Re: [tlug] Free

["Marty Pauley" <marty.pauley@example.com>]

On 05/08/07, Lyle H Saxon <llletters@example.com> wrote:
>
> I still maintain that the *perception* of something being free and its
> *actually* being free are two different issues.

I'm not going to start on that argument, as it will quickly head off
into philosophy, metaphysics, relativity, and religion :-)

> I think it's tragic
> that people think Windows is like a piece of hardware inseparable from
> the machine as it rolls off the assembly line.

I agree with you.  I have spent the last week trying, and failing, to
get a new laptop without Windows.

> And one last comment about "free".  I think there is nothing free
> about Microsoft's products.  Microsoft is *not* free in cost; *not*
> free to use as one likes; *not* free to transfer to others, etc. etc.
> Saying it's "free" is an outrage.

"Free" is a strongly emotive word, especially on lists like this.  Is
it still an outrage if we say that Windows has an insignificant cost
to the buyer when included with a new PC?  That is what I am trying to
say.   You may strongly dislike the fact that Windows is included by
default with most PCs, but what is wrong with the low-cost statement?

The main problem I have with bundled Windows is not the cost, because
it is insignificant.  I don't want my PC purchase to increase the
Windows usage statistics, since I'm not going to use it.  I wasn't
able to buy a bare PC this week, but I was able to choose between
Vista and XP, so I choose XP so I won't help the Vista statistics.

> Anyway, thanks for being civil, I really do appreciate that!  I hope
> you don't take offense at my strong feelings regarding the non-freedom
> of Microsoft.

I am not offended.  I share some of your opinions and feelings about
this, and I know that Windows is not actually free, in any sense.  I
just think that the inaccurate perception of the general public is
more significant than you do.

-- 
Marty