Slashdot Mirror

My guess is that you intended to joke, but MetaGrid and HyperNet have already been trademarked. Quote: "GridNet(tm) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, two moieties, The MetaGrid(tm) and The HyperNet(tm)."

Dell has often been adversarial. Here are some recent stories about ways Dell has treated customers poorly:

For example, Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy. Quote: "... wonder if company executives just don't care anymore what people think of Dell support." Another quote from the same story: "Every contact number I got took me to an overseas call center, and after finally getting past the ridiculous voice systems, when I got a live person and asked for corporate contact info (email or phone) for corporate, I was either disconnected or put on hold for a manager -- who never picked up and I was disconnected after five minutes."

Here's a quote from No Spare Processors for Dell Server: "At what point does a manufacturer's obligation to provide spare parts for a system cease? Consider the experience of one reader who recently found he could not get a processor for a two-year-old Dell server, a system still covered by a Dell same-day onsite service contract."

Another quote from College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty: "Maybe I've been lucky, but in 70 years I've never dealt with a worse company than Dell."

My guess is that you intended to joke, but MetaGrid and HyperNet have already been trademarked. Quote: "GridNet(tm) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, two moieties, The MetaGrid(tm) and The HyperNet(tm)."

Dell has often been adversarial. Here are some recent stories about ways Dell has treated customers poorly:

For example, Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy. Quote: "... wonder if company executives just don't care anymore what people think of Dell support." Another quote from the same story: "Every contact number I got took me to an overseas call center, and after finally getting past the ridiculous voice systems, when I got a live person and asked for corporate contact info (email or phone) for corporate, I was either disconnected or put on hold for a manager -- who never picked up and I was disconnected after five minutes."

Here's a quote from No Spare Processors for Dell Server: "At what point does a manufacturer's obligation to provide spare parts for a system cease? Consider the experience of one reader who recently found he could not get a processor for a two-year-old Dell server, a system still covered by a Dell same-day onsite service contract."

Another quote from College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty: "Maybe I've been lucky, but in 70 years I've never dealt with a worse company than Dell."

My guess is that you intended to joke, but MetaGrid and HyperNet have already been trademarked. Quote: "GridNet(tm) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, two moieties, The MetaGrid(tm) and The HyperNet(tm)."

Dell has often been adversarial. Here are some recent stories about ways Dell has treated customers poorly:

For example, Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy. Quote: "... wonder if company executives just don't care anymore what people think of Dell support." Another quote from the same story: "Every contact number I got took me to an overseas call center, and after finally getting past the ridiculous voice systems, when I got a live person and asked for corporate contact info (email or phone) for corporate, I was either disconnected or put on hold for a manager -- who never picked up and I was disconnected after five minutes."

Here's a quote from No Spare Processors for Dell Server: "At what point does a manufacturer's obligation to provide spare parts for a system cease? Consider the experience of one reader who recently found he could not get a processor for a two-year-old Dell server, a system still covered by a Dell same-day onsite service contract."

Another quote from College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty: "Maybe I've been lucky, but in 70 years I've never dealt with a worse company than Dell."

I like to speculate about the social background of how these things happen. Here is my guess:

Dell top executives were sitting around during a long lunch smoking cigarettes and drinking martinis. One of them said, "We've gotten a lot of free bad publicity in the past, but now that Ed Foster has very unfortunately and sadly died, how will we get bad press in the future?

They smoke their cigarettes for a while in silence while staring at a good-looking waitress, until one of them says, "I know. We will get Dell on the front page of Slashdot by trademarking a commonly used term!"

Another says, "I don't like that idea very much, but since we only get a new idea about once a year, let's do it."

And that's how it happened. Or maybe not. I would love to know the true story, which I think would be more interesting than this fictional one.

the spokesperson sent me this sample of a letter sent by Barracuda sales executives whenever they are made aware of a seller on eBay elsewhere offering used device for sale:

"Please know that any resale of used Barracuda Networks equipment is unauthorized and your customer will be unable to receive Energize Updates or even use the products."

A physical copy is pointless if it still requires you to connect to Steam.

I still occasionally play games that I bought over a decade ago - including those from companies that are defunct. Good thing they never used DRM requiring a connection to their servers, eh?

You've got a neat imagination. Heck, I could afford to buy over a dozen copies of Orange Box every week, but that's not the point. I don't want to deal with any BS when I'm just trying to play some games and relax. This is why I've bought more games for my Wii than my PC in the last year. I'd buy a 360 and Orange Box, but I doubt that system would last a year before getting a RROD, let alone ten years...

Activation sucks--Broderbund ripped off a paying customer.

The only IE-only sites I've seen in years were internal corporate intranet applications, and even those are starting to be rare

I don't think that US Customs is an internal corporate intranet app.

"Ars Technica, Toms Hardware Guide..."

Ars Technica is too non-specific. Tom's Hardware Guide has too many ads; I wonder how much of what is written there is just hype to get paid ads.

