When none linux users say "linux is free so there must be something wrong with it" how do you reply?

I was told this by a more elderly person recently. It wasn't said as a troll but as genuine cynicism. I know how great linux is and the quality of the operating system compared to windows but in all the years I have used it, when I thought about it, I didn't have a good answer for that.

How does one respond to the old "free = junk" maxim?

She followed with "how does the company exists if it is free?" I did have some kind of response to that having read a little about it in the past. I said that it is made in a voluntary manner and then money comes from support offered at a price. Not sure how complete that answer is but that is what I remember from reading about it some years ago.

I don't. I just allow people to think what they want to think, and move on with my life.

Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 She followed with "how does the company exists if it is free?"

I guess this person ought to contact Google, Yahoo, and Facebook to inform them that their companies do not exist.

I concur with Timothy Miller and would add that this isn't an argumentative discussion unless one side or the other makes a point to either push their viewpoint or attempt to criticize the other person's practices.

Originally Posted by rtmistler I guess this person ought to contact Google, Yahoo, and Facebook to inform them that their companies do not exist.

Very bad comparison. Named are predatory data collection enterprises, their "free" services turn customer the product. Try and read their terms and conditions, you'll see they are in dire conflict with human integrity.

I have encountered this very question myself, only once.

I made it a point at the time to provide a very patient, and I think well rounded explanation of what Linux is, its Unix foundations and how it came to be, with emphasis on the Free Software philosophy generally. I suggested some search terms and followed with some emailed links to FSF and a few resources I found online.

I had known the person for only a few years but would have considered them a friend. But when we next met a few weeks later I was faced with open hostility! They had "fortunately done their own research" which they said included speaking with "a professional at Micro$oft". They had "learned the truth" that most of the code for Unix and Linux had been "stolen from Window$", that it was infested with malicious programs and they had been warned to stay far away from Linux and the charlatans promoting it!

I made brief effort to calm them down - they were very animated, you would think I had tried to rob them at gunpoint - but decided to just move on.

Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 When none linux users say "linux is free so there must be something wrong with it" how do you reply?

Nobody has ever asked my that question. This is the first time that I have ever seen the question in print. My reaction is to shrug my shoulders.

She followed with "how does the company exists if it is free?"

Linux isn't a 'company' but Red Hat, Canonical and IBM are. They provide service contracts to 'make money'.

They had "learned the truth" that most of the code for Unix and Linux had been "stolen from Window$"

Ridiculous since Unix was around and usable for well over a decade before DOS or windows and the statement would be more accurate if it were turned around.

I also have never heard that statement.

Originally Posted by Emerson Very bad comparison. Named are predatory data collection enterprises, their "free" services turn customer the product. Try and read their terms and conditions, you'll see they are in dire conflict with human integrity.

Yes, that, on the contrary, reinforces the point she made in that if it is free you are the product as the adage goes.

Originally Posted by rtmistler I guess this person ought to contact Google, Yahoo, and Facebook to inform them that their companies do not exist. I concur with Timothy Miller and would add that this isn't an argumentative discussion unless one side or the other makes a point to either push their viewpoint or attempt to criticize the other person's practices.

I suppose I should refine my initial query to say that I am not interested in changing people's mind but, rather, it made me realize I don't actually know myself and am interested how linux has come to be without a for profit model.

Is it just a case of a bunch of passionate people doing it as a hobby and thus wanting to make it the best it can be for its own sake?

With hobbies there is no monetary incentive usually but people still want to excel in the area because they enjoy it.

I have also asked this additional question on reddit in the past, and got unsatisfactory replies so I will ask it again here, since linux is so successful without the usual capitalist model, why can't more or all of society be structured in this manner? All tasks being given to those who enjoy doing them rather than having to be incentivized by money.

The general response I remember getting is that linux can only exist in a capitalist society and is more a luxury of the free time offered from the basic capitalist model.

Isn't free software in general pretty much socialism?

Originally Posted by astrogeek I made brief effort to calm them down - they were very animated, you would think I had tried to rob them at gunpoint - but decided to just move on.

M$ has had many whisper campaigns over the years. Back in the day I did track down their anti-Netware campaign to their reps, but failed to pursue it or help others pursue it legally.

Nowadays, I'm too far out of the loop to pick up what they're programming people for at the moment, but when you do bring up Linux, or even source code, you often get a frightened look like you've exposed them to a crime and they are at risk for even hearing about it. The most extreme case was when I handed an SBC to an "IT" professional who was posing as a "security expert". Upon learning that it ran Linux and could never run M$ they showed a brief expression of fright and ejected it from their grip so fast it risked damaging the unit.

M$ also does punish their minions for using non-M$ systems and, at the upper levels, non-M$ software. So that might be part of it.

Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 I suppose I should refine my initial query to say that I am not interested in changing people's mind but, rather, it made me realize I don't actually know myself and am interested how linux has come to be without a for profit model.

Selling software is a 1980s fad which has mostly passed: People use software to do things, even if it is only to provide online services. Sometimes along the way that means creating or modifying the software. The overwhelming majority of software is also in-house and never gets published. Thus the business model is not about software per se but what you can actually do with it.

Free and Open Source Software plays a role in that it is a commons which is cultivated and invested in rather than strip mined. Licensing plays a strong role there. A lot of people don't get it, some for purely ideological reasons and the worst of those are the zero-sum-gamers. However, a lot of people do get it. So you had Google during its good years, Apple (which was based on OpenStep) during its good years, IBM before it was infiltrated, Boeing before it got merged, Volkswagen before it got merged, etc. But you're right, it's hard to point to any current positive examples of multinationals at the moment.

Even with the non-reciprocal licenses like the MIT and BSD licenses you eventually reach a point (for some) where enlightened self interest takes over and people realize that their companies benefit the most by contributing core modification back upstream.

Simple answer - "I've been using it since 1999 as my computer operating system...."

"Free" does not mean that software costs nothing to produce and/or that it is made by unpaid volunteers in their spare time. That is certainly not the case. Very well-funded foundations pay programmers an industry wage to work on Linux-related and open-source projects every day. The quality of key projects such as MySQL® and the Apache® suite are second to none.

The difference is that you are not charged money to possess and use these products. But also, none of the contributors to the project can lay claim to "owning" any part of it. They can't put up a booth and sell tickets. This enables one of the most powerful and money-saving forces around: "cooperation." A rising tide lifts all boats. It takes you places you could never afford to go alone.

Before "open source" became commonplace, many excellent software products (particularly innovative spreadsheets) withered and died on the vine. Not because of the product, but because of the solitary businesses who owned and funded them. Although they tried their best. (Very rarely, the bankruptcy creditors set the products free. Consider "Blender®," which has since become a world-class 3D rendering application – now supported by its own foundation.)

Computer software is actually very expensive to develop and then maintain. "Cooperation" has turned out to be an excellent way to build very strong structures upon which to build other software. Apple, for examples, continues to cooperatively develop the "Mach®" flavor of Unix®, which is the foundation layer of its operating systems both for Mac and iPhone. Cooperation has also enabled Linux® to become a "common anchor" for systems now running on more than 25 hardware platforms and counting – "from mainframes to microwaves." (Including your Android® phones.) No other system comes close to this number. It would not have been possible to do this – this which badly needed to be done – any other way. So, the "cooperation" made perfect business sense. No one reaps the money, but everyone shares the benefits. Which are certainly worth money.

Don't argue. Yes, Linux has many of the same problems as other OS's.
Don't try to fool people into thinking it's so great and has no downsides. It is what it is.
An OS that can be used by many people for many reasons.