____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 07 August 2007 12:04 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ [H]omer on Monday 06 August 2007 15:15 : \____
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Monday 06 August 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>>>> ____/ Stephen Fairchild on Saturday 04 August 2007 22:28 : \____
>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> They can't stay with XP forever. It's from 2001. It's very
>>>>>>>> outdated. Have you seen the depths of KDE 4 yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the same KDE 4 that's being ported to windows? Bit of
>>>>>>> an own goal don't you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as I vehemently despise Windows, KDE is Free software, and
>>>>> as such it is not for me, you, or anyone else to dictate how it is
>>>>> used (within the terms of the GPL). If that means someone ports it
>>>>> to Windows, colours it bright pink, then uses it to destroy planet
>>>>> earth ... then so be it.
>>>>
>>>> The reason why many people move to Linux is escape from
>>>> lock-in/evil/viruses/whatever. If you give all killer Linux apps
>>>> (even Compiz-fusuion) to Windows, that won't be bad for Linux
>>>> adoption. Au contraire --- think about the main Linux adoption peril.
>>>
>>> Yes, I recall a similar debate quite recently, where I surmised that one
>>> of two outcomes would be likely, either:
>>>
>>> a) ... Free Software on Windows familiarises Windows users with those
>>> apps, and hence makes the transition to Linux easier and more
>>> likely, or ...
>>> b) ... Apathy dissuades people from switching, since they now have most
>>> of what they need.
>>>
>>> However, scenario b) is less likely IMHO, since they would still have
>>> the bloated, insecure, buggy, and virus prone Windows framework to
>>> contend with. But then scenario a) may suffer the same fate (apathy)
>>> since PCs invariably come pre-installed with Windows.
>>>
>>> Overall, yes I agree that keeping Free software off the Windows platform
>>> would be a better strategy, but then I can't help feeling it would be
>>> hypocrisy to pro-actively advocate that people cannot use Free software
>>> any way they wish (within the word and the *spirit* of the GPL).
>>>
>>> That does give me pause for thought over the Tivo effect, however. Here
>>> is a clear case of an abuse of trust, an exploitation, and the very real
>>> effect of inhibiting those who use and contribute to Free software from
>>> actually *using* that Free software within the full remit of that
>>> license and philosophy (i.e. allow modifications that work on the
>>> hardware those modifications were designed for). Could Microsoft do
>>> something similar with Free software running under Windows? I did hear
>>> something along the lines of Windows limits the amount of memory which
>>> can be allocated to (IIRC) Cygwin apps. Perhaps you can find the
>>> citation (I'm all Googled out today). :)
>>
>> There were 2-3 threads about this. I first posted this when it was initially
>> published. A few months later this turned out not to be true, so I posted a
>> correction.
>
> There are any number of examples of the Tivoisation problem abounding,
> with all kinds of devices out there which, even if they can be reflashed
> or given a second boot option, still prevent the user from being able to
> run the original application unless the exact stack remains in place.
>
> This is essentially retaining lock-in, whilst using GPLed code in order
> to do so, which is the bit I find more than a little offensive.
>
> I've no particular objection to companies or organisations who wish to
> offer binary-only applications, but I just don't accept that they should
> be able to gain platform lock-in using GPLed components.
>
>>
>>> Who knows what Microsoft have planned for the future of the so-called
>>> (and manically named) TC / TCG / LaGrande / NGSCB / Palladium / TCPA /
>>> Acronym of the month? Could there be a Tivo-esque implementation of a
>>> Fritz chip conspiring with the above technologies to lock out certain
>>> Free Software?
>>
>> Like DRM, HD, XAML, OOXML, XPS and other standards /du jour/, they are all
>> patented moving targets that give Microsoft more control. The EU was told by
>> many companies including giants like IBM that this was anticompetitive and
>> that Vista should be made illegal in Europe. But who would confront The
>> Beast?
>
> Although there is an interesting issue here, which is that software
> patents do not apply in Europe, so these things are not necessarily as
> anti-competitive in Europe as they are in Australia, Canada, the US and
> Mexico. The anti-competitive nature of these should also be raised in
> each of those geogphraphies, too.
>
>>
>>> WGA has probably already pushed many people over the edge, and into the
>>> welcoming arms of GNU/Linux, would the above maneuver be the final nail
>>> in Microsoft's coffin? Would they dare actually implement such a
>>> strategy? It's surprising how vicious (and foolish) a cornered rat can be.
>>
>> I think our best weapon now is public awareness. If more people looked
>> beyond Forbes and other Microsoft shill outlets, nobody would stay with
>> Microsoft, _as a matter of principle_ even. Hey, check this one out...
>>
>> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/08/06/novell-puppet/ (posted minutes ago)
>>
>
> This is going to become ever more unpleasant, as Microsoft need to find
> a new business model to replace their old proprietary one.
It has already said so (last week), it tries, and so far it struggles to make a
transition. It requires 5-10 years to bear fruits (if any)... that's their
argument, or an argument of an analyst that follows Microsoft.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
07:00:01 up 1 day, 9:53, 6 users, load average: 2.07, 2.20, 1.50
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
