"Timothy R. Butler" wrote:
Tim,
I can't figure out why these detractors jump on the price of SuSE
Detractors - you make us sound like a hostile terrorist group or something.
Professional, comparing it to M$. Invariably they make the comparison based on the lowly client version of Win98. In truth, they should be comparing it to Windows 2000 Data Center, especially now with the 2.4 kernel. How much does Microsoft charge for unlimited seats on that
Well, that is TRUE. But I remeber a year or two ago other Linux people were always jumping on Micrsoft - they are soooo expensive. The OS is $89.99! Well, I don't hear any of them now, do you? Why is that? It's because Linux is now the same price - to me it's fair to do the same comparison Linux users were doing. I'm not saying Linux isn't cheaper - but it ought to be for crying out loud. I would guess that at least 95% of the code contained in is developed by other people for no cost to SuSE. Now, I'm not saying SuSE isn't worth $79.99 or what ever price it is tomorrow. But! I think there are definately ways to make it more affordable for hobbists.
They do make it more affordable for hobbyists. The Personal edition is only $30.
For instance, I run a small consulting company, and keep a copy of Linux on my computer partially as a hobby, and partially because it's useful. However, the useful part doesn't demand me going out and buying every release,
okay, so no one is forcing you, right? No Gates to raise the price on the old version to make you go out and buy the new version? No updated applications purposefully made to break on the old version so you will be forced to buy the new?
and frankly the hobbist part says $79.99 is way too expensive for a hobby.
Debian is zilch. Now _there's_ a hobby!
accomplish the job, for $79.99. All they can't do is take YaST, recompile it with their own name, and sell the result as their own distribution. That's it.
That's it? What do you mean "that's it"? That's one of the tenets of open source software. EVERY OTHER major distribution offers it's installer as open source (under the GNU Free Software definition), IIRC. Personally, this is disturbing to me.
-Tim
I think they're entitled; it's their distro. If I were in this business I'd be a little upset if, say LinuxOne took my distribution, changed the splash screen on the install and administer utility, and used the result to compete with me, as did Mandrake to Red Hat. -- The Advertising Agency Song: When your client's hopping mad, Put his picture in the ad. If he still should prove refractory, Add a picture of his factory.