Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

    Phoronix: Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

    A new release of the once popular Parted Magic Linux distribution is available that aims to assist in data recovery and disk/partition management, but it continues to be commercial-only...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU2MDE

  • #2
    What's the news? Is there anything wrong with it?

    Comment


    • #3
      5$ but no updates. 50$ for one year update subscribtion :'D Good luck!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
        What's the news? Is there anything wrong with it?
        The new release/update that's covered by most the article...
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          While I wish him luck, I consider this form of commercialization to be completely wrong.

          Let me quote Syllable:
          Originally posted by http://web.syllable.org/pages/about.html
          Trying to learn from history:
          The problem is that computer technology is very recent, and we are still in the gold rush period. When individuals started buying computers, companies pried the machines from the hands of scientists, and everyone tried to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. When the Internet became popular, they knew they had struck gold, and the miners' train has been unstoppable ever since. Maybe common computer owners are the Indians who got run over. The fact is that computers have never really been designed for common people. First they were made for scientists by scientists, and then they were made by companies to make money. Don't take our word for it, just count the number of advertisements that are on your computer, the computer that you own, that make your computer try to make you buy more stuff from companies. This is just one example of many in the way that personal computers work nowadays. They are too complicated, because scientists originally made them for themselves, and they get in your face because big companies slapped their own agendas on top of them. These are not machines that get out of your way and helpfully do what you want, like a microwave.
          If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
          if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
          if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.

          I see DRM, ads, freemium and proprietary license as preprogrammed in this case, just before the project dies.
          No one is questioning the absolute necessity of monetary compensation, but its about approach, not altruism.

          So, why not offer bounty on features and make people pay for his work, instead of copies?

          I wish him luck with the project!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by brosis View Post
            if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
            He only has to provide the source to everyone who has been buying it. He cannot prevent them from redistributing said source for free, though.


            I'm not sure though, does this offer anything that a standard linux livecd wouldn't? Except for a bit of convenience and user guidance?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
              He only has to provide the source to everyone who has been buying it. He cannot prevent them from redistributing said source for free, though.
              Here. What you said applies only to binaries, mate.

              Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
              I'm not sure though, does this offer anything that a standard linux livecd wouldn't? Except for a bit of convenience and user guidance?
              If you reread my post, you'll notice I also mentioned not only this "aspect", but also this extras "license", as well as its fate.
              Last edited by brosis; 01-05-2014, 08:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
                if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
                if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.
                I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.

                Originally posted by Michael View Post
                The new release/update that's covered by most the article...
                So the title relates to the article how, exactly? I don't know about you, but I expect titles to tell me if something might interest me or not. For this, I need them to actually be a brief "this is what the article is about".
                Also, most of the article talks about the (already informed) ways it's being commercialized. Only the last paragraph tells us about package changes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.
                  Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

                  Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

                    Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.
                    I'm not against your original post, brosis, I do think that's not the right way to commercialize (mostly because I don't see that working), I only argued that it doesn't look like they are trying to infringe the GPL.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wish him all the luck, he will need it, but I do support his choice.

                      Linux-savy users will just boot whatever they have at hand, ubuntu livecd, debian-gtk PXE, it won't matter they'll mange to do their tasks.

                      Less-savy users, mostly from the M$ crowd, will need something that works, have no clue, and figure 'it is like partition magic'. If they buy it for their company, which doesn't care about 5 - 50 USD. Great, we'll see updated sources that benefit all, payed by them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I always just used the GPartEd LiveCD for all my partitioning needs, so I don't really see why one would want to use Partition Magic...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          I always just used the GPartEd LiveCD for all my partitioning needs, so I don't really see why one would want to use Partition Magic...
                          That's exactly my point, why pay for Parted magic when Gparted is free and available on Ubuntu live CD? (and perhaps other distributions..)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            GPL compliant

                            Originally posted by brosis View Post
                            While I wish him luck, I consider this form of commercialization to be completely wrong.

                            If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
                            if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
                            if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.
                            You can find the source code in the document section. They aren't doing anything wrong or ilegal. Basically thay are charging for compiling.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by migueleonm View Post
                              You can find the source code in the document section. They aren't doing anything wrong or ilegal. Basically thay are charging for compiling.
                              And for the convenience of not having to create your own live media, has I don't know any other distro with has many disk utility on their live version, even through most of the software, in Parted Magic, should be available in their repository.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X