Slashdot Mirror
Do We Spend More On Linux Or Windows?
jmcneal writes with this chin-stroker: "My colleages and I have been debating this for a while at work: 'Do people spend more money on Linux Distributions or on windows?' The limited sampling we have is that users buy distros almost every six months, at full price, at retail outlets. We have
only one person who has gone out and purchased Windows at a
software outlet, the rest of us only get a new copy when we
purchase a new PC, about every 1.5 to 3 years. Is this behaivior
common? How much have /.ers spent on distro's vs Windows in
the last 2 years?"
I know I've spent more money specifically on GNU/Linux distros than specifically on Windows, buying various boxed sets and books-with-disks, but when an operating system is part of an OEM package, some costs are hard to tweeze out. (Not to mention whether, and how much, Windows users would have to pay for the functionality of the nice free, Free software that comes with typical Linux distros. And that in a workplace, support costs more than the OS's initial purchase price.)
Other than at the very beginning of my involvement with Linux, when I downloaded everything onto floppies, I've always purchased a copy of the Linux distros that I use, mainly to support the vendor and also to get cute stickers to put on my computer.
As I recall, I've purchased Slackware 2.3, Slackware 96, Red Hat 4.2, Red Hat 5.1, Red Hat 6.1, Slackware 7.1, and now Slackware 8.0. In most cases, I actually downloaded the distribution first, tried it on a machine, liked it, and bought it.
I suppose the total cost of these must have added up to around $280. When I compare that to buying boxed versions of Windows 95 and Windows 98 for all three machines, it really doesn't look too bad.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'll tell you what I'm doing on my personal system. Every day, I type
and my system is updated to the latest version of Debian. No charge, ever, and the software quality is best-of-class. I have my choice of "stable", the released version, or "testing", or "unstable", with "unstable" being the least tested (and the one I use) and "testing" being leading-edge packages but ones without show-stopping bugs. Over the past 5 years or so, I've really had only one situation where I had to stop and fix my system before I could get work done, because a package was badly broken. If I were running "stable" or "testing", I would have avoided that.Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I agree. I have only bought Slackware. The rest of the distributions I have used have either been downloaded or on CD for near nothing ($1 or the like).
> Windows, on the other hand, has a fixed cost, but (for me at least) requires much less time to get to an operational state.
The big difference for me is, once I install and configure Linux it stays installed and configured. With Windows there's an eternal annoyance of fixing spontaneous reconfigurations and mysterious breakages.
Useless anecdote: Yesterday I ran by a place of business to pick something up. They were expecting me, so I was only in the room for a couple of minutes. What did I hear while I was there? A secretary complained that something wasn't working right on her computer, and someone standing behind her said, "He reinstalled your software yesterday."
The ordinary cost of running Windows makes the hassle of virus repairs look cheap.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
>>If it's a company you believe in, there's nothing wrong with buying the product that keeps them afloat.
That's how I wound up buying two distros (RH 5.1 and 5.2) Now that I've switched (Progeny) I may send them some money someday (ie, when I have some)
I remember what a prof said to me in college (economics, not comp sci or business, BTW). Paraphrased: "I don't think it's morally wrong to 'borrow' software while you are a student. But the day after you graduate and get a job, you should either delete it, or send someone a check." Buying a GPL distro is not too different. I have the legal right to get as many copies of FooLinux (I don't think that's a real distro, but I could be wrong:) for free/download/cheapbytes, but if you find one, and like it (and in the case of Progeny and others, use their servers for updates) then you should pay for it. Eventually. When you can.
Of course, I would like a 'set your own price' version. Works like this: I dl'ed Mandrake (as an example. I'm working on something right now that will work MUCH better with rpm's, and haven't tried Mandrake in many moons) but didn't pay for it. Say I like it. So to give something back, I want to send them some money. But I can't afford the $80 packaged set. Heck, I don't even really want it. So I go to their webpage, and click in $15 (example only) and my credit card number.
I'm sure this scheme would require some odd accounting (at least in the US) in order to get the IRS weasels satisfied, but it's a situation that I would like. Kinda like 'non-micro micro-payments'. Or something.
Anybody have something like that running?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Almost no time lost. I'm running Win 98, and it crashes MAYBE two or three times per week. And I don't shut it down at night either.
I rarely lose any work, since the crashes usually occur when I'm playing an "obscure game". On the other hand, I never use Office and I'm not running a server, so my experience may be atypical.
The point is that Windows does what I need it to do, and so does Linux when I use it. But if they can both do the same thing (web browsing, for example), I'll pick Windows.
