No Virtual PC? Try WinTel!

[cahult]

Now, what is this? Have a look at WinTel.
It

[jasonlane]

Nah!, what just so that some bod can run Office? I've never seen the point of Windows emulators. M$ has nothing to offer that I want, need or care about.

I guess some deluded types would find it "essential".

However Cahult, interesting link  

[cahult]

I agree with you on that M

[psyjax]

OPENOSX is a con, just like the MacGIMP people. Basically selling GNU software, and forcing you to compile it yourself otherwise. Someone showld make free binarys of all this stuff and host them for free.

[Faust]

quote:Basically selling GNU software, and forcing you to compile it yourself otherwise.

Well at least it's better than selling Non Free software and then not giving you the source at all.  I am fine with the idea of selling Free Software - I paid for Debian, and will be making a cash donation as soon as I order something from www.everythinglinux.com.au (they double all donations to Debian from their own pocket providing that you dont donate more than you purchase from them.)

If you're interested then RMS is in favour of selling Free Software too, and gives his reasons on www.gnu.org.

Also at least this is nicer to the customer than the OpenBSD way of raising money - the openBSD iso layout is copyright.  (ie you legally cannot redistribute it.)

[gump420]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
OPENOSX is a con, just like the MacGIMP people. Basically selling GNU software, and forcing you to compile it yourself otherwise. Someone showld make free binarys of all this stuff and host them for free.

Have you ever tried to configure Bochs 2.0.2 on OS X?  I, for one, am definitely in favor of not having to do that myself!

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by maghor:


Have you ever tried to configure Bochs 2.0.2 on OS X?  I, for one, am definitely in favor of not having to do that myself!

It's not that, it's the idea that they are basically capitalizing on something that should basically be free. They shouldn't charge for it simply because they created a front end (a rather trivial pice of programming really).

If you have used Bochs for OS9, you will have a more userfriendly configuration system, and you don't have to pay for it.

[jasonlane]

quote:Originally posted by cahult:
I agree with you on that M

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:


It's not that, it's the idea that they are basically capitalizing on something that should basically be free. They shouldn't charge for it simply because they created a front end (a rather trivial pice of programming really).

If you have used Bochs for OS9, you will have a more userfriendly configuration system, and you don't have to pay for it.

Well look at it from this perspective.  When people come in here and ask how one can expect to make money off of GPL'd software?  This is a very good example.  And it requires no developer side support (which is usually how GPL'd software makes money)

[Zombie9920]

But when people try to make $$$ off of GPL software you have people scream bloody murder because the software isn't free. That is exactly why the Open Source model isn't practicle to software makers and game makers(real, established companies that write software...not your typical basement geek programmer).

Isn't it legal to distribute GPL'ed software to your buddies for free(even if you initially had to buy the software)?

[gump420]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Isn't it legal to distribute GPL'ed software to your buddies for free(even if you initially had to buy the software)?

Yes.  However, the front end software in question is not GPL'ed.  Therefore, it would not be legal to redistribute it.