Slashdot Mirror

Actually no, it wouldn't force the commission to buy Office 2007. They would just have to download the free plugins for Office 2000, Office XP or Office 2003 to open the new XML format.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=941B3470-3AE9-4AEE-8F43-C6BB74CD1466&displa ylang=en

I'm already using the new formats as the default file formats for Word and Excel 2003. Works quite well and it gives me the opportunity to fuck with the internal file structures.

Well I don't have full knowledge of the functionality of every handset out there, if there's not a phone already on the market that only allows DRM music to be played like Itunes, then I'm sure it's only a matter of time. The example I gave was just that, a hypothetical example.

I'm talking about installing new software on your phone. Most mobile phones are locked down and don't allow you to install new software on it. With the Microsoft Mobile OS you just make an activesync connection from your PC then you can run applications on your desktop computer that will install software on the phone supplied from a 3rd party (depending on the security policy of the mobile phone vendor).

If you want details of what I'm talking about you can find it here.

If anyone else has information on the security systems of other mobile operating systems like the symbian OS, I think it would be interesting to hear about it.

So I really do not think the author has fully understood what happens at the end of the 30 day grace period. And as usual the majority of the anti-ms types of slashdot have blindly agreed with any anti-MS sentiments voiced rather than spend time researching the truth; it is out there. At the end of the grace activation period (30 days) Windows Vista goes into 'reduced' functionality mode. Microsoft do not encrypt data, they do not delete data, they do not prevent you from getting to that data to off load it. What happens is that Windows Vista runs the default browser (yes even if its Firefox it runs it) that will allow you to connect to the activation site via the web, or any other web site if it comes to that, or present instructions on how to activate via the telephone. After one hour the logged on user is logged off. The user can immediately log back on. Users are presented with reminders about activation as the grace period expires, with increasing frequency, until they activate or elect to not. The purpose of Activation is not to be able to deny you access to data but to deny people who pirate closed source software a revenue stream. Have a look at the following two URLs for more detail. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx#EYPAC http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970

The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.

This statement is a complete and utter falsehood. MSDN is a program for software developers, but Microsoft doesn't limit the kinds of software you can produce when you purchase an MSDN subscription.

I'm willing to back up my statements though, so you don't have to take my word against anyone else's. The MSDN Master End-User License Agreement is freely available for download, or you can consult the MSDN Licensing FAQ online. I challenge you or anyone to quote the section of the license that restricts development of a "general purpose suite of office software."

On a smaller note, MSDN isn't really a program "used by subscription". You purchase MSDN licenses, which are perpetual licenses and can be used forever. Each MSDN purchase, however, also comes with a 12-month subscription whereby software updates are sent to you monthly for the next year. This helps keep you current with new releases of software. At the end of the 12 months, however, the software is still legitimately licensed to you for development and test purposes. You may continue developing software, or even sell the whole package to someone else. Of course, this is all laid out in the license linked above.

The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.

This statement is a complete and utter falsehood. MSDN is a program for software developers, but Microsoft doesn't limit the kinds of software you can produce when you purchase an MSDN subscription.

I'm willing to back up my statements though, so you don't have to take my word against anyone else's. The MSDN Master End-User License Agreement is freely available for download, or you can consult the MSDN Licensing FAQ online. I challenge you or anyone to quote the section of the license that restricts development of a "general purpose suite of office software."

On a smaller note, MSDN isn't really a program "used by subscription". You purchase MSDN licenses, which are perpetual licenses and can be used forever. Each MSDN purchase, however, also comes with a 12-month subscription whereby software updates are sent to you monthly for the next year. This helps keep you current with new releases of software. At the end of the 12 months, however, the software is still legitimately licensed to you for development and test purposes. You may continue developing software, or even sell the whole package to someone else. Of course, this is all laid out in the license linked above.

I genuinely hope that the public don't buy this latest round of Msft. bullsh-t, Office 2003 is still perfectly capable, why should users be forced to upgrade?

three letters: XML. have you ever tried to generate an excel document with charts without using an office object? can't really be done in a secure (read: won't potentially crash your IIS box) manner due to needing office installed. in an environment where reports (excel, ppt, word) are generated by a site this is priceless.

Microsoft seems to believe that we're forced to swallow whatever terms they offer, and in large part they've been right up to this point. I'd like that to change, and see this as the best alternative out there for many of us.

