Linux: 'Cause it's free, open, or better? [Archive]

&)ky#)^

March 16th, 2008, 08:12 AM

I know there are plenty of posts out there that ask "why do you use linux?", but I'm sticking to a select few answers to see which is the most popular. I'm not going to make this a poll only because I believe that would be cliche and these questions are not best served that way.

Do you use Linux because it's free?
Me: Not because it's free, but it's a nice perk.

Do you use Linux because it's open?
Me: Yes and no. I like being able to see why my computer acts the way it does when I need to. I'm not an open source software evangelist, though. I've been sucked into that thinking more than once, but being a software developer I just can't stick with it. What I mean is that I'm not a devoted follower of Stallman who believes the world would be a better place if all software was GPL'd. When I write software, if I end up officially licensing it I only sometimes use the GPL. Sometimes I want to keep my program's code and its future all to myself. Sometimes I make software open because I see a future for my software I am unable or unwilling to provide. If someone likes my code enough, perhaps they will optimize it or add features I can't or won't due to a lack of knowledge, time, or industriousness on my part. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel a little hypocritical valuing the fact that linux is open to the degree of being more than just a perk despite the fact that I'm not whole-heartedly into the whole OSS revolution scene. If I improve on a piece of existing open software, you can bet I'm going to offer that improvement back to the community though.

Do you use linux because it's better?
Here's where I whole-heartedly say 'yes'. I love how linux, unlike some other operating systems, never hides anything from me. I can tinker and customize to my heart's content until my computer works exactly how I want it to. The way linux works just makes more sense to me. It's always improving, not just changing.

Spike-X

March 16th, 2008, 08:25 AM

Yes.

SomeGuyDude

March 16th, 2008, 08:38 AM

Sure, nope, definitely.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't use Linux if I didn't think it was more of a pleasure to use than the alternative.

MaximB

March 16th, 2008, 09:17 AM

Strangly today I've found a blog post about the "real" reasons to why you use GNU/Linux : http://blog.anamazingmind.com/2008/03/real-reason-we-use-linux.html

But strangely I might agree to only one topic there : I use GNU/Linux partly because I can customize it much much more then any other OS (well besides BSD I suspect).

Do I use GNU/Linux because it's free (money) ?
No ! most of the people in our country pirate their OS (Windows) anyways so price is not an issue.

Do I use GNU/Linux because it's Free (source) ?
No ! I am no programmer, I can't change anything there and most of the programs (3rd party) are also available for Windows,

Do I use GNU/Linux because it's not widely used ?
No ! I don't really feel it because in the community everyone use GNU/Linux so I never feel alone, and I actually want that more people will use GNU/Linux so more programs and games will be available for it.

Do I use GNU/Linux because it's better ?
Better ? mmmm... that's a hard question, better for what ?
Most games and programs run only on Windows, so GNU/Linux can't be better for it, I mean yes it can support it all - but the games and programs weren't built to support it.

Do I use GNU/Linux because it's more secure ?
No ! we all know that the security is up to the user, and he is the "weakest link".
Yeah most viruses were built for Windows but still the user can break GNU/Linux specially when given much more control (root or sudo).

So why do I use GNU/Linux then ?
Because of the community, because of the customization, because of the control because I believe that GNU/Linux is the future and most of all because of the inner feeling.

JaggedOne

March 16th, 2008, 09:18 AM

1. No, every OS is free as in beer to me. I run windows for gaming but I sure as hell don't pay for it.

2. Yes, I love open source. Everything should be open. (Okay I admit thats not realistic, but I think it would be cool. :P)

3. Definitely, windows is trash. OSX is good but locked to overpriced hardware. Linux is the best option for me regardless of the fact that it is free as in beer and free as in speech.

TheWizzard

March 16th, 2008, 11:34 AM

1. No, every OS is free as in beer to me. I run windows for gaming but I sure as hell don't pay for it.

that's basically stealing. if you don't want to pay the price, don't use it.

