I tried a quick (and not terribly inspired) google on that and interestingly the top hit was a link to the samba developers' home page. To quote:
... to avoid any potential licensing issues we require that anyone who has signed the Microsoft CIFS Royalty Free Agreement not submit patches to Samba, nor base patches on the referenced specification....
So I wonder how accepting the samba team would be of patches from MS.
Despite the lack of support you get for all the w3c standards I find it is a good place to start to check your work.
Using the validator checks your syntax while it checks compliance. Once you have error free markup you can decide from there if changing your content to comply with some standard is worth it. For simple things it usually won't make a difference in most browsers. And if some tricky bit of markup that makes your page look just right in IE or whatever your target browser is and it's not compliant it's probably not a big deal.
For the most part though I find if I write to the standards first and make exceptions only when absolutely necessary my pages will look good in just about any browser. But maybe that's just me, I am also not a fan of using flash, heavy javascript or just about anything else other then html and css.
Look I'm one of the most die hard Linux fan boys here. But you didn't address a single point in the parent post. He said right up front not everyone just needs word processing and email. Then you go on to say, to paraphrase, that "most people just need email and office".
He has a very valid point. One that can't be addressed by just the Open Source community. UPS World Ship is used by a lot of businesses, including mine. And no UPS looks like they have no immediate interest in releasing a Linux version. We also use StarShip for shipping at my company. Guess what? No Linux version. These are commercial apps with no open source equivalent. I'm not talking about Photoshop or WinSoundAwesomeSuperFX 2010 here, I'm talking about specific business apps, released by specific business that just don't understand or refuse to care that not everyone of their partners and customers are running Windows. Open source developers could come up with an open version of StarShip I believe, cloning UPS's proprietary software that links into their proprietary network would be much harder without their cooperation.
If your running a call center or a simple small business then office/web/email probably are enough. But it is not FUD to say that a company has a) a lot of third party applications that only run on Windows or b) they've developed a lot of in house applications that only run on Windows. Right now that is the sad truth.
It's getting better and I agree that Desktop Linux is ready for prime time. But just like I don't feel that Windows is appropriate for running my web server on when I can choose a *nix solution I also accept that right now I can't run my warehouse shipping software on Linux. I hope that changes, I would gladly pay for an open source replacement, but for now that's the reality I have to live in.
Hey thanks for getting back to me. The questions I was raising concerning graphics cards were genuinie and you've enlightned me somewhat. I guess the bottom line here is we are in somewhat of a transitional era with regards to Open Source. As it gains traction and is used in new ways it will almost always cross paths with closed source software, licensing restrictions, patents, etc.
One thing I'd like to clarify though; you're pretty close to hitting on what I meant about providing a low end, open source driver vs. high performance binary but not quite. I don't want to see all the "good stuff" come out for just Windows either. Another post in this thread said something along the lines of "if you want a stable ABI, buy Red Hat Enterprise". I think that's a good point. I would not mind seeing ATI/NVIDIA or any other hardware vendor continue to provide binary only drivers for products like Red Hat Enterprise or SUSE Server. Heck, charge for them if it helps cut down on their own costs. People need to run a business and I'm not all altruism and do it because you should.
I just want them to provide a simple OS driver that could live in the base kernel tree as provided by kernel.org and could be used and toyed with by a simple home user like myself. I beleive it is the Red Hat's and Novell's of the world that should respond to demands from hardware makers for a stable ABI/API to base their products on, not the guys working for free on the kernel. Then it becomes business A and business B working symbiotically for their own benefits, similar to how it works in the closed source world now.
Free software developers do what they want and do it because they like to. No amount of success or interest by end users should force them to change that. I'd go so far as to say that the minute you put demands and obligations on these same coders you will see a serious drop in both quality and quantity of code. Does that make for a good business model? Hell no. Does it make for great software? Definately yes!
Granted you have some valid points here and I don't claim to have all the answers. And for what it's worth AMD seems to be competing fine on the merits of their product without having to steal from Intel. Free hardware is a tough issue to handle, especially bleeding edge, revolutionary stuff. But how many features of a modern graphics card are really that secret? I'm asking, I'm honestly ignorant on this. It seems to me that if you can write a software interface that provides an API to commonly used graphics methods (Open GL for example) then there is an awful lot about graphics cards that are similar. The vesa driver for X is another example. Is there no way for ATI or NVIDIA to put out open source drivers that handle most of what their cards do but stop short of releasing a code interface to their latest, greatest super secret method for displaying bits?
