jamie wrote:

Linux is free... sort of.
Basically - Linux BETAS seem to be mostly free - with the releases - most companies charge for.

Why can't MS do the same?
Just release all win betas free - perpetually..
so delevlopers could go grab the newest build ( it would have one of those - Exipres in 360 days - disclaimers - like most of your betas.

This way - your core dev audience - those who are the most prone to experiment tinker with machines and linux - would at least always have the option of a free windows BETA.

MS could then say - Win is free - in much the same way betas of linux ( all linux are a beta haha)
give devs what they want - and still sell - suported "finished" versions to home users and businesses.

Seem so simple to me..  why not?

jamie

Knute wrote:

If Linux is free how come when I go to the software store I don't see rows and rows of "Cool" software for linux???

Just wondering

~ Knute

Manip wrote:

Because nobody is making any... And because Linux is SO incredibly user-unfriendly it isn't even funny!

Shining Arcanine wrote:

I didn't know that Linux could be considered user friendly. ^_^;;

It isn't a bad operating system if you're willing to spend time in a DOS like interface.

Manip wrote:

Shining Arcanine wrote: I didn't know that Linux could be considered user friendly. ^_^;; It isn't a bad operating system if you're willing to spend time in a DOS like interface.

Actually I wasn't picking on BASH or the shell environments, more the GUI's GNOME, KDE etc. Ever tried setting anything up in them? They are GUI's designed by developers for developers... I suppose I expect too much.

mindragon wrote:

Well...why not a subscription model? Something like it's free to install, but if you want these 30 cool features, it's $4.99 a month? Seems to me, Microsoft would be much more in line with user's expectations that way and it would get around the nasty "preinstalled" model that makes life a little difficult for corporate users.

gmiley wrote:

Most linux distros offer free downloads, if you want CDs you can burn them yourself or purchase the install package.

Redhat offers users the ability to have access to all of the newest patches and updates in the style of how windows performs it. Fedora is anotehr version of Redhat, it is the development/beta version. Everything is free on it. Redhat offers a support program for business version of their OS.

The point, however you look at it though, is that no matter what, linux itself is free. Free as in Free speech as well as free as in free beer. Distro companies may charge for their contributions to the software and the support they offer, but the linux kernel is up for use by anyone. The source is out there for you to download and modify to suit your own needs. Royalty free.

Dear Aiden,

I think you remember the conversation we had recently at this software conference in Dublin. You came up to me and told me how the stuff I was talking about was mostly useless, because it is closed-source, people need to pay for it and that companies charging for software are evil anyways – especially Microsoft. Unfortunately I don’t have your email, but I am sure this will reach you.

First, I would like to thank you for the interesting conversation that developed and to make sure that none of what was said just fades away, I’ll tell you here once again what I am thinking about what you do, what you think and – most importantly about your future.

When I was 21 – like you now – I was also at university and was pursing a computer science master degree. Back then, I was very enthusiastic about programming and creating stuff that mattered. And thought that I was the best programmer the field has ever seen and everyone else was mostly worthless. And I did indeed write some programs that mattered and made a difference. The program I spent some 3 years writing in Turbo Pascal from when I was 18 was for my father’s business. Because the business he’s in requires a lot of bureaucracy, he and my mother spent about 2-3 daily hours on average doing all of this stuff by hand. When I was done with my program and he started using it, that time went from 3 hours to about 15 minutes a day. That was software that absolutely improved the quality of life for the entire family! And his friends and colleagues loved it, too. I didn’t sell many licenses at that time (I think I had 3 customers), but each one was worth 1500 German Marks and that was a huge heap of money for me. I mean – I was living at my parent’s house, getting a monthly allowance of 120 German Marks and worked as a cable grip for a couple of TV stations every once in a while – maybe 2-3 times a month. And if I ever had 400 Marks per month I could really consider myself massively rich at the time and for my age, because I had very minimal additional expenses. So 4500 Marks on top of that? Fantastic. Where did the money go? I can’t really remember where it all went, but I guess “lot of partying” or “Girls, Drugs and Rock’n’Roll” would be a reasonably good explanation. Hey, I was 21 and that’s what one is supposed to do at that age, right?

That was in 1990 – let’s fast forward to 2004 and you. All software that you and your father could possibly be interested in has already been written. That’s probably not true, but it’s hard to think of something, right? Ok, the software may not run on your favorite operation system and may cost money, but what you can immediately think of is likely there. So where do you put all your energy? Into this absolutely amazing open-source project you co-coordinate. I mean, really, the stuff that you and your buddies are doing there is truly impressive. There are a couple of things I’d probably do differently in terms of design and architecture, but it works well and that’s mostly what matters. And you do make an impact as well. I know that hundreds of people and dozens of companies use your stuff. That’s great.

