There were obvious issues with the company before Jobs came back. The lack of a decent OS (which Apple bought from Jobs), a bad series of high level executives that didn't know how to focus the company (not that another would not have done so and to say otherwise is to preach Apple's future doom) hurt Apple's future potential. Job's simply refocused on specific efforts, he got Gates to loan some money and continue to commit software development efforts, and brought his OS with him. This didn't happen overnight. It took years while building the right management team. Chrysler had the same resurgence with Lee Iacocca. And if it hadn't been for the rest of the industry turning down the developer of the iPod Apple would not be where they are today. So, hard work, a refocus, a new OS, a loan from Gates, and the serendipity of matching the iPod with a new 1.5" drive gave Apple it's resurgence. Jobs played a big part as a leader and was tremendously successful at redirecting the company focusing on products that were bound to benefit Apple (I'm sure there were many projects that were also of great potential that were killed). He was not a guru and through his ill temper and manipulation did he get people to serve him.
So, give him credit, but realize that there's a bit of distorted reality in how some here present what Job's did.
The fallacy of Woz's argument is that closed equates to quality. It does not. They have no relationship. I've wielded a Mac since the early days. Even today it is obvious there are quality issues abounding in OS X. Open one of their computers up one day and observe the components, look for blown capacitors, look at the obscure designs of the boards, and KNOW THIS, they are using regular PC components and technology and have been for a long time.
This isn't to say that LONGER development cycles don't add to quality, they do. Apple couldn't survive with release early and often.
If that's their strategy and if you actually believe they are making it easy for you to get your own media is in line with that, then we can all say "long lived Microsoft" now instead of wasting our time waiting for it.
It's more pig with lipstick and a wool sweater this time. I see it as nothing more than their attempt to create a pet pig for those willing to clean up the shit where ever it may fall.
Are we all really taking Win 8 seriously? At this point shouldn't we all be considering some other alternative? There's so much effort being focused at lock in and their ability control things that we really would be better served looking for something else, be it a Mac, or Linux or something other than an effort to lock us in.
I mean seriously, all of us here are wise enough to understand Microsoft's efforts. Why is it not possible for you all to think out of the box in order to understand that this is the end-of-life for Windows. They can't seem to come up with anything better. Really, they can't come up with anything better than what they call the metro interface? No safe mode? Only full screen apps? One app at a time?
Products like the Mac and Linux will be steamrolling Microsoft in a few years. How can so many people at Microsoft be so blind that they can't see the inevitable brick wall ahead and the steam roller behind? What they never open their eyes or turn their heads?
If the media didn't go after the biggest target then we'd know they were taking money to write positive stories. They probably are anyway. I don't like reading stories that are positive about tech companies, or any for that matter, for that means they are hanging their towels in the same sweat lodge.
Total tool of the RIAA. There's no proof of anything being said. You guys modded them and insightful? Have you not even read the news about Megaupload.com in the months prior to this raid?
So many fools. The owners of Megaupload.com were not making copyrighted material available. The users were. Megaupload.com provided adequate and tools and time for the alleged content owners to take down the alleged illegal content. They were going after Megaupload.com for a couple of reasons. Primarily they were going to be introducing a music sharing system for artists that was far greater than any provided by the music industry as it exists. As well, Megaupload.com sued some in the music industry for illegally taking down content with the tools that Megaupload.com provided them. Let's get real.
Megaupload.com is a failure (so far) in regards to defending itself in court over these charges. They have money they should have the best attorneys, and they should be promoting their lawsuit against those in the music industry. They should spend their money on attorneys and when they are found to be innocent, begin again and sue the shit out of the RIAA.
No, though Android is *** T W O H U N D R E D M I L L I O N *** strong, adding that many each year, Android is not included.
Linux has approximately 100 million installed desktops. This accounts for roughly 4-5% of the total desktop market world-wide.
No, Linux end-users are just those people that use Linux for their day to day. No need to make special dispensation to them. There is absolutely no need to be a hacker to understand anything about Linux to use it. Everyone, can just sit down and use it and know what to do. People that try Linux and find that it is like any other desktop manager are no different than those that try OS X and find that it is no different than any other desktop manager.