Lord Illidan

March 16th, 2008, 11:40 AM

Please don't condone piracy in this thread. While it is possible to get Windows for "free", such activity is illegal, and is not endorsed by Ubuntu Forums.

Do you use Linux because it's free?
It's not the only factor, but it's a significant one.
Do you use Linux because it's open?
I like that aspect of Linux, both because I believe that the GPL is on the right track, and also because I believe that open-ness leads to more security. That said, I am a pragmatist, and where free software fails, I usually have no other choice than to go propietary, like the Nvidia drivers.
Do you use linux because it's better?
It's definitely better than Windows. I like the freedom, the speed, the security, and I'm now used to it.

jespdj

March 16th, 2008, 11:56 AM

1. No, every OS is free as in beer to me. I run windows for gaming but I sure as hell don't pay for it.
If you did not write the software yourself, then you are not the one who decides if Windows is free or not. You can't just say "It is free to me". Suppose you go to the supermarket and at the cashier you say "I don't have to pay, because all these things are free to me". It doesn't work that way. If you do that, you're a thief.

I'm a professional software developer. I'm hired by companies to write software for them. I do believe in free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). But "free" ofcourse does not mean that you will never need to pay for it. The software that I'm earning my money with is mostly specially written for the company that I'm working for at that moment; it's valuable for that particular client, but not so much for other companies.

So using Ubuntu / Linux because it's free-as-in-speach software is an important factor for me. I like to be able to look at the source code of everything and modify or improve things. It's great that I'm not dependent on any one company, group or person to fix bugs or change or improve things, and that I'm not locked into using software from one particular company. I want to be in control of my computer myself and I do not want a company like Microsoft or Apple to control what I can and cannot do with my computer.

zcal

March 16th, 2008, 03:05 PM

Because of the community, because of the customization, because of the control because I believe that GNU/Linux is the future and most of all because of the inner feeling.

I agree with MaximB. It's just interesting.

gn2

March 16th, 2008, 04:31 PM

I first tried Linux because it's free.

I still use Linux because it's better.

Being open makes sure it continues to be better.

fluteflute

March 16th, 2008, 04:49 PM

1. Being free attracted me in the first place. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't free.
2. Being open enables other people to make it better and to make great programs for it.
3. (see 2) Yes it is better!

rocktorrentz

March 16th, 2008, 04:50 PM

I first tried Linux because it's free.

I still use Linux because it's better.

Being open makes sure it continues to be better.
Exactly my attitude :)

NarbeH

March 16th, 2008, 05:02 PM

Perfect

SomeGuyDude

March 16th, 2008, 05:50 PM

that's basically stealing. if you don't want to pay the price, don't use it.

I get a copy of Windows for free from my school, as well as Office and a bunch of other stuff.

hvacr

March 16th, 2008, 05:51 PM

yes, yes,no

For what I have to do, windows is better.

TheWizzard

March 16th, 2008, 05:59 PM

I get a copy of Windows for free from my school, as well as Office and a bunch of other stuff.

wow, that's interesting.
where do you live?

michaelzap

March 16th, 2008, 06:19 PM

I live in Mexico. I only know one person with a legal copy of Windows, but almost everyone I know who uses a computer uses Windows. Some people may not like this (others will), but that's the reality in many places.

Lately I've started to notice a number of people switching to Linux (mostly Ubuntu). I've helped in this trend among in my circle, but I wasn't the first to go 100% Linux and I've met a number of folks for the first time who also use Linux exclusively. Price is not what's motivating them, and it wasn't what motivated me either.

A lot of people have told me that they love Linux. Just love it. They say that their old computer has a new life because of it. That before they switched they always had viruses, their computer was painfully slow, and installing the software they need (all for sale at any market, and all pirated) was always a difficult, confusing, and time-consuming process. They feel liberated by Linux. Their computer is their tool now. It does what they want, and it's zippy and fun. And on top of that, it was all free.

