Re: [tlug] Free

["Lyle H Saxon" <llletters@example.com>]

On 8/5/07, Marty Pauley <marty.pauley@example.com> wrote:
> So, if I rephrase the point about Windows: if a PC costs the same with
> or without Windows then the reasonable man (using the British legal
> definition of "reasonable man", also sometimes known as "the man on
> the Clapham omnibus") will believe that Windows costs nothing; or at
> least it costs *him* nothing.
>
> When I buy a new PC, Windows costs nothing for me.  It did have a cost
> for the maker; but the maker had lots of other costs too, like staff,
> marketing, package design, testing, distribution, legal fees, coffee,
> electricity, etc.  But I don't pay those directly.

I still maintain that the *perception* of something being free and its
*actually* being free are two different issues.  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.  It's *software*
(easily eradicated) and Microsoft charges for it.  I also think it's
tragic that people don't appreciate the cost pressure that
manufacturers operate under.  The finest programmer can do absolutely
nothing without the hardware that manufacturers provide!  I don't know
why the hardware isn't appreciated more!

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.

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.

Lyle