-Chris
I've spent a grand total of $0 on Linux (if you don't count CD's to burn). However, I'm not very skilled with Linux, so it takes me a long time to get everything installed and configured correctly.
Windows, on the other hand, has a fixed cost, but (for me at least) requires much less time to get to an operational state.
Like everything else in life, there's no easy answer. If you've got plenty of free time, Linux is "cheaper". But if you're like me and a lot of your time is spent on other things (homework, drinking, Counterstrike, etc.), then your time is too valuable to spend figuring out options in a config file.
-Chris
(and yes, I am running Windows and Linux on two separate computers. but I use Windows most of the time.)
OTOH, I'd bet most people (in the US, anyway) are within an hours drive of a Linux Users Group meeting, and could get someone to cut them a CDR for the cost of a blank.
On the gripping hand, if your like me, and think that the companies that put out the distros are performing a service to the community, you might consider the price of a shrink-wrapped distro money well spent.
--
I have no fin
no wing no stinger
no claw no camouflage
I have no more to say...
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
If you ask a bunch of Linux users if THEY spend more on Linux or Windows, I would be VERY suprised if they spent more on Windows.
If you are a Mac user, how much will you spend on Windows? Most likely $0.00 unless you have bought it by accident & could not return it or bought virtual PC for your Mac.
Does anyone think the case would be different for Linux users?
The arguement that a distro is free but it costs you $$$ to get all of the O'Reilly books falls flat. To actually figure out most advanced Windows features (comparable to those that high level administrators using the books would use), you would still need to get materials. I know of no one (Linux, Windows or Mac users) that feel Windows "help" is actually helpful. I know I can learn lots from the man pages but I have rarely been able to find anything resembling helpful in Windows help.
A better question would actually be several questions:
This is by no means all of the possible questions, just a few to get everyone thinking.
I know many people will say "Hey, I never bought windows" but they will have gotten 95/98/NT4/2000 and are currently running XP on their systems. Does it mean Windows is free? No, it just means they don't have a legal copy of it.
Hope this helps.
This is a good topic for a slashdot poll: how much money as a consumer have you spent on Linux distributions? 0, 1-100, 100-500, 500-2000, 2000+
You don't need to buy books, there's a tonne of documentation that comes with almost every distribution... man pages are pretty authoritative, and stuff in /usr/share/doc is usually pretty thorough... almost every package has a website with a mailing list and posts the author's contact information. If you need to buy a book after all of that, it's not the fault of the developer. Books are nice, but not necessary. I havn't really used Windows since Windows 95, but I remember that the documentation sucked, and if you wanted to understand how much actually worked, you'd have to buy a book or dig through websites that were badly organized.
This seems like an apples to oranges comparison, because a significant number of people I know use Windows which isn't legally licensed! Time and time again, I see burned copies of Windows being installed and sitting on bookshelves. This doesn't seem to be a problem with Linux, because the distro is essentially free, with the value add being media and documentation packaging.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
...warez sites are for Windows!
Being a windows and linux user myself, I _should_ be spending more money on windows, because I have to buy the software I use (eudora, X server, etc), but I don't. And linux I just download, and it's not illegal.
It's about the money, but it's also because it's more confortable to download the cd and burn it without having to go to some store with salesmen.
--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I would only purchase a distribution for the work environment. In which case I would probably buy 2 or 3 copies(~150$) for the server(s), and then replicate freely across hundreds of corporate users. Think of paying Windows licensing per workstation vs using Linux? even if you pay for the distro, you're saving a SH**LOAD of money(and/or legal expenses getting sued by MS for pirating).
l
As far as home users, my friends and I have all paid for one or two distribution copies. At 30-50$ we'll say we spend 100$ total on linux. Ever.
Meanwhile with Microsoft, we all have probably twice as many licenses as we do computers, seeing how they come with everything but Color TVs. So while I'm using Windows on a single PC at home, I've paid Microsoft upwards of 500$ for that single license.
That's not even mentioning the support fees. I have tried many times to get tech support from Microsoft, and its fscking impossible! And if you do get through? They charge you for it. Nevermind that I just spend >100$ on a crappy OS, but now I get to spend money just to get it working. According to this presentation I ran into today, this guy at a corporation was spending thousands of dollars in tech support to Microsoft, trying to get them to fix the instability of THEIR OWN PRODUCT! Is that f*cked up or what?
http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.htm
Between friends, Linux User Groups(LUGs), and your own bandwidth, Linux is free. Tech support? More for free online(and more helpful users) than you can find for Microsoft Windows.
So your answer? We spend less on Linux. *FAR* less.
