My gripe with GPL3 is that it is more restrictive license than GPL2, and thus "less free"
True, in one sense of the word i.e. the direct freedom of the publisher / supplier.
in all sense of the word
FALSE with capital letters. E.g. one freedom that it increases is the freedom of the end user to tinker with the hardware.
And isn't that your gripe with proprietary software, that there is too much control. So in essence, you have created the very thing you've championed against.
Problematic. An item "reduces" freedom only if it forces itself on someone, or makes the more free items unavailable. Physical goods being sold can be said to reduce freedom even if they don't alter your use of the more free items because there is a threat the more free items will not be available to normal users any more if the less free item succeeds too much. There is no such risks on licenses.
Software Developer : A developer still has access to GPL v2 (and MIT / Apache / BSD licenses) after the creation of GPL v3. So in that sense, one more license can never reduce the freedom of a copyright owner.
So, in full wakefulness, a software developer chooses to license his code under GPL v3 after considering other licenses to be unsuitable and it being too much work to create one more license. No loss of freedom by creation of GPL v3.
Distributor : a software is available as GPL v3. Without GPL v3, the distributor has no right to distribute it any way. GPL v3 is adding to the freedom of the distributor to distribute code that he doesn't own. No loss of freedom for the distributor, though he gains less freedom than he would have gained had the software developer chosen GPL v2. This is not the distributor's decision, and freedom to choose others' actions is not a sustainable form of freedom as you can easily understand yourself.
End user : No loss of freedom for end user obviously. Now he has the added freedom of more tinkering with the hardware.
I have to note that it's still unclear whether I was wrong or not, though, since we won't know until we see the next WinRT device
That is true, though the evidence you gave for the ZDnet story being "questionable" was inadmissible.
Surfaces sold today, a month after launch, still don't come with Skype, which leads me to believe that my initial assumption was not incorrect, after all.
Again inadmissible evidence. When a product is released, a humoungous contraption is set into motion to produce identical copies which is very expensive to tamper with. Only after major (or at least mid-size) revisions are released can the matter be resolved.
Also, Surface may not be a completely correct example because depending on perspective, Microsoft may or may not be considered to be an OEM for its own Software.
And it will be called "included" in the device, out of box, right? Which is what we are discussing, right? Though you are wrong so changing goalposts is a sound strategy for you.
Anyway, I went to the local Microsoft Store on the day Win8 and Surface launched, and at that point Skype was already in the store - and it was installed on all tablets on display.
Skype, Surface and Asus Vivo all were launched on Oct 26. For including out of box, any company would need some testing time. Stores can install on the same day both are released because the testing a store has to do is orders of magnitude lower than for a manufacturer to include a piece of software on a device.
So your "observation" is meaningless for the discussion we are, or at least were, having. Devices launched on the same day as Skype not including it i is NO evidence of future devices not including it.
All I can say is that it's not preinstalled on Surface or Asus Vivo Tab RT
Right, both launched right around or just before Skype so they should have time travelled to include it. Otherwise it is never going to be included in any device, because obviously, 2 whole companies have refused to time travel for it, you know.
It is certainly quite possible that ZDNet has got it wrong, too - they aren't exactly a pinnacle of journalistic accuracy
Well, you have posted multiple hundred word+ posts on the topic in a short while, so it seems you are the one who cares the most in this thread. You could have STFU'd if you didn't care.
The idea is to not draw attention towards the craplets. Or, at least make them appear like "features". Asking money to remove them would be totally counterproductive.
Practically, I agree with you as pre-built have horrible PSUs. I've not had trouble with pre-built's RAM, but that could happen too, I guess.
But theoretically, I don't think "they must pay their employees and profit from sales" explains it. They must be getting much better deals on the same hardware than retail shoppers would. Their Windows costs are negligible, or even negative because of the crapware. Their hardware shouldn't suck so much, but it does.
Or notice Newegg doesn't have any laptops with Celeron processors having more than 4 GB of RAM bundled. They have 1061 laptops with 16 GB, but none of the Celeron laptops have more than 4. Most Celeron processors themselves support at least 8 GB. This instance is one where more RAM can typically be installed, yet supports the general rule of bundling high-end with high-end.
There are plenty of motherboard manufacturers out there, and if there is a sizeable market for a good board with a not so good processor, one of them will probably try to fill it.
Well, there are plenty of car manufacturers and plenty of phone manufacturers so this logic obviously doesn't hold. There are plenty of other examples wherever there is bundling, so it is not exactly hard to notice the "high-end bundles with high-end" rule of business unless you want to close your eyes.
Posh localities frequently do not have small plots. One might want to live in posh locality but doesn't need much space. No go. In general high quality housing is not plentiful in smaller sizes.
