is Linux really free ?

[Vad3r]

I have a question about this, and I believe I already know the answer.

But, I had a loud argument with 2 buddies over this, this past weekend. I am certain I am right, and so are they.

Buddy one argument: 1 of my 2 buddies works for a large Canadian phone/Internet provider. He claims that there is a hidden tax passed onto consumers that pays for there servers that I guess are running linux. Perhaps they do run linux, his argument is that because they do, customers must pay for it, although it's hidden. So he says says Linux is not free.

My argument, the tax is hidden because it's not legal to charge consumers for Linux, it's open source. If i start a company, have linux for the servers, it is free. I i want to have "Support" for them, that is the cost. The Support, not the software.

Buddy number 2: he tells me I'm foolish to think there are coders / programmers out there working for nothing. Why would anyone write code, make software and give it away. He insists there is a income coming from someone. Buddy one gives him his answer. He cannot believe people write software for free.

So this left both attacking me on how Linux cannot be free.

I have been duel booting Linux/Win X since 1999-2000. Linux has always been free, windows has always cost something.

How do you explain to buddies Open Source software, OS. They don't get it, and don't believe it.
It must cost so they say.

anyhow, had to run it by here, my friends are not dummies, nor am i, but we both can't be right.

 

[lxskllr]

"Free" doesn't have anything to do with money. It's about freedom to use the software as you wish, and that includes selling it for any amount you see fit.

Now that that's out of the way, the Linux kernel as currently distributed isn't free. It has binaries in it that don't have source code available, or have other encumbrances. You can get an all free kernel, but that's not the norm.

Corporations submit code to Linux because it benefits them to do so. Some people submit code because they enjoy it. Others do so to fix problems they themselves have. There's as many reasons as there are people for submitting code to a free software project.

In summary, you're all wrong :^P

Edit:
You might like to read some of these articles...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

 

[Nothinman]

I have a question about this, and I believe I already know the answer.

But, I had a loud argument with 2 buddies over this, this past weekend. I am certain I am right, and so are they.

Buddy one argument: 1 of my 2 buddies works for a large Canadian phone/Internet provider. He claims that there is a hidden tax passed onto consumers that pays for there servers that I guess are running linux. Perhaps they do run linux, his argument is that because they do, customers must pay for it, although it's hidden. So he says says Linux is not free.

Either your buddy is an idiot or whoever is selling him the servers is adding the "tax" he's talking about on their own in a shady manner. Or maybe that's just a stupid Canada thing...

My argument, the tax is hidden because it's not legal to charge consumers for Linux, it's open source. If i start a company, have linux for the servers, it is free. I i want to have "Support" for them, that is the cost. The Support, not the software.

It's perfectly legal to charge for Linux and most FOSS software. But you'll probably have a hard time getting anyone to pay for it since they can get the software for free elsewhere.

Buddy number 2: he tells me I'm foolish to think there are coders / programmers out there working for nothing. Why would anyone write code, make software and give it away. He insists there is a income coming from someone. Buddy one gives him his answer. He cannot believe people write software for free.

So this left both attacking me on how Linux cannot be free.

So neither of them have hobbies that others would consider work? I would never consider working on a car for any reason fun, but lots of people restore classic cars for free as a hobby. Obviously those people don't give those cars aware for free when they're done, however they also can't make a copy of the car just by typing a single command.

I have been duel booting Linux/Win X since 1999-2000. Linux has always been free, windows has always cost something.

How do you explain to buddies Open Source software, OS. They don't get it, and don't believe it.
It must cost so they say.

anyhow, had to run it by here, my friends are not dummies, nor am i, but we both can't be right.

Lots of FOSS devs do get paid for their work these days. RedHat, Google, IBM, Oracle, etc all employ developers who release code under the GPL and other free licenses. However, lots of them have side projects unrelated to their job and there are people that have jobs completely unrelated to their FOSS development work and release the code under the idealistic premise of working under the greater good. Saying that no one would do that because they wouldn't is just plain short sighted. Not everyone does things simply for their own benefit, although FOSS development usually benefits both the developer and the other people who get the software and source code.