Using your network card example; in the name of interoperability are you unable to put out a driver that makes your uber sexy network card behave like a plain old Ethernet card? Maybe I want to standardize on your hardware for purchasing purposes but will need to run it in a mixed environment. So I want your binary drivers for Windows but I have a Linux Bind server and a FreeBSD firewall that I would like to be able to outfit with your card as well. Is there nothing a shop can do to accomodate me, provide source so I can upgrade my OS when needed and still hang on to thier precious IP?
I just want something from ATI that is a) portable (source included that is) and b) gives a little better performance then the vesa driver. If the SuperBitBlt function of the card is just too juicy to give away then don't include that functionality in the driver.
Maybe I'm being naive here and making it sound easier then it is. Alternatively I just wish that if ATI and NVIDIA don't want to participate in open source development that they just wouldn't bother at all. But since they have a virtual duopoly on the video market right now I guess we wouldn't be able to run OSS on anything without them.
Agreed. And I didn't mean for my post to come across as another typical "it's free damn it, if you don't like it build your own kernel" rant.
I just don't understand where people come off dictating what should or shouldn't happen to free software based on the needs of ATI, NVIDIA or any other commercial entity that tries to reap the benefits of free software all the while snubbing the development model that makes it possible in the first place.
Now you could argue that ATI and NVIDIA don't really get much out of providing open source drivers with their hardware. That the Linux community doesn't amount to enough of a market to change their numbers, one way or the other. But if this is so why provide drivers at all? Clearly their is enough demand that they felt the need to shut people up by giving them something. Is that all it is? A "fine, here, now leave us alone". Or do they get something more out of it? A "works on Linux!" sticker on the side of their packaging? I just don't get the need to provide something but do so in a way that pits one Linux distro against another or locks people into a single version of the kernel and the long wait until the next version comes along.
I've used both ATI's and NVIDIA's binary drivers in an effort to appease new users who felt they were missing out without them. But it sucks. It sucks on so many levels.
The conspiracy theorist in me posits that ATI and NVIDIA put these binary messes out there just to make the Linux community look fragmented and behind the times. Rather then acknowledge that they don't want to participate in this type of development model they throw a half hearted attempt at supporting Linux using "my way or the highway" type tactics. And time and again I hear "Linux sucks because I can't use X with it".
Anyway, your point about stability and maintenance for true OS developers is quite right and a hell of lot more on topic then my rants. Mine is a knee jerk reaction to someone saying "they MUST do x, they owe it to us". Nobody owes anyone anything, this is the beauty of free (as in freedom) software.
As you say most people become concerned about patents when it affects them. But with all the litigation going on these days, especially in the tech industry, I think the number of people affected, and therefore possibly willing to contribute to this, is quite large. And it's not just company X getting sued that affects people. Sure company X is going to go all out to use this tool to their advantage and even contribute some knowledge back to it. Things really snowball though when a) affected end users become concerned, b) affected side markets become concerned (e.g. makers of Blackberry cases and accessories) and c) developers of software/services around a disputed technology become concerned. As a peer post pointed out the number of people on/. (and I would add Groklaw) alone who are willing to debunk bogus patents is a formidable force.
Although it's becoming cliché and tired at this point there is some truth to the "many eyeballs" line of reasoning. And debunking patent applications scratches the same type of itch in some people that hunting for security vulnerabilities and bugs does. Security researchers come in many forms so I won't generalize too much but a number of them do it for the sheer satisfaction of finding and reporting a vulnerability and the "cool factor" that comes with it. IMHO a lot of pro researchers and laymen alike would love a chance to participate in a system like this for patents.
I am sure we can fair and unbiased, especially when it comes to software patents.
I know your not new here, so I'l skip that joke. You sound so serious so I don't smell a joke on your side. Ah yes, it must be sarcasm! That's the only reason I can think of that the words "slashdot", "unbiased" and "patent" could end up in the same sentance.
Most people want Linux to start playing in the same space as Windows (well, at least OSX) in terms of user numbers.
"Most people" meaning all the people that want Linux to just work without giving anything to it to make it better. The folks who want a free (as in beer) Windows. Don't get me wrong, I love that fact that my Mom uses Linux and she doesn't give anything back to it. And I honestly can't say I am a major OS contributor other then advocacy and local support for my community but I also have no interest in "commercial" Linux. If my primary source of income was based around the future of the kernel you bet I would pay to contribute. And I would do so on the grounds laid out by the kernel developers.