No special definitions are necessary. People that use Linux are moms and pops, your sisters, their children, your uncles and grandfathers and the like.
95% of Linux users are end-users. Only a tiny percentage (not even 5%) of Linux users today are hackers. There are nearly 100 million installs of Linux world-wide across all distributions. If you count Android there are almost 200 million new users a year. I'm not counting those in the 95% of Linux users are end-users.
This is somewhat misleading. It is possible to just create an apt-url that does everything he's listing there. Meaning....that a single click of a button on a web page can begin this same process via the GUI. You can see an example on omgubuntu.co.uk on the link to install Juk. It is simple. Click the button, and enter your password in the follow up security prompt then OK to continue again to complete. Seriously, he's giving this example as a way of making Linux look like it needs to have a series of complex commands issued at the command-line.
You can see this by his exaggeration of the commands to be executed where he does the update twice and does the install twice. Even in his example the update is needed only once and you can install both programs with one command. Technically he can accomplish all of it with a single command pasted from a web page into a terminal window where you only need to hit enter and give it your admin password.
And, even so, even if there is no apt-url available many sites give a single command for adding the repo and adding the key. Then it's just a matter of a single command to update and install.
That's more hacking rather than using. I think you are pointing out hacking code as a power process instead of USERS that push their computers and know how it all comes together in order to make a more powerful efficient desktop and applications.
You can immediately start using quality software under Linux the moment you have the desktop after your first install. The same goes for just about any OS. The moment you get to the desktop you can bring up a word processor and start writing a letter or you can bring up a spreadsheet and begin a budget, or you can launch your browser and watch Hulu or youtube flash videos, or write an email, or chat, or make phone calls.
In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.
And, technically there really are very few Linux variants (the underpinnings may be varied but they are all based on the same things). Technically what differentiates a distro isn't what one has over the other but what one distro chooses to implement (AS DEFAULT) that the others chose not to. Meaning, it's all the same, it's all in the choices the distribution made, but it's all the same. KDE for this and that distro, yet not maybe not for the third. Mate for everyone except this one. Unity on just a single distro, but all the other choices for this feature are readily available--just pick something else. Gnome 3 for about 50% and readily available for 100% of distributions. And it's ALL FREE.
So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.
Listen, if you can't figure out before you download then you are in trouble. Your point is so ludicrous. It's like saying that someone has to buy 20-30 homes before they find the one they are comfortable living in, or that they have to buy 20-30 cars before they find one that fits their style.
People have other ways to find this stuff out. There are plenty of reviews of distributions of Linux, of desktop managers for those distributions, and of applications in those distributions. This gives everyone a great idea of what will work for them, something they'll be happy with, long before they even download a single byte.
I was playing a MMORPG and mentioned in global chat that I run that game under Linux. Immediately people began talking about it. Some said they love it to death and others said they'd given it a try and wanted to get out from under Microsoft, but had problems. I explained that today i can run the game by simply double clicking on the.exe file, and I suggested how they might get it to work properly. The visuals and performance are near identical to when it is run under Windows.
My point is that there were so many people interested, so many people speaking positively about it. In the rather lengthy conversation there was not a single negativism by a Windows fanboi). That's a huge step forward. Linux really is that easy to use. If you are stuck on a certain product and can't use something else then a Macintosh wouldn't work for you either. And if you can't get something to run under Wine or in VirtualBox then well, nothing will ever be good enough for you.
KDE has a lot of polish, though some of the defaults are still poorly chosen. The desktop view vs folder view choice they make is stupid. Another stupid choice is single click with the mouse. There are quite a few pieces of polish that's needed though you can't expect total change to happen over night. One can make an excellent and outstanding desktop that's beautiful, friendly and highly usable with little to no need for customization.
