There seems to me an ethics issue developing . One possibly directed at establishing the "pattern of crime" RE: EOL software/hardware support.
I can see a company ethically having legit EOL policy protecting them from liability. Example in my past was devices having consumable safety parts with "expiry risk" factors. If a seal fails causing ammonia leakage it's potentially deadly. That was on Micrographics gear arguably a "Printing" support device. SO the software running on a pc/xt simply disabled the hardware- absent codes from the company. Precedent thus set for EOL "disablement" in safety interlock software. That shows what a valid EOL disablement scenario is and was all about.
The effective disablement of printers attached to unsupported software is NOT the comparable situation at all. Yes, allegedly if you kept your own software archives, it would be a non issue. The looming crash comes with XP style "activation" of nonfree software and DRM locked information. Here the will they ? Vs what "Already has" discussion begins.
I see the golden window for Free and Open Source software to declare an ethical high road.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to me an ethics issue developing . One possibly directed at establishing the "pattern of crime" RE: EOL software/hardware support.
While I'm not sure what you're saying from your post (which doesn't make much sense to me), you seem to be speculating that dropping support for EOL software is equivalent to locking up digital media in DRM.
These are apples over here, and those are oranges over there. ;-)
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Christofer C. Bell < christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
While I'm not sure what you're saying from your post (which doesn't make much sense to me), you seem to be speculating that dropping support for EOL software is equivalent to locking up digital media in DRM.
"dropping support" is not even remotely the same as "withdrawing drivers and asserting that it is illegal for those who happen to have a copy to share with those who need them".
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to me an ethics issue developing . One possibly directed at establishing the "pattern of crime" RE:EOL software/hardware support.
While I'm not sure what you're saying from your post (which doesn't make much sense to me), you seem to be speculating that dropping support for EOL software is equivalent to locking up digital media in DRM.
These are apples over here, and those are oranges over there. ;-)
I'm more inclined to think that there are Red Delicious over here, and Granny Smith over there. If DRM locks you into using a particular device to use your purchased media, then there's not a whole lot of difference between that and closed-source software, since lack of access to the source code is remarkably similar to "lack of access to the decoding algorithm".
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly you're the one making that particular kind of comparison. OSS means support is *nice* but not necessary, because anyone can step in and support the software, or maintain and improve it themselves. Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the software eventually becomes little more than garbage bits on a hard drive.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly you're the one making that particular kind of comparison. OSS means support is *nice* but not necessary, because anyone can step in and support the software, or maintain and improve it themselves. Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the software eventually becomes little more than garbage bits on a hard drive.
Leo, I get what you're saying, but in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0 (what I started with in 1994). The software world, even the open source software world, does eventually move on. The point of open source licenses is to encourage a community effort to improve the state of the art. Maintaining extremely old software, even open source software, devolves into a futile individual effort. Everyone else moves on.
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly you're the one making that particular kind of comparison. OSS means support is *nice* but not necessary, because anyone can step in and support the software, or maintain and improve it themselves. Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the software eventually becomes little more than garbage bits on a hard drive.
Leo, I get what you're saying, but in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0 (what I started with in 1994). The software world, even the open source software world, does eventually move on. The point of open source licenses is to encourage a community effort to improve the state of the art. Maintaining extremely old software, even open source software, devolves into a futile individual effort. Everyone else moves on.
This isn't about maintaining software. This is about leaving the old software alone for people who might in fact still use it (in this case, I'm sure there are many, since 98 is still the best DOS-compatible Windows release). It requires absolutely no effort to permit copying and sharing of old drivers.
Furthermore, the argument made by Chris does not hold water simply because the commercial developers have been paid to provide something, and anything paid for should come with some kind of warranty, not to mention ownership (or an equivalent license) of what has actually be paid for. Freeware, on the other hand, logically comes with absolutely no warranty.
Any responsible printer owner has had ten years now to download copy of the drivers. That should be long enough. I wonder how much money these ancient printer owners were paying HP on a regular basis for a download service. I'd be surprised if you can get ink for something that old but it probably etches on stone instead.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:36, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
This isn't about maintaining software. This is about leaving the old software alone for people who might in fact still use it (in this case, I'm sure there are many, since 98 is still the best DOS-compatible Windows release). It requires absolutely no effort to permit copying and sharing of old drivers.
Furthermore, the argument made by Chris does not hold water simply because the commercial developers have been paid to provide something, and anything paid for should come with some kind of warranty, not to mention ownership (or an equivalent license) of what has actually be paid for. Freeware, on the other hand, logically comes with absolutely no warranty.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Furthermore, the argument made by Chris does not hold water simply because the commercial developers have been paid to provide something, and anything paid for should come with some kind of warranty, not to mention ownership (or an equivalent license) of what has actually be paid for. Freeware, on the other hand, logically comes with absolutely no warranty.
Yeah, but Luke, we're talking about stuff that's a decade old. Warranties *do* end. And as Billy Crook points out in a later message, "any responsible printer owner has had ten years not to download copy of the drivers." Am I the only person who archives drivers until the hardware is gone?
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Christofer C. Bell < christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, but Luke, we're talking about stuff that's a decade old. Warranties *do* end. And as Billy Crook points out in a later message, "any responsible printer owner has had ten years not to download copy of the drivers."
What an ironic typo on my part. "Any responsible printer owner has had ten years now to download copy of the drivers." It seems "not" download may have been more accurate. ;-)
No, you are not. I still have WINDOWS drivers for hardware from the mid 90's I still have a copy of the FLOPPY DISK that came with an ISA-card-attached handheld black and white Mustek scanner from windows 3.1. I have no intention of ever using windows as a primary OS again, or on physical hardware. I don't even know where that scanner is, and I doubt I'll ever see a working ISA slot again. You keep the drivers because it's your responsibility to your self. HP could go out of business next week and you buy a printer tomorrow. Tough luck. Personal responsibility.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 15:16, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Furthermore, the argument made by Chris does not hold water simply because the commercial developers have been paid to provide something, and anything paid for should come with some kind of warranty, not to mention ownership (or an equivalent license) of what has actually be paid for. Freeware, on the other hand, logically comes with absolutely no warranty.
