As opposed to making things used by the rich lord of the manor? Look, US labor is *expensive*. Therefore, it makes NO SENSE to have things done here that can be done elsewhere cheaper.
Which works great until you've eroded your consumer base to the point where none of them can afford to buy the goods you were trying to make cheaper for them in the first place.
As far as your "disposable income" point goes, there's no better way to kill people's disposable income than to institute protectionist practices that raise the price of goods.
I saw a stat that to keep a single $30,000 steelworking job in the US, it would cost US consumers $300,000. Just want to make sure that you realize that WE ALL pay through the nose for the sort of protectionist practices that keep outmoded US jobs in the country.
That's mainly because (and I speak from experience here, having developed software for the steel industry), most US Steel is using outdated technology developed over 40 years ago in its steel mills. The Japanese and Australian mini or micro mill model is massively more efficient, has much higher quality in its steel product, and requires less maintenance and upkeep than its older US brethren. It also doesn't help to have infrastructure which hasn't been updated at all in the last 40 years; better practices and technologies have been developed.
Sure, there's the cost of implementing this new technology, but when other people are doing it and eating your lunch, you have to take the plunge if you want to keep your chunk of the market.
Seriously, what in the history of the US or economic theory makes you think anything like this is going to happen?
Watching Seattle's tech industry go through the floor is a big indicator. I'm not talking about unqualified HTML monkeys either - I'm talking about highly skilled, high performing, massive bang per buck people.
um how does that negate his argument? do you think that CEO would take a cut in *his pay* to pay for closed source software? i don't think so. so open source does mean the org has more for improving peoples lives..
He was arguing that non-profits are charitable companies who do everything for the good of the people, and give away their work to help people.
No, they're not. They're just yet another business structure. It's a common misunderstanding that nonprofit = charity. While charities have to be nonprofit, not all nonprofits are charities. And not all charities are as charitable as you might hope - a good many skim large administration fees off the top.
No, there are people out there who pay for bandwidth to allow that software to propogate. However, that software never gets 'destroyed' or removed from the pool afterwards. Except maybe when copyright no longer applies.
So the only people using free software are big corporations? Ever heard of non-profit organizations? You know, the ones that exist to help people and communities? The less they have to spend on their IT and technology, the more money they have to spend on helping people. Helping people live a happier life.
Perhaps you don't understand what a non-profit is.
It means that the company itself doesn't have any money in its coffers. Its aim is to maintain a balanced cash flow; they spend everything they bring in as profit.
This does not mean that the executives and employees give their work for free; you can be CEO of a nonprofit and have a $1,000,000 salary. Quite happily, in fact.
Second, even if one *has* a job, working for a free project is (in effect, or in the case of FSF, actually) charity work. I guess computer scientists are the only ones to donate their skills to a good cause? Because Doctors Without Borders doesn't do anything like that. And lawyers never do pro bono work right?
Doctors and Lawyers are in the service industry. Software Engineers are in the intellectual property industry.
Doctors and Lawyers don't scale. You don't treat someone once, and then everyone in the world is cured of that disease immediately and automatically for all time. You don't defend someone in court and then everyone accused of that crime is automatically represented by you, even without you being there.
However, free software? One person writes it, and then it hangs around forever. It scales, and keeps on scaling.
If the first one costs 10 million and you have 10 million customers, you recover your cost with the first $1.00 per customer. Now if you charged $101.00 each, you have a profit of $100 dollars per piece of plastic minus shipping and handling, still about $1 BILLION profit.
Now if you make an incremental upgrade that requires only one million up front investment, and you still sell that to your customers by ingeneously forcing an upgrade, you now make another $1 BILLION profit, but the cost per disk is now TEN CENTS. Now if your customer base is 50 million people and your sell price is anywhere from $100 to $300, you only have to do this a few times to be rich as Bill Gates.
Would you care to try again, using real figures. You can get them from SEC filings, you know. You're off by a factor of at least 10 for your costs, you're forgetting that Microsoft doesn't get retail price as profit (at most they'll get about half that). Etc. etc. etc.
