Hello Alan

I am not against paying for quality software, but I feel there should be alternatives. I like the idea of having many programmers scrutinizing the code so each can suggest changes, rather than hoping one company comes close to getting it right. I think, for the most part, programs we have, such as office, do much more than what the average user needs it to do, so paying for upgrades on a continuous basis does not make sense to me. I would like to make the decision if the $200 for an upgrade justifies the additional feature set, or if the program I already have is good enough. If it already exceeds the users requirements why keep paying for it year after year. The old senerio, only users who wanted the extra features had to pay for them, this seems more fair.

Bob

>Bob, talking about Linux, by the way, I finally got around to putting it on my pc at home recently (it's been a long time since I had anything to do with Unix), but I have this impression about Linux (jump in here anywhere), that Linux users fully expect, on a cellular level, that software is and should be free. Heck, I like it that way myself, but how does a developer go about making a living in the Linux world? Do they? Remember, I'm really a Linux neophyte, but is there a big market for commercial apps in Linux?