And much as I like follow-ups to my posts, don't bother telling me to change to Linux. It least not without specifying distributions and locations for computers ranging from early Pentium-II's through current systems. If Linux had been a compelling choice (I run Photoshop, among other applications and still struggle with GIMP on the occasions where I have to use it - I develop under Visual Studio 6/SQL Server for a living), I would have already switched.

So I really do not think the author has fully understood what happens at the end of the 30 day grace period. And as usual the majority of the anti-ms types of slashdot have blindly agreed with any anti-MS sentiments voiced. At the end of the grace activation period (30 days) Windows Vista goes into 'reduced' functionality mode. Microsoft do not encrypt data, they do not delete data, they do not prevent you from getting to that data to off load it. What happens is that Windows Vista runs the default browser (yes even if its Firefox it runs it) that will allow you to connect to the activation site via the web, or any other web site if it comes to that, or present instructions on how to activate via the telephone. After one hour the logged on user is logged off. The user can immediately log back on. Users are presented with reminders about activation as the grace period expires, with increasing frequency until, they activate or elect to not. The purpose of Activation is not to be able to deny you access to data but to deny people who pirate closed source software a revenue stream. Have a look at the following two URLs for more detail. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx#EYPAC http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970

It has to do with how it stores data. I think you need to use compact n repair every once in a while. More info here.

Raise your hand (if you are used to being PAID for your code) if you have time to develop your own version of the ribbon within the scope of your next project?

Before you talk about knee-jerk reactions you might want to at least UNDERSTAND what MS are doing here. They are NOT giving you any CODE. They are simply allowing you to COPY their UI.

Go to the download page: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.a spx

See any code? Libraries? SDK?

Now do you still want to thank them so much?

... you must be a dinosaur

So, what this seems to say: Microsoft will allow anybody and everybody to plant their seed (the ribbon UI), to start the viral/grassroots campaign to their way of doing things. Unless and until it conflicts with their existing products.

Couldn't have said it better myself. This is Microsoft's way of trying to get a 'unique new interface' rolled out as rapidly as possible. If you're not using this 'unique new interface' then you know you're behind the time - hell, knowing Microsoft products, it also means you're probably about to be EOL'd!

"Dude, You're still using XP with those crappy flat menus.... wow..."

I genuinely hope that the public don't buy this latest round of Msft. bullsh-t, Office 2003 is still perfectly capable, why should users be forced to upgrade?

*sigh*

This the is the text of the Microsoft "back away softly" statement

Microsoft Statement on Novell Agreement

Microsoft and Novell provide additional perspective on IP issues in landmark November 2nd agreement.

Open Letter to the Community from Novell - Nov. 20, 2006

REDMOND, Wash., Nov. 20, 2006 -

"Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.

"Both of our companies are fully committed to moving forward with all of the important work under these agreements. The agreements will advance interoperability between Windows and Linux and put in place a new intellectual property bridge between proprietary and open source software. Customers and participants throughout our industry will clearly benefit from these results.

"We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place."

Microsoft Corporation
November 20, 2006

Let's just be clear that they are not doing this because they care about my mom. If that were the case, they could pop up messages (screaming sirents, blinking lights, whatever) that it's not a valid copy of Windows, that she will not be able to get technical support, and her data and hardware could be at risk. She is an adult and can choose to continue at her own risk, or investigate what is going on. The fact that they instead shut down the OS indicates that it's all about the money, not the customer. Which any idiot could have guessed anyway I suppose.

This explains better than I can the reasoning behind the program.

If the cost difference we're talking about here is simply the licensing/upgrading cost, it's worth noting that several of the popular "mega expensive" database platforms offer free (as in $0) versions - albeit with certain functionality removed.

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition
Only supports databases up to 4GB, and is lacking the built-in task scheduler, and most of the high-availability and business intelligence features, but is perfectly usable for small-to-mid-sized applications/web sites. Plus you can upgrade later to one of the fancier versions if necessary.

Oracle 10g Express Edition
I haven't had a chance to play with this yet, but it looks similar to SQL Server Express in terms of features and limitations.

IBM DB2 Express-C
I don't really know anything about this one. I just now found it in a fit of "I wonder..." The product comparison pages don't really say much about it, but they'll send it to you free on a DVD, so that's pretty neat.

Sybase ASE Express
Never used this one either. It seems to be only for Linux.

Though honestly, from what I've seen of Postgre, I'd almost think that one would be worth looking into more so than these for small systems. One of these days I'll get around to experimenting with it. The advantage with the Express Editions is, however, that you don't have such a nasty learning curve if you can just jump right in with a database platform you're familiar with from at work. Why else would I do something insane like running php + MS SQL Server? :)

> Which version are you using?

