Jim Henderson wrote:
> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think 
> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)

Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on Vista. 
But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken. They've 
had several notable failures, including Vista. People just didn't upgrade to 
Vista like one might expect.

> It's the old upgrade treadmill.

You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:05:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think
>> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you?
>> ;-)
> 
> Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on
> Vista. But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken.
> They've had several notable failures, including Vista. People just
> didn't upgrade to Vista like one might expect.

I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
money getting people to upgrade.  Is it as much as if they'd done a good 
job with Vista?  Probably not.  But they'll make it worth *their* while.

>> It's the old upgrade treadmill.
> 
> You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
> 3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,
> 
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."

awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
>> add some other instead?
> 
> You have to make the source available to at least the people you 
> distribute it to.

So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it 
stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that 
company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail 
to see the problem.

And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of 
that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:25:40 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source
>>> and add some other instead?
>> 
>> You have to make the source available to at least the people you
>> distribute it to.
> 
> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
> to see the problem.

Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
provide the company with the code.

> And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of
> that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Well, it is a little different, in that the employee doing the work is 
generally going to be required to turn ownership over to their employer.  
As a contractor, though, you'd be required by the GPL to do the same.

But if you were to be doing that as a matter of practice, you should 
consult with a laywer who specializes specifically in the GPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
> money getting people to upgrade. 

Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
> to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
> fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to upgrade. 
You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different product.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:11:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
>> money getting people to upgrade.
> 
> Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

Same here. :-)

>> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you
>> want to run the newest software (games in particular) or have
>> particular bugs fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
> 
> Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to
> upgrade. You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different
> product.

For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 
- ultimately pushing the existing product out of support.  (To MS' 
credit, they don't do this very quickly and it seems to be set early in 
the cycle).

Want DX10 on XP?  They laugh at you (from what I recall, though some 
enterprising individual figured out a workaround IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
>> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
>> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
>> to see the problem.
> 
> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
> incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
> provide the company with the code.

(1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd, 
unless the whole smash is to be distributed.

(2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the 
company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly 
get to providing them with the source code?? :-P


But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in 
order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the 
company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to 
redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).

Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 

Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah. That's 
more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of person who 
has a computer so you can once a month check your email and occasionally 
maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital snapshot camera, 
chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a non-networked computer 
running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably not going to upgrade until 
you change the lab equipment.

If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll 
likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system.  It's currently at version
>> 3.1415926.  According to the Wikipedia page,
>>
>> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final 
>> change (to be
>> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at 
>> which
>> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
> 
> awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message