In general, good quality merchandise is much more likely to be found in expensive (frequently of the wasteful sort, not the functional part) packaging. Most people are not interested in using the packaging of the merchandise, and some might like the cost saving that they might have got if the seller spent less on packaging. But no go.
Notice that it is different
Not at all. And you do not point out how it is different making it none the easier to notice. I have pointed out that it is not different and how, but you refuse to notice repeating that it is different.
There's no real market need for 100 motherboard models, it's just motherboard companies with a need to differentiate themselves.
Even within a chipset and feature set, there is 1. The quality of capacitors directly impacting durability 2. Layout - whether there is space around the socket for the CPU cooler you are planning. Whether the layout fits the kind of case you are looking for. 3. Strength of the PCB base - some cheap ones flex over time without any significant weight applied. Some strong ones take over 2 kg of CPU cooler weight. 4. The user interface of UEFI / BIOS / coreboot : totally subjective. 5. Quality of VRM : Varies a lot. Some have analog VRM, some have a hybrid analog / digital VRM, and some full digital VRM. Number of phases for this varies a lot. In all, it will determine if your CPU will get the amount and stability of power that it needs.
So while you do not understand the nuances, which is fine.But the statement I quoted from your post above is completely false.
Yeah, that is the danger of posting on Slashdot. You paint yourself in this tiny corner of the internet, and there's no guarantee that there will be Slashdot in the future. Good luck trying to post on a Slashdot, or any nerd forum at all.
You lost sight of the line between the server and PC market. I am sure Xeon's wont come crippled because their market is completely different. If they do at some point...
You don't say any of the above sentence is true, and you didn't say that "I never stated any of this was true" was true either. But one has to start somewhere, I assume, on a limb, that you believe the above quoted statement to be true.
With that unjustified assumption, I would like to remind you that I was already talking about non-xeon processors which is why I explicitly mentioned "commodity (i5/i7 LGA 1155) / workstation (i7 LGA 2011)". So your essay on Xeons is not needed.
So of course they want to kill the enthusiast market. They cheat the CPU makers by taking a low cost CPU
Wherever Intel feels this, they sell the unlocked "K" marked processor for a premium. There is no need to "upgrade" the same CPU and wait for a hack which enables enthusiasts to "upgrade" CPUs without paying a cut to Dell / Intel. There is no extra advantage in your plan for either Intel or Dell.
And of course the software to do this is Windows only
This is Intel we are talking about. Haswell processors are not shipping for many months from now, but Intel started merging Linux kernel enhancements to take full advantage of Haswell (even graphics which is not used by the server market) a few months ago. For free.
And of course, by making this Windows only, Intel loses all small business server market which currently runs Linux (occasionally BSD) on commodity (i5/i7 LGA 1155) / workstation (i7 LGA 2011) systems. This is not an insignificant market, as these chips give 1/3rd as much of margin as a Xeon gives, but is a 20 times larger market.
While we can't know, we can have a good guess. High end CPU would go with high end motherboards. There are a huge number of examples in the business world to show this is extremely likely. E.g. in my country, air bags and ABS are not available for cars with less than 1.4 litres of engine capacity.Gorilla glass is mostly not available on phones with single core processor (exceptions have other issues, but most phones with 2+ number of cores have gorilla glass).
For many people, this is suboptimal as most workflows are not CPU bound. So people who currently wisely get high end motherboard for durability, solid caps, better cooling support, higher number and more advanced of RAM / PCIe / USB / (e)SATA with a low end i3; will most likely end up having to buy at least a high end i5 or an i7. At the very least, their choice will be greatly limited.
from a business perspective, a removable CPU is a win for intel
Depends. Enthusiasts will cough up for another motherboard + processor , where they used to need to spend only for a new processor. Motherboard sometimes, and always the chipset, is the extra sales Intel gets when CPU is soldered to the motherboard. A non enthusiast doesn't upgrade for 8 years anyway these days so no loss there.
Intel doesn't make motherboards though.
It does, has for a long time, and pretty popular ones at that.
It's as simple as this, no ads means less high quality content,
Yes, and no credit card payment defaults means shops start charging for credit card acceptance (mostly not allowed currently); or stop accepting credit cards. Hope you made your share of credit card payment defaults this month.
Slashdot Mirror
My gripe with GPL3 is that it is more restrictive license than GPL2, and thus "less free"
True, in one sense of the word i.e. the direct freedom of the publisher / supplier.
in all sense of the word
FALSE with capital letters. E.g. one freedom that it increases is the freedom of the end user to tinker with the hardware.
And isn't that your gripe with proprietary software, that there is too much control. So in essence, you have created the very thing you've championed against.
Problematic. An item "reduces" freedom only if it forces itself on someone, or makes the more free items unavailable. Physical goods being sold can be said to reduce freedom even if they don't alter your use of the more free items because there is a threat the more free items will not be available to normal users any more if the less free item succeeds too much. There is no such risks on licenses.
Software Developer : A developer still has access to GPL v2 (and MIT / Apache / BSD licenses) after the creation of GPL v3. So in that sense, one more license can never reduce the freedom of a copyright owner.
So, in full wakefulness, a software developer chooses to license his code under GPL v3 after considering other licenses to be unsuitable and it being too much work to create one more license. No loss of freedom by creation of GPL v3.
Distributor : a software is available as GPL v3. Without GPL v3, the distributor has no right to distribute it any way. GPL v3 is adding to the freedom of the distributor to distribute code that he doesn't own. No loss of freedom for the distributor, though he gains less freedom than he would have gained had the software developer chosen GPL v2. This is not the distributor's decision, and freedom to choose others' actions is not a sustainable form of freedom as you can easily understand yourself.
End user : No loss of freedom for end user obviously. Now he has the added freedom of more tinkering with the hardware.
I have even quoted the relevant part in my post but you refuse to read it. Would repeating it help?
I said iPod because it was an artful, erroneus and efficient way to make my point
Come on, I shouldn't need this FTFY, at least for you.
I have to note that it's still unclear whether I was wrong or not, though, since we won't know until we see the next WinRT device
That is true, though the evidence you gave for the ZDnet story being "questionable" was inadmissible.
Surfaces sold today, a month after launch, still don't come with Skype, which leads me to believe that my initial assumption was not incorrect, after all.
Again inadmissible evidence. When a product is released, a humoungous contraption is set into motion to produce identical copies which is very expensive to tamper with. Only after major (or at least mid-size) revisions are released can the matter be resolved.
Also, Surface may not be a completely correct example because depending on perspective, Microsoft may or may not be considered to be an OEM for its own Software.
Or they could be installed as updates.
And it will be called "included" in the device, out of box, right? Which is what we are discussing, right? Though you are wrong so changing goalposts is a sound strategy for you.
Anyway, I went to the local Microsoft Store on the day Win8 and Surface launched, and at that point Skype was already in the store - and it was installed on all tablets on display.
Skype, Surface and Asus Vivo all were launched on Oct 26. For including out of box, any company would need some testing time. Stores can install on the same day both are released because the testing a store has to do is orders of magnitude lower than for a manufacturer to include a piece of software on a device.
So your "observation" is meaningless for the discussion we are, or at least were, having. Devices launched on the same day as Skype not including it i is NO evidence of future devices not including it.
Switching between these without ...
Go figure...
Sure. Or just go read the thread you are responding to?
All I can say is that it's not preinstalled on Surface or Asus Vivo Tab RT
Right, both launched right around or just before Skype so they should have time travelled to include it. Otherwise it is never going to be included in any device, because obviously, 2 whole companies have refused to time travel for it, you know.
It is certainly quite possible that ZDNet has got it wrong, too - they aren't exactly a pinnacle of journalistic accuracy
Whereas you are. Got it.
A similar cycle (for iPhone) has almost pioneered the BYOD syndrome.
Well Sparky WHY THE FUCK should I care, really
Well, you have posted multiple hundred word+ posts on the topic in a short while, so it seems you are the one who cares the most in this thread. You could have STFU'd if you didn't care.
http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-skype-for-windows-8-to-launch-october-26-7000006145/
" preinstalled on "the top 12 Windows OEMs' machines,""
The idea is to not draw attention towards the craplets. Or, at least make them appear like "features". Asking money to remove them would be totally counterproductive.
so I can add the company name to the list of people to avoid
Microsoft
Practically, I agree with you as pre-built have horrible PSUs. I've not had trouble with pre-built's RAM, but that could happen too, I guess.
But theoretically, I don't think "they must pay their employees and profit from sales" explains it. They must be getting much better deals on the same hardware than retail shoppers would. Their Windows costs are negligible, or even negative because of the crapware. Their hardware shouldn't suck so much, but it does.
Or notice Newegg doesn't have any laptops with Celeron processors having more than 4 GB of RAM bundled. They have 1061 laptops with 16 GB, but none of the Celeron laptops have more than 4. Most Celeron processors themselves support at least 8 GB. This instance is one where more RAM can typically be installed, yet supports the general rule of bundling high-end with high-end.
There are plenty of motherboard manufacturers out there, and if there is a sizeable market for a good board with a not so good processor, one of them will probably try to fill it.
Well, there are plenty of car manufacturers and plenty of phone manufacturers so this logic obviously doesn't hold. There are plenty of other examples wherever there is bundling, so it is not exactly hard to notice the "high-end bundles with high-end" rule of business unless you want to close your eyes.