As far as I'm concerned Linux is already successful because a lot of people use it, as is, and get a lot out of it. Hell if Linus continues to use it and no one else in the world does I would still consider it a success. He wrote it to use, not to sell.
No, non OS drivers are not "evil". Expecting a bunch of developers to support you, as in "stabilize your ABI, you owe it to us", is not really evil either. I consider evil to be too strong a word when talking about drivers. But it is inane and idiotic for these companies to expect anyone serious about software development to give a rat's ass whether or not their closed source drivers work with an open source kernel. They know how the Linux development model works and they are invited, nay *encouraged*, to participate in it. They choose not to, instead trying to keep one foot on the shore of their old "IP" business and the other tentatively placed on the OS side hoping that somehow people will respect them as part of the community. If they choose not to join the project and play by the rules that were established by the project members how then are they entitled to, in any way, steer the future of that development model?
The operating system MUST provide a standarized [sic] API.
People who code free software MUST not do anything unless they feel like it. Sure some of them might get paid by Company X to develop Driver Y or Application Z but they do so on the shoulders of what's already been put in place by free software developers.
If Linus and the rest of the kernel developers decide at some point to provide an ABI that proprietary companies can use to build their drivers, all the while clinging to their dated business methodologies and obsession with "IP", then great, that's their choice. It might take a Herculean effort to get all those copyright holders to agree and do it but if they can then that's up to them.
Conversely, if they choose not to, they under no obligation to provide anything. Nobody on the kernel team, IMHO, ever got together and said "we need to start coding and provide some free software so companies with no interest in participating in the process can take our free software and make some money selling hardware". They do it for themselves, their friends and family, their community. Whether or not ATI and NVIDIA want to be a member of that community entitles them to exactly nothing.
Re:Cool. As a Debian user...
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hey thanks. I was just making a (lame) Debian joke:-) but I was actually considering grabbing source and trying it out. I'll try this instead...
I think there is a definate need for a more userfriendly version of VIM
"Vim is user friendly, it's just picky about who it's freinds are."
Seriously, if you want a "user friendly" text editor use gnotepad, gedit, kate or any other GUI editor for Linux. Or nano, pico or ee on the command line.
Vim is just fine the way it is, especially considering that there are plenty of alternatives if you don't like it's interface.
Cool. As a Debian user...
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I guess I can look forward to getting a package sometime in 2007:-)
Yep I was ready to don my fire retardent suit, break out the big guns and issue a hearty "and so it begins again!". But I cought myself and remembered we're here todoy to flame mac users (or is it fear mongering corporations?), not rehash the editor wars.
Yes but if this program truly roots your box wouldn't it be trivial for it to output realistic looking but bogus data to ethereal or tcpdump? That's what I thought the second computer mentioned above is for...
When Microsoft entered a market late in the past, they always could leverage their market position. It was easier to use the already installed IE then to download another browser...
Yes but you could easily and logically carry that to the next step and say "because MSN search will be the default home page in IE7 they will draw a number of users who simply find it easiest to keep it that way". Heck, my Mom used IE for a couple of years before she realized she could even change the homepage. I would guess that this "default page" strategy will attract at least some portion of advertisers. If nothing else I could see a lot of them investing in all three (google, yahoo and msn).
Right now (or last I checked anyway) the MSN portal page is the default home page for IE. If MS decides to make their new search page the default in IE7 then that may attract some attention. So I would look for an uptake in MS search based advertising when Vista is released... sometime around or after 2010 that is.:-)
My understanding is an OEM copy of Windows is not transferrable to another machine. Nor are you eliglble for the upgrade price of a newer version of Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot "GMail is no longer beta".
I tried a quick (and not terribly inspired) google on that and interestingly the top hit was a link to the samba developers' home page. To quote:
... to avoid any potential licensing issues we require that anyone who has signed the Microsoft CIFS Royalty Free Agreement not submit patches to Samba, nor base patches on the referenced specification. ...
So I wonder how accepting the samba team would be of patches from MS.
Also interesting, TFA is the third hit on google.
Here's the search I used: microsoft submits patches samba
Despite the lack of support you get for all the w3c standards I find it is a good place to start to check your work.
