Different OS's? Marketshare

[Anthony Atkielski]

Jacob S writes:

> So, FreeBSD is vulnerable to this same hypocrasy; where it is sold in
> stores but still hailed as a "free" OS?

The FreeBSD was at an unbeatable price--I think it was only $10 or so,
just a bit more than the packaging cost.  That's not the case for Linux,
which I see going for prices well in excess of $100 ... perilously close
to the price of an OEM copy of Windows.

But the thing that disturbs me is that all of Windows was actually
written by Microsoft or licensed from someone else who wrote it, whereas
all of Linux (more or less) was written for free.  So how can Linux
distributors get away with charging $200 for software if Microsoft is
charging only slightly more?  The Linux crowd certainly didn't pay
anyone to develop any of the software they're selling.

> Except that's simply listing the ways you can get Debian.

But they list the money way first, like every other site.

> If that makes Debian non-free, then FreeBSD is non-free too (or used to
> be) - when you purchased version 4.3 from a computer store.

True.  But it was much more reasonably priced than Linux, and it was a
very good buy in consequence.

> Except you haven't proven that Debian has a "trend towards
> commercialism".

Fine.  Wait and see.

> My point in all of this is that your generalizations of "Linux" would
> be about like Linux users saying all of the BSDs are the same.

Well, come to think of it ... it can be hard to tell the BSDs apart.

> And, by the way, if you look at www.debian.org and www.freebsd.org, you
> will notice that they are both owned by non-profit organizations. That's
> totally different from a "Microsoft-style business model".

Some of the wealthiest organizations in the world are "non-profit."  All
that means is that they make sure they have no money left over after
expenses (sometimes by paying high salaries to their employees).
There's nothing magic or high-minded about non-profit organizations.

-- 
Anthony