Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:30:23 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > Microsoft Landed On Us
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| Windows XP Professional OEM - £98.08
> >| Microsoft Office (Small Business Edition) OEM - £157.74
> >| Paint Shop Pro - £67.85
> >|
> >| This yields a grand total of £323.67. In one fell swoop, I doubled the
> >| cost of the PC... I simply couldn't believe it at first; it seems
> >| illogical that to do absolutely everything I can do for free with Linux,
> >| in order to do the same with Microsoft, I?d have to spend twice as
> >| much.
> > `----
> >
> > http://www.linuxextremist.com/?p=47
>
> You can't do everything you could do in Linux. For example, Paint Shop Pro
> can use any photoshop plug-in available, can the Gimp? On Windows, you
> can, with pspi, but not Linux.
>
> Ok, so maybe such a machine could do everything YOU want to do in Linux,
> but that's not the same thing.
>
> Consider that it costs more to fuel a car for it's lifetime than the cost
> of the car (even if you include interest paid via loans). Why would it
> seem strange that the software for a PC might exceed the cost of the PC?
Is there a free and open source alternative to gasoline ? There is a
problem with your comparison. The economies of scale are very different
for gasoline and software. At large scale, it costs just as much to
produce a second gallon of gasoline, but it does not cost just as much
to produce a second copy of a program.
Thus, while Microsoft and some other software houses would prefer that
you think of software as a consumable product, the reality is that
there is no need to think of it that way, because software is not
consumed when used. Gasoline is. Fortunately for software, there is a
free alternative. I wish there was an alternative for gasoline.
Dean G.
|
|
