48 best free apps from Microsoft
in [Freeware]
|
From: »Q« on 2 Feb 2010 11:28 In <news:Xns9D132B2DAFC62bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100201224615.40a5388d(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > > > I'd rather just call it commercial software. > > You can call it what you want. That's a very good point, and it seems you're getting the tolerance thing better. You can call it "MS freeware" and others can call it $ware or payware. > Try buying MS freeware. > > Definition: Commercial software: Software that is designed and > developed for sale to the general public. > infosat.tamu.edu/students/glossary.htm I've bought what you call "MS freeware" and so have you. > > And I'm not being intolerant of your "personal preference" to call > > something freeware even when you've had to purchase a license for > > it, but that doesn't meant I have to agree with you that it should > > be called freeware. > > By your standards, no software designed for Windows is free then. No, that doesn't follow from what I said. > All but maybe a few programs on the Pricelessware list are commercial > software by your standards. That doesn't follow either, but thanks for trying. In <news:Xns9D132CEFD7458bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > I might add that Windows is an operating system. You might, but it wouldn't add anything to this topic -- the Windows license you've bought covers a lot more, including the stuff you call "MS freeware".
From: »Q« on 2 Feb 2010 11:08 In <news:hk9b19$cog$1(a)news.albasani.net>, KristleBawl <KristleBawl(a)some.email> wrote: > »Q« expressed an opinion: > > KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: > >> »Q« expressed an opinion: > >>> KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: > >>>> Once Windows is bought and paid for, additional freeware is > >>>> still freeware, no matter what company logo is on the box. > >>>> Whether you get a free version from Microsoft or a different > >>>> free version from someone else, it's free. > >>> > >>> It doesn't have to do with what's on the box. > >>> > >>> Most of Microsoft's "freeware" stuff comes without a separate > >>> EULA from Windows; it come only with addendums to the OS license > >>> and the addendums are invalid without an OS license. Since the > >>> only way to get a license to use the "freeware" is to buy it that > >>> license from Microsoft (or a MS vendor), there are plenty of > >>> people who won't consider that stuff freeware. > >>> > >>> This has been gone over in a.c.f a few times, with at least as > >>> much heat as light, if you want to try Google's archives. > >> > >> It really shouldn't matter. > > > > IMO, whether or not the user has to purchase a license to use an app > > is one of the things that matters most when deciding whether that > > app is freeware or not. > > > >> All freeware written for Windows or Mac or Linux is still freeware > >> whichever OS. The newsgroup name is just computer *freeware*, not > >> free-freeware or unlimited or any other qualifier. > > > > Did you just say that freeware is freeware? If I had a nickel for > > every time that tautology's been posted here, I could afford to buy > > a lot of Microsoft "freeware". > > > >> Call it /free with conditions/ if you want, > > > > I'd rather just call it commercial software. > > > >> but I really wish people would stop saying freeware isn't freeware > >> because it doesn't fit their idea of 100% unconditionally free. We > >> should all be more tolerant of each other's _personal_preferences_ > >> here. > > > > I may have said some things you disagree with, but I didn't say that > > freeware isn't freeware, and I really wish you'd stop implying that > > I have. > > > > And I'm not being intolerant of your "personal preference" to call > > something freeware even when you've had to purchase a license for > > it, but that doesn't meant I have to agree with you that it should > > be called freeware. > > I didn't mean *you* or *me* at all. I literally meant exactly what I > said. Ok, I thought your were talking about the topic of this thread branch. I haven't seen anybody saying freeware isn't freeware, but I don't read all the threads. > Some people posting in this newsgroup are almost demanding others > accept their definition of freeware, which is intolerant of the > preferences of the other posters in here. Almost demanding? When you say "I wish people would stop saying freeware isn't freeware", don't you mean that you wish people would quit saying that anything *you* consider to be freeware isn't? Does saying you wish people would stop count as almost demanding? > The fact is that, after you buy a Mac or Windows, there are other > programs you can get for free. I've never read Mac licenses. With Windows, you've paid for a lot of stuff that people think you can "get for free" when you paid for the license for everything else. > Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download and run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license for it first. (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running their software on anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if you've paid for it.)
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 12:18 On 02/02/2010 08:08 AM, »Q« wrote: > KristleBawl<KristleBawl(a)some.email> wrote: > >... >> Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. > > If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download and > run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license for it > first. (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running their > software on anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if you've paid > for it.) We ran across this issue when we were required by a couple of (large) customers to run Internet Explorer so as to access their supplier databases. There are ways to run IE6 in WINE but, apart from the kludge-factor, the MS EULA requires a valid MSOS license & that it be run on MSOS. IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ due to the licensing. -- -Craig
From: KristleBawl on 2 Feb 2010 13:37 Craig expressed an opinion: > On 02/02/2010 08:08 AM, »Q« wrote: >> If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download >> and run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license >> for it first. (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running >> their software on anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if >> you've paid for it.) > > We ran across this issue when we were required by a couple of (large) > customers to run Internet Explorer so as to access their supplier > databases. There are ways to run IE6 in WINE but, apart from the > kludge-factor, the MS EULA requires a valid MSOS license & that it be > run on MSOS. > > IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ > due to the licensing. The point is that Microsoft freeware is written for Windows users, which has always been true, but it is still freeware. Many third-party freeware programs are written to run on Windows, too. Quite a few freeware programs are offered in several versions for the three most common platforms; Windows, Mac and Linux. As a separate issue, websites that require only IE as the browser are limiting themselves to mostly Windows users while cutting off most Mac and Linux users. That's like saying stores will only sell products to people speaking a certain language. (I said *most* because I cannot prove an absolute *all* here.) -- Drop your weapons or the tagline gets it. KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2 http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/
From: M.L. on 2 Feb 2010 13:47
>>> Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. >> >> If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download and >> run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license for it >> first. Freeware is not required to be available for all OS platforms. >> (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running their >> software on anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if you've paid >> for it.) > >We ran across this issue when we were required by a couple of (large) >customers to run Internet Explorer so as to access their supplier >databases. There are ways to run IE6 in WINE but, apart from the >kludge-factor, the MS EULA requires a valid MSOS license & that it be >run on MSOS. >IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ due >to the licensing. EULAs are not legal documents in the USA. More like a preference of the distributor. |