I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work).
So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform.
Also, I have bought brand new laptops which come with a version of windows, so if money was the issue I'd just use that, but I'm much more productive with Linux, so I install it as a first step on all my machines.
Curious people could speculatively purchase a lot of things, books for example; cost is often, naturally, a constraint.
In the days when Netscape Navigator was a closed-source binary blob on Linux, everyone ran it anyway (it was free). It was the only way to get the functionality.
which would mean they aren't interested in a paid proprietary product, just like the parent said? They didn't say people choose Linux because it doesn't cost money.
(Although in my experience, some people absolutely do choose Linux because it's free as in beer, especially at first)
Then those people are lying. Free is absolutely a factor for many.
In a world when most things are based on money, you need proof that cost, and even more importantly, free, is a factor?
I, for one, have used OSS tools that are free over better paid tools, because cost is a factor.
(I've also used others because they are better or because they have bigger community -- but cost has always been a factor).
>Because if money is a problem you install Windows and live with the not genuime notification in the corner or you run some app that removes that too.
That's not an option on professional servers and businesses -- which is where I'm mostly basing my statement. If they started paying for the free stuff they use (not even going from Postgres to Oracle, but from e.g. Centos to RedHat) they'd be closing shop.
For enterprise software everyone not only users but companies will first try the free stuff, but honestly even if my companies pays for a library if there is an open source alternative I will try that first because many time we hit bugs in closed source stuff and we could not fix that ourselves and the product was abandones.
I never myself cared for the sub-$100 Windows license attached, given that I bought a $1500+ laptop. Since there were always few (and usually subpar) selection of Linux-first machines (especially here), having a Windows license was just the normal across all laptop brands -- so it was not a deciding factor in comparing prices. It was either paying that, or being constrained to pick from 1/50 the machine selection.
This doesn't extend to buying software in general.
On the other hand, I try to pay/donate for products I use; my distro, Wikipedia, whatever.
I think this is something that those who can should do more, we usually complain about advertising and personal data mining but in the world we live on those are the things companies need to do to offer free services!
Unless we're delusional that we're gonna change the whole structure of our society, then we need to directly pay for our stuff! No matter the amount, support the main projects you rely on with cash!
It's just rock solid and something I've come to truly appreciate when I have to use my Windows 10 work laptop and have to deal with all the quirks Windows comes with by default.