Because people keep claiming OS X is free, when it really isn't.
Then people need stop claiming it's free like they're doing in this thread. You're paying for OS X when you pay for a Mac.
Really free(as in beer) software will allow you to run it wherever it can, like say, Linux.
If it's really free, can I download and install it legally on my assembled PC?
The OEMs are forced to set the default search as Google though, if they want access to the app store. This hurts alternative search engines.
In the end it's free or even makes money for the OEM because of the bundled software(like Google pays OEMs to have Chrome installed as the default browser). A similar machine without the OS won't have that subsidy, so it might end up costing more than one with Windows. Would be funny if the OEM would force people to pay extra for laptops if you want one without Windows.
For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them) Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either.
So all this does is punish the software developers that don't lock their software into hardware they sell. So if Microsoft stops selling Windows and force everyone to buy Surface laptops and PCs then they should be good.
Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?
Also, is this applicable to Macs?
Wrong, there is a compatibility pack that can be installed. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
It all reads like an ad for Kolab.
I said Windows Server, not Windows. It's based on Windows NT.
What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?
I atleast hope they use the money for something really good, like desktop Linux, instead of chasing mobile with Firefox OS.
With Google clamping down with Chrome, promoting on Google and Youtube and paying to bundle it everywhere like with Java, Flash and Acrobat updates, I am surprised Firefox hasn't lost even more marketshare, but I do think the clock is ticking.
If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?
What if one of the extensions sends all browsing activity and form submission data to another server?
Why would Firefox want to be associated with that?
You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.
And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?
1) This is about the ads, not the organic search results.
2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel
3) Google does not need any grounds to tamper with even organic search results.