You're forgetting about the massive amount of service jobs that simply can't be outsourced, like cutting hair, making food, cleaning, and the like. It may be that lower classes don't make things for exporting, but that's hardly going to force imminent economic collapse
So what you're saying is that long term, the US will revert to a feudal society where entire tribes of hairdressers, cleaners and chefs are in the employ of one very rich lord of the manor?
Sounds like it... because without people who will pay for those services, those services go away too.
When you start seeing places like BestBuy and CompUSA closing shop, it's time to get out of the country. Disposable income is a great driving force in the economy - and it makes those service jobs possible.
The winner of that category, Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World was absolutely in a different class to the rest of the field, ROTK included. I don't think Peter Jackson would argue that he was slighted in that department, especially after his 11 out of 11 haul.... and also used a heck of a lot of CG as well.
What better way to try to make yourself look important than by holding your little tiny inconsequential awards ceremony right before the Academy Awards.
I see you still haven't learned to control that temper of yours yet.
I see you still haven't learned not to lie or distort facts yet.
1. Sure, I'm an ex Microsoft employee. I worked for them for 9 months, 5 years ago. So sue me.
2. "I have once before, in another discussion, pointed out that he failed to disclose his possible grounds for bias, only to have him try and smear my reputation all over the 'Net."
No, you didn't.
You wrote: Minor note of interest: The grandparent poster spectecjr is one Simon Cooke, a former Microsoft employee, and full-time Microsoft defender on all sorts of online media.
Oh, and him calling someone else a kook is too laughable to describe, as he has a rather kooky history too. Check out the Google USENET archives for some fun.
You did not "point out that I failed to disclose" anything. You engaged in an ad hominem attack.
Now stop trying to act like a saint. I find it funny that it's only my posts that you're rallying against. Perhaps you should go and do a clean-up job on the rest of slashdot and leave me alone. As I said in my original post, it's my OPINION. Nothing you can say or do - including ad hominem attacks - can change what my opinion of anything is.
As for "sock puppetry", dumbass, it's common practice on Slashdot to post as an AC when one is posting off-topic material otherwise someone comes along and mods you down. Try actually posting here and participating in this site on anything more than a cursory basis and you might understand that.
minor note for you: expect nothing but mindless repeating of the Microsoft party line from spectecjr. He's a former Microsoft employee.
I have once before, in another discussion, pointed out that he failed to disclose his possible grounds for bias, only to have him try and smear my reputation all over the 'Net
Bullshit, Mart. If I recall correctly, it was you who started posting about my posts here in newsgroups. You started that, not me.
It is telling that Ballmer is gloating over the difficulties of a transition to Linux instead of gloating over stomping the Linux community into the ground with better products and services. The fact is that they are having trouble BUT they are still transitioning.
They already do stomp Linux into the ground with better products and services; the only reason people use Open Source (other than "we hate Microsoft") is because it's free. It's certainly not easier to use, the performance isn't better on average (there are some edge cases), and the support isn't as good.
But hey, that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
you *know* they didn't mean registration [but meant activation]. You were probably one of those smart asses[1] who corrected people after they provided an answer to the teacher, right?
So what. There's no excuse for getting things factually wrong just because of lazy language - that's how bullshit rumor mongering like "Microsoft stole code from Stac" start. You end up with a pathetic game of chinese whispers, and it gets damn near impossible to ferret out the truth.
Sounds like an extension of the registering thingy in XP (where you have to register to use it).
You don't have to register to use it. Registration gets you technical support. Activation (no user data required) gets you use of XP. Only activation is required to use WindowsUpdate.
My experience with women is just that they don't like (or won't admit liking) porn. I've never met a woman who would not scoff at my browsing usenet for porn, for instance.
In most cases, it just requires communication about the subject. If you explain why you like porn, it's not longer a problem.
No, it doesn't mean you love them any less. No, you don't necessarily want them to do those things. No, they're not being screwed*; they get paid thousands of dollars for this.
Explain that it's visual stimulation, and it means that you're not pawing at them for sex all the time - that it gives you options. Explain how men basically want sex all of the time (believe it or not, most women do too... it just surfaces in different ways - it's more emotional than physical).
And if you're going to watch porn with a woman, don't go for usenet stuff or bargain bin video store pornos. Get yourself some of the classy Adam & Eve stuff designed for couples, which actually have a real plot (or at least, more of a plot than most), and pick the video based on what you know turns her on.