Can't do without Ed Foster's Gripelog. How else can you discover that it is not just you who has trouble with Dell technical support? See, for example: May 10, 2007: College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty.

Ed Foster's readers have sometimes even rated Dell more abusive than Microsoft. Awesome achievement for Dell!

But what happened to the Ed Foster's Gripelog website? It's been offline for perhaps a week. ("Phone in your tech gripes toll-free: 888-875-7916.")

You say Walmart is selling low quality versions of products, and hiding that fact.

The problem I have with that is that Dell is a very low-quality supplier, too. It isn't just Walmart that may lower the value of the Dell trademark, Dell has done that itself.

My experience with Dell is that technical support is extremely abusive. See, for example: May 10, 2007, College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty.

My experience with Dell is that if you give Dell an email address you will get spammed forever. There is a link to unsubscribe, but it doesn't work.

What happened to Ed Foster's Gripelog? It's been offline for perhaps a week. ("Phone in your tech gripes toll-free: 888-875-7916.")

Check Ed Foster's Gripelog || The Reader Advocate to discover which companies are being abusive.

However, on 2007-05-19 at 22:58 PM PDT his web site seems not to be functioning.

This is really funny but not really news knowing MS.

See this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_ vista_eula_analysis/

and this: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/10/24/045 6/5625

and this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

MS is doing their best to kill Vista when/where they can. I wonder if they have OS/2'itis.

...Just by way of example, what about a security researcher who a year or so from now wants to compare the buffer overflow vulnerabilities of the original version of Vista with the inevitable SP1? Under Microsoft's rules, the researcher could not make public the results of the older version of the software. And if you think it highly unlikely Microsoft would actually object to the benchmarks in such circumstances, think again. In 2001 Microsoft came down on an independent lab that was about to go public with performance benchmarks comparing Windows NT and Windows 2000 (). Since neither the NT or Win 2000 EULAs had censorship clauses at the time, Redmond even went to the extreme of invoking the clause in SQL Server, since it was used in the lab's tests.

It looks like the site (and the author) has been mostly reabsorbed by InfoWorld, but Ed Foster's http://www.gripe2ed.com/ blog/site has a history of collecting such information, and the http://www.gripewiki.com/ also has areas with specific vendors listed (although the lists are woefully incomplete) -- in fact, I'd probably recommend skipping the wiki entirely unless you just have time to burn.

And just because "self-help" (read: "We, owners of the license, have the right to 'help ourselves' enforce our license by remotely shutting down the software on your box") didn't fly under UCITA, doesn't mean it's not permitted as a "technological measure" in the context of DMCA.

Ed Foster already wrote an article speculating on whether WGA is in fact being used to forcibly sunset WinXP.

See http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/6/27/0543 /50236

Personally, I think he's correct -- why else would WGA suddenly become a "required" part of any update?

Furthermore, why should WGA ever need to confirm that a copy is legit more than ONCE? if a given install was legit last week, how could it possibly become pirated next week?

Why is it so impossible to have paypal or other online bill pay regulated. I mean is it that hard to make paypal a real bank so they are held accountable.

PayPal doesn't WANT to be a bank, and unless they apply to become one, they won't be held to the same standards as one. They WANT to be an "online payment processing service", which exempts them from FDIC (in the current unlikely chance they fold, you lose any money stored there rather than getting up to $100k back like a bank) and from lots of rules and oversight that they don't want to do, because this way they can go on shafting those who use the service. As long as they're the only game in town, you get to play by their rules.

There's a reason I no longer take PayPal on Ebay: see http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/3/6/8326/ 75161

Ed Foster blogged about the EULA a while back. Strange that the software needs a unique EULA at all.

What I can't figure out is why MS needs to monitor the legitimacy of your copy of Windows XP in real time. Is a valid copy suddenly going to become illegitimate for some obscure reason?

I hope HP doesn't become a big name in computers, because it is my experience that their computers are of poor quality. For example see here. If HP becomes as big as IBM was it is a sign that flashy marketing is triumphing over substance again.

Much of this happened before the Web was mature enough to capture and document the discussion. There's good link in one of the other replies, but here are a few more:

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=283 96
Link to a new item about a lawsuit Novell filed in 2004 alleging OS-level sabotage. It does point out that WordPerfect's main problem was lack of a Windows version, but it also alleges Microsoft indulged in some software sabotage.

http://www3.gripe2ed.com/scoop/comments/2005/10/24 /9814/8315/20?mode=alone;showrate=1
An anonymous posting to Ed Foster's Gripelog by someone who claims his wife was a WP beta tester. Mentions the undocumented API issue but does point out it has never been proven sufficiently to allow companies to sue MS for damages. Blames a lot of the troubles with both MS Word and Wordperfect on memory management issues, which is a valid shot.

