Hi,
MessiahAndrw wrote:
But, I feel like there are people out there that believe all software should be free and refuse to pay for any software ever (but believe in paying for hardware, food, houses, etc.) This seems akin to the people who live in the suburbs are used to never paying to park their car the drive to the city where you have to pay and then say "HOW DARE THEY CHARGE? I WILL NEVER PAY FOR SOMETHING I CAN GET FOR FREE ELSEWHERE!!!"
Ironically, the popular "free" OSs are not free at all. For example; for Linux, most of the development is done by large companies who build the cost of Linux development into the prices of everything else (e.g. every time someone buys hardware from Intel they're charged a little bit extra and that little bit extra goes towards paying for Intel's developers to work on Linux, every company that has a support contract with Redhat charges a tiny little bit extra and that goes towards paying for Redhat's developers to work on Linux, etc). The end result is that Linux is funded by millions of "hidden micro-taxes" being paid by everyone.
For an economy based on capitalism where (in theory) consumer choice determines profit and encourages better products, services and prices while discouraging worse products, services and prices; "free" takes consumer choice out of the equation (e.g. people pay the hidden micro-taxes that fund Linux development whether they like Linux or not). In this way it could be argued that "free" is a nasty/unethical anti-competitive practice - a cancer that ruins fair competition.
Of course OSs that actually are free do exist (e.g. the BSDs, where development is funded by generosity alone), but they're also one of the biggest victims - struggling to compete against "free" for recognition/popularity and developers. It's fairly safe to assume every commercial OS has been effected by the unfair competition of "free" too (once upon a time there were lots of OSs, like HP-UX, Solaris, BeOS, Simbian, ... - all dead now).
Cheers,
Brendan