Linux is only free if you don't value your time - Is it still true?

👏 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:
Get access to an exclusive weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and get your name in the credits:

🏆 FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE:

📷 GEAR I USE:
*Amazon Links are affiliate codes and generate small commissions to support the channel*

00:00 Intro
00:22 Get your 100$ Linode Credit
01:34 Origins of a myth
02:30 Linux is Free
03:25 Linux wastes time?
05:50 Does Linux waste MORE time?
08:08 Time is still wasted
10:27 Is it still true?

Ok, so first, that exact quote is attributed to "Jamie Zawinski" a developer, way back in 1998. And at the time it was written, it was true. THe Linux desktop, 24 years ago, was NOT the Linux we know and love today. But things have changed a lot, in 24 years.

Ok, let's start with the Linux is free part. This one is going to be easy. Linux, as in "linux based operating systems", is, in fact, generally free. 99.9% of dstributions choose to not charge a cent for users to download and to use their OS. Some do choose to charge users, like Zorin OS Pro, for example, or elementary OS.

Now, the second part is more subject to interpretation. The general meaning of "if you don't value your time", is that Linux is only free if you have time to waste, or If you don't charge for your time.

Linux, in itself can be time consuming: when you install it, you'll have to look up a few things, you have to try out the OS in a LIVE USB session, you have to install your necessary programs, change the few options you want, for it to work like you want it to. You can also spend a lot of time choosing which desktop or distro you want to use.

So, yeah, Linux is time consuming.

But Is it MORE time consuming than the alternatives that people already know?

The "Linux wastes time" myth is generally built upon the assumption that other systems don't, because people are looking at the Linux desktop as something they have to install and learn, compared to something that's already installed and that they already know how to use.

This comparison doesn't work, because it doesn't place the alternatives on an equal footing. You're comparing something that you already SPENT time setting up and learning, compared to something new.

Installing Windows takes longer than installing Linux. Windows doesn't come with all the programs you might need, just like most Linux distros, so you have to install your stuff in both cases. Windows also has issues to troubleshoot, even though these seem less frequent than the ones Linux can encounter. Windows has updates to install, like Linux, the difference is that Linux lets you pick which, and when, and WIndows forces them upon you, and they will stop you from using your computer for a LONG time in most cases.

In short, if you compare Windows and a Linux desktop, from an equal standpoint of "This is a new OS i have to install and learn", they will BOTH waste your time.

So, Linux is FREE and it doesn"t waste your time more than alternatives. SO the sentence should be "Linux is free and wastes just as much time as paid-for alternatives", right?

Wrong.

The time is still wasted in the end. Not because Linux is worse, not because it's harder, but because people who will be interested in moving to Linux will already KNOW how things work with their current OS, and re-learning that stuff on another OS will always be time consuming.

What the "Linux is only free if you don't value your time" myth ignores, is that the time you spend isn't spent every day, for the rest of your life using Linux. It's spend once, when you move to it, and over the course of a few days, while you get used to it, and learn how to use it. Once that's done, you're not wasting time anymore, you're SAVING time, and saving money.

[thoaihoquang]

I valued my time as well as my freedom, too.

[joschafinger]

Learning how to use Linux *does* take some time, especially if you're an advanced user of a proprietary system trying to become an advanced Linux user.
There's no way around the learning curve: if you move to a new system, there will be new things to learn.
Once you do, however, the relation between time used to maintain and/or repair your system and the time used actually using it improves an awful lot.
Two warnings, though:
1) Whether you save time or not, and how much if any, depends on you, on your choices and how fast you learn.
2) The freedom of actually owning your own computer comes with a trap: you are likely to get fond of tinkering. If you do, you may find you end up spending more time tinkering than you used to spend gaming - not because your system breaks by itself or whatever, but because tinkering is more fun than gaming.

[MrMysticphantom]

I'll be honest with you, even as an experienced user, for a good portion of my use case, it's absolutely time consuming.

[asimmehmood]

I realized over the past three days how much time Linux saved me. I reinstalled Windows 10 planning to dual boot after installing Windows. For the past three days I have been downloading updates, waiting for over 24 hours for a major update to install, repairing files after they got corrupted after updates, and watching updates getting stuck for hours at 0 or 99 percent. Never realized how much time I had to waste on Windows before trying Linux. My Linux Mint just worked and caused me no trouble the whole year. I just want to go back to my Linux once the updates are done.
Edit: So just an update on the matter. I finally managed to double boot after 4 days but then the Windows got corrupted again for no reason. Rebooted computer after a minor update and black screen. Linux continued to work. Finally, had enough of it and went back to Linux Mint for good. Windows is horrible.

[haruhidaso]

I know my experience is anecdotal, but I was recently going from Windows to either Mac or Linux, and I tried out both.
I can guarantee that Linux’s learning curve is steeper than Mac or Windows and undoubtedly more time consuming as well.
It took me 2-3 hours to get used to Mac, but I think it took me at least a week to get used to Linux. Just to mention it, I had no experience using either operator.
I think the difference is the fact that Windows and Mac just work as is, and there’s is nothing you really have to set up outside of the setting menu.
In Linux, I had to go outside of the setting menu several time to set up properly, for example properly setting up Japanese keyboard was impossible from the setting menu.
So yea, I agree with that statement, Linux is more time consuming than the alternative even if we start from equal footing. I love Linux, but don’t deny the learning curve and how long it takes, it sounds very disingenuous from outside.