 

[ArisVer]

He claims that there is a hidden tax passed onto consumers that pays for there servers that I guess are running linux.

A server has other costs as well. Software maintenance, electricity and ISP bills and the initial cost of the hardware.

 

[imagoon]

The only "hidden" cost I am aware of with Linux is the cost of the admin. And that is basically a wash with a Windows admin. I personally tend to find: a [good] 'low level' admin of Windows slightly 'cheaper' than Linux in salaries but once you get to the moderate to advanced level all bets are basically off since the salaries tend to be comparable.

Most of that is because a typical a [low level] windows admin can muddle through AD to add and remove users etc pretty well if they are handed a working system, while the same low level admin is lost in Linux.

No fault to the OS in question because most people "grew up" on windows so the windows management tools feel more familiar while Linux offers this black box with grey text. These are same people that have no idea what "cmd" in Windows does so take that at what you will.

 

[mvbighead]

OP, in your 10+ years of dual booting Linux... has there been a version that you've paid for? Has there been a version that you've been billed for?

It's free. There CAN be other costs for support and such, but you don't exactly stroll onto Newegg.com and order a copy. I suppose you can order install media if you wish, but ultimately, it's free.

 

[imagoon]

OP, in your 10+ years of dual booting Linux... has there been a version that you've paid for? Has there been a version that you've been billed for?

It's free. There CAN be other costs for support and such, but you don't exactly stroll onto Newegg.com and order a copy. I suppose you can order install media if you wish, but ultimately, it's free.

As a side point... I have never paid for Windows either. MS has sent me free copies for years. And not technet.

 

[Nothinman]

As a side point... I have never paid for Windows either. MS has sent me free copies for years. And not technet.

That's not exactly common though...

 

[imagoon]

That's not exactly common though...

Yeah I know, but one of the perks of working with them is that they do throw free copies around.

With the OP (for home) I consider Linux "free." Bump up to Enterprise and the cost of the software becomes so insignificant, that saying $100-$450 on an OS is pretty insignificant compared to the apps that run and the business value of the systems.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's probably that specific provider that added this "tax" which is probably more or less a management fee. Maybe they saw a trend and people who get Linux servers submit more tickets, or something. So they decided to add a small fee.

Though normally a fee is added for Windows as they have to pay for the license. Either way, it sounds like something specific to that provider.

You can buy/build your own server and put Linux on it and it will not cost you anything. There are some commercial versions of Linux such as Red Hat which you have to pay for, but then there are free spinoffs such as Fedora Core and CentOS, as only one person has to buy it and they can rerelease it for free as per the GPL. The reason one would buy RH or other commercial Linux is mostly for the support.

 

[Nothinman]

There are some commercial versions of Linux such as Red Hat which you have to pay for, but then there are free spinoffs such as Fedora Core and CentOS, as only one person has to buy it and they can rerelease it for free as per the GPL.

That's fairly misrepresentative. Fedora is developed purely in the open with no real, direct commercial release. It is used as a testing ground for new features that eventually make it into RHEL, but no one has to buy Fedora and then re-release it. And even with RHEL, RedHat releases the source code for free so no one is buying RHEL in order to make CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc. They're just taking the source code RedHat puts out, removing all of the branding and other trademarked portions.

And it hasn't been called Fedora Core for years, it's just Fedora now.

 

[Vad3r]

been reading from work, just couldn't login to reply till now.

I have always known it's free. Not sure if you still can, but there was a time you could request a distro through snail mail, and they would send a CD free. So you didn't even need net access to have linux.

When you have 2 friends that are so sure they are right, it's a difficult argument. I believe his job is purchasing Desktops/laptops and all the accessories that go along with them. But in large volumes for the company.
He claimed to have, or had seen a bill that stated that they pay, or paid for linux. And so because of this mail/bill he had seen, he claimed Linux is not free. Because he works for an ISP, all the customers are paying for linux.
I see his logic, but it is wrong.

