Main > Main Forum

Can't afford xp, should I try linux?

Pages: << < (12/16) > >>

rackoon:

That's one of my favorite parts of squidbillys. First is when he makes out with a pumpkin. :laugh2:

elvis:


--- Quote from: NightGod on August 02, 2006, 02:26:06 am ---
--- Quote from: rackoon on August 01, 2006, 03:20:19 pm ---To be honest I didn't know really know what Linux was until a few weeks ago. I'm glad to see some quality competition for MS. I'm getting a masters in educational theory (basically a fancy teaching credential) and I would love to see a form of Linux in the schools. It would be a thumb in in the eye of a huge cooperate monster and the state could always afford free.
--- End quote ---
Not everything that costs no money upfront is free, just something to remember.

--- End quote ---

You all have the wrong idea.

Linux is free.  Free as in freedom.  Freedom as in you can do whatever the hell you like with it and nobody can stop you.

"Free" has multiple definitions in english.  Spanish/French uses the term "libre" instead, which literally translated means "liberated".

Linux can be sold for money.  Any amount of money you like.  You can stand on the street corner and sell Linux distributions for $1,000,000 a copy if you like.  That's your freedom.  Your customers are free to buy it too, if they wish.  They are also free to download it for no cost.  That is their freedom.

There is plenty of software out there that costs nothing, but it is not "free".  Some people refer to this as "freeware".  But this only refers to its cost, and not your ability to do anything you like with it.  This software is still non-free, as you have limited freedoms.

True free software grants you the freedom to do with the software as you like, use it as you like, manipulate it as you like, copy it for whomever you like, and give it away or sell it in any way you like.  You are given these freedoms with true free software.

"Free software" has nothing to do with cost.


NightGod:

But freedom always comes at a price.

Just because something comes with restrictions doesn't mean that certain people don't feel more free when they choose to use it. While one person may prefer the freedom of being able to do whatever they want while giving up the structure that comes with rules, others may prefer the freedom of not having to worry about where to find support and lack of accountability.

One simply has to choose which form of freedom they want to yoke themselves with.

RobotronNut:


--- Quote from: elvis on August 07, 2006, 02:57:42 am ---"Free" has multiple definitions in english.
...
True free software grants you the freedom to do with the software as you like, use it as you like, manipulate it as you like, copy it for whomever you like, and give it away or sell it in any way you like.
...
"Free software" has nothing to do with cost.

--- End quote ---

as the linux folks are fond of saying: free as in "free speech," not free as in "free beer."


Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: NightGod on August 02, 2006, 02:26:06 am ---Not everything that costs no money upfront is free, just something to remember.

--- End quote ---
Well, I've used Windows and I've played around with Knoppix.

My take (and I might be wrong) on what NightGod is saying would be as follows:

Windows (XP Home SP2 Retail) currently costs about $150.00, depending where you buy it.  Linux currently costs $0 unless you don't look in the right places.

However, I can install Windows and run all the same applications I have used for years.

I can install Linux and while driver support is much better than it used to be, I still may end up having to search the web and support groups (rather than the hardware vendor) for correct drivers.  In extrememe cases I may have to swap components to find hardware that runs under Linux.  I may have to search the web for compatible Linux equivalents of the Windows programs I currently use.  If I can't find equivalent apps, I may have to run WinE (Windows Emulator) to run these programs.  If they don't run under WinE, I might have to run Windows XP as a virtual process (negating the cost savings).

In any case, depending on how much value I place on my time, at some point the value of the time I spend configuring Linux may outweigh my initial cost with Windows.

NOTE:  Before I get flamed by the Linux user crowd - Yes, I realize that I would initially spend as much time configuring Windows as I do Linux, that I could have searched for Linux compatible components to build my system initially, that there usually are equivalent Linux programs to what I use in Windows, and that if I weren't already a long-time Windows user I wouldn't have particular Windows programs that I knew I wanted to use.

Pages: << < (12/16) > >>

Go to full version