SQL Server 7 & 2000

> SQL Server 2005 is MUCH cheaper than $80k for a 4 way server,

No, that depends on which version you need to use: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx

So, if you've got an internet-accessible search engine running sql server (wasn't my decision) then you can easily blow over $80k to license a four-way server. In fact the original estimates we got were over $100k.

In Windows, you can setup Alt-Shift-Number to change to a different keyboard. I've used three different ones (Dvorak, US English, and Norwegian) for three years, no problem.

In Linux, you can even use the otherwise useless Caps Lock to rotate layouts.

The Optimus keyboard should be another stepping-stone in making non-English layouts a whole lot more mainstream.

"Microsoft has told all it's VARs not to sell volume licenses of Office 2003" It's been several months since I went through the pain of attempting to decode the "Open License" minutia, so this may have changed, but all of the programs include the right to run previous versions, i.e. buy a MOLP licenses for Office 2007, and legally run Office XP. From a quick search, it looks to still be the case, see: http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/A/A/7AA89 A8B-BF4D-446B-A50C-C9B00024DF33/open_license_progr amguide.pdf They call it "Downgrade Rights"

From http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/
Version 2.6 * Current: 2.6.18, 20-Sep-2006
Version 2.4 * Current: 2.4.33, 11-Aug-2006
Version 2.2 * Current: 2.2.26, 25-Feb-2004
Version 2.0 * Current: 2.0.40, 08-Feb-2004

So, 2.6 and 2.4 are actively maintained, with 2.2 released in '99 with updates to '04, and 2.0 being updated for over 8 years, since 1996. And I'll wager that there's been no more updates since then for those two kernels simply because it *is* good enough.

Linux Kernel 2.2 was released in '99, updated until '04, and got its last patch in January 2005. The kernel may be "good enough" feature-wise, but do you really think it's secure enough to not require any security patches since the beginning of 2005? Since 2.2 is not getting security patches anymore, is it still "good enough" (secure enough) to use?

In comparison, Windows 2000 was released in '00, updated until '05, and will continue to get security patches until 2010. Also until 2010, customers can continue to get paid support directly from Microsoft.

I'm not arguing that Windows is more secure than Linux (or even a better option), but they sure give customers a heck of along product lifecycle. Even if they can't convice customers to upgrade, they continue to supply patches for much longer than a Linux kernel gets patches. They also continue to provide paid support for their "no longer good enough" OS.

Search for "Microsoft Product Support Lifecycle" and you'll find:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle

which lists (in disgusting detail) the MS policy towards support.

You're describing ClickOnce

ClickOnce is an immature technology from Microsoft that sandboxes a .Net application that's stored in a web server. If the .Net WinForms API, (or another cross-platform GUI API) is generally accepted on the Mac and Linux, ClickOnce will provide what you describe.

Basically, what happens with ClickOnce is that you compile a standard .Net application using a few extra switches, and drop it on a web server. When the user clicks on a link. the newest DLLs are automagically downloaded, and the application runs. If the application needs to do anything risky, (like access files, open sockets, ect,) the user must install a security certificate. (For enterprise-level applications, the company can use a standard security certificate that's part of their standard build.)

The reason why I say the technology is immature is that when I last played with it, ClickOnce only allowed me to call web services on the server that my application was hosted on, unless the user installed a security certificate. ClickOnce didn't allow me to open a socket or use any other remoting protocol to talk to the server that my application was hosted on, unless I required the user to install a security certificate. I didn't like this limitation, as web services are much more complex then writing my own simple server.

...and refusing to take a PC that has Vista loaded.

OEM Activation for Windows Vista is a software protection technology for the Windows Vista operating system that improves upon System-Locked Preinstallation, which is available for Microsoft Windows XP operating systems. OEM Activation helps prevent the copying of legitimately licensed Windows Vista software onto non-licensed computers by associating the Windows operating system to the firmware of the physical computer.

In Windows XP, Microsoft started an initiative in the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) channel called System-Locked Preinstallation, to combat illegally installed copies of Windows while at the same time allowing OEMs to pre-activate Windows machines on the factory floor. OEM Activation for Windows Vista improves on this initiative, making the process easier for OEMs and making it much harder for pirates to crack the system by ensuring that Windows Vista SKUs licensed to an OEM will function only on that OEM's hardware. With this innovation, counterfeiters attempting to use Windows media improperly will be unable to install and activate the product using media intended for recovery and reinstall that is distributed by an OEM.

