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.)
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.
> 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
I've spent a grand total of $0 on Linux (if you don't count CD's to burn). However, I'm not very skilled with Linux, so it takes me a long time to get everything installed and configured correctly.
Windows, on the other hand, has a fixed cost, but (for me at least) requires much less time to get to an operational state.
Like everything else in life, there's no easy answer. If you've got plenty of free time, Linux is "cheaper". But if you're like me and a lot of your time is spent on other things (homework, drinking, Counterstrike, etc.), then your time is too valuable to spend figuring out options in a config file.
-Chris
(and yes, I am running Windows and Linux on two separate computers. but I use Windows most of the time.)
I would only purchase a distribution for the work environment. In which case I would probably buy 2 or 3 copies(~150$) 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
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
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.