None of these folks are techies or in any sort of clique where they feel cool to be using Linux. They're regular people who use computers for work and other projects. They weren't convinced by me or any Linux marketing campaign; they just tried it and found it to be far superior for their needs.

Personally, I love that Linux is free (as in beer) because I can get any software that I need as soon as I realize I need it. And I love that it's free as in speech because I know that's a big part of the reason that it's free as in beer. Software as a tool for human beings, not as a commodity - that's how I see it.

I love being able to participate in this project to the extent that I can. That may just mean helping someone out on the forums or installing Ubuntu on their laptop or recommending open source software for a job. I don't feel "special" for being a part of this; I feel more like I'm part of a community that tries to help each other out.

I wouldn't be here if Linux weren't better, though. I wouldn't recommend it to my friends and colleagues if I didn't think it were the best option. I believe it's better because it's free, but if it weren't better I wouldn't use it - period.

But damn if it isn't SO MUCH BETTER...

k2t0f12d

March 16th, 2008, 07:13 PM

that's basically stealing. if you don't want to pay the price, don't use it.

It isn't hard to get an authorized gratis copy of Windows. I got two free copies living in the United States; one copy as a student when I attended Westwood College Online, and one copy with a hardware purchase from newegg.com. Microsoft especially targets usage entry points with freebies for new users, so if you want to score an authorized gratis copy, you just need to know where to look. Unauthorized usage isn't even on the same planet as stealing. How many free copies of Windows must I be offered before the "copying is theft" propaganda rings hollow? (that is, if it wasn't already the most excruciatingly laughable social programming to begin with) :rolleyes:

I almost never need Windows day to day, but when I do I don't even use the authorized free copies I have already been given. I restore a backed-up partition with my ideal setup, originally installed only from premium high-quality pirated installation media. Nothing less then the best for me. Its slipstreamed to support all my devices, and installs pre-configured and optimized for speed, e.g. with unnecessary services disabled.

DoktorSeven

March 16th, 2008, 09:01 PM

All of the above. :)

FuturePilot

March 16th, 2008, 09:24 PM

* Do you use Linux because it's free?
No. That's nowhere near my top reasons for using Linux, but it is nice being free though :)

* Do you use Linux because it's open?
Yes. Ever since I started using Linux I try to use and promote open source software whenever possible. But sometimes there's no other choice, like the Nvidia drivers for example. I really like open source software. In most cases it's just as good if not better than closed proprietary software.

* Do you use linux because it's better?
Yes. Linux just works better for me. Every time I use Windows I experience problems.

acirilo

March 16th, 2008, 09:35 PM

I use it because i enjoy not feeling like i'm stealing software.. i'd have to be rich to have Windows, Dreamweaver, Flash, Photoshop, Office 2007, Acrobat Professional...etc. that i was using before i decided to switch completely over to Ubuntu..

I'm a minister ..as in Christian Ministry.. it always bothered me to be studying a "borrowed" PC Bible on stolen software...:)

I feel clean now.

I enjoy the OS.. Everyday is a learning experience.

TheWizzard

March 16th, 2008, 11:03 PM

Unauthorized usage isn't even on the same planet as stealing. How many free copies of Windows must I be offered before the "copying is theft" propaganda rings hollow? (that is, if it wasn't already the most excruciatingly laughable social programming to begin with) :rolleyes:

it's a bit more than propaganda. regarding ms windows / ms office it is nothing but stealing, because there is a good alternative: ubuntu
actually copyright issues are a major drive for open source.

k2t0f12d

March 17th, 2008, 03:55 AM

it's a bit more than propaganda. regarding ms windows / ms office it is nothing but stealing, because there is a good alternative: ubuntu
actually copyright issues are a major drive for open source.

It is complete propaganda. I cannot help but draw skepticism from the idea that because software exists that is licensed under terms that allow the user to pay whatever they wish, including nothing at all, that it automatically equates using an unauthorized copy of other software licensed to force the user to pay or not pay any arbitrary sum based on the whim of the distributor with stealing.