Using the validator checks your syntax while it checks compliance. Once you have error free markup you can decide from there if changing your content to comply with some standard is worth it. For simple things it usually won't make a difference in most browsers. And if some tricky bit of markup that makes your page look just right in IE or whatever your target browser is and it's not compliant it's probably not a big deal.
For the most part though I find if I write to the standards first and make exceptions only when absolutely necessary my pages will look good in just about any browser. But maybe that's just me, I am also not a fan of using flash, heavy javascript or just about anything else other then html and css.
Hah, yep... I guess there is a such thing as bad publicity. :-)
It looks like it's a bit short of entries at the moment. I'm sure they could use all the help any interested /.'ers could offer.
It's posts like yours that make me wish I had moderator points.
Look I'm one of the most die hard Linux fan boys here. But you didn't address a single point in the parent post. He said right up front not everyone just needs word processing and email. Then you go on to say, to paraphrase, that "most people just need email and office".
He has a very valid point. One that can't be addressed by just the Open Source community. UPS World Ship is used by a lot of businesses, including mine. And no UPS looks like they have no immediate interest in releasing a Linux version. We also use StarShip for shipping at my company. Guess what? No Linux version. These are commercial apps with no open source equivalent. I'm not talking about Photoshop or WinSoundAwesomeSuperFX 2010 here, I'm talking about specific business apps, released by specific business that just don't understand or refuse to care that not everyone of their partners and customers are running Windows. Open source developers could come up with an open version of StarShip I believe, cloning UPS's proprietary software that links into their proprietary network would be much harder without their cooperation.
If your running a call center or a simple small business then office/web/email probably are enough. But it is not FUD to say that a company has a) a lot of third party applications that only run on Windows or b) they've developed a lot of in house applications that only run on Windows. Right now that is the sad truth.
It's getting better and I agree that Desktop Linux is ready for prime time. But just like I don't feel that Windows is appropriate for running my web server on when I can choose a *nix solution I also accept that right now I can't run my warehouse shipping software on Linux. I hope that changes, I would gladly pay for an open source replacement, but for now that's the reality I have to live in.
Yes, and a skunk seems harmless enough until it releases its foul scent.
...
Hah, yeah no doubt.
Wait, who's the skunk then?
Hey I don't like MS as much as the next slasdot user but disabled? Windows ME aside isn't that a little harsh?
Oh wait, maybe I should go RTFA first...
Hey thanks for getting back to me. The questions I was raising concerning graphics cards were genuinie and you've enlightned me somewhat. I guess the bottom line here is we are in somewhat of a transitional era with regards to Open Source. As it gains traction and is used in new ways it will almost always cross paths with closed source software, licensing restrictions, patents, etc.
One thing I'd like to clarify though; you're pretty close to hitting on what I meant about providing a low end, open source driver vs. high performance binary but not quite. I don't want to see all the "good stuff" come out for just Windows either. Another post in this thread said something along the lines of "if you want a stable ABI, buy Red Hat Enterprise". I think that's a good point. I would not mind seeing ATI/NVIDIA or any other hardware vendor continue to provide binary only drivers for products like Red Hat Enterprise or SUSE Server. Heck, charge for them if it helps cut down on their own costs. People need to run a business and I'm not all altruism and do it because you should.
I just want them to provide a simple OS driver that could live in the base kernel tree as provided by kernel.org and could be used and toyed with by a simple home user like myself. I beleive it is the Red Hat's and Novell's of the world that should respond to demands from hardware makers for a stable ABI/API to base their products on, not the guys working for free on the kernel. Then it becomes business A and business B working symbiotically for their own benefits, similar to how it works in the closed source world now.
Free software developers do what they want and do it because they like to. No amount of success or interest by end users should force them to change that. I'd go so far as to say that the minute you put demands and obligations on these same coders you will see a serious drop in both quality and quantity of code. Does that make for a good business model? Hell no. Does it make for great software? Definately yes!
Granted you have some valid points here and I don't claim to have all the answers. And for what it's worth AMD seems to be competing fine on the merits of their product without having to steal from Intel. Free hardware is a tough issue to handle, especially bleeding edge, revolutionary stuff. But how many features of a modern graphics card are really that secret? I'm asking, I'm honestly ignorant on this. It seems to me that if you can write a software interface that provides an API to commonly used graphics methods (Open GL for example) then there is an awful lot about graphics cards that are similar. The vesa driver for X is another example. Is there no way for ATI or NVIDIA to put out open source drivers that handle most of what their cards do but stop short of releasing a code interface to their latest, greatest super secret method for displaying bits?
