Windows virtualization and Linux

[gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org (Jerry Feldman)]

I certainly can understand and appreciate some proprietary software,=20
probably because I earn my money producing it. I used to have a real=20
problem with Microsoft when they used to sell DOS, and the early=20
versions of Windows were just plain terrible. I have no problem with=20
Microsoft wanting to sell Windows and other products. It is the=20
monopolistic practices they use in the marketplace.  IBM used similar=20
tactics in the 60s and 70s with their mainframes. While the iPhone is a=20
great device, apparently Apple is taking a lot of heat because of its=20
poor quality. If I buy a software product, it belongs to me, and I=20
expect to use it in a way I see fit. If I buy a car, there is nothing in =

my agreement with the auto manufacturer stating where and how I can use=20
the vehicle. If I abuse it, I may not be able to get warranty service,=20
but if I want to drive it off a cliff, the manufacturer has no=20
restrictions. (The government might not like it).

IBM used to give away their operating systems, but their hardware would=20
have some undocumented registers that the OS could take advantage of,=20
requiring the companies that built 360 clones would have some difficulty.=


Basically, this is my thoughts on software:
1. Operating systems and utilities are what is needed to make a computer =

work. IMHO, it should be free. But I have no problem with companies who=20
want to sell support contracts.
2. Useful products, such as word processors, email programs don't need=20
to be free, but I would expect a certain amount of quality and support=20
if you pay for a product. While I have not looked at Sun's pricing, for=20
Star Office, I think their model of providing a proprietary, supported=20
product for the enterprise, and supporting a FOSS product (such as=20
OpenOffice) looks like a decent model. Quite a while Eudora withdrew=20
their paid-for product, and provided a "sponsored" model of their fully=20
featured product with an open source version (based on Thunderbird) now=20
in beta.

But, I think we have pretty much shown that the OpenSource model is not=20
only economically viable, but also can produce better products. On the=20
other hand, a purely community based product can have some downsides,=20
such as lack of continuity. Let's say we have an open source product=20
that was supported by a developer, but the developer loses interest, and =

no one else steps up to the plate. It does not mean the product isn't=20
good or it doesn't have a good user base, it just means that the initial =

development community did not take enough time to plan for long term=20
support.

On 11/17/2008 06:15 PM, Brendan Kidwell wrote:
> But the enderhanded BS that goes into today's EULA is nuts -- I agree w=
ith
> both of you. I have in my possession a Thinkpad that I purchased with
> Windows XP and a broken Dell laptop my wife purchased with Windows XP. =
Right
> now I'm running "pirated" Windows XP on my home-built "media center"
> computer and in a virtual machine under Ubuntu on the Thinkpad. I consi=
der
> myself fully licensed and it's actually a point of pride that after bei=
ng
> both FOSS-naive and money-poor in college I'm completely legit with med=
ia
> and software -- as far as my definition of 'legit' goes.
>
> Likewise, the mere act of liberating iTunes purchases from their DRM (s=
ee
> 'hymn') should be considered perfectly legitimate Fair Use. What you do=

> after you liberate them is between you and your conscience and the vend=
or.
>
>  =20


--=20
Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846