Jeff Key

Linux in itself is free. This is HP's Linux offerings. That doesn't mean software, but machines instead. HP also provides a good deal of customer support for linux installations, the same way Dell/Gateway do for MS/Windows based desktops.

In the first paragraph of the article it even defines Linux based products and services, not the Linux operating system.

Exactly, Justin; I didn't mean the "cost" of the OS itself. :)

For some reason MSFT hasn't been tossing around "TCO" like it used to. I haven't seen their new anti-Linux adverts, but let's hope they drill that home: It's not just the licenses, it's the TCO, and Java/Linux solutions generally have a very high TCO.

Do you work for Microsoft?

If you do then, and only then, do you see a penny of any profit Microsoft makes by selling it's OS and dev tools.

The rest of us make money the same way that Linux developers do, by selling our services. By your reasoning anyone who releases code for free instead of selling it is a "sucker"

If creating code is your livelihood, then releasing it free is charity work. But if you think you are sticking it to company X by doing so, when all you are really doing is increasing revenue for company Y, then I would say you are being a sucker, where X and Y are 2 large companies that you don't work for and probably are both your competitors.

Of course, you could be a student and then I don't think you fit any of these categories. Most of the statistics I've seen say that the OSS developer pool is made up of 25-35% students. =)

Scott: I was thinking of Darrell's scenario; perhaps "sucker" is too harsh. Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is great and I admire the folks that contribute. Competition makes our industry tick and the rise of Linux has been beneficial to everyone. I certainly see the benefit of IBM and other Big Corporations contributing to Linux, but it's Joe Coder the sysadmin at a small company that's not getting a piece of the (very big) pie. Pride does a lot for a person, but it's unfortunate that others are essentially getting paid for their work. This may not even be the case anymore -- I don't know. (BTW, I believe that solution providers can get a cut of Microsoft licenses, so they would in fact see some of that profit.)

Alex: Interesting..and a bit scary. ;)

They're only getting shafted if the purpose of writing some code was not to just "scratch an itch". Otherwise, I really don't think they give a damn.

Linux IS free .. free as in freedom, not as in beer. This is the BIGGEST misconception about Free Software.

I don't understand the assertion that people write OSS because they want to wallop Microsoft. People want to write OSS because as senkwe said, they want to scratch and itch and not have to pay for it. Or they want to contribute something to a community that doesn't cost money to be involved in.

While I readily admit there is an endless stream of zealots ready to moan and bash Microsoft, I'm now seeing more and more Microsoft Zealots bashing Linux because you still have to pay for the hardware to run it on, or worse yet .. for support (shock,horror).

Here's why I prefer Linux (although I do like Windows):

None of the Linux developers or sellers are pushing me to upgrade technology that works very well thank you very much and costing me money in upgraded Operating Systems and new hardware to support it. They're not pushing the certification gravy train in order to extract more money out of people/companies ...

I'm confused, Jeff. You say "Linux is not free" not once, but twice in your post and then you claim that you weren't talking about the cost of Linux. Why the misleading title then? Why the lack of explanation? What WERE you talking about. If you didn't mean Linux or you didn't mean free, why did you say Linux is not free?

Linux IS free. Some things that run on Linux are not. Some support is not. Saying "Linux is not free" because you have to buy hardware is misleading to the point of being easily mistaken for a lie. Saying "Linx is not free" because you may have to pay for support is just as bad.

Maybe you think that people who own companies don't know the difference between the cost of hardware and the cost of software and the cost of support. If so, I guess your post may be a failed attempt to educate them, but you forgot to get around to the education part of the post. Where do you explain WHY you say (incorrectly) that Linux is not free?

Windows XP Pro costs $299 retail. To argue otherwise because of costs of hardware (which is required to run most software) and/or support ($250 per incident) is misleading.

I apologize for the confusion. I read a lot (too many) industry rags/news and one of the things I see over and over again is that "Linux is free" is a reason for choosing or considering that platform. My short post was a response to the generalizations I read all the time.

I would argue that the associated costs are certainly valid when comparing them as platforms. With Windows you have the platform and application services, as well as a runtime environment (.NET) as part of the package. No need for an application server, MQ server, etc. The only assumed additional requirement is a database server. (Yes, sometimes additional applications/services are required.)

I do hope decision makers consider _everything_ when choosing a platform. TCO is a huge factor and it appears, at least in the press, that it's not always taken into consideration as much as it should be. Sometimes a Linux/Java solution is cheaper over time, sometimes a MSFT solution is.I've been doing .NET full time since the beta days and early on we lost some projects to Linux/Java that went grossly over budget. In my experience, the MSFT solution is generally the most affordable, both in cost and time.

Although my post wasn't about the price of Linux itself (although it wasn't glaringly obvious), it's worth looking at Red Hat, the market leader (especially here in the US). You cannot get a free version of Red Hat. You can get something called the Fedora Project. Let's look at that:

Cost: Free
Support options: None.
ISV certifications: None.
Hardware certs: None.

Now for Red Hat Linux:

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
Desktop starts at $179 (with support: $299)
Enterprise ES starts at $349 (with support: $799)
Enterprise AS starts at $1,499 (includes support)
Support options: 24x7
ISV certs: over 300
Hardware certs: Lots

There is no free Red Hat Linux. Yes, there are others that are free. The Red Hat stats are valid because they are a major player and if they make money charging you can bet others will follow.

Again, I apologize for the confusion and appreciate the feedback. Lesson learned, and I'll be more responsible in the future. (I really do like Linux and Java; it's the press that pisses me off.)

If I read the article correctly, they're including hardware sales, including everything from Linux based Thin Clients to Linux based Itanium servers to Linux based supercomputers as "Linux-related products".

If you're suggesting that hardware costs are part of the of the cost of computers that can run Linux - of course they are. And while Microsoft publically announced that they believe hardware is free (covered in the mark-up of Windows?), this typically isn't the case for Linux systems.