Any ecosystem, consisting of all the consumers and producers doing their thing, does not rely on air from an outside source. The carbon dioxide produced by consumers is recycled by plants to produce oxygen. The nitrogen and argon are just along for the ride. Any surplus or deficiency in oxygen is made up by an increase or decrease in the ratio of consumers to producers.
e.g. Movile Cave uses chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis to do the producing.

If such weird and wonderful mechanisms can find a balance, how much easier is it to do so using plants and animals?

and Slimes in igneous rock.

See also Eco-Sphere

No, you can’t. The Biosphere tried this and failed miserably. Much like your unpaid shilling for Debian.

Yes indeed, why pay for something when you can depend of the free gift of a community to make your hardware actually do something.

Of course that free gift may or may not meet your needs, and indeed may or may not support your hardware, And you may even get to expend time and effort.

Just to avoid your definition of foolishness.

IMHO The foolishness here is yours Pog.

And you do know that how?

The license costs for Windows (or any other proprietary software) are, compared to everything else, a tiny speck on everyone’s balance sheet — be it company or educational institution or private individual. It just doesn’t work the way you want it to, Mr. Pogson.

Your poster child Munich is a prime example for “savings” with Linux. They lumped together switching from Windows to Linux and reorganizing their whole IT landscape. Yet their claim of immense savings thanks to Linux is unverifiable. Apart from some wax-weak statements from Munich’s mayor there’s no hard evidence at all. And given that the initial pre-study concluded that going with Microsoft would be economically more viable, it is highly doubtful that Munich saves money with Linux.

Good thing the NASA didn’t want to “save” money and chose VxWorks for Curiosity.

… by not paying M$ every time they buy new hardware or upgrade their software.

And what do you mean by that? Unless by new hardware you mean a new computer, I don’t pay Microsoft. And even then I’m free to not pay Microsoft by getting a computer without an OS. But the truth is that for most people it simply won’t matter. They view the computer as an integrated package to which an OS is integral.

Yes. Foolish isn’t it, to pay a company for use of one’s own hardware? Who do you keep paying so you can own a can opener other than the manufacturer? Why pay M$ “the tax”? It’s particularly foolish when you consider that it’s unnecessary… The many millions now running GNU/Linux are saving $billions by not paying M$ every time they buy new hardware or upgrade their software.

“2. Not liable, or given, to change; permanent; regular;
continuous; continually recurring; steadfast; faithful;
not fickle. Opposite of changeable and variable.
[1913 Webster]
“

Constantly? As in: every four or five or 10 (in the case of XP) years? A weird use of the word “constantly”. Is there a Pogson-to-English dictionary somewhere?

To whom Pog?”

Me, my wife, 80% of Munich’s employees, all of Extremadura’s employees, etc. An OS is a system for managing the resources of a computer. After you have a system that does that, you don’t need another although you can change from on OS to another with some effort. The effort is a single incident. Paying M$ constantly for they use of hardware people own is an infinite sum of pain and cost.

To whom Pog?

I can create a vibrant ecosystem where productive plants live in equilibrium with animals without air from outside. Windows should let in light not block competition. This is the problem with choosing a generic term for a trademark. It’s not supposed to be allowed and breeds confusion/misinformation. That other OS is not essential. Neither are vinyl/glass assemblies to regulate air/light exchanges.

One man, closing all the windows and suffocate.

A Shakespearean tragedy.