Solonux.org

This is something I've wondered about for a while.  There are pro's and con's to just about every decision that is under consideration  or has to be made, but what do you get in a paid-for Linux distribution that you can't get in a free one with a little tweaking?  I was just reflecting on this topic because I noticed a lot of Linux distributions are going the paid-for route, especially the newer ones.  What do they offer to new or experienced Linux users that makes them worth their price tag?  I hope to discover and hear feedback from those who can cast some light on the subject and enlighten me as to what I am missing or leaving out of the puzzle.

VidaLinux was a distribution I liked a lot as it was fast, lean and mighty.  I gave up on it though due to kernel panics that were related to my Broadcom internal wireless card.  I figured if my OS wasn't going to work properly with my hardware, what good is it?  I then placed Xandros on it, but soon got replaced with Mandriva.  The problem I had with Xandros was that the repositories were slim in pickings.  Granted, Xandros was a great OS and it was solid and stable, but I'm more of a tinkerer by nature and I'm into the newest technologies, so I got bored with it after a while.  The hardest part about replacing Xandros was missing CrossOver Office as I installed Office 2000 and a couple of other MS-specific products onto my Linux laptop that I used the most.

What is with all of the differing Ubuntu offerings lately?  There's a new Ubuntu-based distribution out there now called iMagic OS which has 4 different offerings that vary in price ranges.  Check out the site here.  The price range varies from $45 USD (Developer Edition) to $70 USD (Business Edition).  I'm sure the obvious price range varies due to including CrossOver for Linux as well as the time and effort it took to customize the distribution and develop it.  But like I said, if you use UCK (Ubuntu Customization Kit) and added other specific repositories and used Wine for installing and using a variety of Windows applications, can anyone honestly tell me that the price tag is justified when you can tailor Ubuntu to be whatever you want it to be using UCK?  Before anyone points this out, I understand CrossOver is more tested than Wine, but the point is Wine will run most standard MS-specific programs just fine (Office 2000, 2003, PhotoShop, etc.). If you're talking gaming, Linux is making advances on that front, but for the most part, gaming is still primarily focused for Windows boxes and gaming consoles.  In time, as Linux grows, so will the programs that are written for it on the Linux platform.  It's coming people, it's coming.. there's no denying it.

This is by no means an attack on iMagic, merely a question.  I definitely appreciate and applaud the fact that developers and people can make whatever they want out of Linux and sell it to the mass markets; they did the work and should get paid for it if they feel they should.  My only question is what does it offer other than what's stated at their website?  What about support?  What about compatibility with future versions?  It's hard to argue with the Ubuntu forums regarding support and/or to pay (or not pay) for Canonical support if businesses need a Linux OS that is reliable and has the backing of a big, competent company.  This is what made Red Hat and Novell the businesses they are, and Mandriva as well albeit to a lesser extent in the US.  This article, however, isn't focused on business users, it's focused on the Average John/Jane users looking for an alternative.  Would they want to pay for support while other options out there are available and without a price tag?  Better yet, take support out of the question and wonder if the Average John/Jane user would want to pay for the OS itself.  

Making your own Linux distribution is a lot easier now than it was a year ago.  I made 3 custom Linux distributions myself so far, one using UCK and two others using a Slackware base.  Unless you count Linux From Scratch as a "custom" distribution, make that 4 distributions I have under my wings.  To be honest, selling any of my distributions I made has crossed my mind, but at the same time, that means I'm on the hook for support and I simply do not have the expertise to pretend I know more about Linux than anyone else at this stage.  I am on the fine line between intermediate/advanced in my opinion, but that does not mean I would be able to help out every customer when it comes to support and backwards compatibility between OS's or versions.

Conclusion

Like I've stated before, if I'm missing something somewhere throughout my train of thought, someone please enlighten me.  I do believe that for some people, paid-for distributions are the way to go.  I only believe this for the simple fact there is a comfort zone when you buy a distribution from companies like Red Hat, Xandros (which includes Linspire/Freespire now), Novell and Mandriva.  The comfort zone is that these distributions are supported by competent, reliable companies whose focus is Linux.  I have already paid for many Linux distributions and although I do not use any of them currently, I do not feel I wasted my money.  From my perspective, I view it as supporting Linux as the whole where my money is or was being used for further development that will only benefit Linux on the whole, not just one distribution.  The GPL will guarantee this.  With that being said, although I'm more of the free-type Linux user, I will continue to buy Linux distributions from other various companies.  I sure would love to get my hands on SLED 11 once it's released and wouldn't mind getting down and dirty with RHEL.. even though CentOS is exactly the same, minus the branding..