You already can set your own price for Mandrake :)
Go to Mandrake's Donation Page and give them a buck or two. You can even specify a project you'd like to help fund.
my $.02
mr
Here's a breakdown of my expenses over 3 years for two machines with similar functionality (from my perspective, the Linux box actually gives me more... the Linux one doesn't handle Office-format docs as well as the Windows one, but that's ok by me... I save as portable formats when I take work home) One's my home box, the other my employer provides. Linux cost me 1/5 as much... certainly not more than Windoze! And let's be real. I have broadband. I only buy linux distributions because it is, relative to Windows, cheap & convenient. It *could* have all been free :-). Windows could not have, at least not legally.
Linux:
6 distros @~$50 = $300
4 books @~$50 = $200
Windows:
1 Win98 (included with machine): $0
1 Visual studio 6 (incl. NT4): ~$1600
1 Win2k upgrade: ~$150
1 Office 97: ~$500
1 Office 2k upgrade: ~$250
1 Office XP upgrade: ~$250
1 Winzip: ~$25
1 Nero CD Recording SW: ~$70
1 Norton AntiVirus: ~$70
.sig: file not found
I think ca. 1994 or so I bought a Slackware subscription, but I haven't paid for Linux since then. I've downloaded Debian and RedHat distributions ever since.
Why is it people think that Windows is free because it was already loaded on a PC?
Windows isn't free. The PC manufacturer paid something for it and passed that cost, plus a markup, onto you. Granted, it's far less than what you'd pay in a store, but there is a real cost associated with it.
So, let's say that a PC manufacturer pays about $100 for a Windows 2000 license on a new PC.
Each Linux distro costs about $39 for the plain installation. So, you can buy almost three copies of a distribution before you're paying more than you did for Windows.
They key point you're missing here is that you don't have to pay for the distro. Most of them can be had for only what it costs you to download the boot images and the various packages the installer retrieves. Or, if you're a real purist, you can download the entire ISO instead.
Windows has never been free.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
My retarded half brain bought the boxed distros in the beginning, because I was too retarded to download all the stuff over a stupid modem.
/. would be a much nicer place to live in.
Later my retarded brain became so sophisticated that I bought the boxed distros for the accompanying documentation to see which distro cares more about their customer's fullblown retarded brains.
Who would try to use the opportunity to write good handbooks for their distros so that potential clients would finally get cured from their retardism and be ever so grateful to become loyal supporters of open/free software ? That was THE
question which my heart desired to get an answer to.
Now I am cured and have a big, mellow heart. That's why I am still buying every disto I want to try out in a boxed version from my neighborhood computer store. I just fell in love with the idea that people work to keep the source code open and I think they deserve my support.
Actually I am proud to be a retarded supporters of companies, who support free/open source software and am quite willing to invest my couple of pennies in them.
If just the geeks would be as retarded as I am, the world of
I know I spent a ton on books for Linux. Not counting COM - I can't really think of any Windows books I've purchased.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
If it's a company you believe in, there's nothing wrong with buying the product that keeps them afloat.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
A couple of weeks after Mandrake Gnu/Linux 8.0 was released I left my Puter on non stop for around 6 days to get the two ISO's over a 56k dial up I got droppped a couple of times but whenever that happened I just resumed the download. I think I took a break for about a day between the first ISO and the second becasue we were expecting an incoming call and didn't have a second line. So it is possible
O'CAML, for example, is still at version 2.x in Debian stable, while the current version is 3.01. When everybody else in the world is using 3.01, it doesn't matter how "stable" the version is that comes with Debian "stable", it is still useless. And there is nothing "unstable" about O'CAML 3.01.
Mozilla in "stable" is at M-18, far behind the current version of Mozilla; in fact M-18 is far less stable than any of the more recent Mozilla releases. And the configuration files have changed between M-18 and recent Mozilla releases, meaning that people cannot share them.
You get the idea, I hope. There are many more examples.
Keep in mind that most of the software that goes into Debian unstable has received extensive testing by its authors and that Debian isn't responsible for non-packaging related problems. There is little reason for Debian "stable" to be far behind Debian "unstable". I don't pretend to know what Debian should do, but I do know that it is pointless for Debian maintainers to recommend to users to just use "testing" or "stable".
Linux, by definition, can't be pirated, and I have spent essentially $0 on Linux. However, I know plenty of people who install Windows with all its bells and whistles, including Office, etc., who also spend $0. Of course these people aren't doint it legally.
I will reiterate a previously raised point ... MS's decision to crack down on piracy opens a window for Linux, since these people will be looking for a new free (as in beer) OS.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.