On paper perhaps not, but speaking as someone who has dealt directly with both microsoft and RedHat paid support (we have both at the enterprise level) The microsoft support is superior.

No, it’s not. Rather, it’s a support contract offer. A warranty would include stuff like “Things won’t break with the next update” or “All bugs will be fixed within xyz hours”.–
That is not included with out the box products of Microsoft or even standard Volume Licenses.

About time you read the MS licensing. Default warranty of windows basically says you will get updates for so many years. Not how fast or how good. Note of that All bugs will be fixed within xyz hours does not apply to Windows. There are cases of bugs in Windows not fixed before end of life of the product that were found in the first few days of it release.

–“Things won’t break with the next update”–
Redhat does on their commercial distribution maintain legacy support options. So there is a Things will not break in no repairable way next upgrade or update with Redhat.

ch the true reality is Redhat and SUSE has more legal and contract responsibility to the end customer for same money spent than Microsoft. The deal from Microsoft is not that great.

This is where you are really screwed. The only reason not to be choosing Redhat over Microsoft is you are doing some function that Redhat Enterprise Linux cannot do.

Cost and Quality of Support Redhat wins over Microsoft every time.

ch reality people like you are bring strawman arguments that are simple to disprove and you should know better than use them.

No, it’s not. Rather, it’s a support contract offer. A warranty would include stuff like “Things won’t break with the next update” or “All bugs will be fixed within xyz hours”.

Hmmm… what’s the difference between a warranty saying X will send someone to your door to fix things if anything goes wrong and someone selling support to fix things if anything goes wrong? A warranty is just a clause of contract of purchase. A contract to provide service may be much the same.

“With a Red Hat subscription you’re entitled to production support*:

Unlimited incidents
Available 24×7 around the world
Not limited to issue resolution—we’re here to help you avoid issues from the start
Unmatched technical expertise of our engineers
Extended relationship with partners
Rich content guiding you through planning, deployment, and operating your IT
Optional support programs are available for Technical Account Management and developer support.”

That’s a damned good warranty. I would take that any day over “you may return the CD in the next 40 days for a full refund…”.

Problem is not as simple as it first seams. You avoid 1 issue you risk bring another issue straight down on top of you. Thunderbird solution is stable but with a few annoying issues.

iLia
–And why only copy why not to move it? It seams to be more intuitive.–
In thunderbird data storage there is no such thing as a move. There is only create, read, write and delete. This is the 4 standard operations of most storage. So a move operation to you makes a copy then deletes the source. So that if the program crashes half way threw your data is not lost.

Safe data handling does bring a few headaches. Since lot of times it basically mandates a move operation cannot exist particular with things doing remote access since as part of doing a safe move you have to duplicate and you don’t want to duplicate the remote access.

What seams intuitive when you get down to the nitty gritty of the code is now not a really safe path for the data.

Of course there might be away around this but I still don’t think you would be happy all the time. Duplicate the URL but have the new copy disabled until the source is deleted and a crash at the wrong time still might lead to items not downloading. So bug free doing what you want is basically impossible. iLia. Question is really what bug do you want. Maybe if you are able to think that through you will be able to place a valid feature request.

Some-things are not defined by GUI convention because there is simply no 100 percent safe path. So each implementation is allowed to choose the path and risks matching.

I have read gpl. You did not.
“IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW”

Note required by APPLICABLE LAW. GPL does not contain a get out of it completely. If you provide GPL for medical usage and it kills you can be held to account. BSD and MIT licenses on the other hand not so good. Introducing internally evil code into a GPL project can also be prosecuted due to the contained Applicable Law clause. MIT and BSD you are home free.

GPL coverage protect from common law does not protect from criminal. So GPL does mandate some responsibility on the part of the authors since they still can be charged under the criminal code. GPL is not a complete waver. Microsoft EULA contains a complete waver.

iLia
–No responsibility here–
Is a complete bogus statement for GPL. You got it right for MIT and BSD. Does this now explain why I have a preference for LGPL, GPL, MPL over MIT and BSD licenses.

iLia
–And, oiaohm, Linux source code is open and accessible, but actually many and many bugs go unnoticed for months or years, and maybe known to computer criminals, so open source do not save from the damage caused by the software.–
True but when the event happens you can track down what coder did the alteration and make sure everything he has done has been reviewed. So a rogue programmer can get found.