Yeah, but Luke, we're talking about stuff that's a decade old. Warranties *do* end. And as Billy Crook points out in a later message, "any responsible printer owner has had ten years not to download copy of the drivers." Am I the only person who archives drivers until the hardware is gone?
-- Chris
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Furthermore, the argument made by Chris does not hold water simply because the commercial developers have been paid to provide something, and anything paid for should come with some kind of warranty, not to mention ownership (or an equivalent license) of what has actually be paid for. Freeware, on the other hand, logically comes with absolutely no warranty.
Yeah, but Luke, we're talking about stuff that's a decade old. Warranties *do* end. And as Billy Crook points out in a later message, "any responsible printer owner has had ten years not to download copy of the drivers." Am I the only person who archives drivers until the hardware is gone?
What happens if someone wants to give their old HP printer to a charity still running Windows 98? Even if that someone had a copy of the 98 drivers, HP has said including those would be illegal...
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
What happens if someone wants to give their old HP printer to a charity still running Windows 98? Even if that someone had a copy of the 98 drivers, HP has said including those would be illegal...
Well, then I guess that's a niche market better served by Linux. Personally, regardless of any Freedom concerns, I don't have any issue with vendors discontinuing support for ancient products. And out of curiosity, where is HP saying that including those drivers would be illegal? I don't often deal in stuff this old so I'm not familiar with the licensing. ;-)
Semi-off-topic, but I think that old software/drivers disappearing is rather sad from a historical record point of view. There are a lot of progressive stages of technological history that will be all but lost within a few years.
On the flip side, I completely understand why a business wouldn't want to keep publishing copies of the outdated software. Not only does it cost money, but it also implies that the company continues to support the product even if they no longer do. Even a lot of open source projects don't continue to provide source trees or binaries dating back to the first stages of the project.
~Bradley
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org mailto:luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
What happens if someone wants to give their old HP printer to a charity still running Windows 98? Even if that someone had a copy of the 98 drivers, HP has said including those would be illegal...Well, then I guess that's a niche market better served by Linux. Personally, regardless of any Freedom concerns, I don't have any issue with vendors discontinuing support for ancient products. And out of curiosity, where is HP saying that including those drivers would be illegal? I don't often deal in stuff this old so I'm not familiar with the licensing. ;-)
-- Chris
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Bradley Hook wrote:
On the flip side, I completely understand why a business wouldn't want to keep publishing copies of the outdated software. Not only does it cost money, but it also implies that the company continues to support the product even if they no longer do. Even a lot of open source projects don't continue to provide source trees or binaries dating back to the first stages of the project.
Most open source projects provide open access to their CVS/Subversion/Git/etc repository, which contains source back to the first stages of the project.
That's a big "if" there. If they're running Windows98, they clearly have very low expectations for success. As far as the drivers go, I have a sneaking suspicion that HP Legal won't interpret their use of said drivers as infringing. The pocket lawyers here will probably go on a diatribe about that, but let's be realistic here - HP isn't going to sue the Salvation Army for using an ancient Deskjet or its drivers.
Jeffrey.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
What happens if someone wants to give their old HP printer to a charity still running Windows 98? Even if that someone had a copy of the 98 drivers, HP has said including those would be illegal...
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
If they're running Windows98, they clearly have very low expectations for success.
Success for a charity is pretty much complete with a single "customer". Why would a charity run anything other than 98 anyway?
I think you don't understand me. My point was that if a charity was using equipment and/or software that was THAT outdated, then they are obviously do not have a sophisticated IT setup and I doubt that they would be surprised that some random printer that they were given didn't work because they couldn't find a driver. Hell, I bet they wouldn't even know where to go to look for one, and the donated tyranno-winprinter would go into the dumpster where it belongs anyway.
This whole hypothetical situation, IMHO, is just a manufactured drama. If someone knows a charity that has EXACTLY this problem, put it out here, with a detailed description of their setup, and let's see if we can get folks to find a better solution for them. I just think it's getting a bit absurd to keep talking about the hypothetical, but then again that seems to be the favored profession of many here... ;-)
Jeffrey.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
If they're running Windows98, they clearly have very low expectations for success.
Success for a charity is pretty much complete with a single "customer". Why would a charity run anything other than 98 anyway?
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
This whole hypothetical situation, IMHO, is just a manufactured drama. If someone knows a charity that has EXACTLY this problem, put it out here, with a detailed description of their setup, and let's see if we can get folks to find a better solution for them.
Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)
No, actually, the original post was Oren comparing the discontinuance of vendor support for decade old software with Digital Rights Management. The charity came in as a hypothetical somewhere... back there... *points up at the thread*
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
Jon.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)
No, actually, the original post was Oren comparing the discontinuance of vendor support for decade old software with Digital Rights Management. The charity came in as a hypothetical somewhere... back there... *points up at the thread*
-- Chris
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
The original post from Oren Beck:
"There seems to me an ethics issue developing . One possibly directed at establishing the "pattern of crime" RE: EOL software/hardware support.
I can see a company ethically having legit EOL policy protecting them from liability. Example in my past was devices having consumable safety parts with "expiry risk" factors. If a seal fails causing ammonia leakage it's potentially deadly. That was on Micrographics gear arguably a "Printing" support device. SO the software running on a pc/xt simply disabled the hardware- absent codes from the company. Precedent thus set for EOL "disablement" in safety interlock software. That shows what a valid EOL disablement scenario is and was all about.
The effective disablement of printers attached to unsupported software is NOT the comparable situation at all. Yes, allegedly if you kept your own software archives, it would be a non issue. The looming crash comes with XP style "activation" of nonfree software and DRM locked information. Here the will they ? Vs what "Already has" discussion begins.
I see the golden window for Free and Open Source software to declare an ethical high road."
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
The original post from Oren Beck:
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
I was going to donate a HP printer to the arts center I'm volunteering for, but the computer they have right now is a PII-233Mhz machine running Windows98. This turns out to be a sticking point which prevents the printer from being useful to them, as I don't have the original Windows driver CD.
<snip>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com
wrote:
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
The original post from Oren Beck:
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
I was going to donate a HP printer to the arts center I'm volunteering
for,
but the computer they have right now is a PII-233Mhz machine running Windows98. This turns out to be a sticking point which prevents the printer from being useful to them, as I don't have the original Windows driver CD.
