done.
- nrivadeneira 13y agoI don't think that's an old-school mentality. Even in 'old-school' times, I don't think anyone would have picked up a free newspaper and said "this isn't free!" if it had ads in it. I don't really agree with the mentality of "ad-supported is not free". It's one thing if you're giving up your data (as in the case of Facebook), it's another if it's limited to glancing at an ad (in the case of a blog or newspaper). I don't know the details of where Ubuntu would fall, but if you define merely "looking at something" as payment, you should be asking for refunds from any man or woman you've ever "paid".