Linus predicted Windows would be free June 21 2022 on a WAN show from 2019

[hmb34]

Didn't see a spot to post stuff specifically for WAN show, thought it might be a worthy discussion for this weeks WAN show.

 

Linus starts talking about it at around 28:34.

Specific prediction happens at 29:15.

 

[TetraSky]

Windows has technically been free for a long time. I haven't paid full price for Windows since Windows 7. Got Windows 8 on sale (directly from Microsoft) for about $15CAD because they REALLY wanted people to adopt it, uninstalled and reverted back to Win7 the same day. 
Then got Windows 10 for free and got Windows 11 for free, by way of "free upgrade".

Even pirates got Windows 10 for free with the free upgrade.

[wseaton]

Microsoft has been rumored over the years to be offering a free windows client and even a free server much like hyper-v core but with more features.

 

Been trying to wrap my head around why they won't, at least with a home version. OEMs are basically free anyways. 

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Windows has technically been free for a long time. I haven't paid full price for Windows since Windows 7. Got Windows 8 on sale (directly from Microsoft) for about $15CAD because they REALLY wanted people to adopt it, uninstalled and reverted back to Win7 the same day. 
Then got Windows 10 for free and got Windows 11 for free, by way of "free upgrade".

Even pirates got Windows 10 for free with the free upgrade.

That's not the same as windows being free. 

Buying it on sale does not make it free. 

Pirating it does not make it free. 

Getting free upgrades is not the same as the OS being free. 

 

If Windows was free then OEMs would not have to pay a licensing fee when they sold computers, and I would be able to build an additional PC and install Windows on it without having to pay Microsoft or do something illegal. 

 

 

Windows is not "technically free" in any way shape or form. In fact, the way you present it is the complete opposite. What you should have said is "it's technically not free, but you can get it for free if you try". 

 

 

People on this forum really needs to stop abusing and redefining words just so that it fits some narrative or prediction. It honestly bothers me a lot. 

[wseaton]

Pre installed OEM versions of Windows are sold at a trivial cost to consumers, and in the case of refurbished or outlet PCs essentially thrown in for nothing. We can debate the semantics of the term 'free'. From a sales perspective most consumers get it pre installed on their PC at next to zilch cost to them. This is a fact the anti MS / pro Linux crowd who advocate the superiority of the later dont want to admit.

 

What is arguable is the retail cost of Windows vs OEM. In my many years of working enterprise IT and trying to decode MS licensing have yet to figure out.

 

 

 

 

[Giganthrax]

Windows 10 is indeed free. The only difference between paid and free version is that you cant customize the appearance and it has a watermark.

 

However, even that is easily fixed by getting a cheap key off of ebay for like $5.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Giganthrax said:

Windows 10 is indeed free. The only difference between paid and free version is that you cant customize the appearance and it has a watermark.

 

However, even that is easily fixed by getting a cheap key off of ebay for like $5.

It is illegal to run Windows without it being activated. 

Grey market keys, albeit cheap, are not free either. 

 

Stop abusing the English language. 

 

 

Can I legally download and install Windows without paying for it?  

No? 

Then windows is not free. 

[Zodiark1593]

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is illegal to run Windows without it being activated. 

Grey market keys, albeit cheap, are not free either. 

 

Stop abusing the English language. 

 

 

Can I legally download and install Windows without paying for it?  

No? 

Then windows is not free. 

Section 2 and section 5 of Microsoft's Terms of Service make it very clear that running an unlicensed copy violates said Terms of Service, subjecting the offender to civil action if Microsoft chooses to pursue it. And for businesses that run afoul, Microsoft certainly shows little mercy.

 

However, is there grounds for a criminal case here? From what I understand (looking at the DMCA), the DMCA covers willful attempts to circumvent copyright protections, however, using Windows without activation doesn't appear to circumvent copy protections. Microsoft only locks out several features behind activation, so a case could certainly be made is a user takes extraordinary measures to re enable those features without activation. I don't think that merely using the OS as-is sans activation would constitute bypassing copy protections, as they're not doing anything to stop you anyway. What other laws would potentially apply here?