So when you said,
"Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)"
You didn't actually mean the original post of the thread, you meant the post somewhere in the middle of the thread as I pointed out here:
"No, actually, the original post was Oren comparing the discontinuance of vendor support for decade old software with Digital Rights Management. The charity came in as a hypothetical somewhere... back there... *points up at the thread*"
Is that right?
At least we now have it confirmed that the poor besotted charity in question really is suffering from this DRM-like lockdown on 10 year old technology. Oh, the evils of corporatism.
While I appreciate that they're wanting to, I can only assume, save money by not purchasing something made in the 21st century, this smells like mismanagement to me. If the technology choices they make prevent them from doing their job, then they're not a charity I would want distributing my money.
Perhaps you'd be willing to invest some of your time, charitably, of course, in setting them up with a Linux system (or even a new Windows system) that can help them effectively manage incoming contributions and distribute them to those in need.
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com
wrote:
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
The original post from Oren Beck:
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
I was going to donate a HP printer to the arts center I'm volunteering for, but the computer they have right now is a PII-233Mhz machine running Windows98. This turns out to be a sticking point which prevents the printer from being useful to them, as I don't have the original Windows driver CD.
So when you said,
"Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)"
You didn't actually mean the original post of the thread, you meant the post somewhere in the middle of the thread as I pointed out here:
"No, actually, the original post was Oren comparing the discontinuance of vendor support for decade old software with Digital Rights Management. The charity came in as a hypothetical somewhere... back there... *points up at the thread*"
Is that right?
Nope. Feel free to put a timestamp on your citation. Leo's post started this thread.
While I appreciate that they're wanting to, I can only assume, save money by not purchasing something made in the 21st century, this smells like mismanagement to me. If the technology choices they make prevent them from doing their job, then they're not a charity I would want distributing my money.
Perhaps their business software, used for doing their job, is still DOS-based. Certainly, Windows 2000 had a decent DOS emulator, but it wasn't perfect. Windows 98 is the best choice for this type of application, if a GUI is wanted.
Perhaps you'd be willing to invest some of your time, charitably, of course, in setting them up with a Linux system (or even a new Windows system) that can help them effectively manage incoming contributions and distribute them to those in need.
DOS applications can be just as effective as Linux or Win32 applications.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
DOS applications can be just as effective as Linux or Win32 applications.
as DOS is a light-weight UNIX (as I am fond of pointing out) The DOS 2.0 manual said so!
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
At least we now have it confirmed that the poor besotted charity in question really is suffering from this DRM-like lockdown on 10 year old technology. Oh, the evils of corporatism.
The PII in question won't boot an Ubuntu CD, not even the alternative. Debian locks up (regular and netinst), and KNOPPIX locks up too. Technically they're "locked" into Windows98.
Oddly enough, the PC in question is a HP. <hmmm>
While I appreciate that they're wanting to, I can only assume, save money by not purchasing something made in the 21st century, this smells like mismanagement to me.
Rugged conservative individualism more like. Their board is so fearful of strings attached to grants, especially government grants, that they don't apply for any, but then they have no money to leverage into fundraisers to make more money.
This means they are entirely dependent on the technology that everyone else has, apparently, "moved on from". If Chris, Billy, or Jeffrey thinks of it as "obsolete and useless", then you can probably find it in this charity's technology donation room. Heck, there are things in that room which *I* think are obsolete, and thats saying something there. ;-)
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
I was going to donate a HP printer to the arts center I'm volunteering for, but the computer they have right now is a PII-233Mhz machine running Windows98. This turns out to be a sticking point which prevents the printer from being useful to them, as I don't have the original Windows driver CD.
does the printer in question work with Linux? Donate them an antique second computer as well, configured as networked printer driver / file server / squid-cache / firewall. Donate them some 10baseT cards and a crossover cable. Heartily welcome them to the early nineties.
On Thursday 31 July 2008, David Nicol wrote:
configured as networked printer driver
Windows 98 (and newer AFAIK) requires printer-specific drivers even to print to a network printer. Good luck with that idea.
That is incorrect sir. As long as the printer speaks either PCL or PostScript you can print to it, from almost anything. All networked printers speak one of those two, and I believe every OS put out since the mid-90s speaks both PCL and PS, and most networkable printers (stand alone types) speak Unix lp, which is universally supported. In this case, it would be a printer directly attached to a Linux box, which would be able to support lp, and thus Win98 would just need to select a generic printer driver and talk to it via that.
The printer-specific drivers are for more advanced functionality, and fine-tuning. However if you select "Generic PostScript Printer" or "HP DeskJet" (which is an example of a generic PCL device, you will most likely have success.
Jeffrey.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2008, David Nicol wrote:
configured as networked printer driver
Windows 98 (and newer AFAIK) requires printer-specific drivers even to print to a network printer. Good luck with that idea.
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
From: Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org Subject: Re: win95/98/ME and printers. An ethics issue comparable to DRM servers or not? To: kclug@kclug.org Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 3:43 PM On Thursday 31 July 2008, David Nicol wrote:
configured as networked printer driver
Windows 98 (and newer AFAIK) requires printer-specific drivers even to print to a network printer. Good luck with that idea.
Not entirely true. If you select a Generic Postscript printer (or even a specific one) you can set up the Linux Samba server to accept Postscript printing from network computers. Windows 98 comes with several Postscript printer drivers standard, and Linux can accept a Postscript printer output and send it on to the attached printer.
Even if that doesn't work, you can also print to File using a Postscript printer selection from the standard Windows 98 printer drivers, and then copy over the files to the server for printing.
To put this topic in perspective, consider a buggy printer driver to which RMS could not get source code without signing an NDA all those years ago. The very idea he found so repugnant that he began the GNU project and FSF. If that hadn't happened, there probably would not be a KCLUG.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
To put this topic in perspective, consider a buggy printer driver to which RMS could not get source code without signing an NDA all those years ago. The very idea he found so repugnant that he began the GNU project and FSF. If that hadn't happened, there probably would not be a KCLUG.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I was sort of amazed this went so long before someone grasped the root irony.
Well, yes, I did say that, but mostly to tell people that this is a way to get people to try Linux. The charities who want to use donated HP printers, such as nearly-new DeskJet D2460 printers, will have to upgrade from Windows 98 to something better to use those printers, and thats a great way to open an conversation about free Linux OSes.