Posh localities frequently do not have small plots. One might want to live in posh locality but doesn't need much space. No go. In general high quality housing is not plentiful in smaller sizes.
In general, good quality merchandise is much more likely to be found in expensive (frequently of the wasteful sort, not the functional part) packaging. Most people are not interested in using the packaging of the merchandise, and some might like the cost saving that they might have got if the seller spent less on packaging. But no go.
Notice that it is different
Not at all. And you do not point out how it is different making it none the easier to notice. I have pointed out that it is not different and how, but you refuse to notice repeating that it is different.
There's no real market need for 100 motherboard models, it's just motherboard companies with a need to differentiate themselves.
Even within a chipset and feature set, there is
1. The quality of capacitors directly impacting durability
2. Layout - whether there is space around the socket for the CPU cooler you are planning. Whether the layout fits the kind of case you are looking for.
3. Strength of the PCB base - some cheap ones flex over time without any significant weight applied. Some strong ones take over 2 kg of CPU cooler weight.
4. The user interface of UEFI / BIOS / coreboot : totally subjective.
5. Quality of VRM : Varies a lot. Some have analog VRM, some have a hybrid analog / digital VRM, and some full digital VRM. Number of phases for this varies a lot. In all, it will determine if your CPU will get the amount and stability of power that it needs.
So while you do not understand the nuances, which is fine.But the statement I quoted from your post above is completely false.
Yeah, that is the danger of posting on Slashdot. You paint yourself in this tiny corner of the internet, and there's no guarantee that there will be Slashdot in the future. Good luck trying to post on a Slashdot, or any nerd forum at all.
You lost sight of the line between the server and PC market. I am sure Xeon's wont come crippled because their market is completely different. If they do at some point ...
You don't say any of the above sentence is true, and you didn't say that "I never stated any of this was true" was true either. But one has to start somewhere, I assume, on a limb, that you believe the above quoted statement to be true.
With that unjustified assumption, I would like to remind you that I was already talking about non-xeon processors which is why I explicitly mentioned "commodity (i5/i7 LGA 1155) / workstation (i7 LGA 2011)". So your essay on Xeons is not needed.
Well, I didn't say "this is misinformed " was true, either. See how stupid it is to say intentionally untrue things?
This is totally misinformed.
So of course they want to kill the enthusiast market. They cheat the CPU makers by taking a low cost CPU
Wherever Intel feels this, they sell the unlocked "K" marked processor for a premium. There is no need to "upgrade" the same CPU and wait for a hack which enables enthusiasts to "upgrade" CPUs without paying a cut to Dell / Intel. There is no extra advantage in your plan for either Intel or Dell.
And of course the software to do this is Windows only
This is Intel we are talking about. Haswell processors are not shipping for many months from now, but Intel started merging Linux kernel enhancements to take full advantage of Haswell (even graphics which is not used by the server market) a few months ago. For free.
And of course, by making this Windows only, Intel loses all small business server market which currently runs Linux (occasionally BSD) on commodity (i5/i7 LGA 1155) / workstation (i7 LGA 2011) systems. This is not an insignificant market, as these chips give 1/3rd as much of margin as a Xeon gives, but is a 20 times larger market.
While we can't know, we can have a good guess. High end CPU would go with high end motherboards. There are a huge number of examples in the business world to show this is extremely likely. E.g. in my country, air bags and ABS are not available for cars with less than 1.4 litres of engine capacity.Gorilla glass is mostly not available on phones with single core processor (exceptions have other issues, but most phones with 2+ number of cores have gorilla glass).
For many people, this is suboptimal as most workflows are not CPU bound. So people who currently wisely get high end motherboard for durability, solid caps, better cooling support, higher number and more advanced of RAM / PCIe / USB / (e)SATA with a low end i3; will most likely end up having to buy at least a high end i5 or an i7. At the very least, their choice will be greatly limited.
from a business perspective, a removable CPU is a win for intel
Depends. Enthusiasts will cough up for another motherboard + processor , where they used to need to spend only for a new processor. Motherboard sometimes, and always the chipset, is the extra sales Intel gets when CPU is soldered to the motherboard. A non enthusiast doesn't upgrade for 8 years anyway these days so no loss there.
Intel doesn't make motherboards though.
It does, has for a long time, and pretty popular ones at that.
Nvidia chipsets for Intel processors were better than Intel's, if a bit hot.
I have an enthusiast grandma, you insensitive clod!
It's as simple as this, no ads means less high quality content,
Yes, and no credit card payment defaults means shops start charging for credit card acceptance (mostly not allowed currently); or stop accepting credit cards. Hope you made your share of credit card payment defaults this month.