I'm not looking to start a flame war or anything, but we as a community have to address the fact that we are cheap. We seem to feel that we have a right to enjoy free software. I have seen people bash SuSE for not having downloadable ISO images. Why do they feel they have the right to have somebody else work for free. Too many linux focused companies like Mandrake and Loki have spiraled downward because a large number of linux users can't get it through their heads that a company requires money to survive.

I realize that a lot of linux was created from the hard work of volunteers, but a good portion of it wasn't. Beside, it will take more than just volunteers to bring it to the next level. Am I looking at this wrong? If so how? If you agree, how do you think we can turn a financially struggling linux market into something profitable?

Steve

I disagree. Because I have no money.

Exactly, there is a huge difference between "cheap" and "poor"...

Regardless, you only give two examples of Linux centered companies in financial straits. Redhat makes money, Mandrake doesn't. Perhaps that that is simply because the people who run Redat inc. are doing a better job. Maybe you need to take a closer look at how Mandrake executives run their company.

It is a cheap shot, and completely illogical to pass the buck to "us" for mandrake's demise. I don't use it...and while I don't want them to disappear, I am not going to feel guilty and donate money to them.

To make money, organisations can offer education, consulting or other value-added services using Linux.

That's my 2 cents worth anyway...

Technically, that's what they do is make money by providing education, consulting and value-added services. What does that 90 bucks for your Redhat distro get you? a big shiny book, some tech support, some non GPL (read not free) apps and a version of what everyone else gets for free changed by paid programmers so it's wrapped in an easy to swallow, warmer, fuzzier package. Now before I get the flames for that comment, stop and think did you pay the extra money to have your hand held through the install as opposed to getting dumped to a login prompt with instructions to login as root, type fdisk, and then run setup?

So Redhat can add some spiffs, call it "server" and sell it for 100 bucks more but if Mandrake takes the same distro and does their thing to it and slaps their name on but it doesn't sell then it's the fault of the "cheap" linux users?

The thing is, who sets the price for your workstation computer's OS? Company M with their 90 whatever percent workstation market share? So if there is no way to get healthy competition to win (OS/2 rocked over win3.1 but look how that turned out.) we have to face the fact that it will take a free OS to put the big boys in their place.

www.paypal.com Stick that link in your sig...

I don't know why linux users' are considered cheap. Because they refuse to pay for software? I think that for the most part it's not "linux users" but computer home users in general that don't. Ever check out Kazaa? Try downloading a linux app, not much to be gotten, however search for WinXP Office, and bam! You've got 100 people sharing it. Why? Because no one wants to pay for a program, or at least not a bajillion dollars for it. I think that linux users are alot better on donations and so on than the avg win user though. They are sort of "brought up" on this concept of donation. If you have something someone else doesn't share. If this is in the form of $ well then that's how you share.

I am by no means a programmer. I wish I knew something with it, even scripting, however I don't. So when I can, I donate $. I recieve help on a thread, or just find someone who is helping everyone out alot, or even an organization I think deserves some contribution and I donate. I am not even close to a rich person, however I do what I can to support the linux community in anyway I can. Most of the time it's just helping out on sites like LQ, but when I can I donate. I believe I am not the smaller part of the population either. I think most users do this.

It's a community of giving, vs the community getting. I give expecting nothing in return, because this is how I have been treated as well.



Cool

When the Mandrake CEO wrote a rant such as yours after I had spent $140 over the past 6 months for boxed sets and tech support (which I never got), I took my business elsewhere. Do you think that had something to do with their demise? The Mandrake people (by their own admission) had upper management problems they couldn't survive.

Linux started in this way, free, community base, open-source. It's not started to make money and everybody knows that. But they choose Linux to make money from it. If they fail, that's their problem. I think there is nothing to do with the users. If they cannot go on, then shut the company down. There is no effect to the development of the Linux. Linux will go on forever whether the commertial companies exist or not.

take a look at redhat they did very good job i always download dist. but that doesn't make me poor i donated to a lot of apps. and red hat give update for free software for free os for free but after all they make money if mandrake or some other dist failed becouse of just downloading thats not true they faileded because of their managment

moe:

You are right. But not completely... As i started to Linux, i had a "cheap" copy of an old SuSE distro, bought in a computer magazine. If there only had been source code... i don't know if i had tried to do it.

I've learned a lot. But still now, i'm using a compiled distro. Is is not worth for me at the moment to compile Linux for myself. I depend on companies like Mandrake or SuSE (or whaterver else) And as i do, there are many others having access to the wonderful world of opensource only throug companies makeing money (more or less accurate...) by doing the hard job for others.

The popularity of Linux comes out from the possibility to start as easy as possible. The interested ones will learn to go into the source from that. But less people would learn it from nothing...

I think, Linux could go on forever. But not as vital as it does now. Looking at OS/2. There is still a community working on it, but no one really interested or knowing directly other users would even think of using it. Linux needs a easy and popular branch, in order that the people having the capability to bring it further come to start with it.

greets,
ajk

I want to thank everybody for their well thought out comments up till this point.

I realize that linux is a grassroots operating system. For the user by the user. But It seems as though linux has been making huge strides and garnering more support since it became more commercial. Is anybody concerned that linux will fall back into relative obscurity if advanced distros can't survive.




Steve

I don't think so. Check out the linux counter project, not that it's an exact count of linux users, it's gotta be pretty accurate of peaks. The graph is pretty much very steady, there's a peak at one point around 2000 or so, but other than that, it's a gradual graph. I think it wouldn't make a huge difference if the "advanced" distros can't survive. However, that's all relative. Surviving as a company, maybe not, surviving as a distro, well I think that will probably go on by supporters in their free time just like a lot of things do. The more people = more free time = more improvements/faster improvements. It's a cycle that won't go away just because a business does.

Cool

Here's an interesting fact, the only distro that has always been in the black is Slackware.

thats just it! thats what makes linux one above everything else (ie Micro$oft), the fact that it is non profitable.

the bottom line is if profit is involved, then that is their top priority!, it has to be, because out of the profit comes bigger and greater things.

linux has it sussed!

Well, companies took something free (Linux) and tried to make money out ot it. If they succeed, then great, If they fail, thats their problem because they started with investing no money (took a already made, free product) changed it here and there to make a "distro" and sold it. If people like it, they will buy it, or at least i always buy my Linux distro (From slackware's site, i pay for every new release, and a nice little box with a letter from Patrick congratulating me on my choice arrives in a couple of days).
So if users like what they have, i'm sure they will give support to the comapany in one of many ways. Perhaps not financial support, maybe they will promote the comapnies distro so other people convert to it = more users = more $$.
Did i make sense?
-NSKL