I'm still a little annoyed with HP for deleting the drivers and commanding everyone not to give them away. Smacks of book burning.
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it started with Leo mentioning a desire to give an HP printer away to one, but could not find drivers to use on their old P2 running Win98...
Jon.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Luke -Jr
luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Isn't that the original post of this thread?
;)
No, actually, the original post was Oren comparing the
discontinuance of
vendor support for decade old software with Digital
Rights Management. The
charity came in as a hypothetical somewhere... back
there... *points up at
the thread*
-- Chris
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Leo, I think I found the driver set. Contact me offline if you still want it.
Rick
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 14:02 -0700, Leo Mauler wrote:
Well, yes, I did say that, but mostly to tell people that this is a way to get people to try Linux. The charities who want to use donated HP printers, such as nearly-new DeskJet D2460 printers, will have to upgrade from Windows 98 to something better to use those printers, and thats a great way to open an conversation about free Linux OSes.
I'm still a little annoyed with HP for deleting the drivers and commanding everyone not to give them away. Smacks of book burning.
[Trimmed all unneeded text]
Luke, you apparently forgot that you were the one that brought up the hypothetical charity.
Jeffrey.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
This whole hypothetical situation, IMHO, is just a manufactured drama.
If
someone knows a charity that has EXACTLY this problem, put it out here, with a detailed description of their setup, and let's see if we can get folks to find a better solution for them.
Isn't that the original post of this thread? ;)
On 7/30/08 11:20 AM, "Christofer C. Bell" christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly you're the one making that particular kind of comparison. OSS means support is *nice* but not necessary, because anyone can step in and support the software, or maintain and improve it themselves. Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the software eventually becomes little more than garbage bits on a hard drive.
Leo, I get what you're saying, but in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0 (what I started with in 1994). The software world, even the open source software world, does eventually move on. The point of open source licenses is to encourage a community effort to improve the state of the art. Maintaining extremely old software, even open source software, devolves into a futile individual effort. Everyone else moves on.
No one may be running Slackware 2.0, but I do know folks who still run RedHat 7.2 on their servers, or Debian Etch. While one can make arguments about the benefit of moving forward to a new version, the fact that you *can* continue to run RH 7.2, and maintain the software yourself if need be, is an advantage of the Free Software concept.
Matthew Copple
Yes, I agree.
However some people here seem to not get that the point of this thread is that maintenance of outdated software such as that is clearly understood to be the responsibility of the individual. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for folks to grasp when it comes to commercial software. I think folks are too busy arguing how they think things _should_ be, instead of talking about how they _are_.
Well, the reality is that we don't live on Fantasy Island. We live in a world where businesses incur expenses supporting products. If it is commonplace and customary in a certain industry to discontinue support of old products, and if customers did not pay for or get guarantees of such ongoing support, then that's how it is.
If people don't like this, then I suggest that they don't buy commercial software or products that depend on it and instead use Open Source products, then they can recompile ancient printer drivers to their heart's desire.... oh wait, this is a Linux mailing list. Perhaps the folks upset about HP's decision ought to just run Linux instead? Or is that too obvious? :)
Jeffrey.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Matthew Copple mcopple@kcopensource.orgwrote:
No one may be running Slackware 2.0, but I do know folks who still run RedHat 7.2 on their servers, or Debian Etch. While one can make arguments about the benefit of moving forward to a new version, the fact that you *can* continue to run RH 7.2, and maintain the software yourself if need be, is an advantage of the Free Software concept.
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell
wrote:
Is it your contention that vendors should support a given software release forever? If so, what is your plan to ensure that free software developers start supporting every past release of their software? If you're not holding OSS developers to that standard, why are you holding commercial developers to it?
Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly you're the one making that particular kind of comparison. OSS means support is *nice* but not necessary, because anyone can step in and support the software, or maintain and improve it themselves. Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the software eventually becomes little more than garbage bits on a hard drive.
Leo, I get what you're saying, but in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0 (what I started with in 1994). The software world, even the open source software world, does eventually move on. The point of open source licenses is to encourage a community effort to improve the state of the art. Maintaining extremely old software, even open source software, devolves into a futile individual effort. Everyone else moves on.
Chris, I don't think you get what I'm saying. There's a difference between what you are saying, maintenance, and what I was saying, which is "don't deny access to existing already-created drivers."
By your reasoning every single file associated with Slackware 2.0 needs to be hunted down and *destroyed* so that no one can ever use it again (a rough translation of your statement "in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0...everyone else moves on"). I'm not saying "write me drivers so Slackware 2.0 can use USB," I'm saying let me use Slackware 2.0 *as it was in 1994*, right now if I want to.
And the fact is that just because software is old doesn't mean it is completely obsolete, it just means it is *old*. Solutions aren't dependent on the latest and greatest, they are dependent on what *works*. I've got an inkjet printer which can do photographs, but that doesn't mean that a pencil and paper, archaic technology, don't have their uses in a modern society (such as now, as the printer is out of ink).
What HP is doing isn't refusing to maintain their printers, it is actively choosing not to provide, even on an "as-is, don't expect support" fashion, *existing* drivers. Drivers which require no work to create, because they were already here. Drivers which require no work to distribute, because they were already available on the HP website. They've just (metaphorically speaking) tracked down and *destroyed* every CD and floppy collection of Slackware 7.1 (current as of 1998).
I have a very old Pentium I laptop still running that same "10-year-old OS", namely Slackware 7.1. The laptop won't run anything better as it only has a floppy drive and no CD drive (not even a USB port). What the laptop does do is manage all my recipes in my kitchen, and allows me to write essays or thoughts, or play simple games, while the bread is rising or the water is getting ready to boil. An old wired Ethernet card does a nice job of connecting me to the basement server and very basic Internet connectivity. Fact is that I wouldn't want to risk a $1000+ laptop right next to the stove, and don't have the space for a bulky tower case and monitor.
Sometimes older is a *better choice* than newer.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
Chris, I don't think you get what I'm saying. There's a difference between what you are saying, maintenance, and what I was saying, which is "don't deny access to existing already-created drivers."
By your reasoning every single file associated with Slackware 2.0 needs to be hunted down and *destroyed* so that no one can ever use it again (a rough translation of your statement "in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0...everyone else moves on"). I'm not saying "write me drivers so Slackware 2.0 can use USB," I'm saying let me use Slackware 2.0 *as it was in 1994*, right now if I want to.