Violating the terms of the license of a free software program would not be considered stealing, yet the very same action with proprietary software is declared theft? In either case, the exact same violation under the law has occurred. Moreover, the usual response from a free software copyright holder is to help the violator regain distribution rights, and the response from proprietary firms is exorbitant fees and/or imprisonment. Who is really concerned with the welfare of the user?

I don't think using either authorized or unauthorized copies of proprietary software is better then using free software exclusively however, I also won't tell lies and call that which is not theft stealing because some third parties have spent a lot of time and money proselytizing that it is so.

michaelzap

March 17th, 2008, 04:11 AM

I've worked developing commercial software at several companies, big and small. All of us except the upper management used pirated software daily and I never heard anyone express any remorse or concern about being "thieves" (for all I know upper management uses pirated software also). I remember that once a company I worked at got raided by some anti-piracy corporate task force (I don't remember what they were called back then, but they had the power to fine you pretty heavily) and absolutely everyone worked together to delete or hide all of our unlicensed software (and we didn't get fined).

&)ky#)^

March 17th, 2008, 06:01 AM

gn2

March 17th, 2008, 12:37 PM

Violating the terms of the license of a free software program would not be considered stealing, yet the very same action with proprietary software is declared theft? In either case, the exact same violation under the law has occurred.

Not for the first time you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the word "proprietary" and also of law concerning copyright and software licensing.

From Wikipedia:
The word "proprietary" indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties.

A party may have interests which are similar to proprietary interests in relation to certain types of information (e.g. for a creative literary work, or for computer software), which is the subject of certain laws, including copyright, patents or trademarks. This manner of speech is often used in reference to proprietary software.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary

From Wikipedia:
Copyright – symbolized "©" – is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. It is an intellectual property form (unlike the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

Copyright initially was conceived as a way for government to restrict printing; the contemporary intent of copyright is the promoting the creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them. Copy rights have been internationally standardised, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the creator death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate creations; some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a by civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Please desist from advocacy of unlawful acts in these forums.

NightwishFan

March 17th, 2008, 12:42 PM

Linux is great free. I would pay for it over Windows. Being free is like a swift muay thai knee to the groin area for Windows.

The fact that it is open is so ridiculously great. The pure philosophy of it makes me a loyal user and I would be proud to be called a fanboy. Linux extremist would be better though.

My Linux box can keep up with a Vista with more than 3x times the ram I have. Then I got 64-bit and I no longer have to worry about using less programs I only feel the need to test my system and run more.

kevdog

March 17th, 2008, 01:58 PM

As has been stated before, if Ubuntu or Linux was not free, I probably would have never tried it in the first place. Although I use it now primarily, if Canonical started charging a fee, I'm not sure if I would keep using it. Its very usable, but some aspects would definitely need to be improved or polished before I would consider paying for a distribution.

saulgoode

March 17th, 2008, 02:05 PM

Not for the first time you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the word "proprietary" and also of law concerning copyright and software licensing.

Either you are being pedantic to the point of hindering communication or you yourself are demonstrating a lack of understanding. Free Software (in the GNU sense of the term) does have an associated copyright holder and is therefore technically still "proprietary"; however, this is not the customary usage of the word.

An infringement upon the copyrights' of Free Software is no less (or more) egregious than infringement upon "proprietary" software. Or would you argue otherwise?

Please desist from advocacy of unlawful acts in these forums.

K2 did not advocate unlawful acts. He pointed out (if I may be so bold as to paraphrase) that violation of the terms of an End User agreement is at most a breech of contract, not an illegal activity. Would you consider owning a cat in an "no pets" apartment to be "unlawful"? Yes, there are legal remedies available for breech of contract but this does not mean that the violator of the terms of an agreement has violated public law.

Copyright law does not provide protection against making copies for personal use (e.g., running a copy of Windows on multiple machines), loaning or renting the program to someone else to use, or modifying/reverse engineering the code. Those are not exclusive rights covered by copyright -- this is why a company such as Microsoft employs EULAs. Violation of a EULA does not in and of itself mean infringement of copyright, let alone "theft".

linuxisfree

March 17th, 2008, 02:09 PM

Do you use Linux because it's free?
Yes. I'm very sick and tired of using software that is so bloody expensive that i have no recourse but to "become a pirate" in order to use it.
Do you use Linux because it's open?
Yes. Sure it may not be perfect (what is?), but at least, if you know how, you'd be able to tweak it to your liking:D It is MEANT TO BE SHARED.
Do you use linux because it's better?
I also whole-heartedly say 'yes'.

derekr44

March 17th, 2008, 04:31 PM

I first tried Linux because it's free.

I still use Linux because it's better.

Being open makes sure it continues to be better.

+1

My answers:
Yes, Not Really, Absolutely.

Bachstelze

March 17th, 2008, 04:38 PM

1) Yes, I'd certainly not pay much for it.
2) I don't consider it to be open.
3) Better than what ?

Lantesh

March 17th, 2008, 05:16 PM

1. I use Linux because of it's philosophy. Microsoft has an agenda, which is to make money, so what is in their best interest is not necessarily what is in my best interest. That being said I would have no problem paying a nominal fee for Ubuntu, but I do appreciate that fact that it is free.

2. I like the idea of open source software, but I'm not one of those people who refuse to install something like w32codecs because they aren't. Here again I like Ubuntu because of the community feeling, and the fact that people are willing to share software, and are not always trying to drain my wallet.

3. Better is a matter of opinion. I find Ubuntu is better for me. I may not be better for someone else depending on what their priorities are.

justin whitaker

March 17th, 2008, 07:12 PM

Because it's Free?

Yes. I think the whole go down to the store and shell out $100s for an updated OS is a dead paradigm. There is really no point to it if you are are doing anything other than gaming....and even if you are a gamer, I would say a console is a better choice these days.

Because it's Open?

Yes, although I don't use the source code for anything. So day, I will.

I keep having these visions of my own Linux distribution with all the really esoteric and cutting edge stuff, and I could not even entertain that on a closed system.

Because it's better?

I'm usually the first to say, "better for what?", but in this case, I will play along and say yes. It is better. Even when it is broken, it is better. :)

Bruce M.

March 17th, 2008, 07:15 PM

I like what MaximB (http://http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4525085&postcount=4) said. A lot of truth there.

In the beginning:

Do you use Linux because it's free?

No, I use it because W2K died once too often and went looking for something to replace it. I couldn't find an English version of WinXP here. So I checked out Ubuntu, only because it had been mentioned in an e-mail about a month previously. I thought at the time that it was "Freeware", my windows mindset. The fact that it's FREE is an added bonus for me.
To be honest I'm still not sure what "Free as in beer" and "Free as in speech" means.

Do you use Linux because it's open?

See above. I had no concept of "open source" before using Ubuntu (my first and only distro of Linux). For me it was; Commercial, Shareware and Freeware. Nothing else existed, again my windows mindset.

Do you use Linux because it's better?

I agree with others here. Better is a matter of personal opinion and or your situation. So below are some of my personal opinions:

If you are a gamer - no
General use; ie: web, e-mail, on-line Banking - the same
Security - absolutely, keeping in mine what someone else said; I'm the weakest link on my computer.

Now let me answer again with 8 months of Ubuntu under my belt:

Do you use Linux because it's free?

I use it because it is here, already installed and working. And because Ubuntu is what it is, I will never go back.
If Gutsy was the "last" free version it would depend on the amount required for Hardy as to whether or not I'd get it right away. I'm a pensioner, and saying that I have to add, I would definitely save my pennies to purchase it.

Do you use Linux because it's open?

No, not exclusively, see above, but it's one huge bonus.

Do you use Linux because it's better?