But the most interesting is this analysis of the MS anti-trust trial written by Ralph Nader (admittedly no friend of any monopolist, but a guy who does his homework): http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html. When you get far enough down in the article, you'll find this quote:

But, as Judge Jackson points out, and as most computer experts know, not all of the quality problems are innocent. In its internal emails and by countless examples, Microsoft has demonstrated that it believes it benefits when consumers cannot make competitor's products work correctly. Microsoft has a range of methods to undermine its competitor's products. When it does not use deliberate sabotage, it can withhold important technical information or refuse to license technology to its competitors, such as when it refused to permit Netscape to distribute a utility to log-on to Internet Service Providers, or when it withholds or unexpectedly changes applications programming interfaces and data file formats.

The reason Novell included intentional sabotage in their suit was becuase of evidence submitted from the anti-trust trial. Again, there are only indirect references to the practice in the trial evidence, not explicit evidence from the OS code itself, but when has anyone who hasn't signed a non-disclosure agreement really gotten a good look at what's under Windows' hood?

Does it pass the test for "beyond resonable doubt" -- probably not. However, "preponderance of evidence" only requires 51% certainty. There are quite a few people who will look at the trial evidence and Microsoft's behavior in other areas and pass that 51% mark.

Those who try to document Microsoft's abuses find that there are too many to investigate and explain.

For example, Ed Foster's Gripelog has a story about Microsoft's Harshest EULA. Windows users who download the "High-Priority Update" called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification are required to agree to a new contract. Ed says, "Not only does Microsoft place restrictions on your right to criticize the software, it won't allow you to uninstall the software or to test it in an operating environment."

EULAs are a unique kind of contract in that they supposedly allow one party to the contract to force new contract provisions on the other. Contract law has always held that forced contracts are illegal.

If you buy, agree to the terms of use, and install Windows for your company and train your staff to use it and applications you buy for it, your total cost is far greater than the cost of Windows. Yet EULAs supposedly allow the software provider to change the contract provisions at any time, with no restrictions whatsoever. Your only option if you don't agree to the new contract provisions is to lose all the money you have invested and stop doing business until you can get new software. This is especially severe when a company has a monopoly on the operating system your business software needs to run.

The concept of fairness is completely absent from EULAs. Those who write EULAs believe that they can do anything they like. If you go to your kitchen and find a Microsoft employee eating your ice cream, check your EULA; maybe Microsoft has decided that Microsoft employees can raid your refrigerator.

My experience with disk imaging is that Acronis is far better than Symantec Ghost, which is actually the old PowerQuest DeployCenter.

Symantec did something that amazes me. Symantec bought PowerQuest. Symantec abandoned their own product, called Ghost, and substituted a product from another company. The substituted product, PowerQuest DeployCenter, now called "Ghost", had numerous completely different quirks and issues.

The new "Ghost" box, which I just bought about month ago, includes the "new version of Ghost" which is DeployCenter, I'm told, and a second CD that includes the last version of the old, real Ghost, called on the CD "Ghost 2003". This old, real Ghost is a dead product, apparently.

(I just checked the box again. I have the "Norton Ghost" box and CDs in front of me. I bought the new copy for $9.99 after update rebate and another rebate.)

It's a new low in software company abuse: A software company has switched products without telling its users.

My experience of Symantec technical support is that the company is undergoing a social breakdown. Symantec technical support people have found that they can reduce their work load by being hostile to callers.

Our experience with Acronis is that it has its own issues, insufficiencies, unexplained failures, sales people lacking any technical knowledge, and very sloppy technical support. However, many people, including me, are recommending Acronis TrueImage over "Ghost".

Always report computer company abuses to Ed Foster's GripLog.

Ed Foster's Gripelog is an excellent source of information about abusive EULAs.

Basically, EULAs are software company executives acting like 3-years-olds.

The ultimate EULA and ultimate dream of every 3-year-old:

1) I can do anything I like.

2) You have no power.

3) You will do everything I say.

Articles like these make me wonder why Apple is praised as more ethical than Microsoft. Apple controls the hardware, actively squashed clones, has a history of suppressing MAC OS RUMORS

1. First, Parago acknowledged that the company had received the correct rebate information. At this point, everything is fine.
2. After 23 days, on March 25, Parago said in an online notice that the check had been sent and had been cashed. It was not sent. Mr. Kamens had asked that the money be directly deposited electronically to his checking account, so a notice about a check was complete fiction. Obviously no one checked to see if their excuse was plausible.
3. Next, Mr. Kamen received a message saying that he had asked to receive a "bonus item" and a "Pinnacle Instant Album" instead of $10, and that these had already been shipped on March 16. The web page customers can use to check the status of their rebates still said that he had received and cashed a check. Again, Parago did not check to see if their statements were plausible.

If Amazon is doing a rebate rip-off with you, report it: Rebate Roulette.

If Amazon promised a rebate and is trying not to give it to you, that's fraud and theft. Consider very carefully whether you should do business with them in the future.

