Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jan 2006 00:21 UTC, submitted by george
Linux "More than five years ago the launch of Microsoft Windows XP - and its considerably improved features and reliability compared with Windows 98 and 2000 - made a comprehensive desktop rollout a no-brainer for companies. The other options were all far from desirable. Now, as the world gears up for the launch of Windows Vista, the conclusion may not be so cut and dry. Certainly, Vista is set to be feature-packed and reliable, and many companies will move to the new platform as a matter of course. However, Linux has come a long way in five years, with the concerted effort of hobbyists around the world supplemented by the resources of tech heavyweights to push its desktop features to near-parity with Windows XP."
Thread beginning with comment 83939
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Costs of switching
by miro on Tue 10th Jan 2006 13:15 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

The files (dll,ocx) are part of a *product* WindowsXP. To use them you *have to* accept a license (which obviously cost money:)) without that I'm pretty sure it is illegal.

MS released *open-source* licenses which specifically DISALLOW using the source code on any other platform than windows. This does not cover the codecs but it is a example of what a license can enforce.

It is not like MS has these codecs on their site with a big banner free download, they are copied (stolen in RIAA jargon) from someones (probably even cracked) windows version.

Edited 2006-01-10 13:19

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Costs of switching
by hal2k1 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 13:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Costs of switching"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"without that I'm pretty sure it is illegal."

It can't be illegal.

The terms in EULAs might want you to believe that it is, and they might want to place all sorts of restricitions on people ... does not mean that they actually have the right to try to impose such restrictions.

If I use a codec (for example for .mov or .rm) that is an exact binary copy of a codec offered by Apple or RealMedia for free to Windows users, then they have no legal grounds whatsoever for not offering those exact same files for use by people running Linux.

If, for example, I download such a codec with Windows and for my Windows system, then what imaginable rule could possibly stop me from pointing to that exact same disk location instructing my Linux media player (on a dual-boot machine) to look there for codecs?

Reply Parent Score: 3