In 8 months my opinion of what is better has changed in my personal case. Yes, it is better!
Ubuntu does everything I needed to do in Windows.

getting e-mail
on-line banking
surfing the web

Ubuntu does more than Windows did:

I couldn't afford Photoshop - I have GIMP
I could never watch DVD's with Windows, even with the legal version of some software I ended up tossing, it worked for about a year, then one day Windows did an update. Poof! No more DVD movies and I couldn't afford buying more software and no shareware worked for me. - I can watch DVD movies with Ubuntu.
There are more stories but that's an idea.

Ubuntu does less than Windows did:

no virus programs needed
no malware programs needed
no defragmenting needed
no firewall needed - iptables works out of the box
no registry cleanup needed - OK, deleting orphans every now and then

Ubuntu is customizable and fun!
Ubuntu has given my old PC new life.
I have more control of my PC
I am now and probably always will be a Proud Ubuntonian!

Please note: I do not push Ubuntu on anyone, I don't rant and rave about it. I do however mention, "I don't do Windows any more." If they ask, I tell them.

I didn't mean to make this so long, but it just grew and grew, so let me put it in nutshell: I'm here and here I'm staying!

Wobedraggled

March 17th, 2008, 07:18 PM

Because it's free? Sure, the price is right.

Because it's open? Yes, I like digging. I grew up on C=64 and Amiga which had books upon books telling you how to do things on these machines. I got to Windows and there was nowhere to dig.

Because it's better? Because of the two points above, yes.

Every OS has it's Flaws, I just happen to fix the Microsoft ones all day, and dont care to do it when I get home.

&)ky#)^

March 17th, 2008, 09:58 PM

Every OS has it's Flaws, I just happen to fix the Microsoft ones all day, and dont care to do it when I get home.

Amen!

2) I don't consider it to be open.

I find that extremely surprising coming from a staffer! Why don't you consider it to be open?

Either you are being pedantic to the point of hindering communication or you yourself are demonstrating a lack of understanding.

Although I support your analysis and attitude, a word to the wise: be careful throwing around the p-word in this forum. I recently spent some time in the resolution center and I've seen some nasty things abound from the use of that word.

Linux is great free. I would pay for it over Windows.

I don't know if I'd pay for it over Windows, in the sense of paying more than Windows costs. I'd consider paying up to $50 USD. I would not pay the $250 or more that Windows charges. Speaking of which, did you hear about how Microsoft is cutting the price of boxed versions of Vista? Many feel this is a very bad sign for the OS since this is happening so early in its life. Some speculate Linux is to blame for the cuts. Here's a link to an interesting editorial (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1229) about it. It's not the original one I found that basically described this price cut as the death throws of Vista, but it's still a good read.

gn2

March 17th, 2008, 11:57 PM

K2 did not advocate unlawful acts.

Using a pirated copy of Windows is lawful now....?

When did that change, I must have missed the announcement.

k2t0f12d

March 18th, 2008, 12:37 AM

Using a pirated copy of Windows is lawful now....?
If by using the word using you mean partition backup files on rewritable optical media gathering dust in the closet. Since it is my data to not use, I don't see the legal issue here. Nobody else cares except you. If in some wild fantasy someone wanted to come stop me from keeping an unauthorized Windows installation in the form of partition backups stored privately in some forgotten box in my closet, I could point to the two legal copies that were given to me gratis and claim the installation was performed with one of those. It might as well have been, since the data that is installed is identical in either case. I don't use them, because Windows vanilla installation configuration is suboptimal to that which can be achieved with custom installation media that cannot be created and distributed by the user legally.

Here again is another point on the absolute ludicrous position of proprietary software licensing. I also have in my possession two OEM Windows installation medium. One is modified and configured by Gateway for a Gateway Laptop, and the other is Dell installation media, modified and configured by Dell for a Dell desktop computer. Those are permitted; however if an end user discovers a beneficial way to modify and distribute their own configurations of the software, then it isn't allowed. Hypocrisy.

gn2

March 18th, 2008, 12:55 AM

Since it is my data to not use,

That's just it. All the data isn't yours.
The Windows system files are owned by MS and users require a license to use them.