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Grey market keys, albeit cheap, are not free either. 

Yes, this is technically illegal (well you could play dumb I guess to make it not illegal...but it's still a form of software piracy...or at least it should be).

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Can I legally download and install Windows without paying for it?  

No? 

Then windows is not free. 

I agree, people calling Windows free are not really being genuine about it.  When you buy a new computer it's baked into the cost...but that doesn't make it free.  If you have a computer without windows  on it (building it yourself), you will ultimately be required to purchase a license.

 

To the first bit of your, you can actually legally download and install Windows without paying.  The problem is, just because you can doesn't mean it's "free".  You are effectively entering into a contract with Microsoft, and you are suppose to activate Windows (it's almost meant as a trial period, similar to WinRar).  The thing is Microsoft doesn't bother pursuing people because the costs are too high.  They do however target businesses though in regards to this.  If you don't have the proper amount of CAL, they can request an audit and fine you for being not compliant.

 

So yea, I do agree with you, just clarifying the first bit of your post; as strictly speaking the answer to that is yes.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Section 2 and section 5 of Microsoft's Terms of Service make it very clear that running an unlicensed copy violates said Terms of Service, subjecting the offender to civil action if Microsoft chooses to pursue it. And for businesses that run afoul, Microsoft certainly shows little mercy.

 

However, is there grounds for a criminal case here? From what I understand (looking at the DMCA), the DMCA covers willful attempts to circumvent copyright protections, however, using Windows without activation doesn't appear to circumvent copy protections. Microsoft only locks out several features behind activation, so a case could certainly be made is a user takes extraordinary measures to re enable those features without activation. I don't think that merely using the OS as-is sans activation would constitute bypassing copy protections, as they're not doing anything to stop you anyway. What other laws would potentially apply here?

Of course, I am not a lawyer but the way I understand it, running Windows without a license is breaching the terms of service (since the license agreement states that you are not allowed to run it without activating it with a genuine license).

As a result, you do not have permission to use their software. If you use their software without permission you are committing copyright infringement.

 

Whether or not they come after you, or regardless of if you circumvented some DRM or not, it is still copyright infringement.

A crime is not "legal" just because you didn't get caught or punished for it.

 

A book does not have any copy protection either, and yet I am not allowed to upload the entire collection of Harry Potter books to this forum. Nor am I allowed to download games from GOG without paying for them even though their games do not have any DRM on their and in some cases I believe are even hosted on public torrent trackers (on purpose).

[da na]

15 hours ago, wseaton said:

Pre installed OEM versions of Windows are sold at a trivial cost to consumers, and in the case of refurbished or outlet PCs essentially thrown in for nothing. 

 

As a refurbisher I get keys for free (as long as the previous owner hasn't scratched it off the machine), and I have quite a few spare keys as well from machines I don't end up reselling. So technically I get them for "free" but they weren't free for the original purchaser. And I mark up systems with Windows installed and activated by $10-25 (depending on machine and version) to account for the key price if that person were to buy it (not officially) on their own.

[SimplyChunk]

Windows will only be 'free' from Microsoft when they release the source code and allow other people to make 'distros' of it like Linux.  I really can't see why not.  Let the Client side go free with whatever distro the user chooses. Meanwhile providing support to those server side that pay a monthly sub and reap the benefits of an open source code base where the 'users' do most of the bug squishing and such  

[Arika]

27 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

Windows will only be 'free' from Microsoft when they release the source code and allow other people to make 'distros' of it like Linux

That sounds like a terrible idea, the biggest issue with Linux is the fragmentation, and you want to bring that to Windows?

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, Arika S said:

That sounds like a terrible idea, the biggest issue with Linux is the fragmentation, and you want to bring that to Windows?

What type of fragmentation do you think is an issue with Linux?