Bugs being known to computer criminals first is true for Windows as well. Since a lot of so called criminal tech comes from intelligence agencies that do have access to the Windows Source code. So the criminal has access to the source code you don’t. So closed source is not really a magic differences here for desktop computers.

Lot of medical devices with closed source don’t fail due to an attacker. They fail because people don’t know what they will react to. So they get exposed to stuff that like resets the settings the person dies due to device malfunction. A system does not have to be hacked to kill. Lot of implanted medical devices these days that is insane you can configure them at 150 metres without ever touching the person. These include pace makers. More fun some are 2.4 Ghz same a bluetooth and wifi. In fact some are in fact bluetooth because bluetooth radio chips are cheap. So basically anyone with a mobile phone and attack software could kill a person without ever coming into contact even possibly by mistake. Might just kill them by bad luck that the radio noise happens to make the right signal. Basically with medical devices we are to the point of insane. No sane person who really thinks about it wants a device implanted in them that can be reconfigured without physical contact of some form. We need regulation soon(more like yesterday but you cannot rewind time).

Security by Obscurity kills when it comes to medical devices partially when they are not doing basic physical security. Like it could be as simple as having a chip that detect the present of a super magnet or charging coil to allow programming o changing configuration otherwise. The requirements to make implanted devices safe from attack are not that high. Little physical security to control how and when they can be altered. Not doing saves a few dollars and a little weight.

oldman
–No they dont, they sell SUPPORT. RedHat is just as capable of disclaiming warranties as any company trying to keep from being sued.–
Yep of course the any company include Microsoft.

Not everything RedHat can disclaim due to GPL and MPL. So really RedHat as more responsibilities to you than Microsoft.

Nothing in FLOSS prevents an OEM/retailer/service provider from selling a warranty.

RedHat and others make a good living doing so.”

No they dont, they sell SUPPORT. RedHat is just as capable of disclaiming warranties as any company trying to keep from being sued.

RedHat and others make a good living doing so.

Have you read GPL?

NO WARRANTY

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

No responsibility here.

Maybe BSD License?

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT NY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Nope!

MIT?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

No!

And, oiaohm, Linux source code is open and accessible, but actually many and many bugs go unnoticed for months or years, and maybe known to computer criminals, so open source do not save from the damage caused by the software.

What you want when you make 10 copies of a folder for it to download it 10 times so eating up your bandwidth.

there are other way to prevent it. A program simply can create a list of all RSS feeds before actually downloading new messages, check it and remove duplicates and only then download new messages, you see it is not that difficult.

But what ThunderBird does when user wants to drag&drop a subscription? When the user copies one subscription record into another folder, TrashBird creates a new record with the same name but without feed address, and then user has to copy feed address from the initial record and past it into the new record, and only after all it he can remove the initial record.

And why only copy why not to move it? It seams to be more intuitive.

No surprise that in Linux/Unix world users are called “loser”.

Please do so URL’s please.

That’s only valid if software patents are legally enforceable. That’s not true in most of the world and shortly will not be true in USA. Software is protectable under copyright, not patents. Software created according to some specification and licensed under GPLv2 is not encumbered.

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

See? Software is not any of those things that are patentable. It might be patentable as part of a machine but shipping GNU/Linux on a CD etc. is not covered. So, there are issues of patentability only if GNU/Linux is installed in some device. That can simply be covered by the deal to sell/buy/transfer the device, nothing to do with software development.

Currently the courts have this wrong but SCOTUS will sooner or later straighten that mess out. I hope sooner or the US economy may never thrive again. Imagine every “smart” device needing 1000 patent-holders to be paid. Imagine a world where software is free. Can USA compete against the world with swarms of piranha/lawyers holding them back? Manufacturers already flee USA. Preventing legal importation of modern technology will make USA a backwater if software continues to be patentable in USA.