OK, you got me on that one, you can charge more if you want (at least theoretically, see last part of your quote).
The original (in v3) is even more direct on this:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. **You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. ** And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.
I also use Nvidia and a few other “non-free” components but choose free components when ever possible, not because of price but because they mostly work better (fglrx vs. free radeon with my older laptop, radeon is far more stable with comparable performance).
No problem, I also think we misunderstood each other on some points.
I explicitly support free software and its advantages and I think it’s great that there is paid development on this, that big companies are showing interest and put also a lot of money in FLOSS (of course because they want to make money, that’s perfectly fine, because it shows that you can make money with free software, that the idea is not only some “idealistic” and non-realistic concept. It really works and gives excellent products).
My real intention in posting in this thread was the dubious first post, the rest got a little out of hand.
I don’t think I understand why I should pay $180 for Workstation when Server will do everything I need. I think this applies for most people. I have nothing against purchasing if there is a need. In this case I just don’t see a need for most of us.
VMware Server 1.x didn’t have USB 2.0 support; VMware Server 2.0 does.
The biggest differences between WS and server are that WS supports
multiple snapshots (server supports only one), and server has a
disconnected console (though I believe workstation added that in 6.5).
Workstation also supports something called “Unity mode” - if you are
running the VMware tools, you can have the apps in the VM display on your
host’s desktop and run the VM minimised.
Both are good products, but have different uses. (Been using VMware
workstation since version 2 myself).
> The biggest differences between WS and server are that WS supports
> multiple snapshots (server supports only one), and server has a
> disconnected console (though I believe workstation added that in 6.5).
The multiple snapshot feature makes a very big difference. If you test a lot with your installation, you want VMWare Workstation.
> Workstation also supports something called “Unity mode” - if you are
> running the VMware tools, you can have the apps in the VM display on your
> host’s desktop and run the VM minimised.
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:50:41 +0000, Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:
> * Jim Henderson wrote, On 03/20/2009 05:08 PM:
>> The biggest differences between WS and server are that WS supports
>> multiple snapshots (server supports only one), and server has a
>> disconnected console (though I believe workstation added that in 6.5).
> The multiple snapshot feature makes a very big difference. If you test a
> lot with your installation, you want VMWare Workstation.
>> Workstation also supports something called “Unity mode” - if you are
>> running the VMware tools, you can have the apps in the VM display on
>> your host’s desktop and run the VM minimised.
> I found this painfully slow
I have found this to generally be the case as well. And taking an app
full-screen tends to put it behind my panels, and you can’t make it
respect the “usable” part of the screen.
@bruce thanks i don’t think i could have said it better myself
thats the exact point of the whole system, its a choice(one among many) if you don’t like it don’t use it. as everyone is entitled to their opinions there is no right or wrong, however this is an open forum where people come to share ideas so i take it is disrespectful(and quite rare) that anyone thinks it appropriate to tell others that the “need” to use some particular peice of software.
as for your preconception that most linux users think anything corporate is bad the fact is if you had taken the time to look at any of the i’m going to say thousands of threads here you might have noticed that a vast majority of users incorporate proprietary or if you’d prefer the term “corporate” components, drivers and yes even software into their usage of linux.
Du hast recht was du schreibst,well you know let them spend money on $M that how Bill Gates making lots,lots of money of those people buying $M product,if they research they can get better stuff for less;).
It appears that most posters in this general forum are most concerned with which version of OpenSuse they use and which GUI; it seems to me that the real issue is how does one use their system and are they using it to gain the most productivity from it? If one is a serious application developer, then having a multiple platform system via some VM application is by far more useful than a single,dual, or multiple boot system. Taking a large hard drive and slicing it into many partitions which are only used occasionally when one boots into “an occasional use OS” seems like a complete waste of a good system. What do you think? How do most people use their systems?
there are many reasons to do a dual boot system, while i myself operate solely on suse. i understand the reasoning behind questioning the dual or multiboot choice as wasting hard drive space. maybe they just want to experiment with other os’ or maybe they have yet to find the combination that will maximize their productivity. since many of the multi boot questions and statements i’ve seen here have been one linux and multiple versions of windows(ie xp and vista) the question that should be asked is why is it taking multiple versions of the same os to accomplish what you want. its like keeping 2 seperate release versions of suse around on simply because one has maybe a handful of programs the other doesn’t
Unfortunately, VMWare (or any virtualization software) requires hardware that some people just might not have.
How well will any of them work on my Pentium M 1.4GHz w/512 MB ram system?
My solution is (or was… ) that I have 2 hard drives (a 20GB and 30GB, nothing grand or huge) and cradles for the laptop. One is running the primary stuff while the other is set up so I can wipe it off and do what I need for testing or demonstrating purposes. I could throw Windows on there and be be done with it.
I’m avoiding using Windows because I want to force myself to try and do everything Windows-free. So far, it has been successful. The next step is to wean myself off of Crossover and Wine…