Re: cpu-x

On 2024-05-17, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:54:37 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:01:54 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-13, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:25:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 

On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:36:40 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On 12 May 2024 00:34:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
 

It is technically possible to keep ownership of the software and
make a profit with it, but it is rather difficult the moment you
slap the GPL on the code.

 
Tell that to the companies making a big business of Linux.

>
Name them, and explain how it is the _software_ that is making them
money,
and not the _support_ for that software.

 
    Red Hat (on wikipedia):
  
    "They produce open-source code so that more programmers can make
    adaptations and improvements. Red Hat sells subscriptions for
    the support,
    training, and integration services that help customers in using
    their open-source software products."
 
Though frankly, what is the difference if you sell your software or
if you bundle software and provide support for that bundle?

>
The latter is a subscription, much like what the zealots are
complaining about Windows software doing. Sure, the software will
stilla be yours, but you won't get the support you need to figure out
how to use it.

 
For Linux, corporations can usually find third party support on a per
case basis. When CentOS was a clone of Red Hat instead of whatever it
is now, corporations would use it instead of Red Hat and pay for
support when needed. (I'm guessing the same thing happens now with
Rocky Linux and the other Red Hat clones.) You don't have that third
party option with Microsoft when paying for yearly licensing. And that
will especially be the case if they start renting out their software
instead of selling it when Windows 12 comes out.

>
I am not a fan of Microsoft's pay-per-month model for Office, and
bought Office 2021 simply to avoid it. I understand the benefits of
paying monthly and continually getting updates, but I would rather just
pay up front. If that is indeed the way they will go with Winodws,
potentially offering yearly OS subscriptions for people who buy a new
computer, I will gladly move onto Fedora. The mere fact that Fedora
would respect my desire to use S3 sleep rather than S0 (I can change it
using a third-party application), and that I am not forced to update,
would be a reason to use it over any new version of Windows.

 
I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting
edge vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I
think Fedora has gone to version 40.
 
I guess I should look into how to update it.

>
From what I read, Fedora pride themselves in the fact that they make
upgrading from one release to another very simple. I've never had to do it
myself since the distribution never stayed installed on my computers long
enough, but I imagine it to be rather painless.

I'll probably try upgrading my Fedora computer this weekend and report on
how it goes.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine