1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. OT ... PC upgrade
  4. Page 8

OT ... PC upgrade

The OS is GPL, and that's what we're talking about.

The applications aren't.

You really don't understand what's going on here do you...

Reply to
Clive George
Loading thread data ...

UEFI by itself doesn't require that, this netbook already has UEFI and has no crypto options. The worry is that MS have said they will require crypto for machines to have a nice "Designed for Windows 8" sticker.

So long as there's a method to disable the crypto, it'll still be possible to install other operating systems, even better would be the option to load whichever crypto key you choose. I suspect that enough stink has been kicked-up that at least the former will happen.

Reply to
Andy Burns

Oh, I thought we were talking about making money from free software (and linux, john).

Well one of us doesn't.

Reply to
dennis

From the GPL version 3:-

Regarding Verbatim copies of Source Code:- "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee." (Section 4)

This also applies to Object Code, provided that you also supply a copy of, or a link to, the Source Code. (Section 7)

In both case, you must also supply copyright details, and a copy of the licence.

Reply to
John Williamson

I hope so. However Microsoft have a history of defending their monopoly vigourously. Look at how few vendors will sell you a PC /without/ windows pre-installed.

A interesting quote sums this up: "Experience indicates that many firmware vendors and OEMs are interested in providing only the minimum of firmware functionality required for their market, It's almost certainly the case that some systems will ship with the option of disabling this. Equally, it's almost certainly the case that some systems won't. It's probably not worth panicking yet. But it is worth being concerned."

Reply to
Mark

Personally, I would be more concerned that certain governments start thinking "great, now we can mandate *exactly* what people are allowed to run on their computer".

I don't like the idea of running "government approved" software.

Reply to
Jethro

I can't imagine that happening. Microsoft usually bend over backwards to ensure that their new OS runs on older hardware. Otherwise they would miss out on a lot of OS upgrades.

Reply to
Andrew May

and one of they ways they make money from linux and free software...

Reply to
John Rumm

We are. The OS is free software, and RH make a healthy amount of money for it, and it's not about the non-GPL bits they put on.

I know. It's a bit strange when somebody who was presumably fairly intelligent in a past life insists on being really insanely stupid in the manner in which you do.

Reply to
Clive George

But its not from free software.

Reply to
dennis

Its just a difference of opinion, I don't think they are making money by selling free software, however you claim to be buying free software from them. I think its odd that you are prepared to pay for free software, even when you can download it for free. You get nothing for the payment as you say it doesn't include any support. I find it hard to understand just what you are buying. Maybe its the pretty box?

Reply to
dennis

No, it's you not understanding what's going on.

And you've let that feeling blind you to other possibilities.

That's not true. We get a well defined system.

We don't get any box at all.

I've explained it once already, but you've not made any effort to understand it.

We pay money for free software. We don't need support for that software

- it mostly just works.

Once we have a box with that free software on it, it's time to do something with it. We pay somebody else for some application software. They say "If you want us to support you using this software we're selling you, you have to use it on OS X, Y, Z - and that includes our paid-for free software.

They do this because they don't want the hassle of having to support every single custom linux distribution. RHEL makes it easy for them - they get their own copy of it, test their software on it, and when we report a problem, they can try it out on their version.

If we're running an install which they've not certified, they can't do that so tell us to bugger off.

That's why we pay money for free software with no support bar patch provision. RH make quite a lot of money that way.

Reply to
Clive George

Think of it as the Gillette model... you can give away the razor (OS) but make money from the blades (support, guaranteed configuration, patching etc).

Reply to
John Rumm

Rainy day reading ...

formatting link

Reply to
Andy Burns

Yes, of course. But not to dennis.

Reply to
Huge

Easier, maybe, but not easy, if the reading I've been doing about hackintoshes over the last few days is anything to go by.

Reply to
Huge

Not strictly true.

Reply to
Huge

The issue was the company I was with (Major International) kept getting hit with MSoffice on MAC being 18 months behind PC - but no doubt what killed Macs in business were for any given performance level, they were twice the price of a PC.

The company had to take a huge Capex cost to swap every Mac out ... but they did, and everyone that time was so glad, as the PC's were much faster that the Mac PowerPC they replaced.

I was a Mac fan so liked the prodcut ... and was a user up until system 7.5

Reply to
Rick Hughes

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.