For those fanbois here ragging on the command line. Well, for many years that's all we had. We only had the command line on the intel/DOS platform. The GUI didn't exist. All through the 70s and most of the 80s that's what we had. People still were able to launch their programs, back up their data, and do just about everything they do today at the command line. Granted each application was designed differently and you had to learn each application's way of doing things. And for about another decade we lived with the command line underlying Windows 3.x, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, NT4 as well as a lot of command line use under Win2k and even WinXP. Today there are just as many people using the command line in Windows every day as there are under Linux.
For the last 5 years there has been almost no need to do anything at the command line in Linux. Most everything is available for the GUI in Linux.
It's just that it is often EASIER to do things at the command line. For instance, it is easier to do support at the command line then it is to instruct people on 5+ steps to getting something done in a GUI. If you had a choice, and you supported units, where you had to tell someone calling you for help to execute one or two commands at the command line vs. 5-10 commands in a GUI (where the user knew little about computers) you'd choose the command line, primarily due to the fact that it is easier to verify that the customer has the right command rather than relying on them to accurately portray where they are in the GUI after you gave them the last 5 steps to complete. A perfect example of this would be to release and renew your IP address, and to do this on a non-administrative account.
I find it misleading because it is misleading. Every legit installation of Windows costs someone and ultimately that cost is transferred to the consumer. When you buy that computer with Windows you are paying EXTRA. You can't go to HP and say "I want that computer without windows". You can't say that to Best Buy. You are stuck. The cost of Windows is included in the cost of the computer. Saying anything else is misleading and fraudulent (if you are in the business of selling computers to businesses or consumers).
The cost of Windows may be $20 for the OEM but it is sold at a mark up of nearly $50 or more (as per when Dell used to allow you to prove you hadn't agreed to the EULA and wanted a refund -- which they do no longer). AND the LOWEST cost for an upgrade of Windows 7 (single user upgrade) is $120.00 (we need not haggle over a penny here or there).
There's the doctrine of first sale which says that if you bought it you can resell it. I don't need to resell Linux. I can just give it away. I won't be violating anyone's license just by giving it away or by installing it hundreds of times on people's computers. MICROSOFT's warning was that you can have your right to use it yanked and they can refuse to allow you to continue to use it for any reason at any time. This cannot ever happen under Linux. Microsoft is trying to make it clear that they are licensing it to you and that they will enforce their license including and not limited to forcing you to agree to give up a right to a class action lawsuit (and other despicable onerous restrictions) and your ability to transfer your license to others. What you are describing is far different than what I pointed out initially. Why would I ever want to go with a license that restricts my rights to use a piece of software, to give it away, to install it as many times as I want, and especially one that limits my remedy under the law just because i clicked something that says I agree "to a long complex highly confusing nearly indeciperable" EULA.
The GPL does not limit me like Microsoft's EULA. I can do just about anything I want with the code. And not all Linux products are licenses under the GPL. Technically I can do absolutely anything I want with any piece of software under the GPL, including installing it hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of times without a second thought. I can include it in any product for any reason and any use and not be in violation of the GPL as long as I give back my changes to the original creators of the code (if I made changes to their code and distributed the product) and as long as i made the code available in some way to those using the product.
I think you mistake the GPL for something it is not. Yes it is restrictive in that it is intended to ensure entities (and individuals) give back to the original creators those changes that you made when you modified and used their software, and that you give end users (that want to use it access to the source code) source code access. This is a far far cry from the restrictive agreements that Microsoft is trying to point out via their PROCLAMATION that you are licensing the application (Windows), and that has everything to do with what I was pointing out. Linux doesn't claim to own your install. Microsoft does, even if it means implementing onerous spyware for the federal government or just hating on you and forcing you to stop using it.
Windows does not come free on new desktops. I find you saying that misleading. Microsoft gets paid for every copy of Windows. The OEMs pay Microsoft and mark it up to you via the price of the whole computer.
The cost of the hardware comes down but the cost of Windows never does. It will continue to remain $50 or more for OEM preinstalls and $120 for the lowest upgrade retail copy.
Keep in mind that Microsoft just put out a public reminder that you do not own that copy installed on your computer.