What you can do to get your rebate (Warning, some of this exposes ugly behavior.):

Use the "F" word: Fraud. Every time an employee quits, it costs the rebate company a lot to hire and train someone new. Minimum wage people don't like to think they are helping break the law. Ask the employee how she or he can justify working for a dishonest company. Tell the employee he or she has the worst job in the world.

Call the manager of the store where you bought the rebate item. Use the "F" word again. Managers have a special telephone number. The rebate company will listen to them. Store managers don't like the word fraud applied to their store; that could cost them hundreds of thousands, if the word gets around. If you don't get satisfaction from the store manager, get his or her name and call the store's main office. The people who work in main offices don't want fraud calls; and they definitely don't like fraud calls in which the name of a store manager is mentioned.

Never let them steal from you. If you ever accept that once, they will know they can do it again. Remember, there are a limited number of rebate companies, and they keep databases on those who apply for rebates. Don't allow yourself to become a known easy target.

Apparently almost all rebate companies are involved in fraud, either for their own profit, or pre-arranged with manufacturers. They try to concentrate on the customers that will accept excuses. The stores will tell you they know nothing about the fraud, but that is not true; they know very well.

Be sure to tell the rebate company that you will file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and with your state's consumer fraud department, and do it. Tell the store that sold the rebate item the same thing, and do it.

Note that it is usually difficult to know the name of the rebate company. I talked with one Parago employee about the my experiences with the company for a long time before the employee verified the name of the company for which he worked. Parago operates Rebates HQ. I'm not the only one to have trouble with Parago; read this amazingly ugly story: Parago Rebate Gripes Keep on Coming.

Stay away from stores that hate their customers. My experience with Best Buy has been very negative.

Stay away from stores that offer big rebates on items that have defects that aren't obvious.

It has been my experience that Netgear is by far the worst in failing to send rebates. We have had bad experiences with Netgear equipment being buggy, too. Maybe there are companies who can only stay in business because they fail to sent rebates.

Always be kind and gentle with rebate company employees, but very firm. Remember, the employee is not getting any of the stolen money.

Always keep copies of everything you sent when you apply for a rebate. The rebate companies will exploit any weakness they find.

Remember, if you let them steal from you once, you will be in the database as someone who accepts abuse.

I got a Sony laptop rebate 1 1/2 years after it was denied. I would never buy anything from Sony again, of course, even though I eventually got the rebate. Generally, companies that are abusive in one way are abusive in others. Generally, abuse is part of the corporate culture.

In my opinion, this is part of a general social breakdown. The United States government

Bentley has some unconscionable licensing.

See Ed Foster's Gripelog for details.

First AOL has lost nearly 6 MILLION customers since 2003, bringing their total subscriber base close to 20 million, down from about 26.5 million in late 2002. Their numbers will exponentially decrease as cable, DSL, VoIP and numerous other broadband technologies both mature and become more stablilized, therefore bringing in more customers. This is inevitable.Dial up is dead. As a side note, these 9.95 dial up NetZero conglomerates are riding the same wing, milking a dying technology to the very end, to get rich quick or get as much profit as they can before they will not be able to sustain a lucrative business with little or no customer base.

Secondly, why does google want to associate themselves with a company that is has been and is under class action lawsuits for unethical business practices, such as billing people even after they cancelled their subscriptions , double-billing schemes and recent news of their underhandedness at the expense and personal well-being of customers. If you think this is just nonsense go over to the gripe Logs and here to read what people are saying -- some pretty amazing and maybe surprising stories. I am sure there are sub-links to other stories from there.

Lastly, about AOL's so called "exclusive" content.. what is so exclusive about it? What information does google not have for free out on the web for users that AOL has? Is it worth 5%?? It just seems like AOL is buying old garbage waiting to be thrown out on trash day. The AOL for broadband scheme is a complete and utter joke. First off AOL doesnt offer broadband, they just offer their neat little toy interface to go along with your broadband connection.. and all that for $9.95...and for what?

Can someone shed some light?

First AOL has lost nearly 6 MILLION customers since 2003, bringing their total subscriber base close to 20 million, down from about 26.5 million in late 2002. Their numbers will exponentially decrease as cable, DSL, VoIP and numerous other broadband technologies both mature and become more stablilized, therefore bringing in more customers. This is inevitable.Dial up is dead. As a side note, these 9.95 dial up NetZero conglomerates are riding the same wing, milking a dying technology to the very end, to get rich quick or get as much profit as they can before they will not be able to sustain a lucrative business with little or no customer base.

Secondly, why does google want to associate themselves with a company that is has been and is under class action lawsuits for unethical business practices, such as billing people even after they cancelled their subscriptions , double-billing schemes and recent news of their underhandedness at the expense and personal well-being of customers. If you think this is just nonsense go over to the gripe Logs and here to read what people are saying -- some pretty amazing and maybe surprising stories. I am sure there are sub-links to other stories from there.

