hi, On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:20:11PM +0000, howard wrote:
I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers are entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it without stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be possible without them having control over the components and their integration into the whole system. There are bits they could leave out such as radios but not anything necesaary to drive the car.
well, i did not bring it up, i was just repling to the topic at hand... as for only beeing able to sell as whole: i don't think it's true, as there are also for example kit cars...but that is getting quite offtopic here.
The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car company is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car is designed in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g. not children, or people who have some disability unless it has been modied). Computers can run perfectly well under many different operation systems provided they are built with the appropriate compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft prevents consumers choosing their OS of choice. For software that runs under Windows I prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with Windows 7 home edition cannot be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong and trading standards organisations are wrong to let MS get away with their domination of the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer network.
well, while somewhat true this is not completly the point here either... even though the car company might not get sued for something the driver does...nobody has ever tried to sue MS or the hardware vendor for what the user does with the computer.
yours, albert
Hi
On 5/3/2013 16:40, Albert Dengg wrote:
hi, On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:20:11PM +0000, howard wrote:
I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers are entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it without stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be possible without them having control over the components and their integration into the whole system. There are bits they could leave out such as radios but not anything necesaary to drive the car.
well, i did not bring it up, i was just repling to the topic at hand... as for only beeing able to sell as whole: i don't think it's true, as there are also for example kit cars...but that is getting quite offtopic here.
The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car company is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car is designed in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g. not children, or people who have some disability unless it has been modied). Computers can run perfectly well under many different operation systems provided they are built with the appropriate compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft prevents consumers choosing their OS of choice. For software that runs under Windows I prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with Windows 7 home edition cannot be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong and trading standards organisations are wrong to let MS get away with their domination of the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer network.
well, while somewhat true this is not completly the point here either... even though the car company might not get sued for something the driver does...nobody has ever tried to sue MS or the hardware vendor for what the user does with the computer.
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any driver.
best Howard
yours, albert
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi all,
Am 05.03.2013 18:15, schrieb howard:
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any driver.
Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station. Seems more fitting to me.
Best wishes Michael
A good analogy will help an explanation but can only win the argument by accident.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.orgwrote:
Hi all,
Am 05.03.2013 18:15, schrieb howard:
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any
driver.
Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station. Seems more fitting to me.
Best wishes Michael _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Apologies for that stale reply.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
A good analogy will help an explanation but can only win the argument by accident.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.orgwrote:
Hi all,
Am 05.03.2013 18:15, schrieb howard:
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any
driver.
Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station. Seems more fitting to me.
Best wishes Michael _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion