Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org writes:
He is right. If users need bash, awk, perl etc to work, the won't press their employers to switch to a libre OS now that they have that stuff on windows.
[...]
(for example, most installations don't even have a compiler so people can't practically do anything with their tools but running them).
So it could be mandatory to have a compiler pre-installed on the machine (and the compiler would be installed if not present).
Employers will still be reporting to the press they only work with some-company proprietary tools and the advantage of individual users won't have any effect at all.
Unfortunalty probably true. :(
I explained the disadvantage because otherwise RMS' idea would look silly.
Yes. Thank you for doing that.
[me]
Should we put a prominent warning saying "this software is free software with the following 4 rights bla bla"[1]?
This is already there in all GNU tools; well sort of, it's more focused on the no-warranty than on the all-freedom. It's quite boring a message, though.
I was more thinking of a concise startup dialog which is not part of the legal stuff. Or maybe some text rolling at the bottom of the window. Or a text appearing if the user is doing nothing.
Notice that I don't won't to defend the idea of putting free software on Windows. It is just to have some arguments about the pros and cons.
Thank you for your post Alessandro, Best regards, d.