Should software be Free (linux) or should be Sale (microsoft)

Hello everyone plz give me a suitable requirements for that...should software be free or for sale ???

 

I don't think it's as simple as "free or paid" because there are pros/cons to each. It really just depends.

 

Though most of the Linux distros are free, it doesn't however mean that you can equate Linux to FREE (which is apparently what you've done in the thread title.). There are some operating systems based on the open-source Linux kernel that are available strictly commercially.
The two main advantages of developing and distributing 'Free Software' are:

1. The manufacturer gains some standing, user-base and publicity in the market. Most of the freely available versions (be it an OS or a standalone application) are really trial run programs usually with locked, restricted or partial functionality. They are mostly meant to direct end-users stealthily to a corresponding 'higher'/Premium/commercial-grade version (which is paid) packed with additional features.
2. The source code of free programs or operating systems can be reused to develop advanced versions or variants (known sometimes as 'forks') of the same software. This is immensely time-saving for the coders as compared to writing the whole code from scratch.

Here's an insight into why software is basically free – http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/editorial_20 and something that might help you to make the right choice - http://lifehacker.com/paid-vs-free-software-your-best-arguments-870361592.
As for the answer to your original question 'Should software be free or for sale?', it has already been addressed. All in all, it depends entirely on your purpose of making that particular software.

My 2c.
Hope this helps.

EDIT:

There's the catch!

 

The correct answer is "Yes." Software should be free and should also be commercial. Software is such a big industry that it has room for hobbyists, professional hardcore developers and everything in between. In some ways, software is unique in this regard in that one would not likely find an individual or group offering a free car, free diamond ring or any other significant product. Because the barrier to entry is so low in the software game, a single individual can create a free software product in his/her spare time that can end up being quite successful in terms of usage and value to end users. Think of PGP, in this regard. It is an aspect of the software industry that really helps it, overall, due to the constant creativity and innovation that this model fosters. Having some unknown developer working out of his garage keeps many a successful software company executive up at night worrying about how to keep the company's products relevant and ahead of the pack. We all benefit from this.

 

It's obvious that premium commercial software has all the important options really needed, as well as the OS. I always suggest to spend less, but spend well. Focus on buying few software packages, but important software.

 

Another detailed and insightful read about why software should be free - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html.

 

I didn't know Shawn pay mods. I thought it was a voluntary job.

 

Depends... do you want to spend money on it?

 

Actually, sometimes open-source software can be actually better than paid software. This is because open-source software provides the source code which can be edited or modified by anyone across the world (hence making it better and better), while paid software has to wait for their team of marketers and programmers to release an upgrade. Take OpenOffice and Microsoft Office as an example of this.

 

Ya, I know but the OP is banned anyway

 

Necessary software (things like Microsoft Word, Norton Anti-Virus, etc) should be free. Generally, most programs that come installed with a computer (not all). Anything beyond that like software companies wanting to compete against Word or Norton can be paid for--and games and recreational programs.

Microsoft are a bunch of damn crooks for only offering trials for such necessary programs when you purchase a computer. Gee, Microsoft! You mean after shelling out $500-5,000 on a computer you want to sell me virus protection necessary to keep said computer safe?! THAAANKS!

...(opens up browser)
(typing) "Microsoft Word torrent and crack/serial"

 

Microsoft is not a good guy, by any means, but it is the computer manufacturers that do not want to pay MS a full license as part of their sales price who install the trialware.

 

I agree. Their standard software isn't even great to begin with, but if they're selling you computers they should have the decency to not try gauging you for more money.

Frankly they should just stick to making OS and that's it. They're no good at their side ventures in internet browsers, console gaming and others.

 

I'm not asserting that everything should be free and the programmers making these programs make nothing, but if Microsoft is responsible for the OS being put on computers, things like Microsoft office among other programs made by them that come preinstalled with computers running MS should certainly be free. There's plenty more ways to monetize of programs besides just selling it to you or giving you a short trial.

There are a plethora of companies that offer freeware with the ability to upsell--there's no reason why they can't. Microsoft isn't in the business of "we're unable to" their resources.

With the advancement of digital technology and everything becoming more digitalized, people are offering free software because they're making money on advertising, CPI, sponsorship, and more. The less Microsoft is willing to change and make some sacrifices, the more these individuals and small start ups are going to advance past them in certain fields due to their ability to take more risks.

Another important tenant in business is being able to adapt--and that's where Microsoft isn't always doing so well. Frankly, I have a hunch Microsoft will be made obsolete one day due to all the up and coming tech companies and more people gaining access to the internet due to the reliance of everything digital. Something tells me it won't be Apple either. These too big to fail company mentalities are going to be their downfall if they keep doing business as usual.