Using your network card example; in the name of interoperability are you unable to put out a driver that makes your uber sexy network card behave like a plain old Ethernet card? Maybe I want to standardize on your hardware for purchasing purposes but will need to run it in a mixed environment. So I want your binary drivers for Windows but I have a Linux Bind server and a FreeBSD firewall that I would like to be able to outfit with your card as well. Is there nothing a shop can do to accomodate me, provide source so I can upgrade my OS when needed and still hang on to thier precious IP?
I just want something from ATI that is a) portable (source included that is) and b) gives a little better performance then the vesa driver. If the SuperBitBlt function of the card is just too juicy to give away then don't include that functionality in the driver.
Maybe I'm being naive here and making it sound easier then it is. Alternatively I just wish that if ATI and NVIDIA don't want to participate in open source development that they just wouldn't bother at all. But since they have a virtual duopoly on the video market right now I guess we wouldn't be able to run OSS on anything without them.
Agreed. And I didn't mean for my post to come across as another typical "it's free damn it, if you don't like it build your own kernel" rant.
I just don't understand where people come off dictating what should or shouldn't happen to free software based on the needs of ATI, NVIDIA or any other commercial entity that tries to reap the benefits of free software all the while snubbing the development model that makes it possible in the first place.
Now you could argue that ATI and NVIDIA don't really get much out of providing open source drivers with their hardware. That the Linux community doesn't amount to enough of a market to change their numbers, one way or the other. But if this is so why provide drivers at all? Clearly their is enough demand that they felt the need to shut people up by giving them something. Is that all it is? A "fine, here, now leave us alone". Or do they get something more out of it? A "works on Linux!" sticker on the side of their packaging? I just don't get the need to provide something but do so in a way that pits one Linux distro against another or locks people into a single version of the kernel and the long wait until the next version comes along.
I've used both ATI's and NVIDIA's binary drivers in an effort to appease new users who felt they were missing out without them. But it sucks. It sucks on so many levels.
The conspiracy theorist in me posits that ATI and NVIDIA put these binary messes out there just to make the Linux community look fragmented and behind the times. Rather then acknowledge that they don't want to participate in this type of development model they throw a half hearted attempt at supporting Linux using "my way or the highway" type tactics. And time and again I hear "Linux sucks because I can't use X with it".
Anyway, your point about stability and maintenance for true OS developers is quite right and a hell of lot more on topic then my rants. Mine is a knee jerk reaction to someone saying "they MUST do x, they owe it to us". Nobody owes anyone anything, this is the beauty of free (as in freedom) software.
As you say most people become concerned about patents when it affects them. But with all the litigation going on these days, especially in the tech industry, I think the number of people affected, and therefore possibly willing to contribute to this, is quite large. And it's not just company X getting sued that affects people. Sure company X is going to go all out to use this tool to their advantage and even contribute some knowledge back to it. Things really snowball though when a) affected end users become concerned, b) affected side markets become concerned (e.g. makers of Blackberry cases and accessories) and c) developers of software/services around a disputed technology become concerned. As a peer post pointed out the number of people on /. (and I would add Groklaw) alone who are willing to debunk bogus patents is a formidable force.
Although it's becoming cliché and tired at this point there is some truth to the "many eyeballs" line of reasoning. And debunking patent applications scratches the same type of itch in some people that hunting for security vulnerabilities and bugs does. Security researchers come in many forms so I won't generalize too much but a number of them do it for the sheer satisfaction of finding and reporting a vulnerability and the "cool factor" that comes with it. IMHO a lot of pro researchers and laymen alike would love a chance to participate in a system like this for patents.
I am sure we can fair and unbiased, especially when it comes to software patents.
I know your not new here, so I'l skip that joke. You sound so serious so I don't smell a joke on your side. Ah yes, it must be sarcasm! That's the only reason I can think of that the words "slashdot", "unbiased" and "patent" could end up in the same sentance.
I do hope that someone has patented this wonderful new technology!
(sorry, couldn't resist).
Most people want Linux to start playing in the same space as Windows (well, at least OSX) in terms of user numbers.
