User Linux

[Jeff Vian]

Bennett, Patrick wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: fedora-list-admin at redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-admin at redhat.com]
>On Behalf Of Brent Fox
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:54 AM
>To: fedora-list at redhat.com
>Subject: Re: User Linux
>
>  
>
>>Also, just to make it fair, the $99 price for Windows XP Home is for
>>    
>>
>the upgrade version.  The retail price for the full version of Windows
>XP Home is $199:
>  
>
>>http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=316255
>>
>>Then add Office 2003 to that at $369 for the full version:
>>http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=539386
>>
>>$199 + $369 = $568  
>>    
>>
>
>
>Well, to make it *really* fair you can't count Office in the price
>calculations since OpenOffice is available for Windows as well.
>The same could be said for a fair number of packages that are being
>considered part of the Linux bundle/price-advantage comparison.
>
>  
>
But you are still missing the point.
He was complaining about the effort to upgrade everything.  Do you 
--really-- think he (or most Windows users)  would take the idea that 
software is available for free and really use it.
In my experience most feel that FREE IS BAD as far as quality is 
concerned.  They would rather pay $300 - $500 for an application that is 
FREE for the open source community (MS Office vs OpenOffice, Photoshop 
vs Gimp, etc), than try and obtain/install/use something that is free as 
far as cost but is perceived as low quality or just plain dangerous.

This is a case where perception makes the decision rather than a free 
spirit and willingness to try something new.