On 3/12/22 12:54, T wrote:
> On 3/12/22 11:53, rabidR04CH wrote:
>> Wine's quality can't be great because just like the open-source NVIDIA
>> driver Nouveau, they have to work from scratch. It's not like
>> Microsoft made the source code for Windows available to everyone.
>
> Having dealt with those guys for a while, I have a
> different take on it.
>
> Wine is part of Code Weavers.  This is the open source economic model.
>  You give the code away for free
> and charge for the maintenance.  If you want something
> fixed, the likelihood of Code Weavers fixing it is small
> if you  do not have the economic wherewithal to put
> them on your payroll.  It is sort of a hostage situation.
> And they indeed do deserve to be paid for what they do.
>

Libre Office does the same thing.

On 2022-03-12 3:54 p.m., T wrote:
> On 3/12/22 11:53, rabidR04CH wrote:
>> Wine's quality can't be great because just like the open-source NVIDIA
>> driver Nouveau, they have to work from scratch. It's not like
>> Microsoft made the source code for Windows available to everyone.
>
> Having dealt with those guys for a while, I have a
> different take on it.
>
> Wine is part of Code Weavers.  This is the open source economic model.
>  You give the code away for free
> and charge for the maintenance.  If you want something
> fixed, the likelihood of Code Weavers fixing it is small
> if you  do not have the economic wherewithal to put
> them on your payroll.  It is sort of a hostage situation.
> And they indeed do deserve to be paid for what they do.

That's an interesting point. It appears that you are saying that in
terms of having a computing environment that is functional and reliable
in every sense of the word, it is less expensive to go the proprietary
route.

--
rabidR04CH
Red Cross donor, supporter of independent media, proud Catholic and free
speech absolutist
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 3/12/22 15:25, rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 3:54 p.m., T wrote:
>> On 3/12/22 11:53, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>> Wine's quality can't be great because just like the open-source
>>> NVIDIA driver Nouveau, they have to work from scratch. It's not like
>>> Microsoft made the source code for Windows available to everyone.
>>
>> Having dealt with those guys for a while, I have a
>> different take on it.
>>
>> Wine is part of Code Weavers.  This is the open source economic model.
>>   You give the code away for free
>> and charge for the maintenance.  If you want something
>> fixed, the likelihood of Code Weavers fixing it is small
>> if you  do not have the economic wherewithal to put
>> them on your payroll.  It is sort of a hostage situation.
>> And they indeed do deserve to be paid for what they do.
>
> That's an interesting point. It appears that you are saying that in
> terms of having a computing environment that is functional and reliable
> in every sense of the word, it is less expensive to go the proprietary
> route.
>
>
Sometimes. It depends on the project. Fedora and the Kernel
project are very responsive. Wine and Libre Office are the
worst offenders on the hostage front. On the pay front,
Code Industry (Master PDF Editor) is very responsive.
Intuit and M$ are s***. You have to take them individually
as they come.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
> >> On 3/10/22 09:42, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
> >>> T wrote:
> []
> >>>> I will boot from a Linux USB drive to check
> >>>> his hardware.  Whilst I am in there, is there
> >>>> an easy give away that will tell me if he is on
> >>>> W10 or W11?
> []
> >>> If this folder/file is accessible
> >>>   => Windows\System32\License.rtf
> >>> Top of document
> >>>   If Windows 10, the date(last updated) is 2018
> >>>   If Windows 11, the date(last updated) is 2021
> []
> Just for completeness (well, for now - any XP [or older OS!] users
> reading this? Or 8/8.1?): on my Windows 7-32 system, it's dated 2016-8-2
> 10:46.

Do you mean the date/time *of* the file - i.e. a timestamp - or *in*
the file?

Anyway, for my (up-to-date) Windows 8.1 system:

\Windows\System32\license.rtf (lowercase 'l') has timestamp 18/03/2014
at 11:01 [1], which is a bit newer than the 'General availability' date
mentioned by Wikipedia, which is "October 17, 2013".

Looking in the file, I see no obvious date with Notepad and when using
WordPad, Libre Office, etc. to render the RTF, it clearly says
"WINDOWS 8.1" on the third line and the rest of the file is also
splattered with "Windows 8.1".

HTH.

[1] And so do the other 115 other license.rtf files in local language
and license-type (Default, OEM, Volume) subfolders.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> Anyway, for my (up-to-date) Windows 8.1 system:
>
> \Windows\System32\license.rtf (lowercase 'l') has timestamp 18/03/2014
> at 11:01 [1], which is a bit newer than the 'General availability' date
> mentioned by Wikipedia, which is "October 17, 2013".
>
> Looking in the file, I see no obvious date with Notepad and when using
> WordPad, Libre Office, etc. to render the RTF, it clearly says
> "WINDOWS 8.1" on the third line and the rest of the file is also
> splattered with "Windows 8.1".
>
> HTH.
>
> [1] And so do the other 115 other license.rtf files in local language
> and license-type (Default, OEM, Volume) subfolders.
>

Windows 8 and 8.1 EULA didn't include a 'last update' date like Win10 or
Win11.
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms>

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 12.03.22 18:32, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> []
>>>> On 3/10/22 09:42, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
>>>>> T wrote:
>> []
>>>>>> I will boot from a Linux USB drive to check
>>>>>> his hardware.  Whilst I am in there, is there
>>>>>> an easy give away that will tell me if he is on
>>>>>> W10 or W11?
>> []
>>>>> If this folder/file is accessible
>>>>>    => Windows\System32\License.rtf
>>>>> Top of document
>>>>>    If Windows 10, the date(last updated) is 2018
>>>>>    If Windows 11, the date(last updated) is 2021
>> []
>> Just for completeness (well, for now - any XP [or older OS!] users
>> reading this? Or 8/8.1?): on my Windows 7-32 system, it's dated 2016-8-2
>> 10:46.
>>
>
> On my XP PRO computer,
> cant find that file.
> The licence file wpa.dbl is sitting
> in windows\system32 , created maandag 19 juli 2004, 23:23:13
> Thats almost 18 years.......
> 3 licence files: Chaospro, Virualmoon and XoftSpy.
> Hmmm, that last one is a remainder of an old install.
> Last run in 2005.
> Checking with google:
> Last upate in 2006, abandonware.
>

For XP, the file was named Eula.txt
If I recall it was available for viewing during oobe first use or
setup, the latter was a direct link to the source media(i386 folder)

Don't recall if that file was actually present in Windows XP, it may
have been included as 'paper' with the media or by the OEM(pre-installed
o/s).

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