Would you pay for commercial software for Linux?

[Alan Dayley]

I would have to recognize the difference in distribution also.  These 
policies hide the real cost of the software from the end user.  MS et. al. 
did not give away those copies of the software, someone in the distribution 
chain had to pay for them or they would loose market share.  Nice setup for 
MS as they get paid and the end user thinks they got "free" software.

Of course, it is not really free.  The cost of the software is figured into 
to retail price of the PC being purchased.  Fry's or Dell or anyone else is 
not out to lose money.  Fry's makes up any loss on the bare-bones system with 
markups on the add-ons (hard drive, memory, monitor, etc.) and pays for the 
MS license from that, assuming the bare-bones system really is a loss leader.

Open/free software cannot hide the real cost from the end user, assuming the 
end user actually wants to overcome their "human nature" and pay for the 
software development.  The responsibility to support the developer rests 
squarely with the end user.  If they don't contribute volutarily, they know 
they are riding on the efforts of others, for free.

Maybe people can't live with a guilty conscience of using free software 
without paying for it but they don't mind if someone in the supply chain paid 
"for" them.

I think I am starting to ramble now.....

Alan

On Sunday 25 November 2001 08:06 pm, you wrote:
> > Lets also look at the MOST popular and 'successful' 'commericial'
> > windows products.
> >
> > Windows 95/98/NT/etc : FREE : Comes with the computer you buy (in most
> > cases)
> > Quicken : FREE : My Stockbroker Firm Gives Free Copies
> > Office/Works : FREE : Comes with the computer you buy (in most cases)
>
> Something that adds teeth to this is a special I saw advertised in the
> paper at Fry's; they have a special on barebones systems containing XP
> priced in the low 2-300's...