However, I start to wonder where your benefit is. You are – out of principle – not making any money out of this, because it is open-source and you and your buddies insist that it must be absolutely free. So you are putting all of that time and energy into this project for what? Fame? To found a career? Come on.

If someone installs your work from disc 3 of some Linux distro, they couldn’t care less who you are. The whole fame thing you are telling me only works amongst geeks. The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you’d really like to talk to doesn’t care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you’d be famous for that stuff in the first place. I mean – get real here.

So once you get your degree from school, what’s the plan?

Right now, your university education is free like in many places in Europe and you have plenty of time to work on your degree without too much financial pressure. Over here in Germany things are a bit extreme in that it is not uncommon that folks spend 6, 8 or even 10 years (!) in school until they finally get their masters degree. So you may not have to think about this much now and you probably don’t. But let’s talk about it anyways.

When you leave school, your parents will – honestly – be keen to get you out of their house. They’ve spent 25 years of their life being parents and now that they are in their early 50s, they want to enjoy their life and I am sure that your dad is keen to play with grandchildren – but just every once in a while. So you’ll have to take care of yourself. 

How so? Well, you need to get a job that pays. And you’ll probably want to have your own car, your own apartment and if you really want to have a family you will have to be able to support it. All of that only works with money. Where does it come from? If you believe that the result of your own work must be free for everyone – who’s going to pay for it? 

No –  in the end you are going to settle for a job that pays for your house, your car and your wife and children. You’ll be a developer and, eventually, architect or project manager who produces software for money. That’s your core skill and that’s what you invested 6 years and more of your life into. That money will either come from some internal budget of the company that you work for as a “corporate developer” or it will come from the clients that license the software that your company produces. In the end, there’s got to be money in your pocket. I know that’s not very romantic and has very little to do with the “free software is love” sort of thing, but it’s inevitable. Romantic is what you can get out of that money and that’s a decent life with a house, a car and a family.

Yes, I know the argument. Software is supposed to be free and the money is made out of supporting it. Look around you. Read some industry magazines. Who exactly is making money out of “free”? IBM does, HP does and the large consulting companies do. They rake in the big bucks. But do they make the money on open-source software? No, they make that money on outsourcing deals, running data centers and selling hardware. That’s not the side of the IT business that is at all concerned about creating software that you want to be in. That is the side of the IT business that runs software. 

Where money is made from creating software, software isn’t free. Either the software is paid for directly or it is cross-subsidized from budgets elsewhere in a company that also sells hardware or consulting services. 

The whole thing about “free software” is a lie. It’s a dream created and made popular by people who have a keen interest in having cheap software so that they can drive down their own cost and profit more or by people who can easily demand it, because they make their money out of speaking at conferences or write books about how nice it is to have free software. At the bottom of the food chain are people like you, who are easily fooled by the “let’s make the world a better place” rhetoric and who are so enthusiastic about technology that writing open-source – or any source for that matter – is the absolutely best imaginable way to spend their time. It doesn’t matter whether you love what you are doing and consider this the hobby you want to spend 110% of your time on: It’s exploitation by companies who are not at all interested in creating stuff. They want to use your stuff for free. That’s why they trick you into doing it.

And I sure understand the whole altruistic aspect of this and the idea of helping people to have better lives through free software. There’s a saying that goes: “If you are 20 and you aren’t a communist you have no heart.”, but it continues “if you are 30 and you still are a communist, you lack rationality”. 

In the end, Aiden, it’s your choice. Do you want to have a car, a house and a family when you are 30? Do you love being a software engineer at the same time? If so, you literally need to get a life. Forget the dream about stuff being free and stop advocating it. It’s idiocy. It’s bigotry. If you want to put your skills to work and you need to support a family, your work and work results can’t be free. Software is the immediate result and the manifestation of what your learned and what you know. How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again.

With best wishes for your future

Clemens

SOURCE: http://staff.newtelligence.net/clemensv/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8fe41294-a988-4c73-948a-1bfab622fcce

Shining Arcanine wrote:

gmiley wrote: Most linux distros offer free downloads, if you want CDs you can burn them yourself or purchase the install package. Redhat offers users the ability to have access to all of the newest patches and updates in the style of how windows performs it. Fedora is anotehr version of Redhat, it is the development/beta version. Everything is free on it. Redhat offers a support program for business version of their OS. The point, however you look at it though, is that no matter what, linux itself is free. Free as in Free speech as well as free as in free beer. Distro companies may charge for their contributions to the software and the support they offer, but the linux kernel is up for use by anyone. The source is out there for you to download and modify to suit your own needs. Royalty free.

From what I understand, IBM contributed Unix System V to Linux Kernal 2.4 (some might be in 2.6) so now virtually anyone running Linux has to pay SCO licensing fees or risk being sued.

Jeremy W. wrote:

There's no proof of the SCO claims, but there is proof of MS funding SCO? Wow. Dude, you better tell the press because they'd love to know this.

