Conspiracy Theory

[John E]

I can't help wondering if others are having the same problem as me. For years and years and years I've bumbled along quite happily with Windows XP. It's been easily the most stable OS I've ever used. In the past I could go for weeks without seeing a crash.

Then Vista came along. I never fell for the Vista hype and I'm still not falling for the Windows 7 hype - even though Win7 is a pretty good OS by all accounts. But I'll end up having to buy Windows 7. Why..? Because ever since Vista came out, my copies of XP have been steadily growing more & more unreliable.

I run two copies of XP - one on my desktop machine and one on my laptop. The laptop one hardly ever gets used - and yet it's still as unreliable as hell..!

It's the same story with Internet Explorer. IE6 did me proud for many years. But now that we're up to IE8 and beyond, IE6 suddenly doesn't want to play ball any more. I run IE6 on my laptop - and also on a separate machine that I only use very occasionally (running Win2K). IE6 is woefully unreliable on both machines - even though in the past, it used to work like a charm.

Can Microsoft really be crippling its old s/ware to force us all to upgrade??? I seem to remember the same thing happening to Win98, round about the time that XP was released.

Or am I just getting paranoid in my old age....

[exterminator]

It may be possible that as and when the websites keep themselves updated with the latest browser updates, they become incompatible with the older browsers unless the browsers are also kept up to date. That is, IE6 is updated with fixes/changes as needed but if one really needs that then why not upgrade to the later versions?

IE8 has been a pain for me though. Crashing giving a DEP message when viewing websites like youtube/facebook/ and sometimes even Microsoft KB! But I got a recent update on Live suite of applications and Uninstalled AVG fully and installed AVG 9 free again and the things have been pretty stable now. I think IE8 also has the compatibility mode. I haven't used it much to justify its usefulness but it might be worth trying it.

I have been running Windows Vista Ultimate for almost over an year now. I haven't faced any issues. I have all the softwares I need and they work reliably. There was a time when my office PC connectivity software that enabled some degree of work from home wasn't compatible with Vista but the software publishers provided an update pretty quick. I have never been able to understand the fuss here but may be there are problems that don't concern my use and as long as that's the case, I shall remain happy.

Also, if you really need going back to the previous OS, I think Virtual PC helped me with that at the very limited number of times, I needed it.

[Arjay]

Can Microsoft really be crippling its old s/ware to force us all to upgrade???

Definitely not.

Or am I just getting paranoid in my old age....

Maybe. It's kind of interesting that some of us can run Windows trouble-free for years without issues. Kind of makes you wonder what the other guys are doing.

[Skizmo]

Kind of makes you wonder what the other guys are doing.

They are using Linux.

[Arjay]

They are using Linux.

Good one, but no.

[John E]

They are using Linux.

Ha ha.... as someone who has battled many times with Linux (and always given up) I have nothing but admiration for those who keep up the fight.

Or should that be "pity"....?

[Skizmo]

Ha ha.... as someone who has battled many times with Linux (and always given up)...

By the time you are compiling your own kernel, you know something went wrong

[John E]

Quite....

[memeloo]

They are using Linux.

I use at work linux... book as a monitor riser

[dglienna]

Well, I do know that MSDN is running on HYPER-V in a Windows 2008 Server environment. What I'd do for one of those boxes, with a few i-7 processors, and 64gb of RAM

[Joeman]

I actually use linux , but not as my primary os and just for a few reasons:

1. games
2. i like self installers and not the repo way
3. it is technically harder to use compared to the point and click , but things have improved

But in all seriousness, it is a darn good os. I run linux in a vm most of the time.

I use http://www.linuxmint.com/
image http://www.linuxmint.com/img/screenshots/gloria/20.png

Ha ha.... as someone who has battled many times with Linux (and always given up) I have nothing but admiration for those who keep up the fight.

Or should that be "pity"....?

At least I can have my 3d cube and wobbly windows . Not forget all the choices I have at my finger tips. Thanks for all the free open source apps that run on most oses . code::blocks, firefox, blender, gimp and ++++++++++ I don't have to pay for vs2008, 3ds max, adobe photoshop and +++++++++

Sure they aren't as fancy, but they work out just fine.

BBB( big buck bunny ) is a movie built off of nothing but free tools from what I know of . you can easily see how well you can live without those people taking 10s of thousands of dollars from your wallet for licenses and for the product.

Check bbb out http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/

So yes, it is a pity that people can't learn anymore and support these fine software

[John E]

you can easily see how well you can live without those people taking 10s of thousands of dollars from your wallet for licenses and for the product.

which is a great deal from the end user's point of view but not so good if you're a developer - unless you live in a tent or are currently on hunger strike! Linux devs need to eat and pay their household bills, just like the rest of us.

So yes, it is a pity that people can't learn anymore and support these fine software

I absoutely agree. The unpalatable truth is that Linux exists by exploiting the people who contribute to it. Linux would work fine if all its devs were academics, getting paid for university work or something like that. In fact, that's probably how it began. But today, the majority of developers are struggling, one-man-bands, who either survive through their spouses or live their lives in relative poverty. It's a hugely expliotative development environment IMHO.