"Most people" meaning all the people that want Linux to just work without giving anything to it to make it better. The folks who want a free (as in beer) Windows. Don't get me wrong, I love that fact that my Mom uses Linux and she doesn't give anything back to it. And I honestly can't say I am a major OS contributor other then advocacy and local support for my community but I also have no interest in "commercial" Linux. If my primary source of income was based around the future of the kernel you bet I would pay to contribute. And I would do so on the grounds laid out by the kernel developers.
As far as I'm concerned Linux is already successful because a lot of people use it, as is, and get a lot out of it. Hell if Linus continues to use it and no one else in the world does I would still consider it a success. He wrote it to use, not to sell.
No, non OS drivers are not "evil". Expecting a bunch of developers to support you, as in "stabilize your ABI, you owe it to us", is not really evil either. I consider evil to be too strong a word when talking about drivers. But it is inane and idiotic for these companies to expect anyone serious about software development to give a rat's ass whether or not their closed source drivers work with an open source kernel. They know how the Linux development model works and they are invited, nay *encouraged*, to participate in it. They choose not to, instead trying to keep one foot on the shore of their old "IP" business and the other tentatively placed on the OS side hoping that somehow people will respect them as part of the community. If they choose not to join the project and play by the rules that were established by the project members how then are they entitled to, in any way, steer the future of that development model?
The operating system MUST provide a standarized [sic] API.
People who code free software MUST not do anything unless they feel like it. Sure some of them might get paid by Company X to develop Driver Y or Application Z but they do so on the shoulders of what's already been put in place by free software developers.
If Linus and the rest of the kernel developers decide at some point to provide an ABI that proprietary companies can use to build their drivers, all the while clinging to their dated business methodologies and obsession with "IP", then great, that's their choice. It might take a Herculean effort to get all those copyright holders to agree and do it but if they can then that's up to them.
Conversely, if they choose not to, they under no obligation to provide anything. Nobody on the kernel team, IMHO, ever got together and said "we need to start coding and provide some free software so companies with no interest in participating in the process can take our free software and make some money selling hardware". They do it for themselves, their friends and family, their community. Whether or not ATI and NVIDIA want to be a member of that community entitles them to exactly nothing.
Hey thanks. I was just making a (lame) Debian joke :-) but I was actually considering grabbing source and trying it out. I'll try this instead...
I think there is a definate need for a more userfriendly version of VIM
"Vim is user friendly, it's just picky about who it's freinds are."
Seriously, if you want a "user friendly" text editor use gnotepad, gedit, kate or any other GUI editor for Linux. Or nano, pico or ee on the command line.
Vim is just fine the way it is, especially considering that there are plenty of alternatives if you don't like it's interface.
I guess I can look forward to getting a package sometime in 2007 :-)
Yep I was ready to don my fire retardent suit, break out the big guns and issue a hearty "and so it begins again!". But I cought myself and remembered we're here todoy to flame mac users (or is it fear mongering corporations?), not rehash the editor wars.
Bummer.
Yes but if this program truly roots your box wouldn't it be trivial for it to output realistic looking but bogus data to ethereal or tcpdump? That's what I thought the second computer mentioned above is for...
When Microsoft entered a market late in the past, they always could leverage their market position. It was easier to use the already installed IE then to download another browser...
:-)
Yes but you could easily and logically carry that to the next step and say "because MSN search will be the default home page in IE7 they will draw a number of users who simply find it easiest to keep it that way". Heck, my Mom used IE for a couple of years before she realized she could even change the homepage. I would guess that this "default page" strategy will attract at least some portion of advertisers. If nothing else I could see a lot of them investing in all three (google, yahoo and msn).
Right now (or last I checked anyway) the MSN portal page is the default home page for IE. If MS decides to make their new search page the default in IE7 then that may attract some attention. So I would look for an uptake in MS search based advertising when Vista is released... sometime around or after 2010 that is.
Well they do now. You insensitive clod! :-) jk
Actually, according to the EULA...
My understanding is an OEM copy of Windows is not transferrable to another machine. Nor are you eliglble for the upgrade price of a newer version of Windows.
Although not straight from the horses mouth per se, this article has some interesting Q and A's on this...
www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
If you buy the full retail version then I believe you are correct, the license is transferrable, if limited to one machine.
My favorite work around is to get these guys to send me as many copies of their OS as I need. By post. For free (as in beer:-)