You'll be surprised. Sure, not all women will react that way - a lot will react exactly as you've described. But the only way to truly find out is through in-depth, honest communication. And that takes effort.
You are incredibly confused if you think any Free Software advocate considers copyright law their "enemy". The GPL fundamentally *depends* on the sanctity of copyrights.
Copyright law is the enemy of the FSF. That's why the GPL is written the way it is; it's designed to use copyright against itself, as kind of a legalistic aikido.
The FSF would be happiest if no copyright existed for software. If that occurs, then the GPL goes away - which is fine by them, because it's no longer necessary. If it does not occur, they can cause pressure for the same end result, by using copyright to enforce the GPL.
If you seriously think that Free Software Advocates support copyright on software in any form, you've obviously not read up enough on how exactly the GPL is designed.
Nice try, but women don't enjoy porn. They've got this thing with emotional bonding and sensible family life.
Nice try, but I know several women who do enjoy porn. You're just not getting to know the right women.
Porn isn't about objectification. It's about visual stimulation. It does not exclude or preclude emotional bonding or sensible family life - unless you have an unhealthy preoccupation with it.
Just remember: everyone's different. Not everyone shares your particular problems with sex.
Re:Controlling sexual predators through technology
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd like to see a simple switch based on brain activity that would toggle on during sexual thought/arousal and toggle off in the absence of that. The application I have in mind would be taking convicted sexual predators (rapists, child molesters, etc.) who are being released back into society, and permanently affixing something to their face that would glow when they're thinking that way. Children could then be taught that if somebody's "face button" is glowing when that person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help.
Sounds double-plus-good to me.
Also sounds like those studies they did recently for "latent racism". Studies that were fatally flawed because they didn't take into account that people who are painfully aware of racism and who try to avoid it at all costs - including the appearance of being racist - are the same people who were labelled as being racist in the study.
Please, don't go down the thought-crime avenue. Actions are what count - not thoughts. And as noble as your goals might appear to be to you, consider this:
If you have a predisposition towards doing something (whether child molestation, smoking, drinking or breathing), it takes conscious thought to not do that act. And that thought will trigger the same "flashing button" that deciding to do that act will.
Try thinking about not breathing without thinking about breathing. It ain't going to happen.
Programmers aren't called in to design GUIs. Programmers are shitty at it, and driver writers are worse. It's not their bag, baby.
Nice generalization.
Like most things, it's a learned craft. It requires that you take note of what you see around you, learn a little psychology, and learn a little aesthetic sensibility. And then, hey presto, you can do it too!
Most people, however, don't even try. They just say "well, this is good enough, and I don't even want to learn how to do good UI - if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for anyone else".
In other words, they're lazy.
Which is OK, but please, don't paint all software engineers with the same brush. We're not all lazy - some of us make a nice living by making sure we understand as much of our profession as possible - and that includes user interface design.
We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders
Funny... that would make one think that patents are the enemy here, not copyrights. Copyrights protect the embodiment of a single idea in a concrete form. Patents protect an idea which is a process of doing something.
Ergo, both of these guys are barking up the wrong tree.
If Microsoft understands that people expect bug fixes for free, then why does Microsoft refuse to issue patches for holes in old but still widely used operating systems?
Because those operating systems are 8 years old, and no-one in this industry - including RedHat - does that.
Does anyone remember Bill G's statement a few years ago... "Nobody upgrades their software to fix bugs, that's the stupidest thing I've heard of. People buy new software to get new features."
Perfectly valid statement. People expect bug fixes for free. They don't upgrade their software to get bug fixes. They expect to get them anyway as part of the original sale.
Slashdot Mirror
While the beginnings of the GNU project were altruistic
GNU never has been altruistic.
Altruism means giving something away with no strings attached.
GPL has strings. Big strings. They force you to do the same. That's not altruism. That's trade and barter.
As opposed to making things used by the rich lord of the manor? Look, US labor is *expensive*. Therefore, it makes NO SENSE to have things done here that can be done elsewhere cheaper.
Which works great until you've eroded your consumer base to the point where none of them can afford to buy the goods you were trying to make cheaper for them in the first place.