[JohnnyN-I]

Man, I do love these times. I’m in my late 30’s and I do remember how fascinated I was when I installed my first ever distro, Mandrake. It was 20 years plus ago. I cannot say I wasted time on linux as I learned something new every time I tinkered with it.

[RustyLoaf]

I feel like one thing this kind of overlooks is that normal end-users are going to end up tinkering around to install stuff in terminal because so many online guides tell people to use the command line instead of using the software center like they should. I really wish online help wasn't always so command line-centric.

[Watchandlearn]

For me this statement is true when you use applications that you are not going to be able to find or replace on Linux. For example, if you use the adobe suite, you are going to have a hell of a time using Linux and it will cost you time and probably money because of the wasted time. However, if you're a software engineer like me, the only software you use actually works better on Linux and you end up wasting your time on Windows so the opposite is true.

[Mico]

In my humble opinion as someone who used windows since 2005, i found Linux Mint to be the best linux distro all around for a person transitioning from windows. I dont pretend to be some hardcore linux fanatic, i just needed something that works and doesnt get in the way of what i actually need to do on my PC. All of my hardware worked out of the box after installing Mint, updates are not intrusive as on windows, no forced telemetry services or bloatware like on windows, and not to mention that my machine performs faster all around.

[cassolmedia]

I feel like this is true for every free thing. "Youtube is free, if you don't value your privacy", etc ..

That being said, as a software engineer I've learned, the easier it is to use on the frontend, the more constrained it is on the back end.

"It just works" = you can't customize it

[japethefuzzyfluff]

I like to use this thought experiment when considering this: If I had of grown up using linux instead of windows, with parents that preferred linux, then if I tried to switch to windows later down the line I would consider learning windows a waste of time AND money.

After considering that thought experiment then linux just feels like a chance to learn new things and get out of the corporate grip of Microsoft a bit more.

[harishannamalai]

The most pragmatic answer to the question. But you could have shortened the video by saying, Linux wouldn't waste much more time than it to takes to "Change Default Browser" in windows!

[pongopea]

just like everything in life, learning to use your tools takes time and energy, but good tools used by a skilled worker are incredibly powerful

[andrepessoa]

I'm a English teacher and I have been using Linux distros since 1995. Back then, things were tougher; informarion was scarce and techy. Full of jargons. After Linux desktop renaissance, the learning curve got more natural. My seven-year-old son uses Fedora Linux installed on my laptop and Windows on his mother's (besides IOs and Android on different moble devices). It doesn't seem to be an issue. Of course he doesn't need supertechy advanced stuff, neither do I, but he is able to accomplish most school tasks without extra help to find what he needs. I belive more and more that people will be much more transOS efficient.

[SebastianGuzman]

When I started at a research lab for my master's, the PI gave me a computer with (unsupported) Win 7. As my master's was heavily dependant on bioinformatics analyses, and as most of the programs in that field were available on Linux, I decided to replace Win 7 with Linux. One of the main worries of the PI was the time I needed to setup the system, but since I already had some experience with Linux, it was not a big deal. I spent a couple of hours installing the OS plus a couple more getting the most important software for my work. From there, it was really a pleasant experience and I learnt a lot! The funny thing is that often my colleagues asked for me to run some of their analyses as their computers used Windows and some programs are not available there (in times prior they used other labs computers xD)... For me, personally, the only thing Windows is truly good for is gaming (hope this change over time!)
Nice video!

[AnzanHoshinRoshi]

Thank you, Nick. Not at all true. Installation, updates, upgrading take just a fraction of time as they do on Borgware. Printing and so on do not require finding drivers etc etc.

[CapsAdmin]

I remember I kept breaking windows when I was younger by trying to customize it and installing what I would call today bloat software. Same thing sort of happened when I switched to Linux. The most stable experience is to stick to your distro's chosen defaults.

When I really think about it, I stumble upon issues on Windows and macOS just as much as I do on Linux. We easily become blind to issues if there's a quick workaround you can do. You will mostly notice them when you're in a new context.

[eurimontero]

I prefer the opposite, "Windows is easy if you don't appreciate your freedom (liberty)"

Also, GNU Linux is an Unix Like system, it's obvious that it will be a little more complex than a DOS, DOS was simplified (even in security) to make it easier to home user...

[MitternachtAngel]

This is more real than not in my experience.

Learning Windows from the beginning is easier than Linux, my 13-year-old sister uses the basics of Windows without problems from the beginning, I have also since I started with Windows XP it was not that difficult but Linux is a little more complicated and has more rare bugs.

If you are a professional in almost any creative field that requires specialized software such as graphics: like the Adobe Suit or CAP or Zbrush, or Clip Studio and many more, you are screwed because the alternatives are not even close to having the quality of these. Things like MS Office are also a headache.

And in the end Linux works very well until it stops working. Any software problem is time consuming but in Linux there is less support and it is usually more complicated.

[jcugnoni]

100% agree. The real cost is the learning curve. But Linux is a 'low maintenance' system and 'long life' system, and kind of just works for years without much work to do on your side. No wonder that it is so popular in server space where admin/maintenance time is one of the biggest cost.