From: "Chris Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:18 PM > Andrew McNabb wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:50:47PM -0600, Chris Wood wrote: > >>What I find interesting is that Linux started out touting price / free / > >>low / whatever. Now, the costs are the same as Microsoft. Linux still > >>touts price but that really isn't a strong argument anymore. Shouldn't > >>linux start touting stability and security as its pricing becomes more > >>commercialized? > > > > > > Linux said this, Linux said that. Who's Linux? > > > > I appreciate your comments, but don't forget that there are lots of > > different people and companies involved with Linux with completely > > different philosophies. > > I was intentionally generalizing. Am I wrong to state that the main > argument that the majority of people put forth for linux is price? >
Not a good generalization. I'm with Andrew, too often do people say linux works like this or I don't like this about linux or linux' TCO is too high, etc. when these are mainly distribution specific arguments. One can find many free, full distributions of linux. Over the past 6 years I've invested $50 (RH 5.1 box set -the book was great) yet have installed/used many distributions and burned my own copies w/o sacrificing my soul or paying MS. Stating that "linux" no longer is free/low-cost is a strange position; please oh please don't confuse Red Hat with Linux nor vice versa. Matt W. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