My post was not off topic. It was about their downfall. It was inevitable, as inevitable as any fight against innovation. Kodak had a lot of IP and could have licensed or exerted back then. In other words they had the tools of the day to kill their competition, just like the RIAA AND MPAA, though it is inevitable those two will fall also, because they fight rather than embrace change.
Today with the MPAA and RIAA bribing (err lobbying) Capital Hill to protect them (protectionism), and the patent system being used to kill innovation, to kill competition, one has to wonder why Kodak had the issue they had. Why didn't they just exert that they needed to keep their business alive (because it would save jobs) and get Congress to block any new technologies that created competition and that took jobs away. Hell, Kodak was the start of a whole industry. Their technology was taken and used by virtually every company that came out with a digital alternative.
I just can't see why they couldn't fight against their competition through lobbying efforts on Capital Hill. Really, what is the issue here? They should have been pushing to protect their IP instead they let everyone with a modicum intelligence with new modern business models run them into the ground. Kodak could have done more. Now they are virtually dead and it didn't take too long to make that happen--only a couple decades.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, but it does ring true in some regards. They were too slow to react to the digital craze, but not so slow that they didn't enter the field nor have a chance to produce something. There are players in their arena that started long after they went digital.
Maybe they didn't protect their shareholder value the way the MPAA and RIAA are, nor how Microsoft is with their offshoot corporation "Intellectual Ventures". Hell, Microsoft is taking every strategy in the playbook to attack open source right now. You can see they are running scared (or trying to buy time to build something innovative again (only I don't believe they have innovation in their soul)).
Apple tried to license their firewire. The issue with it was that they wanted too much per chip. The industry responded with an alternative. Now the alternative is light years ahead of Apple's technology and Apple is now licensing it.
What the bullshit part is that some of these patents have become overly broad allowing companies such as Apple to stifle even the alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
There were obvious issues with the company before Jobs came back. The lack of a decent OS (which Apple bought from Jobs), a bad series of high level executives that didn't know how to focus the company (not that another would not have done so and to say otherwise is to preach Apple's future doom) hurt Apple's future potential. Job's simply refocused on specific efforts, he got Gates to loan some money and continue to commit software development efforts, and brought his OS with him. This didn't happen overnight. It took years while building the right management team. Chrysler had the same resurgence with Lee Iacocca. And if it hadn't been for the rest of the industry turning down the developer of the iPod Apple would not be where they are today. So, hard work, a refocus, a new OS, a loan from Gates, and the serendipity of matching the iPod with a new 1.5" drive gave Apple it's resurgence. Jobs played a big part as a leader and was tremendously successful at redirecting the company focusing on products that were bound to benefit Apple (I'm sure there were many projects that were also of great potential that were killed). He was not a guru and through his ill temper and manipulation did he get people to serve him.
So, give him credit, but realize that there's a bit of distorted reality in how some here present what Job's did.
The fallacy of Woz's argument is that closed equates to quality. It does not. They have no relationship. I've wielded a Mac since the early days. Even today it is obvious there are quality issues abounding in OS X. Open one of their computers up one day and observe the components, look for blown capacitors, look at the obscure designs of the boards, and KNOW THIS, they are using regular PC components and technology and have been for a long time.
This isn't to say that LONGER development cycles don't add to quality, they do. Apple couldn't survive with release early and often.
If that's their strategy and if you actually believe they are making it easy for you to get your own media is in line with that, then we can all say "long lived Microsoft" now instead of wasting our time waiting for it.
It's more pig with lipstick and a wool sweater this time. I see it as nothing more than their attempt to create a pet pig for those willing to clean up the shit where ever it may fall.
Are we all really taking Win 8 seriously? At this point shouldn't we all be considering some other alternative? There's so much effort being focused at lock in and their ability control things that we really would be better served looking for something else, be it a Mac, or Linux or something other than an effort to lock us in.
I mean seriously, all of us here are wise enough to understand Microsoft's efforts. Why is it not possible for you all to think out of the box in order to understand that this is the end-of-life for Windows. They can't seem to come up with anything better. Really, they can't come up with anything better than what they call the metro interface? No safe mode? Only full screen apps? One app at a time?