 

If Windows became open source tomorrow then I really doubt it would result in any meaningful fragmentation in the foreseeable future. Especially not if it was well managed by Microsoft themselves.

A lot of the "fragmentation" with Linux is because there are multiple major branches of Linux. For example Debian can be see as one major branch. Arch is another. RedHat is a third. There is usually very little, if any, fragmentation within the same family tree. What works on Ubuntu will work on Debian, and the same goes for Kubuntu, Mint, etc.

If Microsoft had control and maintained an open source branch of Windows, that would be the basis for all other Windows distros, and as a result they would most likely have very little compatibility issues between each other.

[whm1974]

33 minutes ago, Arika S said:

That sounds like a terrible idea, the biggest issue with Linux is the fragmentation, and you want to bring that to Windows?

That is also it's biggest strength. How many of the first Distros no longer with us? Soft Landing is a good example. The oldest still around would be: Slackware, Debian, and Red Hat.

[Arika]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What type of fragmentation do you think is an issue with Linux?

 

exactly as the word implies; fragmentation.

 

Even current distros based on a main branch are basically free to do what they want with it, meaning different ones get updated at different times with different packages being bundled into them based on the developers desires. So while there are distros that are all based on the same branch i personally have had different issues on the same hardware depending on the distro (ubuntu, PopOS, kubuntu).

 

If Microsoft was to open this up, there would be hundreds of distros based around privacy where the devs have plucked different things out and implemented their own stuff which will inevitably break something.

 

i would much rather they keep the current windows and release a completely separate version for open source people to go nuts with then if things break the "main" closed-source windows is entirely unaffected.

[Chiyawa]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can I legally download and install Windows without paying for it?  

Actually, you can, and I think it is legal. They provide the iso, you can install Windows to a computer without a key as well. So, yes, you can legally download Windows ISO and install to as many machines as you like.

 

But can you use Windows without paying them legally, then of course it's a big NO! That is as good as stealing their services.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

exactly as the word implies; fragmentation.

 

Even current distros based on a main branch are basically free to do what they want with it, meaning different ones get updated at different times with different packages being bundled into them based on the developers desires. So while there are distros that are all based on the same branch i personally have had different issues on the same hardware depending on the distro (ubuntu, PopOS, kubuntu).

 

If Microsoft was to open this up, there would be hundreds of distros based around privacy where the devs have plucked different things out and implemented their own stuff which will inevitably break something.

 

i would much rather they keep the current windows and release a completely separate version for open source people to go nuts with then if things break the "main" closed-source windows is entirely unaffected.

If Microsoft released it then you could just use their "distro" which would behave exactly like it does today. 

 

I really don't see how that would affect you, even if (and that's a big if) some other windows distro removed a bunch of stuff that resulted in other things breaking. 

[Arika]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

If Microsoft released it then you could just use their "distro" which would behave exactly like it does today. 

 

I really don't see how that would affect you, even if (and that's a big if) some other windows distro removed a bunch of stuff that resulted in other things breaking. 

Just because something doesn't affect me, doens't mean i cant still think it's a bad/dumb idea.

[Lightwreather]

14 hours ago, Arika S said:

i would much rather they keep the current windows and release a completely separate version for open source people to go nuts with then if things break the "main" closed-source windows is entirely unaffected.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that there are licences that forbid forking without permission whilst still being open-source. That ofc goes against the whole idea of "free" but it seems to me that IF (and that's a pretty big IF) they were to go open-source, they'd probably do that.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that there are licences that forbid forking without permission whilst still being open-source. That ofc goes against the whole idea of "free" but it seems to me that IF (and that's a pretty big IF) they were to go open-source, they'd probably do that.

Yeah, and even if they allowed forks, the Microsoft maintained branch would still be the one to target and not stray too far away from.

 

Linux has a more severe fragmentation issue because Linux is just a kernel, so everyone had to develop their own way of doing everything around it. Hence why we got things so many different branches of Linux distros.

