48 best free apps from Microsoft
in [Freeware]
|
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 19:33 On 02/02/2010 04:10 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig<netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in > news:hkadv8$qt9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> Software is not freeware if you must buy something to use it. >> > > You can't win on this type of argument. You have to buy a computer to > use software... Two vastly different situations, BB. I'm surprised you didn't make the distinction. A person needs a computer to run software. That person does not need MS Windows to run IE. MS demands you to buy Windows to run IE, whether you run Windows or not. In other words, I buy a Windows license to allow me to run IE on Linux or FreeBSD or whatever. It's not a technical issue, it's a legal prohibition. That's not free. > and silly remarks about someone giving you a computer > aren't relevant. I haven't put forward any such proposition, BB. > If you need Windows software, it is fair of > Microsoft to require using their software on their OS. Again, I don't know what in my posts you are addressing here. I do not treat "fairness." IE is MS' property. It may do with it as it wishes. And has. > It is still freeware. "Free after additional purchase" is not free and free software after additional purchase is not freeware. -- -Craig
From: Franklin on 2 Feb 2010 19:40 Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in > news:hkaeg6$vu1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On 02/02/2010 03:43 PM, KristleBawl wrote: >>> Craig expressed an opinion: >>>> On 02/02/2010 02:29 PM, KristleBawl wrote: >>>>> There are a few programs that you can get for Windows that are >>>>> free, *after* you already paid for Windows. >>>> >>>> Not free. You must pay the MS Windows user's license to run them. >>>> People happily run all sorts of truly free software apps*, written >>>> for MS Windows, but in Linux and FreeBSD and others. >>>> >>>> That is because these *freeware* writers do not make legal >>>> requirements that you buy MS Windows. >>> >>> Okay, so let me see if I understand you. If I already bought and paid >>> for genuine Windows OEM on a new computer, then any freeware I >>> install is only freeware if it is *not* also made by Microsoft? >> >> I gave you a perfect example in IE. It is easy to run IE w/o Windows. >> Microsoft requires you to pay for a Windows license to use IE. Ergo, >> IE is not freeware. >> >> Firefox, Chrome, Safari are all freeware. They do not require the >> purchase of something to use them. >> >> As far as your counter-examples, their EULAs will tell you whether >> they are freeware: namely, free of any requirement to buy Windows to >> run them. >> > > No Craig...simply no. It is freeware. I'll give you a simpler > example...you buy my radio. I will give you part free of cost to make > repairs or replacements. If you use any other parts, warranty is void. > The parts are still free. These arguments are stupid. Microsoft offers > freeware to use on their OS. That they legally require you to use their > freeware on their computer does not make it payware or shareware. It is > an intended limitation of use for capitalistic purpose. It is still > freeware. Some Microsoft utilities can only be downloaded if you first run a routine to check if you have paid for XP. Would you call these utilities "freeware"?
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 19:45 On 02/02/2010 04:38 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig<netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in news:hkag90$imf$1(a)news.eternal- > september.org: > >> "Free after additional purchase" is not free and free software after >> additional purchase is not freeware. >> > > Let's cut to the chase. Are you saying Microsoft freeware is off-topic for > this freeware newsgroup? Ah. So that's your chase. Nope. Hadn't crossed my mind. The way I see this thread is that, in day to day matters, the distinction I'm making is a fine one. Albeit important. Elsewhere, you post that we are "arguing a ridiculous point." I don't believe that. It would only be ridiculous to try to impose this point on you or anyone else in this group. For me, calling IE "freeware" is shorthand. Not terribly accurate, but it is an established part of the acf nomenclature. Everyone groks they won't have to pay /more/ to get it. -- -Craig
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 20:29 On 02/02/2010 04:48 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig wrote: > .... >> >> For me, calling IE "freeware" is shorthand. Not terribly accurate, >> but it is an established part of the acf nomenclature. Everyone groks >> they won't have to pay /more/ to get it. >> > > Good enough. Let's move on. > Done. -- -Craig
From: Anonymous Remailer (austria) on 2 Feb 2010 20:50
Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster(a)remailer.privacy.at> wrote in > news:f320fdbd7c84eb33338a3491db1dbea0(a)remailer.privacy.at: > >> Now read an EULA from almost anyone not Micro$oft. No other "freeware" >> vendor, be they Mac/Win/Lin/Whatever, demands that you buy a copy of >> Windows from them. They really don't give a flying fornicate whether >> you bought your copy of Window$ at all in fact, and most normal EULA's >> actually have indemnifying clauses which relieve them if you're running >> a bootleg copy. Hell for that matter most freeware authors don't >> legally care if you're running straight emulation either, they just >> won't officially support it (but many will address issues as a matter >> of PR). >> >> > This only matters to people not running Windows. To people running > Windows the programs are free of any additional cost no matter what. If Wrong. If I demand a fee for the transfer of some property or license, it matters not one nit whether I collect that bounty the day you receive said property or a decade prior. The "status" of said property is defined by the actual demand, not by your clock. Care to try another ill thought straw grab? |