Free Windows?

Café
#1

This above and a point you made earlier makes me think you contrast Linux and Windows based on cost – that Linux is free and Windows is not.

Windows can be free, if you don’t mind putting up with “You need to activate” watermarked over your desktop (and that most “Personalization” features are turned off). I have a bunch of Windows 10 installs (VMs) without activating. I can’t say this feature of Windows is well-known since it’s not published everywhere, but it’s not exactly hidden, either.

1 Like
Money -- Open Source & TW
#2

@TiddlyTweeter If you want me to split my last into a diff thread, let me know – it is a digression, after all. :blush:

1 Like
#3

“Let’s Get to the Facts”

  1. Freepremium is not free
  2. The open core business model is not the same as the free premium business model.
  3. Freepremium as the name suggests: something partially free with paid features. Generally, this partially free is something temporary around for example 1 year, 30 days etc. The company can cancel this type of contract at any time.
  4. The open core business model is not the same as the freepremium business model. This is due to the fact that in the open core business model - the free part is released with access to the source code. And in the case of freepremium, there is no code available and in addition it only lasts for a short/medium term.
  5. And the idea of ​​freepremium is to have free users to migrate to the paid plan - that’s all. Open core is similar to freepremium, but the difference is that the source code is released. And of course, depending on the company or community, it can be closed, closed according to the established term. But generally, this kind of thing doesn’t happen with open core, because who pays in most cases are companies/developers, so it ends up that the developers themselves continue the tool as a form of maintenance and with paid services exclusive to subscribers.
  6. I made this cost comparison because this is true. The distribution of linux(kernel) is not paid. There is nothing in the license that forces someone to pay for something within linux or any open source licensed technology.
  7. So yes i use linux on my servers because i don’t need to spend money. And that doesn’t imply that I have to pay any donations.
  8. About the desktop, my argument is this… I choose what I want, I have freedom of choice. So I don’t use linux on desktop because I don’t want to, I just don’t want to. Although, use smartphones, routers and servers with linux.
  9. What I said here is the extensibility argument, a product with more integrated services/products tends to be more recognized. A good example of this is Linux, Wordpress, Tiddlywiki(tiddlyhosts - several projects/plugins prove what I’m talking about)…
  10. Also, another argument I used is cost-benefit.
  11. There is a difference between foss and floss, as I said earlier that is the purpose: giving freedom to users(GPL etc) / giving freedom to developers (MIT, BSD etc).
  12. The license for this project is for developers, not users.
  13. To change the license of this project one would need the signatures of all members. Just a note… I’m not a member and I don’t care. I’m a developer and not a user.
  14. Linux(is free), Windows(is not free, is “freepremium”)

I hope I was cohesive/coherent/concise/logical with the point of view

#4

The license for which project?
TW is BSD 3-clause licensed. It’s the same for users and for developers.

#5

On the subject of free, cheap or paid. I do like the open source community for the mutual benefit virtuose circle it is.

Although, I am not shy of paying for something of good value be it commercial or community generated. I remember a friend’s father raving about his extremely well priced wine he bought a few cartons of at 69 cents a bottle. We sat and had a glass and all I could say was;

Its is low priced, but frankly I would spend more.

The main problem with proprietary software is when the licencing itself interferes with it use, for example if you want to test software in a Virtual machine, you should not need to pay again.

Microsoft addressed this somewhat through volume licencing agreement’s decades ago, at least for corporates. Fortunately Microsoft is much more enlightened now and provides a large volume of software and services, at little or no cost, free upgrades and much more. They are not perfect but nor are they as evil as they once were.

By the way you can get free windows in tiddlywiki now :nerd_face: with
WidgetMessage: tm-open-window
WidgetMessage: tm-open-external-window
WidgetMessage: tm-close-window
WidgetMessage: tm-close-all-windows

#6

Hi!.. BSD 3-clause is not GPL!

“1. The license for this project is for developers, not users.”
“2. To change the license of this project one would need the signatures of all members. Just a note… I’m not a member and I don’t care. I’m a developer and not a user.”

#7

thank you… ;D

#8
  1. either it’s 100% free or it’s not!
  2. actually what I mean is that there is no free lunch

I hope I was cohesive/coherent/concise/logical with the point of view

#9
  1. It’s one thing to be a developer, another to be a user.
  2. developer(servers, routers with linux).
  3. desktop(windows) and smartphone(linux).

I hope I was cohesive/coherent/concise/logical with the point of view

#10
part 1 for @TW_Tones

Microsoft is maybe adopting the “open core” model in the future, it’s more “easier to manage”, you don’t need to hire developers to continue the product.