Lastly, about AOL's so called "exclusive" content.. what is so exclusive about it? What information does google not have for free out on the web for users that AOL has? Is it worth 5%?? It just seems like AOL is buying old garbage waiting to be thrown out on trash day. The AOL for broadband scheme is a complete and utter joke. First off AOL doesnt offer broadband, they just offer their neat little toy interface to go along with your broadband connection.. and all that for $9.95...and for what?

Can someone shed some light?

My opinion: Notice that the story is a special kind of public relations. It's an ad.

The ONLY Anti-Spyware that makes sense is ZoneAlarm Security Suite, which includes anti-spyware and anti-virus in one program with the best firewall. But they didn't review that one.

There are more and more "reviews" like that one, in which the real purpose is to try to keep customers away from the best product.

For information about computer industry abuses, read Ed Foster's Gripelog. In this case:

Case Against Zone Labs is 180 Degrees Off

Why ZoneAlarm is the best firewall: LeakTest shows other firewalls allow phoning home.

Subscribe to Ed Foster's Griplog for good stories about computer industry abuses. For example:

Case Against Zone Labs (ZoneAlarm) is 180 Degrees Off

Ed Foster's Gripe Log is following the Zone Alarm v. 180 story, and he has a much more readable summary at his site: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/12/5/8255 5/7508

Ed Foster provides more information that allows us to make a "behavioral profile of Sony":

Sony has other DRM software. Here are quotes:

MediaMax also "phones home" every time you play a protected CD with a code identifying what music you're listening to.

... before users can even say yes or no to accepting the Sony EULA, MediaMax has already installed a dozen files on their hard drive and started running the copy protection code. The files remain even if the user rejects the EULA, and the Sony CDs provide no option for uninstalling the files at a later date.

... an e-commerce revenue generation "feature of dynamic on-line and off-line banner ads. Generate revenue or added value through the placement of 3rd party dynamic, interactive ads that can be changed at any time by the content owner."

Ed Foster says Sony management has a "scum" profile. Quote: OK, so let's see what we've got here. A company that seems bent on sneaking files onto unsuspecting users' computers, pretending they've gotten permission to do so from a vaguely-worded EULA, transmitting a constant stream of usage information back to their servers, and using that information for who-knows-what revenue generating opportunities. Does this sound like a familiar profile to you? Of course, it's the profile of all the spyware/adware scum that have come very close to destroying the Internet just to make a few bucks peddling their trash.

Issues that remain concerning Sony's rootkit software and other DRM software:

As is shown by Ed Foster's analysis linked above, attacking customer computers seems to be the kind of thing that is part of the Sony corporate culture. There has been no apology, and Sony management makes statements giving the impression they intend to continue infecting customer computers.

A music retail store spokesman said that Sony's rootkit attack has become public just before Christmas. Customers can easily choose some other gift now that they are scared about computer attacks. Sony's attack has hurt the entire music industry, not just Sony. Also, the damage will continue after Christmas.

Few people are technically knowledgeable. The Sony rootkit CDs will be causing problems for many, many years, as they are traded or borrowed or sold to thrift stores.

The number of computers already corrupted by the Sony rootkit is probably far larger than the 500,000 quoted in articles about the Sony attack. That number is just the number of Domain Name Servers that show evidence that a computer has tried to contact the Sony phone home address. The average server would almost certainly service more than one corrupted computer.

Following Microsoft's lead years ago, some businesses treat all their customers as crooks so that they can stop a few.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Clarifying freedom 0, it includes the unambiguous statement,

The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
[emphasis mine]

That clearly means technical portability, and also prohibits "DeActivation" features (phone home to decide whether to run) in any free product. But even if one ignores the portability requirement, "DeActivation" features of the operating system, for instance, revoke freedom 0 for anything running on that O/S. (Perhaps there is a loophole for editions of Windows that don't include DeActivation.) I am sure Richard Stallman has much more to say about this.

Robert Storey of DistroWatch paraphrased a speech by Stallman as follows:

Freedom Zero would seem to be a no-brainer. Even proprietary software allows you to run it as you like, right? Actually, not necessarily. More and more, we are seeing programs which - if you bother to read the fine print before you click on "I agree" - impose restrictions on the user. Windows XP, for example, insists on "product activation" which is tied to the hardware - change your motherboard, and it might stop working. Or consider Oracle, popular database software which is licensed "per processor" - buy one copy, install it on a dual-processor machine and you will be in violation of your licensing terms. There are other proprietary programs which expire after a certain date, or can only be run a limited number of times, or are deliberately crippled in some other way (you might as well call it "crippleware").
[emphasis mine]

Openz has a similar take:

The purpose of these protection mechanisms is ostensibly to minimise software 'piracy', but the reality is that it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on piracy and really an attempt to maximise revenue by restricting how people use the software.
[emphasis mine]

The opposite of freedom is restriction. It's not possible to run on Windows alone and claim freedom under GNU's definition. It's doubly impossible if you're talking about DeActivated Windows such as XP.