So neither of them have hobbies that others would consider work?

good point, i have a pro camera and a couple of pro lens. While many earn a living at photography. I didn't buy them with intention of a job, nor do i earn a living with them. Just cause i enjoy it.

thanks for replies. I will send this to them and they will be able to see responses.

 

[HeXen]

Usually it would be like paying for support services...etc. not the OS itself. Other things related to Linux or operation and maintenance there of but not Linux itself. less i misunderstood

 

[Fallen Kell]

There are some commercial versions of Linux such as Red Hat which you have to pay for, but then there are free spinoffs such as Fedora Core and CentOS, as only one person has to buy it and they can rerelease it for free as per the GPL.

No one has to buy anything from Red Hat to than rerelease it. Red Hat is obligated to release the source code they used. Using the source code, you can compile the OS, patches (pre-version 6, now they simply release the full source), and applications that Red Hat uses. That is how CentOS gets their OS. They simply compile the Red Hat released source code with very minor edits (simply removing the Red Hat branding). It is also why CentOS is typically 3-4 months behind Red Hat's releases. But you yourself can go download the source from Red Hat and compile it if you want. You can get it at Red Hat's ftp site: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/

 

[Lonbjerg]

Linux is only free if your sparetime has no value...

 

[Vad3r]

Linux is only free if your sparetime has no value...

thank you, that settles it all, now we know.

 

[Nothinman]

Linux is only free if your sparetime has no value...

So you knew everything about Windows from the first moment you booted it up?

 

[lxskllr]

Linux is only free if your sparetime has no value...

GNU/Linux is free(using the FSF intended use of the term) regardless of the value of your time. Installation, and support carries costs, just as everything else does.

GNU/Linux will always be free, and a gratis copy of Windows will never be free.

 

[ultimatebob]

Like any other open source project, Linux is only "free" if your time isn't worth anything.

Some open source projects are well supported, and some aren't so much... but most of them don't have a 1-800 number that you can call for help unless you purchase a support contract.

 

[Vad3r]

Like any other open source project, Linux is only "free" if your time isn't worth anything.

good point, however Lonbjerg said the very same thing a few posts ago.

 

[Nothinman]

Like any other open source project, Linux is only "free" if your time isn't worth anything.

Some open source projects are well supported, and some aren't so much... but most of them don't have a 1-800 number that you can call for help unless you purchase a support contract.

Using anything takes away from your time, saying that about Linux but not applying it to Windows is disingenuous at best. Do you have any idea how many hours I've lost to debugging random Windows problems?

 

[HeXen]

Using anything takes away from your time, saying that about Linux but not applying it to Windows is disingenuous at best. Do you have any idea how many hours I've lost to debugging random Windows problems?

I don't think that's not quite what they meant.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't think that's not quite what they meant.

I don't think I don't get what you might not mean either...

 

[Red Squirrel]

No one has to buy anything from Red Hat to than rerelease it. Red Hat is obligated to release the source code they used. Using the source code, you can compile the OS, patches (pre-version 6, now they simply release the full source), and applications that Red Hat uses. That is how CentOS gets their OS. They simply compile the Red Hat released source code with very minor edits (simply removing the Red Hat branding). It is also why CentOS is typically 3-4 months behind Red Hat's releases. But you yourself can go download the source from Red Hat and compile it if you want. You can get it at Red Hat's ftp site: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/

Wow I did not know that. So CentOS is actually a verbatim copy (more or less) of RH? I did not figure they could legally do that.

 

[lxskllr]

Wow I did not know that. So CentOS is actually a verbatim copy (more or less) of RH? I did not figure they could legally do that.

That's why the GPL is awesome. It prevents companies from altering the code, and then squirreling it away for their sole use. GNU/Linux is what it is due to the GPL. *BSD has no such requirement, and you see where they are.