Why?

  1. You don’t need to hire developers to continue the product.
  2. “Microsoft’s biggest competitors are Google and Amazon” - I saw it in an interview with the CEO of Xbox. But… why?
    • Both Google, Amazon, Microsoft work in the cloud… So… you don’t have source code for the server or important applications as Google Docs, Word, Microsoft Access, Powerpoint, Google Drive, Google Spreadsheets, Google Cloud etc… Lately these services/products are free premium and not opencore.
    • So… one way to beat freepremium products and/or services is to be open core as Microsoft for Google and Amazon. Why?
      • Both solutions/companies have many users: Google, Amazon, Microsoft.
      • But… any company or community is in a market of free competition, whoever does it most efficiently wins.
      • That would be Microsoft’s way to compete with Google and Amazon. Example… Microsoft Cloud Open core vs Google Cloud Freepremium vs Amazon Freepremium.
        • It is a form of profit on top of service maintenance and continuity. This view is for developers only, not users.
part 2 for @pmario
  1. Argument in favor of cost-benefit and extensibility that I talked about so much.
  2. Therefore, it is preferable to adopt the BSD 3-clause, MIT than the GPL. GPL is more restrictive, it’s for users. BSD 3-clause/MIT etc is for developers.
  3. The difference between free, freepremium, open core is this:
    • Free(GPL), freepremium(copyright), open core(MIT/BSD 3-clause etc).
    • You can’t prevent people from having proprietary software, so it makes sense to adopt MIT/BSD 3-clause rather than GPL.
    • Which is correct and referenced here.

      “The license for this project is for developers, not users.”

part 3 for @CodaCoder
  1. When I said that Windows is freepremium, I was referring to the fact that Windows must be licensed. So while some features are free, some are not free, other features you have to pay for.
    • Which is correct and referenced here.

      “Windows can be free, if you don’t mind putting up with “You need to activate” watermarked over your desktop (and that most “Personalization” features are turned off). I have a bunch of Windows 10 installs (VMs) without activating. I can’t say this feature of Windows is well-known since it’s not published everywhere, but it’s not exactly hidden, either.”

  2. From the user’s point of view, if you can do your daily activities and use your proprietary programs like Netflix etc - from the user point of view, Windows is freedom because it does what the user wants the operating system to do
  3. From a user and programmer point of view, BSD is for users and developers alike. But for the GNU free software community it is not. That’s why I said the phrase: “The license for this project is for developers, not users.”
  4. “Linux is used today for many things, but what makes linux free is the variety of companies that use linux.”
    • This has to do with the extensibility I mentioned.
    • This can be applied to Google Cloud, Amazon web services, windows etc.
    • I only mentioned Linux to emphasize the idea of extensibility.
  5. It’s easy to extend to any proprietary solution that’s if you’re MIT/BSD(GitHub etc) or just with libre software too (Linux) etc.

I hope I was cohesive/coherent/concise/logical with the point of view

#11

Uh, okay.

<outta-here />

#12

@CodaCoder

  1. As with everything in life, nothing is really free, linux receives many donations. In addition, it receives various sources of income such as certifications to keep the project active, etc.
  2. What I said is right, that is, Linux depends on many donations and forms of income sources to be an active project.
  3. This is because Linux is only active because many companies invest money in it, just like any open source project.
  4. This idea that I put here… reinforces the idea that we should look for ways to make money, whether with companies, people or government
  5. In addition, as you can see in the sentence, it refers to the idea that an open source product/service must have a purpose for which companies or people use

“1. What I said here is the extensibility argument, a product with more integrated services/products tends to be more recognized. A good example of this is Linux, Wordpress, Tiddlywiki(tiddlyhosts - several projects/plugins prove what I’m talking about)…”

and please this… again

“1. Part of the money that comes to linux is made by donations from companies or individuals.
2. Also, there are linux certifications to make people more qualified to teach or install linux correctly.
3. This is what gives linux its value, in addition to the dozens of articles telling the ins and outs of linux.
4. In this sense, if there are donations from people and companies and also certifications for specialized people, it could make tiddlywiki more usable given the example I mentioned about Linux.
5. I’m not criticizing Linux or tiddlywiki, just seeing what they both have in terms of the market.
6. When I say “acquitting everything is not always feasible.” - there was a discussion about the characteristics of tiddlywiki if it would be a marketplace/framework or even a product/service.
7. When I say “absolving everything is not always feasible”. - sometimes the product/service is defined by the market, developers or technology.”

#13

From a company’s point of view. Building a CI-CD system with 1, 10 or 200 VMs should be free? If the system creates value and revenue for you?

2 Likes