And the fact is that just because software is old doesn't mean it is completely obsolete, it just means it is *old*. Solutions aren't dependent on the latest and greatest, they are dependent on what *works*. I've got an inkjet printer which can do photographs, but that doesn't mean that a pencil and paper, archaic technology, don't have their uses in a modern society (such as now, as the printer is out of ink).
What HP is doing isn't refusing to maintain their printers, it is actively choosing not to provide, even on an "as-is, don't expect support" fashion, *existing* drivers. Drivers which require no work to create, because they were already here. Drivers which require no work to distribute, because they were already available on the HP website. They've just (metaphorically speaking) tracked down and *destroyed* every CD and floppy collection of Slackware 7.1 (current as of 1998).
I have a very old Pentium I laptop still running that same "10-year-old OS", namely Slackware 7.1. The laptop won't run anything better as it only has a floppy drive and no CD drive (not even a USB port). What the laptop does do is manage all my recipes in my kitchen, and allows me to write essays or thoughts, or play simple games, while the bread is rising or the water is getting ready to boil. An old wired Ethernet card does a nice job of connecting me to the basement server and very basic Internet connectivity. Fact is that I wouldn't want to risk a $1000+ laptop right next to the stove, and don't have the space for a bulky tower case and monitor.
Sometimes older is a *better choice* than newer
Leo gets the point. Sadly HP and some others do not. Maybe we can teach by example? I've been proposing an ethics concept. That we create a method for archiving deprecated code to preserve it. As a concrete example consider a Usenet reader for Palm called "Palm Reader" Lior Abraham wrote it and sold it thru Cnet etc. Sadly he seems to have abandoned the project. I wish it could be ported over to Linux. It's a dead orphan-nay stillborn or more aptly put- aborted by neglect.
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 01:40:11PM -0700, Leo Mauler wrote: -- snip --
I have a very old Pentium I laptop still running that same "10-year-old OS", namely Slackware 7.1. The laptop won't run anything better as it only has a floppy drive and no CD drive (not even a USB port). What the laptop does do is manage all my recipes in my kitchen, and allows me to write essays or thoughts, or play simple games, while the bread is rising or the water is getting ready to boil. An old wired Ethernet card does a nice job of connecting me to the basement server and very basic Internet connectivity. Fact is that I wouldn't want to risk a $1000+ laptop right next to the stove, and don't have the space for a bulky tower case and monitor.
Sometimes older is a *better choice* than newer.
Just as an additional data point:
root@charon:~# cat /etc/slackware-version Slackware 12.1.0 root@charon:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 5 model : 2 model name : Pentium 75 - 200 stepping : 5 cpu MHz : 100.296 cache size : 0 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 bogomips : 203.30 clflush size : 32
root@charon:~# cat /etc/slackware-version Slackware 12.1.0 root@charon:~# uname -a Linux charon 2.6.23.9 #1 Tue Dec 4 17:23:50 CST 2007 i586 Pentium 75 - 200 GenuineIntel GNU/Linux root@charon:~# cat /proc/partitions major minor #blocks name
3 0 418035 hda 3 1 386849 hda1 3 2 31155 hda2 root@charon:~# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 11848 11076 772 0 3008 3000 -/+ buffers/cache: 5068 6780 Swap: 31144 1224 29920 root@charon:~# ps faux USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 2 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 [kthreadd] root 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:36 _ [ksoftirqd/0] root 4 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:20 _ [events/0] root 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [khelper] root 48 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:06 _ [kblockd/0] root 55 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [ata/0] root 56 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [ata_aux] root 57 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [ksuspend_usbd] root 63 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [khubd] root 66 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [kseriod] root 97 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S Jun12 0:00 _ [pdflush] root 98 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S Jun12 1:59 _ [pdflush] root 99 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:22 _ [kswapd0] root 152 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [aio/0] root 818 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [scsi_tgtd/0] root 857 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:00 _ [kcryptd/0] root 885 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jun12 0:32 _ [kjournald] root 1715 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< Jul14 0:05 _ [rpciod/0] root 1737 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S Jul17 0:00 _ [lockd] root 1 0.0 0.7 772 88 ? Ss Jun12 10:55 init [3] root 1002 0.0 4.5 1848 540 ? Ss Jun12 1:41 /usr/sbin/syslogd root 1007 0.0 3.2 1704 384 ? Ss Jun12 0:00 /usr/sbin/klogd -c 3 -x root 1039 1.0 3.1 1724 372 ? Ss Jun12 773:44 /sbin/dhcpcd -d -t 30 eth0 bin 1109 0.0 2.5 1804 308 ? Ss Jun12 0:00 /sbin/rpc.portmap nobody 1113 0.0 3.8 1872 460 ? Ss Jun12 0:00 /sbin/rpc.statd root 1651 0.0 4.5 3932 536 ? Ss Jun12 0:18 /usr/sbin/sshd root 1695 0.0 9.2 6516 1096 ? Ss Jul14 0:11 _ sshd: root@pts/0 root 1697 0.0 12.4 3124 1472 pts/0 Ss Jul14 0:08 _ -bash root 7396 0.0 7.4 2560 888 pts/0 R+ 14:09 0:00 _ ps faux root 1671 0.0 3.6 1704 432 tty1 Ss+ Jun12 0:00 /sbin/agetty 38400 tty1 linux root@charon:~#
Thanks, -- Hal
I get what you're saying, but there's _always_ a cost. Big businesses have a vested interest in forcibly obsoleting old equipment - after all, HP doesn't make a dime on resold equipment of that kind. Continuing to support it via drivers and web resources doesn't make them any money, and in my opinion only serves to generate support calls.
I see the larger point you're making, but in the case of winprinters I don't think they're as big of a problem as you're making out. Almost ever other printer will work fine without drivers, the only ones that will have problems are some winprinters, and those things eat up the performance of older machines and to be honest should just go away.
I think given that regular old printers are plentiful, in the end the world won't be a bad place if winprinters become unusable.
Jeffrey.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
What HP is doing isn't refusing to maintain their printers, it is actively choosing not to provide, even on an "as-is, don't expect support" fashion, *existing* drivers. Drivers which require no work to create, because they were already here. Drivers which require no work to distribute, because they were already available on the HP website. They've just (metaphorically speaking) tracked down and *destroyed* every CD and floppy collection of Slackware 7.1 (current as of 1998).
