I've begun to perceive how much disconnect there still is between advanced Linux users (advanced enough to care about open vs. closed source issues) and Linux newbies, and one of the areas of disconnect is probably a completely different orientation toward the meaning of "free." You can explain the freedom/free beer concept to prospective Linux users all you want, but for most of them, what impresses them most will probably still be that it doesn't cost any money in most cases, that they can even use the equivalent of Microsoft Office (always so expensive that I never had it back when I used Windows) and pay nothing.

I still don't think there are many commonplace users out there using Linux unless they're technical, or at least willing to be technical. Whereas if you desire a computer, many will buy it with Windows and use it. To get them on Linux, they'd have to be supported by someone. I'm not really sure if it's about free or not. Free means that people who have older computers and have experience with replacing hard drives and such, will try Linux either because they want to or because they can't recover some Windows distribution from years ago either due to support or cost and the better alternative to save that older computer is to load Linux on it.

At one time an OS was expensive. I doubt that is the case today. The OEM hardware makers only pay a few dollars for their OS and pass it along to the consumer instead of a consumer buying a full retail copy and installing it. I remember when OS/2 was going for something like $280 and Windows was only maybe $30.

You're probably right.

Well, I was not only interested in Linux because I didn't want to pay any more money to Microsoft, but also because I had already been using open source stuff like Firefox and OpenOffice in Windows. That was before I had ever heard of Linux, but those things led me to find out about it. So in my case, both meanings of "free" were motivating factors, early on. Might be a lot more newbies like that out there right now than you think; hard to say.

It's nice that the software is cheaper; but there's still the principle. They still have to ask how much the Windows OS and/or software costs, and with Linux, they almost never do. It appeals to anyone frugal, such as me. Especially upgrades: Windows comes with the computer, but if it's a few years old and has Windows 7, they can't upgrade to 8 without spending money either to buy the upgrade (which probably doesn't even give them everything the full version has) or to buy a new computer with Windows 8 installed.

This probably applies more in recent years because more people have no money to spare.

I do not think money has to do anything with this. In a place like ours we can get _any_ OS for free - not joking - provided you have enough friends.
What I loved about linux is the high quality and richness of software it brings. But that could be because I started with Knopix

That may be true, but in some cases (including my own), some users would rather pay $89 to $400 for Linux than pay the same amount for Windows. Hopefully though, our favorite distros will continue to be free for downloading.

I use linux because it's great and not because it is free. In fact, if linux was a paid OS, I would gladly pay for it.

I'd would question how "newbie" they are if they're smart enough to want to get free software through proper channels and not obtain it illegally like a lot of Windows users do.

And for the record, I'm not a newbie by any reasonable definition, and I like open source software because it costs no money.

Buying a computer with some version of windows already installed is certainly now and has been less expensive that buying the installation media itself. I would be surprised if OEM manufacturers only paid a 'few dollars' for the software. Then again, a 'few dollars' means different things to different people.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-7-oem-prices/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ws_7_cost_you_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundlin...rosoft_Windows

http://www.osnews.com/story/22174/OE..._for_a_1000_PC

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/16/m...on-a-1-000-pc/

OEM price to a company that buys 10 million is much different than a home user buying an OEM copy.

The prices companies pay is a secret protected by agreements. They can't disclose that price. HP and Dell and Lenovo and the likes have the very best price offered by Microsoft. So, even people who know can't say what they pay. It is usually guarded quite well.

I don't agree with those articles, the 10 million price is not what they are saying it is. The "average" quoted might have some truth since Microsoft sells a lot of copies at different price levels. There is also junkware that companies offer to offset the cost of the OS. They count of extra revenue from the buyer.

I think that the OS being free does have a lot to do with newbies trying out Linux for the first time, but I think it has very little to do with people "liking" the OS and deciding to stick with it.

I have no idea how much HP, Dell and the other manufacturers pay microsoft but the link to osnews.com is quoting a microsoft executive and not being disclosed by any manufacturer. I expect the 5% figure quoted in that article is probably the most accurate considering the source and the fact that it is pretty standard in that type of business transaction.

"most newbies probably like Linux mostly because it costs no money!"
Not so for the many (now more than a hundred) that I have helped to go Linux.
Always the reason has been a combination of reliability and virus protection.
Cost has never been a factor but is a good reason to add to the advantages.
Why do I help folk? I am retired, I can put back in to society something I enjoy doing.

Trev

Granted that everyone can use the OS that they prefer, most newbie from windows use Linux for 3 reasons: no money, no virus, sound cool.
Problems born when these newbie after years and years of linux, they ask always the same things. Desire to learn: zero.
And Linux should be above all this.

My 2 cents.