Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: bakedjake
Now it struck me that I was not really getting anything for free, but what was happening was that I was being asked to commit to the first couple of steps of someone’s marketing plan.
The casino was not being altruistic and intended to make a profit off that free room. I, along with others were being courted with the free room. Nothing wrong with it. They were very upfront about it. The casino was just a vendor using the free room to get me within arms reach so that he could make a profit.
It seems to me that Linux and the Open Source community has much the same business model as the casino operator. At heart they are as capitalistic as Bill Gates and motivated to making a profit the same way as Microsoft. They hawk something free but in the end they make a profit.
Here is the url of a different view than mine.
Perhaps others will care to comment.
Nothing gets by you cyril :)
Linux, you get the whole hotel for free not just a room. Now, if you won't take the time to work out how the lifts work you can always pay someone to do it for you.
We are a micro-company, 10 PC's in total, who have just switched to an OS independant approuch. We have a combination of Windows, Macs and Linux all living happily together. My best guess is that we will save in excess of £30,000 in the next tweleve months on software costs compared with a 100% Windows solution.
The catch? Still trying to find one with Linux.
With the casino, the catch is to take the chips, lock them up, and don't spend any money. Then you can cash them in when you leave and actually say you got the room free... Even if you spent the weekend sitting in bed, starving. ;)
cyril kearney, this is bordering on flame bait. What is the point?
I won't host my websites on anything else, and think it's time to figure out the lifts for myself. ;)
I'm all in favor of linux. I was actually trying to imply that linux was a better deal than the casino room... didn't express myself clearly enough, apparently.
To balance my opinion I posted the url to an article that explained an opposing opinion.
I don't feel that I baited anyone. You seem to be convinced that free is free. I have the point of view that if people are making money off it, then there is a cost involved. I think that is difference is a valid discussion point.
If I had substituted Microsoft's free IE Browser for Linux in my example would my point be more valid?
That comes at a price of course - labour etc., - community rather than commercial support etc., and i dont think the Open Source community has sold it as "free" in financial terms but "free" in the ability to use and improve it. Microsoft likes to call it "free" as that suggests it is a worthless.. "give-away" - and all the "image" that suggests.
I dont think Cyril is flaming. Just as usual forwarding a different view which challenges us to think..
If you want somebody to hold your hand and are willing to spend the cash go here [redhat.com]
You want cheap and easy to use cds of downloaded linux distros go here [cheapbytes.com].
You could even check out Linux cds from some public libraries.
Unfortunately I think a lot of companies that are packaging open course software will continue to go out of business, because of the nature of the model.