would you be willing to pay for linux if you had to?

Message

Mystilleef · Post by **Mystilleef** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:26 pm

It seems SCO's hulla ballo is directed at commercial linux users and not private users.

Regards,

Mystilleef

TheCoop · Post by **TheCoop** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:34 pm

do you think that would stop them?

TealVeal · Post by **TealVeal** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:01 pm

Not one penny for tribute.

Jimbow · Post by **Jimbow** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:30 pm

IMO, your saying "_IF_ SCO won then ..." is like saying "if pigs had wings then ...". You can fill in the ... with any true or non-true statement and the entire sentence will always be true. SCO won't win.

Along those lines I would have preferred an option:

[ ] Millions for R&D but not one cent for tribute!

H'mm, maybe it's time to update my sig.

Edit: Apologies to TealVeal. Didn't see your post before I posted.

jonfr · Post by **jonfr** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:51 pm

na, i woud go the theaft way....

TealVeal · Post by **TealVeal** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:34 pm

Jimbow wrote:Apologies to TealVeal. Didn't see your post before I posted.

It's ok, great ideas are thought by many at the same time

Nice kernel option btw

Spire · Post by **Spire** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:14 am

I would pay for an entire suite of software if the price was very low. If the price was about 1.5 times the price of a new game (or higher), no, unless the quality of the software for it was far better than it is now. I doubt I would pirate Linux, though it would depend on how bad I found Windows to be and the availability of pirated copies. I would likely pirate some version of WIndows. The price tag is ridiculously high for a student (like me) with a negative yearly income.

I don't believe that pirating software drives it's price up, just that it drives the profits of the company down. I think that companies will generally take the hit rather than raising their price significantly above industry standards. The upward movement in prices is more likely due to the larger amount of work that needs to be put into modern software (I'm thinking primarily of games, really).

As for why I would pirate Windows as opposed to Linux, the reason is that I want to be guarenteed a system compatible with what everyone else has, even if that system is horribly made. Yes most things work in Linux all of the time, but I still favour an option where all things work most of the time.

Assuming I did pay for Linux, the reason would be the same as pretty much everyone else who has posted. I would like to see that others' money really was improving the overall quality of Linux software.

chizu · Post by **chizu** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:21 am

I would certainly pay, but not to SCO, and only if I got the freedoms of using the source code (under at least bsd license, if not the gpl). So I would just keep doing what I do now, occasionally donate to FSF and certain OSS projects.

Of course sco cannot succeed. Their case is only valid in U.S.A. (due to our VERY broken copyright and patent laws), linux would certainly survive quite well out side of the land of DMCA. Plus Linux is not a lot of the actual system (just the kernel), so if sco managed to charge for the kernel and/or make it illegal, the community would just laugh at them or create a 'new' kernel using 99% of the code already written, rewrite the lost 1% of the code and continue on. Or we could use the Hurd, or *BSD kernels. Or we could all move to Australia

As I see it SCO is irrelevant to the real future of GNU/Linux.

bashir · Post by **bashir** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:45 am

I will pay for supporting the developers - not for SCO.
I will pay for good Linux books - not for M$ publicity

And I will pay for my faults.

bashir

kesuari · Post by **kesuari** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:02 pm

No. I will not pay money for Linux. If the choice was pay money for Linux or don't use Linux, I'd use Windows XP Home, as I have a legal licence for it, or (for preference) FreeBSD if it has support for my hardware.

Glorandar · Post by **Glorandar** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:17 pm

Let me think... SCO says "pay me or I'll have my ugly lawyers beat you up in court!".

The only service I see them offering is that of leaving us alone. Thus, they can go to @&#$.

SCO reminds me of the gangsta protection rackets that we have all heard about. The only differences are suits instead of leather, and subpoenas instead of baseball bats.

The day it becomes illegal in Canada to run GNU/Linux without paying some legally entitled scum is the day I install another operating system.

If you want my coin you have to offer me a service that I value.

Don't get me wrong. I have paid for GNU/linux distributions. I have no problem with that. Those vendors offered me services that I was, and will continue to be, happy to purchase at a fair market price.

d3c3it · Post by **d3c3it** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:08 pm

i have done, brought suse in the past. id donate to linus or the other developers, i wouldnt pay a penny to sco thou. the mafia did what there trying to do, its called racketerring

shagrat · Post by **shagrat** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:54 pm

I can see myself paying for a cd-sett, but not for licencing costs. After all I never bought any of the M$ products I've used.

binny · Post by **binny** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:00 pm

GNU Philosophy wrote:``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

yes, I'm ready to pay for using linux (I already did it)

schrojo · Post by **schrojo** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:14 pm

I would certainly pay for Linux, but I wouldn't pay it to SCO. SCO is just trying to pull an MS trick here and start harvesting illegitimately.

I would pay for a distro of Linux so long as the money was going directly to the development of Linux. Have a look at it now ... you have to pay for Windows (at a price that classifies as highway robbery), but with Gentoo specifically, you can (a) download an ISO and pay for your blank media; (b) same as a and make a donation to the Gentoo development team; or (c) buy a CD set from the Gentoo store for a measly $15. Honestly, what's $15 for an operating system?