An Anonymous User has written about what this means in reality:

• Activation often has problems with some hardware and OS configurations. It is infuriating when something that does not affect the program itself prevents it from running because the stupid activation scheme cannot deal with it properly.
• Upgrading hardware and re-installs can easily become a nightmare when involving software requiring acti

After re-reading what I wrote in the parent comment, I realize that it is excessively pro-Microsoft, in my opinion.

There are entire huge areas of abuse that I didn't mention.

Several years ago I accompanied some friends to a computer store to help them buy a computer. We were offered Microsoft Office for $50. That's why Lotus SmartSuite and Corel WordPerfect lost market share. There was always a two-tier market for Microsoft Office. You could pay full price, or you could pay $50. It seemed to me that Microsoft was less than intense about stopping the pirates, because that ran the competitors out of business.

Microsoft did the same thing with DOS. At one time, 5 local and national distributors with which I did business all carried pirated DOS. I visited one distributor that indicated they were genuinely concerned, and showed them that it was easy to detect a pirated copy. Microsoft verified that. Other DOS-like operating systems were not able to compete with broad-scale piracy.

In 2002, Microsoft implemented a plan it called "Software Assurance". At the time, Ed Foster, who writes a famous column called GripeLine, called Software Assurance "manipulation ... and ... pseudo-extortion" Ed said then that many people "have ... gotten the impression from Microsoft or their resellers that the deadline holds menace for them if they don't respond".

In his column released on September 15, 2005, Ed quoted one customer as saying that Software Assurance was "one of the biggest sucker jobs of all time".

Ed said, "The thing that Software Assurance has always assured is Microsoft revenue -- what the customer has gotten is risk, and lots of it. Expecting Microsoft to deliver value when they've already got your money is just not a very good bet."

Those are just two short examples. Some people believe that there are hundreds of Microsoft abuses like that, but, as far as I know, no one has counted all of them.

Want a recent example of the corruption in the U.S. government? Here's one from Ed Foster: Crime and Punishment, and Copyright.

In the U.S. government of today, anyone can get anything they want if they have money.

Quotes:

"After all, the music and movie industry moguls who spend so much time and money getting Congress to do their bidding are not without sins of their own. Just as an example, last month Time Warner -- a corporation with a foot in both industries -- agreed to pay a $300 million fine to the SEC to settle civil fraud charges. It had earlier paid $210 million to get the DoJ to go away on criminal fraud charges involving some of the same accounting shenanigans. Time Warner just had to pay this chump change rather admit guilt, in spite of the fact that, as one SEC officer noted, some 'of the misconduct occurred while the ink of a prior Commission cease-and-desist order was barely dry.' Oh, by the way, the Time Warner CFO, Controller, and Deputy Controller also agreed to never do such nasty things again. But apparently they don't face jail time, or even fines, and they're still working for Time Warner.

"So it's possible some of the same Time Warner officials who have been caught once or twice robbing investors in the past could be doing so again even as we speak. Of course, last week they may have been too busy passing out rewards to their minions on Capital Hill, or perhaps they were involved in all those lawsuits the MPAA and RIAA were filing to harass the researchers developing the Internet2."

Ed Foster's Gripelog entry about the Thinkpad incident

An expensive lesson about Thinkpad security:
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/3/14/2354 40/804

Now, what if this were the case for EVERY computer... I foresee a thriving and extremely lucrative business in TC data recovery, where rather than merely sending Ontrack or whomever your wonked HD, you have to $$$$end them the entire computer (um... can TC include the monitor??)

Read the EULA and read this, in the Gripe Log, before you buy.

You're talking about the Stots TemplateMaster. The license is even worse than you indicate - the license attempts to restrict resale of the physical object.

I've got serious objections to folks who try to "license" me physical objects. If I purchase it through retail channels, it's a "sale." I have certain ownership rights at that point. If I choose to give the object to my slacker brother-in-law, the manufacturer is SOL to do anything about the transfer. If you have a patent on the object, you have legal recourse to pursue me if I make a duplicate item. However, you still can't prevent me from giving the original to someone else.

Even the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law doesn't apply here. Assuming that you could actually copyright a physical object (i.e. a dovetailing jig,) I've still got the right to transfer ownership under the First Sale Doctrine. You can't take that away from me with some crummy EULA-esque piece of toilet paper jammed in the box.

The crossover of IP into meatspace is a bad thing. IP is not a physical object that I can bash into the curb if I want to. It deserves none of the ownership protections afforded to hardware. That includes patents. (Don't get me started on software patents being a horrible thing, or why I think IP *is* software ...) Copyright is the place for non-tangible items ... like software and IP. Unfortunately, the software industry seems to be purchasing politicians as fast as the entertainment industry is.

The company is called Stots and the product is called the TemplateMaster. There's an pretty good writeup of the issue online, and an old Slashdot article about the Ed Foster write-up.

I call bullshit.

Find an alternative to Symantec, because with their recent addition of "phone home" activation, and refusing to honor subscription renewals without software upgrades, they have become the worst choice you can make in AV software.

