> I do object however, to paying exorbitant monopoly prices to
> monopolists like Microsoft and kindred businesses, only to be
> subjected to planned obsolescence and paying the ransom again and
> again.
Let's compare the last 10 years of Windows to the last 10 years of Linux.
I have, as recently stated, a bunch of computers. I'll pick two and talk about them. One of them is a server; the other is a laptop. When I bought the laptop, I implicitly bought a license for Windows 2000. It was my main machine for a while and over time was replaced by something faster which needed a license for Windows XP. It still runs Windows 2000 today, having fallen several pegs down in my life to the point where it runs the label maker and an occasional CD rip. 10 years, one license; still works fine and gets the "major" security patches. The laptop that replaced it, a spiffy-for-then Sony, served me for a good few years. After it was replaced around 2006, I tried to upgrade it and broke something. It awaits my efforts someday when I have the time. The laptop that replaced it also had a Windows XP license, implicit in the purchase somewhere. That one is still my main travel laptop, and I'll probably have to replace it in the upcoming year. I've already deprecated the built-in 3G modem ... but basically you could say that these three machines have cost me three OS licenses. The server on the other hand has been running RedHat, at a maintenance cost of $179/yr. This system runs most of the projects for my business, and some of my hobbies (including this list, Doug's podcasts and his free-download site for Wall Street The Book), so having a software-supported system has been prudent for me. I've similarly had three "major" hardware/OS upgrades (the hardware is now a 2-CPU dual-core yadda-yadda) in the last decade, and the yearly price for OS maintenance has stayed about the same.
I think I've given much more money to Raleigh for a "free" OS than to Redmond for a "monopoly" OS ... but your mileage may vary.
/jordan