In its favour though, there's the fact that no-one is forcing these people to develop Linux apps. They do it voluntarily so I guess they've only got themselves to blame!

[Joeman]

which is a great deal from the end user's point of view

Actually I was thinking more on the company side.

if you're a developer - unless you live in a tent or are currently on hunger strike! Linux devs need to eat and pay their household bills, just like the rest of us.

You don't think the linux developers get paid? Last time I checked, red hat was the main contributor to the linux kernel. I am sure they get paid?

I absoutely agree. The unpalatable truth is that Linux exists by exploiting the people who contribute to it.

No this is just plain wrong. I never had to give anything to linux nor did linux come knocking at my door for royalty fees. I say licenses is exploiting people.

Linux exists because in 1992 linus wanted to post a free alternative to minix. Unless there is an untold story, no one forced him to do this. My thought is he got paid to do this Now look at linux. It is the primary server os . Unless you think windows is safe enough to run and don't care.

But today, the majority of developers are struggling, one-man-bands, who either survive through their spouses or live their lives in relative poverty. It's a hugely expliotative development environment IMHO.

I bet you codeguru is running linux? http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?....codeguru.com/

Ask people why they can give Apache thanks so they don't have to pay so much to microsoft to have a website or even php. codeguru must be abusing devs now from your logic they use free software.

Also there is licenses to think about with free software.. take mysql . So they do make money after all.

I can go on and on why linux and other free software can make profit and then pay for developers while giving people jobs. red hat is a prime example how to run a business start off small and from free software

The reason why the free world exist is to keep things in balance.

In its favour though, there's the fact that no-one is forcing these people to develop Linux apps. They do it voluntarily so I guess they've only got themselves to blame!

What about anything other than linux? you seem to confuse free and open source software directly to linux. Sure linux is a great start of free and open source software, but what about other free contributors like people that contributed to Wikipedia? It is all free and made by contributors. They must have been nutz too. I should "blame" them for providing VERY valuable knowledge? I should blame google because provide a "free" service.

Not everything needs a price tag to make money. There are a lot of other ways

Sorry for making this very lengthy and little unclear I have plenty more to say and it is hard to fit it in this tiny post. Again take this post as a whole perceptive. You can see why the "free" world isn't so bad off .

I know I can't fix out sourcing or the economy, but at least I can save my money

Edit:
Also John E, this forum community runs of the ideal of freely helping people. think about it
Again, have you noticed why things aren't built to last? now that is a conspiracy. Actually... I know why.

Because ever since Vista came out, my copies of XP have been steadily growing more & more unreliable.

That is because they are deteriorating. I wonder why

[John E]

This is an argument that will never seemingly abate. I can only say that from my own personal experience, I've witnessed far too many developers of free software bleating about how much effort they put into it and how difficult it is to feed their families. Naturally there will be exceptions - all trends have their success stories. But in my experience, the norm in free software development is that the contributers either make very little income from it or no income whatsoever. But as I said above, nobody forces them to continue.

My argument that it is exploitative refers really to the GPL license - in which there is the theoretical right to receive payment for your work but no means whatsoever of enforcing that right. And - more importantly - no means of preventing less scrupulous developers from helping themselves to your work and using it to undercut you. In fact, pretty much all the protection offered by the GPL is offered to the recipient of the work; not to the author.

[laserlight]

The unpalatable truth is that Linux exists by exploiting the people who contribute to it.

The unpalatable truth is that you failed to define precisely what you mean by "Linux"

In its favour though, there's the fact that no-one is forcing these people to develop Linux apps. They do it voluntarily so I guess they've only got themselves to blame!

The way I see it is that if you are talking about Linux as in software, be it the kernel, distributions, or individual applications, then it is precisely because developers are either paid (i.e., as part of their job) or do it voluntarily that calling it exploitation is rather dubious. Considering the phrase "Linux apps", I think that this is what you are talking about.

If you are talking about Linux as in a community of users, then this might make sense, except that if the developers were scratching their own itches then it does not... yet scratching one's own itch is a pretty good reason to develop Free Software/Open Source Software.

My argument that it is exploitative refers really to the GPL license - in which there is the theoretical right to receive payment for your work but no means whatsoever of enforcing that right. And - more importantly - no means of preventing less scrupulous developers from helping themselves to your work and using it to undercut you. In fact, pretty much all the protection offered by the GPL is offered to the recipient of the work; not to the author.

Your argument has actually been applied to more permissive licenses, so I am rather surprised that you chose to focus on the GPL. It is the set of licenses that is probably the most dominant among Free Software/Open Source Software projects, but it does not support your argument very well.

Legally, the various versions of the GPL do provide a means of "preventing less scrupulous developers from helping themselves to your work and using it to undercut you": they have to publish their modifications under the GPL, which you can thus incorporate back into your own work, thus you will not be "undercut". If they are unscrupulous enough they can simply not do that, but then they would be guilty of copyright infringement. It is the more permissive licenses for which "pretty much all the protection (...) is offered to the recipient of the work; not to the author".