:)
That really is funny. If you read A GPL license vs. for example, the M$ EULA, there is very little difference in the amount of liability the M$ has vs. GPL'd software. M$ will cover you for the greater of $5, or the price of the software, The GPL, of course, covers you for nothing. IMO, practically speaking, the M$ warranty is worthless, compared to what sort of liability the end user is subject to, and the difficulty in actually getting a refund. A google search turned up this interesting little article... http://interactive.linuxjournal.com/article/7040 . Getting any refund is much more trouble than it's worth.
sections 17 and 18 of the M$ EULA...
17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
There are many reasons: documentation, training,
support, etc. In fact, in most environments, consistency
and simplicity are highly important for usability, while
configurability decreases usability and is costly.
How does configurability decrease usability? Properly implemented, it...
1. Won't change any default behavior.
2. Can be detailed in an appendix of documentation.
3. Doesn't need to be added to training because it's not for novice users.
4. Support can merely reference the documentation. How much 'support'
you give is up to you.
And considering cost, who exactly is it 'costly' for? Volunteers supply
free labor. If you're referring to micromanaging nitwits who doesn't want other people
in his/her sandbox, OK,you've got me there.
This also ignore's the fact that configurability could be optionally
compiled in through the configure script, but this is not an option either
I'm guessing because of the 'cost' to who's really important
in the Gnome project. The UI genius's.
Configurability encourages collaboration and volunteerism. Pontificating on
UI design principles stifles both.
Slashdot Mirror
:) That really is funny. If you read A GPL license vs. for example, the M$ EULA, there is very little difference in the amount of liability the M$ has vs. GPL'd software. M$ will cover you for the greater of $5, or the price of the software, The GPL, of course, covers you for nothing. IMO, practically speaking, the M$ warranty is worthless, compared to what sort of liability the end user is subject to, and the difficulty in actually getting a refund. A google search turned up this interesting little article ... http://interactive.linuxjournal.com/article/7040 . Getting any refund is much more trouble than it's worth.
...
sections 17 and 18 of the M$ EULA
17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
There are many reasons: documentation, training,
...
support, etc. In fact, in most environments, consistency
and simplicity are highly important for usability, while
configurability decreases usability and is costly.
How does configurability decrease usability? Properly implemented, it
1. Won't change any default behavior.
2. Can be detailed in an appendix of documentation.
3. Doesn't need to be added to training because it's not for novice users.
4. Support can merely reference the documentation. How much 'support'
you give is up to you.
And considering cost, who exactly is it 'costly' for? Volunteers supply
free labor. If you're referring to micromanaging nitwits who doesn't want other people
in his/her sandbox, OK,you've got me there.
This also ignore's the fact that configurability could be optionally
compiled in through the configure script, but this is not an option either
I'm guessing because of the 'cost' to who's really important
in the Gnome project. The UI genius's.
Configurability encourages collaboration and volunteerism. Pontificating on
UI design principles stifles both.