As far as your "disposable income" point goes, there's no better way to kill people's disposable income than to institute protectionist practices that raise the price of goods.
I saw a stat that to keep a single $30,000 steelworking job in the US, it would cost US consumers $300,000. Just want to make sure that you realize that WE ALL pay through the nose for the sort of protectionist practices that keep outmoded US jobs in the country.
That's mainly because (and I speak from experience here, having developed software for the steel industry), most US Steel is using outdated technology developed over 40 years ago in its steel mills. The Japanese and Australian mini or micro mill model is massively more efficient, has much higher quality in its steel product, and requires less maintenance and upkeep than its older US brethren. It also doesn't help to have infrastructure which hasn't been updated at all in the last 40 years; better practices and technologies have been developed.
Sure, there's the cost of implementing this new technology, but when other people are doing it and eating your lunch, you have to take the plunge if you want to keep your chunk of the market.
Seriously, what in the history of the US or economic theory makes you think anything like this is going to happen?
Watching Seattle's tech industry go through the floor is a big indicator. I'm not talking about unqualified HTML monkeys either - I'm talking about highly skilled, high performing, massive bang per buck people.
um how does that negate his argument? do you think that CEO would take a cut in *his pay* to pay for closed source software? i don't think so. so open source does mean the org has more for improving peoples lives..
He was arguing that non-profits are charitable companies who do everything for the good of the people, and give away their work to help people.
No, they're not. They're just yet another business structure. It's a common misunderstanding that nonprofit = charity. While charities have to be nonprofit, not all nonprofits are charities. And not all charities are as charitable as you might hope - a good many skim large administration fees off the top.
And I suppose it "scales" itself?
No, there are people out there who pay for bandwidth to allow that software to propogate. However, that software never gets 'destroyed' or removed from the pool afterwards. Except maybe when copyright no longer applies.
So the only people using free software are big corporations? Ever heard of non-profit organizations? You know, the ones that exist to help people and communities? The less they have to spend on their IT and technology, the more money they have to spend on helping people. Helping people live a happier life.
Perhaps you don't understand what a non-profit is.
It means that the company itself doesn't have any money in its coffers. Its aim is to maintain a balanced cash flow; they spend everything they bring in as profit.
This does not mean that the executives and employees give their work for free; you can be CEO of a nonprofit and have a $1,000,000 salary. Quite happily, in fact.
Second, even if one *has* a job, working for a free project is (in effect, or in the case of FSF, actually) charity work. I guess computer scientists are the only ones to donate their skills to a good cause? Because Doctors Without Borders doesn't do anything like that. And lawyers never do pro bono work right?
Doctors and Lawyers are in the service industry. Software Engineers are in the intellectual property industry.
Doctors and Lawyers don't scale. You don't treat someone once, and then everyone in the world is cured of that disease immediately and automatically for all time. You don't defend someone in court and then everyone accused of that crime is automatically represented by you, even without you being there.
However, free software? One person writes it, and then it hangs around forever. It scales, and keeps on scaling.
If the first one costs 10 million and you have 10 million customers, you recover your cost with the first $1.00 per customer.
Now if you charged $101.00 each, you have a profit of $100 dollars per piece of plastic minus shipping and handling, still about $1 BILLION profit.
Now if you make an incremental upgrade that requires only one million up front investment, and you still sell that to your customers by ingeneously forcing an upgrade, you now make another $1 BILLION profit, but the cost per disk is now TEN CENTS.
Now if your customer base is 50 million people and your sell price is anywhere from $100 to $300, you only have to do this a few times to be rich as Bill Gates.
Would you care to try again, using real figures. You can get them from SEC filings, you know. You're off by a factor of at least 10 for your costs, you're forgetting that Microsoft doesn't get retail price as profit (at most they'll get about half that). Etc. etc. etc.
Try using some real world figures instead.
You're forgetting about the massive amount of service jobs that simply can't be outsourced, like cutting hair, making food, cleaning, and the like. It may be that lower classes don't make things for exporting, but that's hardly going to force imminent economic collapse
So what you're saying is that long term, the US will revert to a feudal society where entire tribes of hairdressers, cleaners and chefs are in the employ of one very rich lord of the manor?