Products like the Mac and Linux will be steamrolling Microsoft in a few years. How can so many people at Microsoft be so blind that they can't see the inevitable brick wall ahead and the steam roller behind? What they never open their eyes or turn their heads?
If the media didn't go after the biggest target then we'd know they were taking money to write positive stories. They probably are anyway. I don't like reading stories that are positive about tech companies, or any for that matter, for that means they are hanging their towels in the same sweat lodge.
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
Do I need to say more?
Convicted monopolist maybe?
Easy solution. Just make them turn sideways.
Anyway I am appalled at the TSA for everything they've done, not just them trying to block the news coverage of this story.
Some organized campaign of astroturfing is taking place in this thread. You can see that when those attempting to clarify are modded down.
Total tool of the RIAA. There's no proof of anything being said. You guys modded them and insightful? Have you not even read the news about Megaupload.com in the months prior to this raid?
So many fools. The owners of Megaupload.com were not making copyrighted material available. The users were. Megaupload.com provided adequate and tools and time for the alleged content owners to take down the alleged illegal content. They were going after Megaupload.com for a couple of reasons. Primarily they were going to be introducing a music sharing system for artists that was far greater than any provided by the music industry as it exists. As well, Megaupload.com sued some in the music industry for illegally taking down content with the tools that Megaupload.com provided them. Let's get real.
Megaupload.com is a failure (so far) in regards to defending itself in court over these charges. They have money they should have the best attorneys, and they should be promoting their lawsuit against those in the music industry. They should spend their money on attorneys and when they are found to be innocent, begin again and sue the shit out of the RIAA.
No, though Android is *** T W O H U N D R E D M I L L I O N *** strong, adding that many each year, Android is not included.
Linux has approximately 100 million installed desktops. This accounts for roughly 4-5% of the total desktop market world-wide.
No, Linux end-users are just those people that use Linux for their day to day. No need to make special dispensation to them. There is absolutely no need to be a hacker to understand anything about Linux to use it. Everyone, can just sit down and use it and know what to do. People that try Linux and find that it is like any other desktop manager are no different than those that try OS X and find that it is no different than any other desktop manager.
No special definitions are necessary. People that use Linux are moms and pops, your sisters, their children, your uncles and grandfathers and the like.
95% of Linux users are end-users. Only a tiny percentage (not even 5%) of Linux users today are hackers. There are nearly 100 million installs of Linux world-wide across all distributions. If you count Android there are almost 200 million new users a year. I'm not counting those in the 95% of Linux users are end-users.
There is no spyware in Ubuntu nor any fork or incarnation of it. Never has been. Never will be.
This is somewhat misleading. It is possible to just create an apt-url that does everything he's listing there. Meaning....that a single click of a button on a web page can begin this same process via the GUI. You can see an example on omgubuntu.co.uk on the link to install Juk. It is simple. Click the button, and enter your password in the follow up security prompt then OK to continue again to complete. Seriously, he's giving this example as a way of making Linux look like it needs to have a series of complex commands issued at the command-line.
You can see this by his exaggeration of the commands to be executed where he does the update twice and does the install twice. Even in his example the update is needed only once and you can install both programs with one command. Technically he can accomplish all of it with a single command pasted from a web page into a terminal window where you only need to hit enter and give it your admin password.
And, even so, even if there is no apt-url available many sites give a single command for adding the repo and adding the key. Then it's just a matter of a single command to update and install.
That's more hacking rather than using. I think you are pointing out hacking code as a power process instead of USERS that push their computers and know how it all comes together in order to make a more powerful efficient desktop and applications.
That is another ludicrous statement.
You can immediately start using quality software under Linux the moment you have the desktop after your first install. The same goes for just about any OS. The moment you get to the desktop you can bring up a word processor and start writing a letter or you can bring up a spreadsheet and begin a budget, or you can launch your browser and watch Hulu or youtube flash videos, or write an email, or chat, or make phone calls.
In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.
