Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do things
your own way. That includes spending your money the way you choose, not
the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for Free Software?
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
I have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware' version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
"Free" software was originally just that. Individuals or organisations
were proud of an application and were pleased to share it with others
without any payment. Some developers are still true to that concept. The rest, whether they call it 'trial', 'limited', 'shareware' or
'donationware', are just using different forms of marketing.
I have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware' version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
I bought SUSE 8.1, in a shrink wrapped box from BestBuy for $79.99. At the time getting the installation media and hardcopy documentation was easier than trying to do some sort of piecemeal installation.
Linux today mostly involves a distribution. To my mind not many of those
are truly 'free'.
"Free" software was originally just that.
Linux today mostly involves a distribution. To my mind not many of those
are truly 'free'.
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
I have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware' version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
On 2025-05-28, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 11:48:19 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware' >>> version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
I bought SUSE 8.1, in a shrink wrapped box from BestBuy for $79.99. At the >> time getting the installation media and hardcopy documentation was easier
than trying to do some sort of piecemeal installation.
It was better than installing Slackware from two boxes of diskettes.
I bought a shrink wrap copy of SuSE from BestBuy also. I think my version
was 7... something. Never did really like it though. Although I thought (at the time) that it was nice you got a thick manual with it. I think I've
still got it somewhere in storage in Texas (if the rats haven't chewed it to shreds).
On 28/05/2025 12:48, Borax Man wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay for
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
I have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware'
version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
"Free" software was originally just that. Individuals or organisations
were proud of an application and were pleased to share it with others
without any payment. Some developers are still true to that concept. The rest, whether they call it 'trial', 'limited', 'shareware' or
'donationware', are just using different forms of marketing.
Linux today mostly involves a distribution. To my mind not many of those
are truly 'free'.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 17:16:51 +0100, MikeS wrote:
"Free" software was originally just that. Individuals or organisations
were proud of an application and were pleased to share it with others
without any payment. Some developers are still true to that concept. The
rest, whether they call it 'trial', 'limited', 'shareware' or
'donationware', are just using different forms of marketing.
Exactly.
FOSS programmers get "paid" with the recognition and esteem that they
receive from the FOSS community. It is indeed a matter of pride to
for one to know that his software is considered worthy and valuable.
Any programmer who is motivated only by monetary concerns should
not bother to make his code open source. He is essentially not
welcome.
The original sacrifices made by the great Dr. Richard M. Stallman
attest to all of the above. Without Stallman there would be no
GNU and without GNU there would be no GNU/Linux and we would all
be indentured forever to commercial software companies.
On 2025-05-28 13:48, Borax Man wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay forI have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware'
version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
The first Linux I installed, summer of 1998, was a CD on a computer
magazine.
I thin it was Red Hat. It booted, but I did not know what to
do with that terminal.
Then I read a comparative on a magazine that claimed that SuSE was the easiest Linux. And another magazine gifted two CDs with it, so IDaniel70
installed that one. Version 5.2 or 5.3.
I installed that one, which had some help, liked it. Next, I bought the
SuSE box for 6.2. Several CDs and a printed book or two.
Downloading it was out of the question for me: only a relatively slow
modem, and I had to pay phone usage by the minute. Thus I certainly
bought the box, and did the same next year to upgrade. And again. And
maybe again, I don't remember.
The book(s) alone was worth it.
-
On 29/05/2025 9:15 pm, Carlos E. R. wrote:I did Red Hat too in those days. It was so much terminal. Now the versions that are
On 2025-05-28 13:48, Borax Man wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay forI have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-times-i-did-and-why/>
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or 'shareware' >>> version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs,
and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
The first Linux I installed, summer of 1998, was a CD on a computer magazine.
Same with me. MandrakeLinux 10.1 on a Magazine cover .... about two weeks before 'they'
had to change the name to MandrivaLinux because 'Mandrake the Magician' comic producers
objected to the use of the name 'Mandrake'.
MandrivaLinux late changed to MageiaLinux which I've yet to install on this Desktop computer.
I thin it was Red Hat. It booted, but I did not know what to do with that terminal.
Same. Same. It looked good, but how do I use it to achieve anything.
Then I read a comparative on a magazine that claimed that SuSE was the easiest Linux.Daniel70
And another magazine gifted two CDs with it, so I installed that one. Version 5.2 or 5.3.
I installed that one, which had some help, liked it. Next, I bought the SuSE box for
6.2. Several CDs and a printed book or two.
Downloading it was out of the question for me: only a relatively slow modem, and I had
to pay phone usage by the minute. Thus I certainly bought the box, and did the same next
year to upgrade. And again. And maybe again, I don't remember.
The book(s) alone was worth it.
-
On 5/29/25 09:17 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/05/2025 9:15 pm, Carlos E. R. wrote:I did Red Hat too in those days. It was so much terminal. Now the versions that are available are all (or mostly) GUI. I run Linux Mint
On 2025-05-28 13:48, Borax Man wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2025-05-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is there ever a situation where you might actually want to pay forI have done so. When I first used Linux, I wasn't even sure it was
Free Software?
