"A genuine crack for Windows Vista has just been released by pirate group Pantheon, which allows a pirated, non-activated installation of Vista (Home Basic/Premium and Ultimate) to be properly activated and made fully-operational. Unlike cracks which have been floating around since Vista RTM was released in late November, this crack doesn't simply get around product activation with beta activation files or timestop cracks - it actually makes use of the activation process."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-16
"If Linux would cost $200 and Vista cost $200 and the only advantage of Linux is that you got source code, I would bet you that all you so called Open SOurce advocates would be running Vista."
You would lose that bet. I use freely licensed software to avoid vendor lock-in. Being at the mercy of sole-source suppliers is too expensive. Dealing with the whims of single suppliers is affordable only if your time is free.
You've also trotted out the canard that open source is only useful if I read the code. That's nonsense. I benefit when anyone else reads the code. It's no different than the fact that if someone were to try to steal my car, one of my neighbors would call the police. We look out for each other. Shared efforts in a community work well, and have since before recorded history.
Member since:2006-01-11
> You would lose that bet.
Wanna bet your salary for 1 year? As soon as something that was free started to cost $$$, people will move on. We've seen that a million times in the dot-com era.
> We look out for each other. Shared efforts in a community work well, and have since before recorded history.
But if everybody had to PAY MONEY for each other's efforts - a guy making a modification on some open source program was going to charge you money anyway, exactly how does having the source benefit you?
Edited 2007-03-04 19:53
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-05-29
You don't get it. I would spend 200$ for Vista Ultimate because that is what i think it is worth at most. I won't spend 699$ on Vista Ultimate because i think that is a bad joke that even a drunk schizophrenic monkey on acid during a full moon night couldn't come up with.
I would not spend 699$ on an iPod either.
I would not spend 699$ on a day skiing either.
I would not spend 699$ on a visit to the movies either.
I would not spend 699$ on a can of soda either (except maybe if i was about to die from dehydration).
There are reasonable priced alternatives, so why would i use Vista instead.
Member since:2007-02-05
"If Linux would cost $200 and Vista cost $200 and the only advantage of Linux is that you got source code, I would bet you that all you so called Open SOurce advocates would be running Vista."
Wrong.
Your $200 Vista will only allow you to run it on TWO types of architecture (x86/x64).
My $200 Linux will allow me to run it on 10+ different types of architectures.
Guess who's getting there money's worth?
Member since:2005-08-27
"Wrong.
Your $200 Vista will only allow you to run it on TWO types of architecture (x86/x64).
My $200 Linux will allow me to run it on 10+ different types of architectures. "
Find a linux vendor would would be willing to say that their non-x86 platform is equal in quality and features to their x86 platform.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-09-27
"If Linus told everybody tomorrow that he is going to charge for his kernel and it will be open source, I bet ya, IBM would go back to flogging AIX and Novell would go back to flogging Netware and Redhat would just wither and die. "
1) This scenario is simply absurd. If it's open source, there's no way you can charge a non-trivial amount of money for it. If it's open source, by definition, anyone can modify and/or redistribute the code. You may be mistaking "open source" by "shared source", which is a different beast.
2) If somehow the Linux kernel dissapeared, there are other kernels for a GNU system which work right now and are getting better. For instance, openSolaris (Nexenta), FreeBSD (Debian GNU/kFreeBSD) or (not as usable but already functional) the HURD. You see, there IS GNU without Linux, while, AFAIK, there is no Linux OS without GNU.
3) Linus by himself cannot change the license of the whole Linux kernel. He has to convince all the thousands of developers involved.
4) Even if he did, others can always fork the kernel. That's the beauty of free software/open source.
Member since:
2006-01-11
But you guys have NO problems dropping $200 on Ipods or $200 on a day Skiing, or paying for hotel room or airline ticket or anything else. But god forbid if you ahve to pay for software.
Why is it that all other professions can command their price and we as consumers pay that price but when it comes to software we are all talking about not spending on Vista and running Linux or BSD?. Why should software be free?
If Linux would cost $200 and Vista cost $200 and the only advantage of Linux is that you got source code, I would bet you that all you so called Open SOurce advocates would be running Vista. How many of you have even looked at the source code for Linux or the source code for Mozilla or the source code for Helix Player?
If Linus told everybody tomorrow that he is going to charge for his kernel and it will be open source, I bet ya, IBM would go back to flogging AIX and Novell would go back to flogging Netware and Redhat would just wither and die.
Edited 2007-03-04 17:35