And, technically there really are very few Linux variants (the underpinnings may be varied but they are all based on the same things). Technically what differentiates a distro isn't what one has over the other but what one distro chooses to implement (AS DEFAULT) that the others chose not to. Meaning, it's all the same, it's all in the choices the distribution made, but it's all the same. KDE for this and that distro, yet not maybe not for the third. Mate for everyone except this one. Unity on just a single distro, but all the other choices for this feature are readily available--just pick something else. Gnome 3 for about 50% and readily available for 100% of distributions. And it's ALL FREE.
So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.
Listen, if you can't figure out before you download then you are in trouble. Your point is so ludicrous. It's like saying that someone has to buy 20-30 homes before they find the one they are comfortable living in, or that they have to buy 20-30 cars before they find one that fits their style.
People have other ways to find this stuff out. There are plenty of reviews of distributions of Linux, of desktop managers for those distributions, and of applications in those distributions. This gives everyone a great idea of what will work for them, something they'll be happy with, long before they even download a single byte.
I was playing a MMORPG and mentioned in global chat that I run that game under Linux. Immediately people began talking about it. Some said they love it to death and others said they'd given it a try and wanted to get out from under Microsoft, but had problems. I explained that today i can run the game by simply double clicking on the .exe file, and I suggested how they might get it to work properly. The visuals and performance are near identical to when it is run under Windows.
My point is that there were so many people interested, so many people speaking positively about it. In the rather lengthy conversation there was not a single negativism by a Windows fanboi). That's a huge step forward. Linux really is that easy to use. If you are stuck on a certain product and can't use something else then a Macintosh wouldn't work for you either. And if you can't get something to run under Wine or in VirtualBox then well, nothing will ever be good enough for you.
KDE has a lot of polish, though some of the defaults are still poorly chosen. The desktop view vs folder view choice they make is stupid. Another stupid choice is single click with the mouse. There are quite a few pieces of polish that's needed though you can't expect total change to happen over night. One can make an excellent and outstanding desktop that's beautiful, friendly and highly usable with little to no need for customization.
For those fanbois here ragging on the command line. Well, for many years that's all we had. We only had the command line on the intel/DOS platform. The GUI didn't exist. All through the 70s and most of the 80s that's what we had. People still were able to launch their programs, back up their data, and do just about everything they do today at the command line. Granted each application was designed differently and you had to learn each application's way of doing things. And for about another decade we lived with the command line underlying Windows 3.x, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, NT4 as well as a lot of command line use under Win2k and even WinXP. Today there are just as many people using the command line in Windows every day as there are under Linux.
For the last 5 years there has been almost no need to do anything at the command line in Linux. Most everything is available for the GUI in Linux.
It's just that it is often EASIER to do things at the command line. For instance, it is easier to do support at the command line then it is to instruct people on 5+ steps to getting something done in a GUI. If you had a choice, and you supported units, where you had to tell someone calling you for help to execute one or two commands at the command line vs. 5-10 commands in a GUI (where the user knew little about computers) you'd choose the command line, primarily due to the fact that it is easier to verify that the customer has the right command rather than relying on them to accurately portray where they are in the GUI after you gave them the last 5 steps to complete. A perfect example of this would be to release and renew your IP address, and to do this on a non-administrative account.
I find it misleading because it is misleading. Every legit installation of Windows costs someone and ultimately that cost is transferred to the consumer. When you buy that computer with Windows you are paying EXTRA. You can't go to HP and say "I want that computer without windows". You can't say that to Best Buy. You are stuck. The cost of Windows is included in the cost of the computer. Saying anything else is misleading and fraudulent (if you are in the business of selling computers to businesses or consumers).
The cost of Windows may be $20 for the OEM but it is sold at a mark up of nearly $50 or more (as per when Dell used to allow you to prove you hadn't agreed to the EULA and wanted a refund -- which they do no longer). AND the LOWEST cost for an upgrade of Windows 7 (single user upgrade) is $120.00 (we need not haggle over a penny here or there).