Sounds like it... because without people who will pay for those services, those services go away too.
When you start seeing places like BestBuy and CompUSA closing shop, it's time to get out of the country. Disposable income is a great driving force in the economy - and it makes those service jobs possible.
The winner of that category, Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World was absolutely in a different class to the rest of the field, ROTK included. I don't think Peter Jackson would argue that he was slighted in that department, especially after his 11 out of 11 haul. ... and also used a heck of a lot of CG as well.
Read this
Master and Commander used fake sets as well. To about the same degree (if not more) as ROTK.
(you know, the dude behind Lindows)
What better way to try to make yourself look important than by holding your little tiny inconsequential awards ceremony right before the Academy Awards.
I'll give you points for chutzpah though.
I see you still haven't learned to control that temper of yours yet.
I see you still haven't learned not to lie or distort facts yet.
1. Sure, I'm an ex Microsoft employee. I worked for them for 9 months, 5 years ago. So sue me.
2. "I have once before, in another discussion, pointed out that he failed to disclose his possible grounds for bias, only to have him try and smear my reputation all over the 'Net."
No, you didn't.
You wrote:
Minor note of interest: The grandparent poster spectecjr is one Simon Cooke, a former Microsoft employee, and full-time Microsoft defender on all sorts of online media.
Oh, and him calling someone else a kook is too laughable to describe, as he has a rather kooky history too. Check out the Google USENET archives for some fun.
You did not "point out that I failed to disclose" anything. You engaged in an ad hominem attack.
Now stop trying to act like a saint. I find it funny that it's only my posts that you're rallying against. Perhaps you should go and do a clean-up job on the rest of slashdot and leave me alone. As I said in my original post, it's my OPINION. Nothing you can say or do - including ad hominem attacks - can change what my opinion of anything is.
As for "sock puppetry", dumbass, it's common practice on Slashdot to post as an AC when one is posting off-topic material otherwise someone comes along and mods you down. Try actually posting here and participating in this site on anything more than a cursory basis and you might understand that.
minor note for you: expect nothing but mindless repeating of the Microsoft party line from spectecjr. He's a former Microsoft employee.
I have once before, in another discussion, pointed out that he failed to disclose his possible grounds for bias, only to have him try and smear my reputation all over the 'Net
Bullshit, Mart. If I recall correctly, it was you who started posting about my posts here in newsgroups. You started that, not me.
Don't like it? Stop being such a dick.
It is telling that Ballmer is gloating over the difficulties of a transition to Linux instead of gloating over stomping the Linux community into the ground with better products and services. The fact is that they are having trouble BUT they are still transitioning.
They already do stomp Linux into the ground with better products and services; the only reason people use Open Source (other than "we hate Microsoft") is because it's free. It's certainly not easier to use, the performance isn't better on average (there are some edge cases), and the support isn't as good.
But hey, that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
you *know* they didn't mean registration [but meant activation]. You were probably one of those smart asses[1] who corrected people after they provided an answer to the teacher, right?
So what. There's no excuse for getting things factually wrong just because of lazy language - that's how bullshit rumor mongering like "Microsoft stole code from Stac" start. You end up with a pathetic game of chinese whispers, and it gets damn near impossible to ferret out the truth.
Since when is buoyancy "a form of gravity?"
:-)
No gravity, no buoyancy, because you wouldn't get the pressure gradient.
But no, I don't think they meant that
Sounds like an extension of the registering thingy in XP (where you have to register to use it).
You don't have to register to use it. Registration gets you technical support. Activation (no user data required) gets you use of XP. Only activation is required to use WindowsUpdate.
My experience with women is just that they don't like (or won't admit liking) porn. I've never met a woman who would not scoff at my browsing usenet for porn, for instance.
In most cases, it just requires communication about the subject. If you explain why you like porn, it's not longer a problem.
No, it doesn't mean you love them any less.
No, you don't necessarily want them to do those things.
No, they're not being screwed*; they get paid thousands of dollars for this.
Explain that it's visual stimulation, and it means that you're not pawing at them for sex all the time - that it gives you options. Explain how men basically want sex all of the time (believe it or not, most women do too... it just surfaces in different ways - it's more emotional than physical).