--- On Mon, 8/4/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
I think given that regular old printers are plentiful, in the end the world won't be a bad place if winprinters become unusable.
And in the spirit of new information, what do you consider to be a good "regular old printer", and are such printers available on the sub-$100 end of the cost spectrum?
No sarcasm, no flippancy, merely a genuine request for information.
Leo, to be honest instead of asking others to look for you, why don't you go look yourself? It's not hard. There are dozens of printers available for under $100, some for $50 or less. You can Google "printer under $100" or check shopping sites. Newegg.com lists 85 printers for $100 or less. There are quite a few $50 or less.
As far as what's a good printer, 99% of people need just a regular color inkjet (and to be honest most of those really don't need the color). My main buying consideration is how the cartridges are used, I prefer a separate black cartridge.
Jeffrey.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
And in the spirit of new information, what do you consider to be a good "regular old printer", and are such printers available on the sub-$100 end of the cost spectrum?
No sarcasm, no flippancy, merely a genuine request for information.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.comwrote:
Leo, to be honest instead of asking others to look for you, why don't you go look yourself? It's not hard. There are dozens of printers available for under $100, some for $50 or less. You can Google "printer under $100" or check shopping sites. Newegg.com lists 85 printers for $100 or less. There are quite a few $50 or less.
As far as what's a good printer, 99% of people need just a regular color inkjet (and to be honest most of those really don't need the color). My main buying consideration is how the cartridges are used, I prefer a separate black cartridge.
I bought an incredibly awesome printer from MicroCenter that is wireless, has a scanner, full color printing, has a remote administration webpage, and works great in Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, and it was $120. It's the HP PhotoSmart 4385. Granted, it was on special and normally $150. Oh, and the drivers for Linux come with CUPS.
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
I bought an incredibly awesome printer from MicroCenter that is wireless, has a scanner, full color printing, has a remote administration webpage, and works great in Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, and it was $120.
Among the many reasons I do not own a Mac is that I am distrustful of "all-in-one" technology. Printers need only print. More "options" provide additional things which can break, sometimes before other options resulting in (for example) a printer which has a broken scanner, necessitating purchase of a separate scanner anyway or disposal of a perfectly good printer. Integration often results in horrible mistakes like the entire line of Windows OSes after v3.11.
Yes I was annoyed about motherboards coming with on-board <anything>. I don't buy any motherboard which has on-board technology (such as networking, video, sound, modem, hard drive controller, floppy controller, etc.) which cannot be switched off and replaced with an add-on card.
Agreed, but "all-in-ones" are also much cheaper. I don't need a scanner or copier enough to warrant buying standalone ones for use at home, but if I can get it for say $70 more as part of an all-in-one printer that seems worth it to me for the convenience.
Given that we're talking about cost here as a major concern, I think that's a valid thing for folks to look at. However, if you only want a inkjet, there are many solutions for you for under $50.
I felt the same as you did about integrated peripherals, but as prices have plummeted I actually prefer them now. I'd rather have an integrated motherboard that costs $100 than a motherboard, SATA card, sound card, graphics card, networking card that are all separate and cost $300 total. If a component breaks I don't mind shelling out $100 to replace the whole thing, and the lack of all of the connectors and sockets and impaired airflow is a huge plus for me.
But, YMMV.
Jeffrey.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Among the many reasons I do not own a Mac is that I am distrustful of "all-in-one" technology. Printers need only print. More "options" provide additional things which can break, sometimes before other options resulting in (for example) a printer which has a broken scanner, necessitating purchase of a separate scanner anyway or disposal of a perfectly good printer. Integration often results in horrible mistakes like the entire line of Windows OSes after v3.11.
Yes I was annoyed about motherboards coming with on-board <anything>. I don't buy any motherboard which has on-board technology (such as networking, video, sound, modem, hard drive controller, floppy controller, etc.) which cannot be switched off and replaced with an add-on card.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.comwrote:
I get what you're saying, but there's _always_ a cost. Big businesses have a vested interest in forcibly obsoleting old equipment - after all, HP doesn't make a dime on resold equipment of that kind.
That is an incredibly short-sighted view, but far too common these days. Once upon a time, HP had a reputation for making better-quality, durable hardware, that worked as advertised for years. That reputation translated into a premium they could charge for their products, like Zippo, Craftsman, or Toyota . (The latter even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.)
But when they pull a stunt like this, they tell the intelligent buyer that it's not worth it to spend a few more shekels on good quality; they'll just EOL the thing before the hardware physically wears out. It's almost like you aren't really buying a printer any more; you're leasing it.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
Toyota even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.
The bastards!
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
That is an incredibly short-sighted view, but far too common these days. Once upon a time, HP had a reputation for making better-quality, durable hardware, that worked as advertised for years. That reputation translated into a premium they could charge for their products, like Zippo, Craftsman, or Toyota . (The latter even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.)
But when they pull a stunt like this, they tell the intelligent buyer that it's not worth it to spend a few more shekels on good quality; they'll just EOL the thing before the hardware physically wears out. It's almost like you aren't really buying a printer any more; you're leasing it.
Short-sighted? That's an odd counter. How is what I've said "short-sighted"? I think you meant to say that my view was incorrect, as you sighted some examples where you claim that's not done. I was a bit general in my statement, would it help to say "_most_ big businesses have a vested interest in forcibly obsoleting old equipment"?
However, in general, I do not feel that what I've said was incorrect. Note my emphasis on the fact that in the computer industry it's faster than in other industries. Ten years is a very long time in computer-years.
With some rare exceptions all manufacturers obsolete old equipment. Toyota, to use your example, no longer manufactures parts for its older cars. While you can buy new parts for some of the more classic older cars that they made through third parties (and perhaps through their parts department as specialty items), for the mundane series they simply no longer get made. You have to either make them yourself or commission someone else to machine them for you. To draw a parallel to this debate, you can either hack your own printer driver or pay someone to hack one for you.
I didn't spend too long looking, but I can't seem to be able to find anyone selling new, genuine Toyota non-consumable parts (like engines) for a 1967 Toyota Corolla 1100. I'd be more than surprised if Toyota still manufactured anything for that car (other than consumable parts like filters, shocks, brake pads, etc). That's forced obsolescence.