Again, something that works on Debian will in 99,9% of cases work on for example Ubuntu too, or Kubuntu, or Mint, because they are the same family. The issues becomes when you try to adapt something for let's say Arch to Debian. 

 

If Microsoft made Windows open source, there would only be one major branch, and that would be Microsoft's.

And besides, if you don't want fragmentation then just stick to the Microsoft branch, which would probably just be exactly the same as the Windows we got today. For Windows users, literally nothing would change, except maybe they would get a better OS thanks to contributions that Microsoft adopts.

 

 

I find it really weird to be against something just because it could potentially have a small negative effect on some users who choose those drawbacks, while completing ignoring all the benefits it could have for other users. Especially when it wouldn't affect the person who is against it at all.

 

The only analogy I can think of would be that it's like being against McDonald's having multiple burgers to choose from, because someone might pick a burger they don't like. If McDonald's just sold the big Mac and nothing else, people wouldn't end up picking the wrong burger. It sounds very selfish if it's coming from someone who thinks the Big Mac is the best burger ever.

[Giganthrax]

On 6/23/2022 at 7:26 PM, LAwLz said:

It is illegal to run Windows without it being activated. 

Grey market keys, albeit cheap, are not free either. 

 

Stop abusing the English language. 

 

 

Can I legally download and install Windows without paying for it?  

No? 

Then windows is not free. 

Yes, you can legally download it from MS website and use the unactivated version indefinitely. There's no need to crack or pirate anything.

 

If doing this was not allowed Microsoft would've added some functionalities to stop people from doing so. For instance, they could make it like a timed trial.

 

Clearly, MS deliberately designed it so that people could use it normally even when it's not activated. And it makes perfect sense, since MS can keep mining data from these users so it's worth it for them.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Giganthrax said:

Yes, you can legally download it from MS website and use the unactivated version indefinitely. There's no need to crack or pirate anything.

 

If doing this was not allowed Microsoft would've added some functionalities to stop people from doing so. For instance, they could make it like a timed trial.

 

Clearly, MS deliberately designed it so that people could use it normally even when it's not activated. And it makes perfect sense, since MS can keep mining data from these users so it's worth it for them.

No, using Windows without activating it is piracy. 

Just because it is possible to do does not mean it is legal to do. 

 

GOG does not put any DRM on their games. You can just download a game and play it without a CD key or anything. However, downloading and playing the game is still piracy. 

 

Likewise, you are not allowed to walk into a house and take someone's TV just because the door wasn't locked. "If I wasn't allowed to do it then they should have prevented it from happening" is not a valid excuse. 

 

Microsoft specifically mentions in their TOS that you are not allowed to run Windows without activating it. It does not matter that it is possible to do so, you are still breaking the TOS and thus committing piracy. 

[donal McScrote]

I used to be an MS fan boy, it's only a matter of time before the GATES foundation micro chip implanted in my arm from the covid jab turns me into a complete conspiracy nut.

[Giganthrax]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, using Windows without activating it is piracy. 

Just because it is possible to do does not mean it is legal to do. 

 

GOG does not put any DRM on their games. You can just download a game and play it without a CD key or anything. However, downloading and playing the game is still piracy. 

 

Likewise, you are not allowed to walk into a house and take someone's TV just because the door wasn't locked. "If I wasn't allowed to do it then they should have prevented it from happening" is not a valid excuse. 

 

Microsoft specifically mentions in their TOS that you are not allowed to run Windows without activating it. It does not matter that it is possible to do so, you are still breaking the TOS and thus committing piracy. 

Nah, you can't download and play a game from GoG if you haven't bought it previously. The option to download isn't available until you pay.

 

MS specifically offers non-activated Win10 for free download and makes it usable indefinitely. They could've prevented this in a million different ways, but they deliberately didn't do so. They clearly wanted to leave it free to use and they aren't pursuing people who do so, likely because they love their data collection and want to maintain their OS market share.

 

Also, I'm no legal expert, but isn't TOS considered practically unenforceable under European laws?