Personally, I think it's wrong just to use Linux because it's available for free. Granted, that's one of the big things that attracted me to Linux, but let's realize that we're getting a quality product at no charge (as opposed to paying loads of cash for crap [read: Windoze]) ... it doesn't hurt to contribute to the finances of these development teams.

And whoever it was who wants to see SCO die a quick and painful death ... AMEN BROTHER!!!

masseya · Post by **masseya** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 4:54 pm

binny wrote:
GNU Philosophy wrote:``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
yes, I'm ready to pay for using linux (I already did it)

I have always had a problem with this analogy because it implies that there is some direct benefit to a user. If distro XYZ wanted to abide by the GNU public license and distribute their modified source code of some other piece of GPL software, they can do that at whatever price they deem necessary. They are not required to make this process easy at all, let alone free as in beer. The freedom granted in the GPL isn't on the user end (as both free speach and free beer are). It's on the distributor end.

Sure another distributor would be capable of taking the source code and modifying it to produce something else of similar quality, but the user only sees indirect benefits. I'm not saying that these benefits are worthless, I'm just saying that they are not as direct as this analogy implies.

binny · Post by **binny** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:04 pm

masseya wrote:I have always had a problem with this analogy because it implies that there is some direct benefit to a user. If distro XYZ wanted to abide by the GNU public license and distribute their modified source code of some other piece of GPL software, they can do that at whatever price they deem necessary. They are not required to make this process easy at all, let alone free as in beer. The freedom granted in the GPL isn't on the user end (as both free speach and free beer are). It's on the distributor end.

Sure another distributor would be capable of taking the source code and modifying it to produce something else of similar quality, but the user only sees indirect benefits. I'm not saying that these benefits are worthless, I'm just saying that they are not as direct as this analogy implies.

It's where GPL leaks... BSD License is imho better for that.

Unne · Post by **Unne** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 5:33 pm

I've paid for it in the past (to Redhat and Mandrake). I'll pay to gentoo as soon as I can afford it. Would I pay if I HAD to? If gentoo said "Hey look, we're bankrupt, we need money or gentoo goes away", sure I'd pay. If a company says "WE PWN LINUX, pay us or die", nope, I wouldn't pay.

luap · Post by **luap** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:02 pm

i have purchased mandrake 8.0, redhat 9.0, suse 8.0 and 8.2,
as a non computer guy looking for the magically perfect linux os.
i've downloaded mandrake 8.1 and 8.2, libranet 1.? and 2.0, best linux,
knoppix 3.1.
if i wasnt using gentoo right now, i would buy libranet 2.8.
if gentoo goes commercial, i wouldnt have any problem paying for it.
i will not pay for mandrake, best, or even redhat again, for various reasons.
what do i expect for my money? a slick distro, one that works right out of the box(exception-gentoo-i had fun and learned putting it together),
one that provides decent support, not this 30 day crap and we're booting you from our update network cause our servers are crowded . i want support for getting weird devices working -you know, the ones that work in windows, like sound cards and new graphics cards.(kind of kidding, but if you pay for your os, it should work for you, not you for it)
frankly there are no distros providing really great support.
but linux is relatively inexpensive, relatively secure, and getting more user friendly. so if i wasnt using a free gentoo, yep, i'd pay for a quality
distro like libranet, suse, or even gentoo (marketed as the "learning tool"
for linux?). there is quality/value in libranet and suse(and gentoo) for those like me who aren't linux gurus. i see the money as well spent.

senectus · Post by **senectus** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:10 am

It all comes down to "Value Add"

If it adds vlaue, I'll buy it.. If all it does is take money away.. then stick it up your kiaser!

EzInKy · Post by **EzInKy** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:40 am

I have and will continue to pay or donate money to my favorite open source projects. The attraction of Linux is that the software is free as in speech, not just as in beer. I would not, on the other hand, pay SCO one red cent for their closed source garbage.

LJ · Post by LJ » Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:41 am

hook wrote:_IF_ SCO would succeed and would take some parts of linux under their own license they would (very possibly) want money for it ...so what would you do IF that would happen

Don't be silly. SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. Look at the facts--all they're trying to do is threaten other companies a lot with no real weapon hoping to god that some poor saps who don't know their head from their foot to buy some SCO stock.

senectus · Post by **senectus** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:46 am

Also I'm pretty sure their code that they claim was stolen is stuff thats based around big end server requirements.. Its got bugger all to do with desktop enviroments..

Techie2000 · Post by **Techie2000** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:23 pm

If I were required to pay, and the product were at this current stage, I'd say no. I'd want something to replace XFree86 that would be much faster, I'd want lots more games working on it, and for all brwoser plug-ins to work perfectly with all browsers without having to spend lots of time configuring stuff. I'd want the fonts to not look ugly on the first boot-up. And all sorts of other stuff...

masseya · Post by **masseya** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:00 pm

binny wrote:It's where GPL leaks... BSD License is imho better for that.

I'm not overly familiar with the BSD License. Can you point me to the part that you think improves on the GPL?

would you be willing to pay for linux if you had to?

Would you pay for linux if you had to?

Pay extortion money? not a chance...

Re: would you be willing to pay for linux if you had to?