Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:26:36 -0600
From:      Jacob S <>
Subject:   Re: Different OS's? Marketshare
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAkUru9e0Xgkm1jphiEj0758KAAAAQAAAAVNKPkcwi5Uq3w6wWDp/> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:39:08 +0100
Anthony Atkielski <> wrote:

> 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.

You're confusing the boxed sets of Linux distributions with simply
buying cds. Debian does not do boxed sets. 

There is not anything that prevents retailers from still selling the cd
sets for cheap prices. There are still some retailers that sell
just the minimal cd sets, it is just unfortunate that there are not
any big chains doing this (that I know of). Boxed sets, however,
usually come with a book and support- something that is worth
considerably more than a few reusable plastic coasters.

> 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.

Please see Chad's e-mail about the difference between free-as-in-speech
and free-as-in-food. It doesn't matter how much they charge if it is
still licensed as free-as-in-speech - because you or I could buy a
copy, burn our own copies of it and sell it $10 cheaper than them and
still be legal.

> > Except that's simply listing the ways you can get Debian.
> But they list the money way first, like every other site.

Yep, and FreeBSD lists the money way before the download way, too. See Your point?

Debian does not get paid for listing cd vendors, which I'm sure is the
same way with FreeBSD.

> > 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.

You're generalizing again - using other Linux distributions'
boxed-set prices to prove that Debian is hypocritical. 

Please see
where they sell Debian (and other distributions of Linux) and FreeBSD
for the same price per cd. Or you could look at and where the bsd prices are closer to $10 per cd, instead
of the $2 - 3 per cd price for Linux from 

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

I'd rather not wait. Why let good software go down the drain? :-) 

> > And, by the way, if you look at and,
> > 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.

But just because "some" non-profit organizations are wealthy does not
prove that Debian is 1) wealthy or 2) hypocritical.


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>