Yes, there is. Remember, Free Software is about the freedom do do
things your own way. That includes spending your money the way you
choose, not the way somebody else forces you to do.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-you-ever-pay-for-linux-5-
times-i-did-and-why/>
free. Intially I thought the version I had was a 'trial' or
'shareware'
version. I was prepared to pay, but the fact there were many distrs, >>>> and I might switch stifled that idea.
I still ended up buying Red Hat 7.3.
The first Linux I installed, summer of 1998, was a CD on a computer
magazine.
Same with me. MandrakeLinux 10.1 on a Magazine cover .... about two
weeks before 'they' had to change the name to MandrivaLinux because
'Mandrake the Magician' comic producers objected to the use of the
name 'Mandrake'.
MandrivaLinux late changed to MageiaLinux which I've yet to install on
this Desktop computer.
I thin it was Red Hat. It booted, but I did not know what to do with
that terminal.
Same. Same. It looked good, but how do I use it to achieve anything.
Then I read a comparative on a magazine that claimed that SuSE wasDaniel70
the easiest Linux. And another magazine gifted two CDs with it, so I
installed that one. Version 5.2 or 5.3.
I installed that one, which had some help, liked it. Next, I bought
the SuSE box for 6.2. Several CDs and a printed book or two.
Downloading it was out of the question for me: only a relatively slow
modem, and I had to pay phone usage by the minute. Thus I certainly
bought the box, and did the same next year to upgrade. And again. And
maybe again, I don't remember.
The book(s) alone was worth it.
-
and it's well liked and close to Windows so the migration isn't that hard.
The first Linux I installed, summer of 1998, was a CD on a computer
magazine. I thin it was Red Hat. It booted, but I did not know what to
do with that terminal.
Downloading it was out of the question for me: only a relatively slow
modem, and I had to pay phone usage by the minute. Thus I certainly
bought the box, and did the same next year to upgrade. And again. And
maybe again, I don't remember.
SuSE was also a terminal, but I got a book, there was SuSEhelp... it
took me months to properly configure graphic mode. I had double boot
working, going back to Win 95 or 98 to ask for help on Fidonet. Then I
got Golded working on Linux.
MandrakeLinux 10.1 on a Magazine cover .... about two weeks before
'they' had to change the name to MandrivaLinux because 'Mandrake the Magician' comic producers objected to the use of the name
'Mandrake'.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 23:17:55 +1000, Daniel70 wrote:
MandrakeLinux 10.1 on a Magazine cover .... about two weeks before
'they' had to change the name to MandrivaLinux because 'Mandrake the
Magician' comic producers objected to the use of the name
'Mandrake'.
That wasn’t the reason for the name change. The name changed because Mandrake merged with Conectiva, from Brazil.
The only thing I remember about Conectiva is that they created the “apt4rpm” tool. At that time, RPM-based distros lagged behind Debian in the ability to automatically resolve dependencies in a package you were trying to install by downloading additional needed packages.
The original sacrifices made by the great Dr. Richard M. Stallman
attest to all of the above.
Le 28-05-2025, Farley Flud <[email protected]> a écrit :
The original sacrifices made by the great Dr. Richard M. Stallman
attest to all of the above.
I never heard about any sacrifice done by Stallman. What are you
speaking off?
Farley Flud wrote:
On 31 May 2025 12:44:43 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 28-05-2025, Farley Flud <[email protected]> a écrit :
The original sacrifices made by the great Dr. Richard M. Stallman
attest to all of the above.
I never heard about any sacrifice done by Stallman. What are you
speaking off?
What an idiot!
Dr. Richard M. Stallman quit his job at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), the most prestigious engineering academy in the
world, to work full time on what became GNU.
Get out of here, little man. GNU/Linux belongs to the great.
paying for anything to do with computers is crazy
Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 31-05-2025, % <[email protected]> a écrit :oh is he one of those ,
Farley Flud wrote:
well that might be worth ,
10 cents for an ignore button
Dr. Richard M. Stallman quit his job at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), the most prestigious engineering academy in the
world, to work full time on what became GNU.
I don't see how quitting a prestigious job you don't like to have a job
you like is a sacrifice.
On 31 May 2025 15:03:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Dr. Richard M. Stallman quit his job at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), the most prestigious engineering academy in the
world, to work full time on what became GNU.
I don't see how quitting a prestigious job you don't like to have a job
you like is a sacrifice.
Again, what a total idiot.
Working on GNU is NOT a job; it is an avocation. That is the tremendous sacrifice made by Dr. Richard M. Stallman.
Stallman created GNU for the betterment of mankind.
If he knew that lazy freeloaders like you would take advantage of his
work he may have had second thoughts.
Now get back to your distro which you cannot control nor understand.
I know, as an American he eats shit and that's not expensive, but I'm
sure he needs a little bit more to be able to live.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:40:44 |
| Calls: | 12,111 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,460 |