I believe you have advocated using pirated or cracked unlicensed copies of Windows in the past in these forums, if I am wrong in this I apologise unreservedly.

I completely agree with you that there are difficulties over the types of media distributed with new PC's and laptops.
I would like to see suppliers give full installation media rather than "recovery" discs/partitions.

k2t0f12d

March 18th, 2008, 01:50 AM

That's just it. All the data isn't yours.
The Windows system files are owned by MS and users require a license to use them.

So what? What substantive role does that analogy play? Windows system files are useless unless being employed by a user to do something. I can break out my partition backups anytime I want and rewrite them to a hard drive and then boot, use, update, and fiddle around with Windows. I have complete and undisputed control over it, therefore the data is mine regardless of whatever ludicrous stipulations that the license terms insists upon.

I believe you have advocated using pirated or cracked unlicensed copies of Windows in the past in these forums, if I am wrong in this I apologise unreservedly

Yes, you are wrong and I accept your apology. Using unauthorized copies of proprietary software is almost as bad as using authorized copies. The only way to complete moral and ethical correctness is to only use software that completely respects the user's freedom to study, modify, and share the software with others. This is why I no longer use any copy of Windows.

I completely agree with you that there are difficulties over the types of media distributed with new PC's and laptops. I would like to see suppliers give full installation media rather than "recovery" discs/partitions.

We are obviously not on the same page at all. First, I agree with you in that if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, it should be mandatory that you receive the full copy of the installation media with that computer. But that has absolutely nothing with what I am talking about here.

If you create partitions on a disk and install data on that disk, you can make a binary mirror image of the partition and store it. This is a popular backup scheme in many organization across the world. I installed my ideal Windows setup to a partition and then backed up the partition with the free software program called partimage. I saved the files it produced to optical media that can be restored to a partition of the same or greater size with the same program.

As far as the OEM discs I described, they are both full copies of Windows installation media. The Gateway disc is labeled a recovery disc, but that is a L I E. What it actually is, is a full version copy of Windows Media Center Edition with most of Microsoft's nomenclature removed and replaced with Gateway's. It is not substantively different in any other way from a generic installation disc other then possibly some slipstreamed drivers the the laptop needs. A user who is technically knowledgeable about Windows internals can take a generic installation disc and modify it to install other programs and drivers during the installation process. This method is called slipstreaming, and is used by OEM manufacturers to distribute copies of Windows that support their hardware's configurations. I do not use the authorized copies of Windows that have been given to me because, although they work on my equipment, the pirated copy I have is slipstreamed and saves me about an hour of post-installation configuration. Whether I used the authorized or unauthorized copy, the same exact files end up deployed on my computer, so what real world meaningful difference does it actually make which copy I use?

gn2

March 18th, 2008, 02:01 AM

So long as one uses a legit product key to activate Windows, I see no problem with using any installation media wherever it came from or how it was created.

What I have a problem with is using cracked copies or any method of avoiding using a legit product key.

&)ky#)^

March 18th, 2008, 03:53 AM

k2t0f12d

March 18th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Is someone reporting k2's posts? Get over it! Just because he's doing whatever doesn't mean he's advocating it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't catch him saying anything like "I pirate Windows and so should you! Contact me to learn how!". I mean, c'mon! He's an Ubuntu user for christ sake.

Well, playing "you're a pirate" tag isn't as weird as

So long as one uses a legit product key to activate Windows, I see no problem with using any installation media wherever it came from or how it was created.

What I have a problem with is using cracked copies or any method of avoiding using a legit product key.

What possible worthwhile reason does one have to even care the least little tiny bit? But, as long as gn2 doesn't have a problem with it, I guess I won't have to lose any sleep tonight. BTW, even though I possess authorized keys with my authorized copies of Windows, I don't use them, either. At least I didn't the last time I ever created a Windows installation. Why should I have to?