Check out the issues with their latest policies on The Gripelog if you need details. A sample of thier treatment of customers:

"I purchased NAV 2003 just over a year ago," wrote one reader. "Last month I paid for another year's subscription to the Live Update service, but NAV is refusing to download any new virus definitions. It keeps telling me I have to renew my subscription, even though I have done so. I wrote Symantec asking for help, and all they told me is that support for NAV 2003 has been discontinued ... It's disgusting. I have an up-to-date subscription and a version of the software that I've had only a year. How can they refuse to help me?"

You were saying?

No, of course not - because it's been proven that there are plenty of idiots that will pay it. And they'll even pay it to a bunch of litigious, greedy bastards like the ones at Blizzard.

I wish people would pay attention and stop supporting companies when they turn into fucktards like Blizzard seems to have done. It seems there is a pattern that a many software companies tend to follow, wherein they build up a certain number of loyal customers or market share, and then they start doing everything they can to gouge their customers and treat them like dogshit. Lawsuits against fans, bloggers, and others are common. And they tend to get away with it more often than not, when they should be bleeding customers left and right. I think Microsoft pretty much led this trend.

I'll give you a few examples. Companies that created excellent product, took good care of their customers, then turned evil when they got to the top of the heap:

Symantec (Norton)
Valve (steam???)
Intuit (check out Ed Foster's Blog)
Blizzard (case in point)
Macromedia (They're working on it)

In case the server can't keep up:

A Fatal Blow to Shrinkwrap Licensing?

By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Mon Dec 20th, 2004 at 08:02:57 AM PDT

Having so often been the bearer of bad news from the legal front, I am thrilled to have some good news to report for a change. The old-fashioned shrinkwrap license appears to have suffered from what may well be a mortal wound. Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe, CompUSA, Best Buy, and Staples have agreed in the settlement of a California lawsuit to change their ways, and you can already see the first results at the software retailer nearest you.

In January 2003, California resident Cathy Baker walked into her local CompUSA store to return copies of Windows XP and Norton AntiVirus she'd purchased there. When trying to install the programs, she had of course been confronted by all the obnoxious terms in the Windows and NAV End User License Agreements. Instead of clicking OK, she took them back to the store for a refund, as the EULAs said she was supposed to do if she refused to accept the terms.

At CompUSA, however, Baker was told the store's policy was that it could not give refunds for software once the customer has opened the package. Even though Baker had no way of seeing the EULAs until after she purchased the products, took them home, opened the package and tried to install the software on her computer, she was now told she could not get her money back even when she rejected the terms. (In a somewhat bizarre twist, after she protested enough, one CompUSA employee told her that they had "secret instructions" from Symantec to provide refunds in such circumstances.) So, like many others before her, Baker was confronted with the classic shrinkwrap license conundrum: She could only see the terms by opening the box, and opening the box meant she was stuck with it. But Baker did something most others before her had not - she went and got a lawyer.

"When Miss Baker came to us, we felt it was an important case to bring for the benefit of the general public," says Baker's attorney, high tech litigation specialist Ira Rothken. "In our research, we found that it hadn't been discussed before - there was no guidance on it in the literature. Here you have a multibillion-dollar industry that is using improper business practices as a consistent policy, in violation of federal and California consumer warranty statutes. As a practical matter, the consumer couldn't review the terms and conditions prior to the sale and couldn't reject them with any certainty they could get all their money back."

After Rothken first filed the lawsuit in February of 2003, ensuing news coverage brought more consumers forward with similar stories of their own. An amended complaint to the case Rothken filed in May of that year added a second plaintiff along with Baker and also included Adobe, Staples and Best Buy as defendants with Microsoft, Symantec and CompUSA. Ultimately the parties entered a mediation process and in April they reached a settlement under which the six defendants had up to 120 days to make the agreed-upon changes to their procedures. The entire settlement along with the amended complaint and exhibits can be read in a PDF file on Rothken's website, but it reads in part:

"The Settlement Agreement provides to the General Public of California, amongst other things, the right of consumers to return applicable Symantec, Adobe and Microsoft software for full monetary refunds even if the shrink-wrap has been opened ... In addition, Symantec, Adobe, and Microsoft agreed to provide EULAs for the applicable software products on their web site and notices on their respective software packaging of the web addresses to such EULAs so consumers can review such EULAs prior to purchase of the software." CompUSA, Best Buy and Staples "agreed to provide such EULAS to

It's a very interesting question. Where are the people who can manage technical companies?

Apparently they are very rare. When an open source programmer named his KDE program "Killustrator", the CEO of Adobe made a fool of himself, and cost Adobe a lot in bad publicity. It was an illustration progam, and the tradition is to begin KDE programs with the letter K.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is widely considered unstable. For example, see the September 8, 2003 CNET article Can Oracle survive Larry Ellison?

CEOs of technical companies need a thorough understanding of technical issues. HP's Carly Fiorina has little technical knowledge and it shows. For example, HP printer drivers are often amazingly buggy. An August 13, 2004 article asks "Is Carly Toast Yet?". The article says, "HP's stock price is down 62% since she arrived at the company."

