This last comment is very insightful and addresses something I've thought about from time to time.

You pay whatever it is that Windows costs (no, it isn't free just because it's bundled on a computer), and then what do you have? Actually, not much. You have an operating system and a few tools (and maybe a bunch of bundled demo crapware).

You install Ubuntu or Mint or similar, and you have a suite of tools, and the means to easily install more, for free. Like Inkscape, as the lead article discusses. Within half an hour or less you can have full-featured computing that should meet at least 90% of the needs of 90% of users (maybe even better than that). I'm not going to get into the arguments about specialized tools or high-end features or cutting-edge gaming; if you truly need such things, go buy them and put them on your Windows system.

Linux has served me for many years. In the early years, things were rougher around the edges, but today, it's night and day difference. As I'm not much of a gamer, there is little or nothing that I need Windows for. I "get by" just fine with GIMP, and the new Inkscape is amazing, as is LibreOffice ... not to mention EMACS, of course :)

Sorry but I just don't see a personal need to spend money on software.

As I say every so often, I'm just so glad I don't have to deal with any of this. I need to actually get something done on my computer, and Linux has served me well for 20 years. To each his own.

The map leaves off Hawaii (and Alaska). Guess we don't count or don't exist.

I think the scrolls warned about global warming. Fortunately, Al Gore was able to recover their content for the benefit of all mankind.

No, it's global warming.

"All" they did? What they did was provide a choice, and a rather good one.

No more excessive than $200,000 per song downloaded or whatever it is.

I think it's all caused by global warming.

Reminds me of a real estate transaction once where the company handling it said, if you buy title insurance for $500, we'll waive our $500 processing fee.

Our condo building provides "basic" cable as part of the maintenance fee. I'd be all for dropping even that to save a little money. Over the air TV still exists, after all, even if the choices are limited. But given that I don't even watch what I have available now, I doubt that I'd care.

I've been waiting for someone to blame it on global climate change.

A blown power transistor? You whippersnappers don't remember the "good old days" of vaccuum tubes! Seriously, though, monolithic circuitry has lowered costs immensely, at the price of non-fixability. But then, a chip will last much longer than a vaccuum tube.

The trans-Pacific bridge isn't quite done yet, so in Hawai`i we have limited options.

But the real point, I think, is that even if everyone/most users can't fix a bug in open source code (similar to the prior poster, I've also fixed small and medium ones, but waited for fixes on complex stuff), there are people who can, and will, and do. Even though, for the really obscure things, that group may be small, there is no absolute dependence on some group that has access to closed source code. This seems like rather an advantage for open source.

I always find that interesting. The high-end hotels, charging hundreds of dollars per night, also charge outrageous fees such as $20 for 24 hours of internet access, two dollars for a local phone call, etc. The $50 motels give you all of that for no extra charge. The only explanation I can come up with is that the high rollers just expense it all and don't care about the cost.