I get the feeling that the people in this discussion arguing against HP are doing so from a position of emotion. They don't like the idea of a company ceasing to support something that they think they might still use, or that they feel still has value. I can understand the _feeling_, but it's not logical. Arguing back with me that it's "wrong" is not germane to this argument.
Please provide evidence that it's morally or legally wrong to cease to provide downloaded drivers to a printer that shipped with a CD that contained those drivers. I'd be very amazed if one could make a cogent argument that they're legally infringing or amoral for not providing a free bonus download service to someone that didn't keep an important part of that piece of equipment.
Anyhow, folks can feel free to keep arguing that they feel really awful or really angry about HP's decision. It's silly, as HP isn't their girlfriend and it's not interested in their hurt feelings, as they're irrational and unwarranted. Yes, I'm sure they'll "take your business elsewhere". But guess what? They all work that way. Those folks are just headed for another disappointment. They ought to go back to chasing kids off of their lawns.
J.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.comwrote:
That is an incredibly short-sighted view, but far too common these days. Once upon a time, HP had a reputation for making better-quality, durable hardware, that worked as advertised for years. That reputation translated into a premium they could charge for their products, like Zippo, Craftsman, or Toyota . (The latter even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.)
Short-sighted? That's an odd counter. How is what I've said "short-sighted"? I think you meant to say that my view was incorrect, as you sighted some examples where you claim that's not done. I was a bit general in my statement, would it help to say "_most_ big businesses have a vested interest in forcibly obsoleting old equipment"?
Don't put words in my mouth. I meant precisely what I said. The attitude you describe is indeed common, but it also short-sighted. Big businesses tend to be publicly-traded corporations, which are notorious for decisions that improve the current quarter's numbers at the expense of long-term health, to impress The Street (US) or The City (UK). Smaller, closely-held firms are more likely to see the cost of providing downloadable drivers for 10-year-old operating systems as an investment in that reputation for products that retain their value for many years, which allows them to charge more and thereby make a larger profit.
With some rare exceptions all manufacturers obsolete old equipment. Toyota, to use your example, no longer manufactures parts for its older cars. While you can buy new parts for some of the more classic older cars that they made through third parties (and perhaps through their parts department as specialty items), for the mundane series they simply no longer get made. You have to either make them yourself or commission someone else to machine them for you. To draw a parallel to this debate, you can either hack your own printer driver or pay someone to hack one for you.
Not quite. It's not just that HP is withdrawing the drivers from their web site, it's that they maintain that it is illegal for others to possess and use those drivers. In the Toyota analogy, it's as if they found a legal argument against reconditioning used parts for their cars. I think a good argument could be made that selling someone hardware with certain representations of capabilities includes an inherent license to use the drivers required to exploit those capabilities, which license is transferrable along with the hardware itself. But even if they have the LEGAL right to prevent third parties from archiving the drivers as a convenience to the secondary market, it's not smart business.
Please provide evidence that it's morally or legally wrong to cease to provide downloaded drivers to a printer that shipped with a CD that contained those drivers
I don't need evidence for something I am not claiming. To the best of my knowledge HP's moral and legal obligations to their customer are discharged by including that CD with the printer (and granting a transferrable license to use the software on it, and to make archival copies of that software). But their actions are eroding the long-term value of their own products.
Some consumers are too short-sighted to recognize that; they wouldn't be buying HP products anyway. People like me, who have been willing to pay a bit more for HP, knowing that we're paying far less per year of service in the long run, will have to re-evaluate that computation. And we will end up buying cheap crap instead, since there will be no reason to pay more for HP.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. I meant precisely what I said. The attitude you describe is indeed common, but it also short-sighted. Big businesses tend to be publicly-traded corporations, which are notorious for decisions that improve the current quarter's numbers at the expense of long-term health, to impress The Street (US) or The City (UK). Smaller, closely-held firms are more likely to see the cost of providing downloadable drivers for 10-year-old operating systems as an investment in that reputation for products that retain their value for many years, which allows them to charge more and thereby make a larger profit.
Well, I don't think you've read what I've written, then. You seem to think that I'm taking the position that they are doing a good thing, or that I agree with it. I honestly don't really care, as I don't buy shitty printers that don't speak PCL or PostScript. The printers I use can use generic drivers.
My position is that it's _how things are_. That's not "short-sighted", as I'm not taking a positive position on it. I'm not saying that I like what they're doing. I'm saying that those of you crying on and on about it are wasting your time, especially considering the fact that the main things impacted are winprinters, and anyone who bought one of those ought to not be mad about drivers - they ought to be mad that they were dumb enough (or deceived into) buying a lobotomized product. That's a separate issue.
For jeebus' sake, this is a LINUX list. Why are folks complaining about Windows stuff? Or is it just about complaining for complaining's sake nowadays? If you don't like what HP has done don't buy their products. Good luck finding a company that "cares" though. As for me, I'll happily buy their products if their hardware is good and the price is right, as I don't care about their software.
I guess I'm just "short-sighted" like that.
Jeffrey.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.comwrote:
Well, I don't think you've read what I've written, then. You seem to think that I'm taking the position that they are doing a good thing, or that I agree with it. I honestly don't really care, as I don't buy shitty printers that don't speak PCL or PostScript. The printers I use can use generic drivers.
On the contrary, it is you who haven't read what I've written.
My position is that it's _how things are_. That's not "short-sighted", as I'm not taking a positive position on it.
I'm not calling your "position" (that large companies have a certain attitude) short-sighted. I'm calling THAT ATTITUDE ITSELF short-sighted. The company doesn't DIRECTLY collect a penny from resale of its products, but the expectation of either a resale value or continued long-term use value contributes to the price customers are willing to pay for those products. You'd think that MBAs would understand this, especially given that some advertising campaigns explicitly reference it, but unfortunately I must agree with your "position": Many, if not most, large corporations see no value to their bottom line from continuing to provide any kind of assistance to owners of discontinued hardware.
Even if it's just leaving some moldy drivers on a web server for a few more years, along with a statement about how they no longer support those drivers, and provide them on an as-is basis as a convenience to customers who have had these printers for over a decade. A statement like that tells me that the hardware is tough enough to outlast the OS the drivers were written for, which inspires confidence in the new printers they're selling today.
