Consumer Linux for 4.99$?
- Home
- Board: /g/ - Technology
- Reading: Consumer Linux for 4.99$?
Would you pay for a consumer grade supported Linux distro at a price of 4.99$???
With support.
>>51778279
no
but for $5 my mom will pay for an app that reminds her to change her drapes every other week
>>51778279
>with support
Yes, $5 would already be worth it.
>consumer grade supported Linux distro
Does this mean most 3rd party applications that currently only work on Windows and OSX would work on it? I'd pay much, much more than $5 in that case.
No because I'm not mentally retarded.
>with support
Yes, that way I don't have to browse forums full of smelly retarded Linux users, I can actually talk to a professional.
>>51778279
>paying for consumer support
No because I know how to use a computer.
Red hat was eighty fucking dollars back in the 90s. How much is it now?
I've already spent more than that donating to Linux Mint and Debian. The difference, though, is that I spent that money after several years of using Linux as my laptop OS and a full year of using it as my desktop OS.
So, no, I wouldn't pay $4.99 for some shit I haven't tried yet.
>>51778372
Money back guarauntee? lol
>>51778279
What the fuck do you need support for.
Inb4 man pages
My only beef with most Linux distros is driver problems. I suppose I would pay $5 for a Linux distro without driver problems, that isn't Ubuntu.
>>51778403
Write your own drivers?
>>51778383
Not that support. Support in like when some shit does not work to get it working.
>>51778435
did she died?
>>51778279
no but I might buy a $50 CD after enjoying the OS for several years
>>51778279
Isn't that the thought of ubuntu? you can pay canonical for support I think
>>51778279
i don't need support, but i'd probably pay for a desktop that works as well as windows does out of the box
>>51778581
Thats the spirit. Thats what im aiming at.
>>51778325
Such this.
>>51778279
no.
i already know how to fix my shit using search engines.
>>51778279
No. I already have a consumer-grade, supported distro for $0.
But I would probably for what >>51778312 or >>51778403 describe.
>>51778581
That would be a step down from what I currently enjoy.
