[hazmattron]

Linux is only free if your time has no value

True, but in my experience it's a worthy investment of valuable time. I spent three years using Linux distros, and though I use OSX now, I'm much more comfortable with general system administration than I would have been otherwise.

[dkersten]

Having recently had to do some crazy commandline-fu (powershell and cmd.exe) to fix my Windows install, I have to say that there really is no comparison - linux wins hands down. Sure, part of it was familiarity, but it felt so clunky and awkward that I don't think thats all it was. The flexibility of bash, awk, sed, grep etc etc cannot be overstated, IMHO.

On another front, I've found Linux to be time saving, compared to Windows. For example, on a new install, on Windows I now have to hunt for the software I need from lots of different locations, download each one manually and install each one manually (and its impossible or awkward to automate, so you have to sit through a load of install GUIs - or switch CDs if its something proprietary that only comes on CD, though luckily I don't even remember the last time I had to do that, even my games are digital distribution games nowadays). On Linux, all the base stuff is "probably" (depending on your distro) already installed. The rest can be batch installed by a single command (pacman, apt-get, yum, etc) and you can then leave to do something else while you wait for it to install.

Similarly, Microsofts advertisements claim that Linux is difficult and time consuming to keep up to date - what with Windows Update and all. But we all know that on linux this is just a single command (pacman -Su, apt-get upgrade, etc) - this can, of course, easily be automated to run at certain times. Windows Update only updates Microsoft software - the Linux command will update all software installed through the package management system.

Of course, this doesn't invalidate the quote - you still spend time to make Linux do what you need, but you do on other operating systems too, so relatively to the non-free operating systems (which take the same or more of your time), Linux is, indeed, free.

[Goosey]

The irritating thing about that argument is it comes with the built-in implication that you already know something else (Windows/OSX/whatever). It is basically complaining about learning-curve, right?

The other irritating thing is it usually 'means' general computer usage, but as hackers we need to choose OS's for things like server deployments, development environments, etc. In my experience when you start mixing in enough complex/worthwhile applications of the OS it becomes a wash in time consumption between *nix/Windows (since you are using the bulk of your time learning application-level things)

So if your doing something 'worthwhile' might as well go with the option that only costs 1 of the assets rather than three (time, money, and freedom)

[hazmattron]

You make an excellent point about the application-level learning, I actually noticed myself that I was spending a vast amount of time just configuring my OS and apps -- time which I could have spent actually producing things. This was my primary justification for buying my Mac, though I still think I learned a lot using Linux that I wouldn't have otherwise ...patience and perseverance, among other things.

[10ren]

Linux: great for developing, terrible for consumption.

[tkahn6]

Another thing is that most programming resources that I've come across assume a unix-like system.

Windows 7 is an excellent operating system but I do all my dev work on ubuntu.