There's the doctrine of first sale which says that if you bought it you can resell it. I don't need to resell Linux. I can just give it away. I won't be violating anyone's license just by giving it away or by installing it hundreds of times on people's computers. MICROSOFT's warning was that you can have your right to use it yanked and they can refuse to allow you to continue to use it for any reason at any time. This cannot ever happen under Linux. Microsoft is trying to make it clear that they are licensing it to you and that they will enforce their license including and not limited to forcing you to agree to give up a right to a class action lawsuit (and other despicable onerous restrictions) and your ability to transfer your license to others. What you are describing is far different than what I pointed out initially. Why would I ever want to go with a license that restricts my rights to use a piece of software, to give it away, to install it as many times as I want, and especially one that limits my remedy under the law just because i clicked something that says I agree "to a long complex highly confusing nearly indeciperable" EULA.
The GPL does not limit me like Microsoft's EULA. I can do just about anything I want with the code. And not all Linux products are licenses under the GPL. Technically I can do absolutely anything I want with any piece of software under the GPL, including installing it hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of times without a second thought. I can include it in any product for any reason and any use and not be in violation of the GPL as long as I give back my changes to the original creators of the code (if I made changes to their code and distributed the product) and as long as i made the code available in some way to those using the product.
I think you mistake the GPL for something it is not. Yes it is restrictive in that it is intended to ensure entities (and individuals) give back to the original creators those changes that you made when you modified and used their software, and that you give end users (that want to use it access to the source code) source code access. This is a far far cry from the restrictive agreements that Microsoft is trying to point out via their PROCLAMATION that you are licensing the application (Windows), and that has everything to do with what I was pointing out. Linux doesn't claim to own your install. Microsoft does, even if it means implementing onerous spyware for the federal government or just hating on you and forcing you to stop using it.
OK, so it is. I dare you to do something about it.
Windows does not come free on new desktops. I find you saying that misleading. Microsoft gets paid for every copy of Windows. The OEMs pay Microsoft and mark it up to you via the price of the whole computer.
The cost of the hardware comes down but the cost of Windows never does. It will continue to remain $50 or more for OEM preinstalls and $120 for the lowest upgrade retail copy.
Keep in mind that Microsoft just put out a public reminder that you do not own that copy installed on your computer.
My post was not off topic. It was about their downfall. It was inevitable, as inevitable as any fight against innovation. Kodak had a lot of IP and could have licensed or exerted back then. In other words they had the tools of the day to kill their competition, just like the RIAA AND MPAA, though it is inevitable those two will fall also, because they fight rather than embrace change.
Today with the MPAA and RIAA bribing (err lobbying) Capital Hill to protect them (protectionism), and the patent system being used to kill innovation, to kill competition, one has to wonder why Kodak had the issue they had. Why didn't they just exert that they needed to keep their business alive (because it would save jobs) and get Congress to block any new technologies that created competition and that took jobs away. Hell, Kodak was the start of a whole industry. Their technology was taken and used by virtually every company that came out with a digital alternative.
I just can't see why they couldn't fight against their competition through lobbying efforts on Capital Hill. Really, what is the issue here? They should have been pushing to protect their IP instead they let everyone with a modicum intelligence with new modern business models run them into the ground. Kodak could have done more. Now they are virtually dead and it didn't take too long to make that happen--only a couple decades.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, but it does ring true in some regards. They were too slow to react to the digital craze, but not so slow that they didn't enter the field nor have a chance to produce something. There are players in their arena that started long after they went digital.
Maybe they didn't protect their shareholder value the way the MPAA and RIAA are, nor how Microsoft is with their offshoot corporation "Intellectual Ventures". Hell, Microsoft is taking every strategy in the playbook to attack open source right now. You can see they are running scared (or trying to buy time to build something innovative again (only I don't believe they have innovation in their soul)).
One more link to a complete ecosystem. Who cares what the Windows fanbois think or say.
This is also Bullshit.
Apple tried to license their firewire. The issue with it was that they wanted too much per chip. The industry responded with an alternative. Now the alternative is light years ahead of Apple's technology and Apple is now licensing it.
What the bullshit part is that some of these patents have become overly broad allowing companies such as Apple to stifle even the alternatives.