Would you rather:
- Pay $99, then $49 annually for a GNU+Linux Distribution you enjoy
- Pay $0 for any GNU+Linux Distribution you enjoy, but contribute code or knowledge
- Pay $0 for any GNU+Linux Distribution
0
voters
1 Like
Option B because Iām poor, option C because Iām poor and dumb.
I wanted A & B. Iām poor and live on Social Security, but I would pay a bit and then still try to help out too.
2 Likes
Well :-D, hereās my honest opinion on that subject. Iāve been a Windows user since about 2000 and have been looking for a simple, reliable OS ever since. Iām not really looking for much more than what WinXP offered back then, but in a reliable and secure way. But instead Iāve spent half my life trying to keep computers running because there are always updates that break things and new versions of software that replace old ones that work well. Iād really be happy to pay for an operating system that will keep my computer running for the next 10 years or pay a small annual fee to keep that operating system secure. And Iām being generous here because in a perfect world, fixing a faulty product shouldnāt cost a penny.
Now, I switched to Linux as my only OS about 4 years ago because I was just tired of Microsoft always changing and breaking things and forcing stuff on me. I was hoping to find a distribution that I could get running on my computers and be fine with for a few years. But the reality is that 4 years later, Iām still trying to get things to work on Linux and, more importantly, prevent changing unreliable parts once Iāve found a version that works on my systems. Honestly, Iāve yet to find a Linux distribution thatās worth a penny. If I have to pay for an OS, it has to just work. Because I canāt spend time tinkering with an OS when I need that time to earn the money to pay for it.
And thatās just one part of the story. A Linux distribution is made from software from hundreds of little project. And they could all use some money. We see that demand coming up every now and then.
That is why I donāt think paid Linux distributions will ever be a big deal and offering services to deploy and maintain Linux distributions will continue to be the better/only business model. And if someone wants to sell a Linux distribution, they have to do it in the following order: First develop a āIt just worksā OS, then try to sell it.
The bottom line of all that is:
I see Linux as a worldwide project of thousands of people and companies trying to create an OS that works well enough for them. Most users of Linux will eventually come around and help/contribute in some way or another because everyone will encounter bugs and will try to solve them. And they will share that knowledge sooner or later in one way or another. The big advantage of Linux is that it is not contaminated by advertising and that it is open source, so anyone can change and customize it to their needs. But that also means that you have to put work into it to make it work.
I would rather pay $0 and contribute with my brain.
But as i donāt really know how, i donate to opensource projects i use and enjoy.
2 Likes
B or C.
If I had enough knowledge to actually test and fix things I would. I would love to develop and know how to make this distro excell, but alas the only coding I can do was when I ran nixos, and that was with heavy use of documentation.
There are several ways to contribute.
However Iām planning to make a plain simple āhandbookā somewhere here at the forum.
3 Likes
There is a really good group of helpful people here and we can assist with providing knowledge and answering questions. You never know what small contribution could turn into a big thing.
3 Likes
I donāt think moving rapidly to planned obsolescence is something to strive for, but I donāt think people want to pay $10,000 for a PC or $100,000 for a family car in a stable economy. Otherwise a business would have to operate once in a generation and the product they sell would just be passed down. The trade off is that materials deteriorate whether they intend for that or not.
This is really a chicken-egg problem. The difference with downloading or purchasing a Linux Distribution is you have some degree of ownership.
Unfortunately, when people do not pay for a good or service they become entitled about it because they do not value it or the people providing it. It enslaves the provider and the consumer. Things also donāt ājust workā without significant investments of time, resources, and money. The major distributions are all funded by foundations that are funded by FOSSās competition that put conditions on that money and it rolls downhill to the end product.
Solid C. Nothing to do with my financial situation. Linux has always been free and should stay such. If you charge, (the large majority of) people will just migrate to another distro without hesitation. Find another way. Usually when people settle on a distro and people start giving FREE marketing via youtube and other social media, is because there is something unique to that distro that caters to a specific group. something unique = free hype.
I think you are conflating free with no cost. Those terms should probably be clarified. I will focus on the no cost aspect, for now.
Linux has never been no cost. Early on, you could buy Linux distributions like Mandrake and SuSE (and I still have a copy of SuSE Linux 10 on DVD that I bought at a retailer). Even if there wasnāt a commercial method to obtain Linux, it has been funded by grants or other people since the very beginning. Now, it is funded by foundations that are funded by corporations and governments, and the money they give comes with conditions. You may be getting what you feel is a complete experience that you didnāt have to pay for, but the government doesnāt produce anything so you are paying for it if you have a job. If you bought a computer and put Windows on it, or bought a Mac or any other Apple hardware, or an Android phone or iPhone then you paid for Linux.
The difference in a direct funding example through a two party purchase as opposed to the layers of bureaucracy, corporate tax breaks, and cultural requirements to gain the resources to continue making the software, is consumer consent. People should not be forced to pay for things. The people that started the FOSS and OSS movements wanted consumers to have ownership over their purchases of software instead of renting it under oppressive (non-free) restrictions and licenses.
The more accurate statement on your part would be, āLinux has always been no cost to me in regards to compensating the ones working on the distribution, because I have means to access it without payment.ā Linux might be the core of the distribution, but it is still only a part. If Linus were smarter he would have avoided making the kernel non-profit (which is a luxury he enjoys because of his countryās politics) and focused on making profit to sustain the kernel and govern its quality and direction.
Coming back to the title of the topic āDistribution Growth Methods,ā the poll is to discover those that are passionate about using, contributing, and funding GNU+Linux distributions, and to what extent. It seems based on your response that you would rather just consume it. That, and everything I stated previously, is exactly why the FOSS and OSS communities at large are failing.
5 Likes
Same here Im anything but someone with money. Yet I use distro I want to help. 90 USD is an 372,34 pln. If im forced to spend half of this I will think twice about it. Not because im greedy but because Im lack of damn money. Windows home licence is 100 PLN Yet If I had to pay 90$ annually for linux im willing to do that.
On top of tat I will learn how to make rpms. That will take time for sure but I think i Can manage.
Beside of that Iāll help as I can
2 Likes
As someone who is also lacking in the wallet department I am also trying to learn how to build rpms.
So Fucking true. Linux business model sucks from very beginning. Even native English speakers confuse, free as freedom with free as free beer. Then they search for distro with āno strings attachedā. Then they are unhappy when someone politely ask for support. Money, package reports anything. That is the reason linux is drowning with particular politics and shit.
If something is free you either found it your self with
a.knowledge and time
b. money
c. all above
d. You are the product
Windows home 11 is basically free with all embedded advertisement, crap-ware and humongous data collection.
I can download it directly from MS site and install with no serial key and happily use it for years to come. With no cost (in money). But is it free. No it is not
F* it I prefer a 90 USD linux with no strings attach.Do I want to pay 90$ for linux. No. Will I do it. Yes! Seriously. Even if it is not so super over developed like big linux distros in the hood. RH, *buntu, Suse.
It works decent enough. Im casual gamer and small Polish Youtuber.
Any shit I done on windows or other linuxes I can do here on OM.
If I found limits of OM in my use case I will file a detailed report.
Zen1 iso have interesting problem with uefi. I will file report just after i end with testing the shit out of the installer on my second drive. Till then I will remain silent in this subject.
Well said. In polish we have an idiom ādobrze gada daÄ mu wĆ³dkiā
Which roughly translates to he speaks well / truth give him some vodka. And it hits home way better then well said 
PS Edited because my horrible english
1 Like
This is the story of FOSS and we should all take it to heart. If we want to break free from the big tech comapanies, itās going to cost both time and money.
3 Likes