And if you're going to watch porn with a woman, don't go for usenet stuff or bargain bin video store pornos. Get yourself some of the classy Adam & Eve stuff designed for couples, which actually have a real plot (or at least, more of a plot than most), and pick the video based on what you know turns her on.
You'll be surprised. Sure, not all women will react that way - a lot will react exactly as you've described. But the only way to truly find out is through in-depth, honest communication. And that takes effort.
* erm... well, you know what I mean.
You are incredibly confused if you think any Free Software advocate considers copyright law their "enemy". The GPL fundamentally *depends* on the sanctity of copyrights.
Copyright law is the enemy of the FSF. That's why the GPL is written the way it is; it's designed to use copyright against itself, as kind of a legalistic aikido.
The FSF would be happiest if no copyright existed for software. If that occurs, then the GPL goes away - which is fine by them, because it's no longer necessary. If it does not occur, they can cause pressure for the same end result, by using copyright to enforce the GPL.
If you seriously think that Free Software Advocates support copyright on software in any form, you've obviously not read up enough on how exactly the GPL is designed.
Nice try, but women don't enjoy porn.
They've got this thing with emotional bonding and sensible family life.
Nice try, but I know several women who do enjoy porn. You're just not getting to know the right women.
Porn isn't about objectification. It's about visual stimulation. It does not exclude or preclude emotional bonding or sensible family life - unless you have an unhealthy preoccupation with it.
Just remember: everyone's different. Not everyone shares your particular problems with sex.
I'd like to see a simple switch based on brain activity that would toggle on during sexual thought/arousal and toggle off in the absence of that. The application I have in mind would be taking convicted sexual predators (rapists, child molesters, etc.) who are being released back into society, and permanently affixing something to their face that would glow when they're thinking that way. Children could then be taught that if somebody's "face button" is glowing when that person is asking them to [get in the car|go play with a cute pet|have some candy|etc.], to run and get help.
Sounds double-plus-good to me.
Also sounds like those studies they did recently for "latent racism". Studies that were fatally flawed because they didn't take into account that people who are painfully aware of racism and who try to avoid it at all costs - including the appearance of being racist - are the same people who were labelled as being racist in the study.
Please, don't go down the thought-crime avenue. Actions are what count - not thoughts. And as noble as your goals might appear to be to you, consider this:
If you have a predisposition towards doing something (whether child molestation, smoking, drinking or breathing), it takes conscious thought to not do that act. And that thought will trigger the same "flashing button" that deciding to do that act will.
Try thinking about not breathing without thinking about breathing. It ain't going to happen.
but the TV would be stuck on the p0rn channel. if you've got a wife, LOOK OUT!!
The trick is to marry someone who enjoys watching porn with you. It's not that hard; if I can do it, anyone can.
Programmers aren't called in to design GUIs. Programmers are shitty at it, and driver writers are worse. It's not their bag, baby.
Nice generalization.
Like most things, it's a learned craft. It requires that you take note of what you see around you, learn a little psychology, and learn a little aesthetic sensibility. And then, hey presto, you can do it too!
Most people, however, don't even try. They just say "well, this is good enough, and I don't even want to learn how to do good UI - if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for anyone else".
In other words, they're lazy.
Which is OK, but please, don't paint all software engineers with the same brush. We're not all lazy - some of us make a nice living by making sure we understand as much of our profession as possible - and that includes user interface design.
We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders
Funny... that would make one think that patents are the enemy here, not copyrights. Copyrights protect the embodiment of a single idea in a concrete form. Patents protect an idea which is a process of doing something.
Ergo, both of these guys are barking up the wrong tree.
If Microsoft understands that people expect bug fixes for free, then why does Microsoft refuse to issue patches for holes in old but still widely used operating systems?
Because those operating systems are 8 years old, and no-one in this industry - including RedHat - does that.
Does anyone remember Bill G's statement a few years ago... "Nobody upgrades their software to fix bugs, that's the stupidest thing I've heard of. People buy new software to get new features."
Perfectly valid statement. People expect bug fixes for free. They don't upgrade their software to get bug fixes. They expect to get them anyway as part of the original sale.
Makes perfect sense to me.