tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post1214028425996165437..comments2007-02-28T03:42:03.651+01:00Julio Merinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08233346614736256024noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-71312570058892597542007-02-28T03:42:00.000+01:002007-02-28T03:42:00.000+01:00You said "thing" instead of "think" in your earlier comment. You should proofread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-51261360457804551312006-12-29T13:28:00.000+01:002006-12-29T13:28:00.000+01:00Because the definition clearly says otherwise. Read about what FSF has to say about free software at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html<br /><br />I understand what you are saying but it's obvious that you have read the original definition somewhere , tried to quote it, and got it wrong.Daniel (n3Mo)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00461511969034447149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-18410644500549165412006-12-29T09:24:00.000+01:002006-12-29T09:24:00.000+01:00I don't understand why you say Ubuntu is not free as in "free beer" TOO. It is obvious that it is free as in "free speech"; but I have never paid for it, thus it is also cost free.Julio M. Merino Vidalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08233346614736256024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-74988732631140108502006-12-29T02:07:00.000+01:002006-12-29T02:07:00.000+01:00I'm sorry, but I have to be picky and point out that it's free as in free speech NOT as in free beer. If you are going to quote please do it properly or at least thing about what you've written, you almost had me stop reading your otherwise interesting piece of text.<br /><br />-- kind regardsDaniel (n3Mo)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00461511969034447149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-10848998538420631592006-10-10T16:41:00.000+02:002006-10-10T16:41:00.000+02:00I'm fine with paying money for a new version of the OS. It only happens every 18 months or so and typically constitutes a substantial improvement not just in the OS itself but the applications too.<br /><br />The previous commenter does bring up a good point about the backwards compatibility, but such a thing can go too far. Many of the problems in Windows stem from their commitment to background compatibility.<br /><br />There needs to be a balance, although I don't think $150 every 18 months is such a huge investment to support really awesome work by Apple. Then again, I get student discounts, so ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17885055.post-22817033384337665092006-10-04T09:58:00.000+02:002006-10-04T09:58:00.000+02:00The ease of upgrading a free OS is one of the major reasons of switching back from OS X to NetBSD on my iBook. As much as I like OS X, I'm certainly not going to shell out for a new version every year or so.<br /><br />This wouldn't be a problem if I could just keep using it, but the OS X community as well as Apple itself doesn't give a damn about supporting older versions of OS X. I started noticing this as I couldn't upgrade to Safari 2, XCode 2 etc. Also, they changed the .dmg file format. Mounting a .dmg under Panther sometimes results in some weird "corrupted file error -64" dialog box (great "userfriendly" errormessage, don't you think? There are loads of those in Finder). Took me a while to find out that it was my OS that was to blame.<br /><br />Wait a while, you'll see support for your version will gradually fade out. Whenever you ask a question on IRC, the first thing people tell you to do is "upgrade". And then they won't help you (regardless whether the version of the OS is the cause of your problems).<br /><br />-- One disgruntled OS X userPeter Bexhttp://sjamaan.ath.cxnoreply@blogger.com