Why Linux? (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)

[bscott at ntisys.com]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, at 3:24pm, pll at lanminds.com wrote:
>> Apparently, it is a friggin' *stated goal* to remove many configuration
>> options from Gnome.
> 
> So where's the value add to switch from MS?  Sure, there's the "it's free"
> argument, but for most users, they don't care.

  Define "users".

  For most home and small office users, "free" (gratis) makes a *HUGE*
difference.  Where I work, we get a number of customers this way.  "Here is
the Microsoft-based solution; it will cost you $20,000, most of that in
software license fees.  Here is the Linux-based solution; it will cost you
$5000.  Any questions?"

  For corporate environments, where support contracts are a must, "free"  
makes less of a difference.  However, "Free" (libre) *is* important.  The
Freedom to do things the way they want to; the Freedom to choose their
software and support vendors; the Freedom to not be locked into a single
vendor.  (The hard part is often convincing these corporations they do, in
fact, want to be released from their chains, but that is another
discussion.)

> They don't care which one, and as far as they're concerned, MS is "free
> with the purchase of their computer".

  But if the Linux computer costs $200 less than the one that includes
MS-Windows for "free", which one do they buy?  :)

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or  |
| organization.  All information is provided without warranty of any kind.  |