As far as anyone's aware one exec at MS talked to one exec at Baystar saying SCO would be a good investment. That's not ... What'd you say? Oh, diverting funds from Microsoft to SCO.

As far as 'shot down', nothing's 'shot down' until the courts say it is.

lars wrote:

Disregarding the obvious economical aspect: just consider the security nightmare with all the old obsolete windows installations connected to the net. Yikes!

Sabot wrote:

I paid £446 for Redhat Linux recently, so what have I paid for if it's 'free'? That covers one processor whether development or production. £76 for a desktop version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000E2Y81/onthewebcom-21/026-9521030-8063644

jamie wrote:

i agree with Akaina - no matter how "political" or "emotional" that post may seem to Microsoftites - its really is a speading fire..

people want to technology to free them and are willing to participate to make it so.  The mere fact OSS exists must scare the parts off you..

I cant use it ( no apps) but the second ONE app - is only avail on Linux and no Win - that i want - that will be it..  thats - Dual boot stage..

Imagine if - for lack of better example - ill use long awaited game Doom3.. imagine if - ID released it ONLY for Linux. Only. THat was it. ( Of course they couldnt - cause the are a big company = sharesholders) - but pretending they did - there would be ALOT of new linux installs going on.

Sooner or later - a developer who wants to be heard or noticed - will come up with that app - and - if as emotionally or politically based as above comment is his/her slant - it will be a linux only release.

Perhaps there already is a "killer linux app" ( apart from the internet and email lol)

but so far those still run on windows

* this all comes back to the Google OS post - its all about trust

trust your customers
make longhorn "free" as in unrestricted in anyway

heck id pay DOUBLE

( now that would be a good poll: would you pay more for a windows that was totally free!!!"

i WOULD

jamie wrote:

- but i run 2 cracked versions as i dont like the invation of privacy.

Akaina wrote:

"Sooner or later, Open Source will no longer exist as Capitalism will destory it as it is doing to Communist China. So anyway, I think Microsoft's current stance on Open Source is great and they should keep it up."

The difference between Communism and Free software is that Communism failed because it squelched individual enumeration - it marginalized the individual. It stopped people from achieving 'more'. Open source software allows people to do 'more' - it's the closed source stuff you have to pay for that limits what you can and cannot do; even neglecting budget constraints. That is why Open Source will win, for the same reason Capitalism won; because it gives people the ability to do more with less.

Charles wrote:

I used to be on the Windows Update team. So, I can assure you that the information exposed to the auto-update process of XP contains no more data than is necessary for successfully updating your system. What makes you think otherwise? User privacy is extremely important to Microsoft. What are we doing wrong?

Akaina wrote:

Their small margin never hurt anyone. If they do make any money it's nothing in comparisson to the 80% margin earned by some Microsoft products

Akaina wrote:

"You completely missed the point; with Open Source (not Free Software) anyone can copy code, label it as theirs, close it, then start selling it."

There's a case being tried right now for a company selling a Linux router and not disclosing the source after a formal request. The GPL is inforcable despite the dillusions of nay-sayers. Remember what piracy is now. It's "unauthorized" copying. Companies that don't disclose source are not authorized. It's just like installing windows without having a license.

Manip wrote:

Charles, if you tell me that to the best of your knowledge they DON'T store ANY information taken during the update process I will take you on your word. That DOES include versions of Microsoft products etc.

I have heard rumours that the computers hardware configuration and all installed applications (including non-microsoft) is enumerated and that information is sent over the network. Secrecy about this leads to distrust. And that people avoid updating. Unpached systems damage everyone since they can be taken advantage of as drones for all kinds of cyber mischief. So any secrecy about this not only hurts the consumer, it hurts Micrsoft aswell - on several levels.

But it has even further implications. What Microsoft does affects the whole industry. Since Microsoft went ahead with Product Activation both Adobe and Symantec have products that require activation. And it looks like just about everyone think it's okey if their application "phones home" to look for updates behind the users back (or whatever they want to transmit - they never get further than the firewall). And maybe those companies don't value privacy as much as Microsoft.

/Lars

Jeremy W. wrote:

There's no proof of the SCO claims, but there is proof of MS funding SCO? Wow. Dude, you better tell the press because they'd love to know this.

As far as anyone's aware one exec at MS talked to one exec at Baystar saying SCO would be a good investment. That's not ... What'd you say? Oh, diverting funds from Microsoft to SCO.

As far as 'shot down', nothing's 'shot down' until the courts say it is.

--- From the mailbox of chris sontag

From: Mike Anderer
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003
To: csontag@sco.com
CC: Bob Bench
Subject: Conversation Friday

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

jamie wrote:

i also change my machine hardware alot -
* quickbooks just went through a whole big customer backlash over activation..  food for thought

Cronan wrote:

There's only one time I ever felt nervous about getting online updates and that's when I didn't own the license to the software in question.