Technical companies are extraordinarily abusive. For example, look at what Ed Foster has to say about warranty fulfillment: At the Manufacturer's Discretion. One reason for the abusiveness seems to be that most managers of technical companies have little or no technical knowledge. The only way they know to increase the (short-term) profit of a company is to abuse the customer.

The manager of a technically-oriented company needs excellent communication and social skills and a thorough understanding of the business of the company. Few people have the necessary range and depth of skills.

It's a very interesting question. Where are the people who can manage technical companies?

Apparently they are very rare. When an open source programmer named his KDE program "Killustrator", the CEO of Adobe made a fool of himself, and cost Adobe a lot in bad publicity. It was an illustration progam, and the tradition is to begin KDE programs with the letter K.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is widely considered unstable. For example, see the September 8, 2003 CNET article Can Oracle survive Larry Ellison?

CEOs of technical companies need a thorough understanding of technical issues. HP's Carly Fiorina has little technical knowledge and it shows. For example, HP printer drivers are often amazingly buggy. An August 13, 2004 article asks "Is Carly Toast Yet?". The article says, "HP's stock price is down 62% since she arrived at the company."

Technical companies are extraordinarily abusive. For example, look at what Ed Foster has to say about warranty fulfillment: At the Manufacturer's Discretion. One reason for the abusiveness seems to be that most managers of technical companies have little or no technical knowledge. The only way they know to increase the (short-term) profit of a company is to abuse the customer.

The manager of a technically-oriented company needs excellent communication and social skills and a thorough understanding of the business of the company. Few people have the necessary range and depth of skills.

On second thought, I take back what I said about server support from Dell.

I'll repeat what I said, though. People who buy servers from Digital, Compaq, HP, IBM, Dell, and Sun expect that they will be able to get exact duplicate replacement parts two, three, four years later (or even longer). When they can't get them, they have a legitimate gripe.

People who buy off-the-shelf components do not have the same expectation.

Do you know a good domain registrar? The first step is to find a good registrar. The second step is to solve the domain registration info problem.

My experience with GoDaddy is that the company is very abusive. GoDaddy is always trying to sell something else; there are such a huge number of ads that it interferes with proper operation of their web site. Many of the ads seem to me to try to take advantage of people who don't know much about the Internet.

The GoDaddy web site is, in my opinion, amateurish. There are issues like having a password field with 13 spaces, but actually accepting only 11 characters for a password. (I don't know if they have fixed that since I mentioned it to them.)

It's simply outrageous that a company says they can change the terms of a contract with you without your permission, or even knowing. Legally, that cannot be a contract. A contract only exists if you agree to the terms. You cannot enter into a contract that is so broad that you agree to be bound by any terms in the future.

It's amazing how abusive companies are becoming. They seem to be trying to see who can be the most abusive. Have a look at an Ed Foster column that says that the problem is less in Europe: Anti-Sneakwrap Law is UnAmerican.

I knew a three-year-old who once told me: 1) I can do anything I want. 2) You have no control. This is understandable in a three-year-old, who is merely testing the limits. I don't accept it coming from anyone who is older.

Things are really bad in the U.S. now, it seems. Everything to help powerful people get richer. Nothing to take care of the average person.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Someone please mod parent up. Ed Foster, in one of his InfoWorld articles, called it the YES-I-CAN-SPAM Act when it was first introduced. The act was basically written by lobbyists for large companies that don't want their *right* to spam infringed upon. It's nothing but a legalized list of loopholes. As the parent pointed out, it was worse than doing nothing.

The worst provision was making spam legal as long as you provide a *method* for opting out. These can include telephone, snail mail, or links that require you to fill out a form and then fail because the server is too busy (yeah, sure). Another example of having the best legislature money can buy and another reason to get out and vote.

I stopped using Realplayer even under Windows a while back because the EULA for the newer ones, like Real One, had some seemingly nasty clauses with respect to third party apps and DRM. I think the one that got me was:

"DRMs may be able to revoke your ability to use applicable content. RN is not responsible for the operation of the third party DRM in any way, including revocation of your content. RN is not responsible for any communications to or from any third party DRM provider, or for the collection or use of information by third party DRMs. You consent to the communications enabled and/or performed by the DRM, including automatic updating of the DRM without further notice, despite the provisions of AutoUpdate defined in Section 6(c)."

Now maybe that's harmless, but it wasn't at all clear to me. Suffice it to say that I don't like software trying to invade my privacy and play policeman in my home. It also seems like such a system is an inherent security vulnerability and could cause technical problems even with legally licensed but un-DRMed content (like my emusic mp3s or rips of my own CDs). I think DRM is a dumb idea, but I don't mind if the software has such a feature, as long as it's not enabled unless I specifically enable it to be able to get DRMed content.

So how is the EULA on the new realplayer? Is it any better?