For jeebus' sake, this is a LINUX list. Why are folks complaining about Windows stuff? Or is it just about complaining for complaining's sake nowadays?
Well, one point that has been made is that "Windows stuff" being EOLed, accompanied by legal threats, will actually encourage people to think twice about buying hardware that requires a driver tied to a specific OS version.
There are also situations in which Linux uses Windows drivers in a "wrapper" when native Linux drivers are either absent or inadequate (generally due to NDAs preventing our developers from getting complete HW specs). I don't know if that extends to WinPrinters, but there's no technical limitation of which I am aware, that would prevent it.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
Well, one point that has been made is that "Windows stuff" being EOLed, accompanied by legal threats, will actually encourage people to think twice about buying hardware that requires a driver tied to a specific OS version.
Sounds like a good thing. :)
There are also situations in which Linux uses Windows drivers in a "wrapper" when native Linux drivers are either absent or inadequate (generally due to NDAs preventing our developers from getting complete HW specs). I don't know if that extends to WinPrinters, but there's no technical limitation of which I am aware, that would prevent it.
Sounds like a bad thing, that needs to go away. Hardware like that ought to remain unsupported until the manufacturer either provides an open driver or provides the specs.
While I can understand the frustration of those that get stuck with hardware like that, I feel that that's something that needs to be painful, in order that people will learn to make smarter buying decisions and companies will learn (through those smarter decisions and customer feedback) to not make crappy hardware tied to a particular operating system (like winprinters).
In the past I went to great lengths to buy equipment from manufacturers that were friendly to the open source community. I spent extra for BusLogic SCSI adapters, DEC Tulip network cards, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable for folks to do their homework before using Linux. Despite advances it's still not a beginner's OS.
Jeffrey.
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
It's not just that HP is withdrawing the drivers from their web site, it's that they maintain that it is illegal for others to possess and use those drivers.
To be entirely fair to HP, Microsoft did yank all the licenses for the Microsoft components of those HP Windows 98 printer drivers, so currently the only way to use those HP Windows 98 printer drivers is to violate a Microsoft EULA (or code around the Microsoft parts, a lot more work).
Linux has a similar situation, though it is handled quite differently. Not being run by a megacorporation with goals of global domination through underhanded techniques, the FSF and GNU project allows proprietary software companies to *technically* violate the GPL through temporarily including GPLed Linux header files in their non-GPL program code during runtime (but not when the binaries are originally compiled). This is how HP is able to create HP drivers for Linux despite HP being in a similar situation with its Windows 98 printer drivers.
--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.comwrote:
Toyota ... even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.
On a related note, the BBC supercar show "Top Gear", with a long reputation of pulling strange car stunts, did a program on the invulnerability of Toyota pickup trucks. The presenters said they kept seeing terrorists and paramilitary groups all over the world using Toyota pickup trucks, and wanted to see why Toyota kept getting chosen.
So they bought a 13 year old Toyota pickup truck (190,000 miles) and tried to destroy it in rather dramatic and outlandish ways. First some conventional stuff: drove it down a long flight of outdoor concrete stairs, drove it into a tree, left it tied down to the end of a boat ramp and let the tide come in over it for 12 hours. After every attempt on its life, they let a mechanic at it with nothing more than simple tools and no spare parts, and every time the Toyota was coaxed back to drivable condition.
Then they dropped it from a crane, smashed it with a wrecking ball, and put it on the roof of a ten-story building...which was then demolished with explosives. After every attempt on the Toyota, the mechanic used only simple tools and got it running again. They even set the truck on fire and it still ran afterwards.
It's all on YouTube to view, keywords "top gear killing a toyota", parts 1, 2a, and 2b.
On Sun, July 27, 2008 18:08, Oren Beck wrote:
I see the golden window for Free and Open Source software to declare an ethical high road.
I see a bunch of old farts sitting around, griping about Bill Gates terrible conspiracy that prevents them from running Windows on their original IBM PC with 32k of RAM.
My external floppy drive from my Commodore 64 isn't supported under XP either, and Commodore won't supply me with a driver! Waah!
LOL, if you supply the walkers, I'll supply the sticks to wave about!
Jeffrey.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.orgwrote:
I see a bunch of old farts sitting around, griping about Bill Gates terrible conspiracy that prevents them from running Windows on their original IBM PC with 32k of RAM.
My external floppy drive from my Commodore 64 isn't supported under XP either, and Commodore won't supply me with a driver! Waah!
Drifted kipple snipped:
The direct focus of my Original Post seems missed by comment drift.RE HP Drivers.
Since the HP windows drivers in question are for a Deprecated or EOL situation- HP not only has stopped having the download on their site- They are not allowing legal distributuion by others of those drivers. Because they CAN it seems.
The drivers are NOT a GPL covered software.
It is a closed source proprietary software license of THEIR "Drivers" code. THEY are within their legal "rights" to not allow distributing of "deprecated or EOL" product drivers-Their Code-Their legal right. MY query is aimed at the ethics.
The ETHICS of how that is done speak much of a company and it's customer care. If a vendor is told to deprecate drivers for product Foo on an OS older than "bar" date? They may be legally correct in so doing. As it seems HP has done RE the win XX drivers under discussion. Is orphaning your customer base's hardware ethical-let alone smart? That fork of ethics to be greed or good. With a feedback potential of one fork being an earned gain in customer base. Or a customer base loss earned by "bad" Ethical choices.
The DRM ethics connection comes to haunt yet again.One situation is a printer you paid for and found it essentially deactivated for lack of driver avaibility.
The other situation is DRM locked content rendered *DEAD* to you from servers shut down. That shutdown - and NO alternate provision for your continued use of content PAID FOR ALREADY? That 's another question of what Ethics are afoot.
BOTH cases rest on a pattern. Getting money from a customer. Applying quite legal sophistry to write contract/EULA/Etc to create a perception of durable utility. All neat and common law compliant to an initial glance. Except it's moral ancestry seems at present derived from Mr Barnum of Circus fame.
" This way to the EGRESS!"
-
Billy Crook -
Bradley Hook -
Christofer C. Bell -
David Nicol -
Hal Duston -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Matthew Copple -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck -
Richard Piper