Advantages of OEM activation include persistent activation, activation without connecting to any activation provider, and the ability for OEMs to use custom media images. (The recovery media is also activated.) Additional requirements for the customer are the need to maintain recovery media specific to each OEM system configuration versus having a generic image to use across all hardware.

If all you want to do is read documents created in Microsoft Office applications, you can download the free viewer software that Microsoft makes available. For example, the Word 2003 viewer can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displa ylang=en. A list of available viewers is available at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp

If all you want to do is read documents created in Microsoft Office applications, you can download the free viewer software that Microsoft makes available. For example, the Word 2003 viewer can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displa ylang=en. A list of available viewers is available at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp

Windows Vista Photo Gallery? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/for home/gallery.mspx#more

Layne

What does he mean with "doesn't really expire"?

Doesn't he read his own website?

Every product has a planned lifecycle. New system was brought in only four years ago.

You got your basic Windows desktop license lifecycles, for example:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default .mspx

And you got your product support lifecycles, e.g. Office 2000:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; %5Bln%5D;lifecycle

and there are probably more kinds of lifecycles somewhere else on the constantly 404-ed MS pages.

Interesting facts from the two pages mentioned above:

  - ALL versions of XP will be discontinued (i.e. no more licenses) "12 months after Vista launches"
  - All non-business app software has a support lifecycle of five years
  - All business software has a support lifecycle of ten, with the last five reduced to paid support and security fixes

What does he mean with "doesn't really expire"?

Doesn't he read his own website?

Every product has a planned lifecycle. New system was brought in only four years ago.

You got your basic Windows desktop license lifecycles, for example:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default .mspx

And you got your product support lifecycles, e.g. Office 2000:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; %5Bln%5D;lifecycle

and there are probably more kinds of lifecycles somewhere else on the constantly 404-ed MS pages.

Interesting facts from the two pages mentioned above:

  - ALL versions of XP will be discontinued (i.e. no more licenses) "12 months after Vista launches"
  - All non-business app software has a support lifecycle of five years
  - All business software has a support lifecycle of ten, with the last five reduced to paid support and security fixes

Upgrading Office isn't about getting new features. It's about being able to read the new .doc and .ppt files that you get from other companies in your e-mail.

Microsoft has gone out of its way to provide file format compatibility from Office 2000 through 2007: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924074 .

People who complain about Microsoft's constant backwards-incompatible file format changes tend to be people who haven't used office seriously in a decade. Look around this thread. You'll find many people who have been using Office 2000 for 6 years with few compatibility problems. I know that I frequently pass files between Office 2000 at home and Office XP at work with no problems.

In the last decade, Microsoft has incremented its file format at roughly the same rate as OpenOffice/StarOffice. They've provided plugins to allow older versions to work. When they've incremented, the new file formats are better than the old ones in almost every conceivable way. The 2007 file formats are more reliable, more open and more feature rich.

I'm in NO SENSE a Microsoft advocate, and in fact am switching my computers to Mac. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let BS go unchallenged. Truth is truth.

And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.

The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.

You got a +5 for this. Nice work!

The problem is, you're wrong.

Here's the real truth:

Microsoft recently put out a set of almost 40 specifications under a new thing they've got called the "Open Specification Promise":

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Most of the standards revolve around XML-based web communications (SOAP, WSDL, WS-*), but there's also their Virtual Hard Disk format (VHD) that's used in their virtualization software, Sender ID related stuff (remember all the issues a couple years ago that this "standard" wouldn't fly because it wasn't free enough for open source use? no longer), and Office XML formats (2003 and 2007).

The people who cameup with this stuff can be seen in a Channel 9 interview explaining it in more detail:

http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=2590 77

They're very explicit in stating that open-source developers working on Linux can implement these specifications that Microsoft devised without having to enter a license agreement, pay royalties, or worry about being sued for patent infringement or whatever. Jean Paoli is one of the people interviewed... he's one of the creators of XML, by the way, so you can probably imagine the scope of his personal interest in seeing XML-based standards being as widely adopted as possible. And if that's not enough to convince you, even Lawrencse Rosen (google him if you don't know the name) approves of Microsoft's OSP initiative.

Now, granted, these are not the keys to the Windows kingdom, but it's a step in the right direction, and Microsoft should be encouraged to get as many specs out into the Open as possible, as soon as possible.

We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.

We installed XP Pro on a volume licence (£35) and then duel booted with Ubuntu Breezy.

The issue with coding is not compliance with CSS standards (those are well published) but rather in how the various browsers interpret those standards.

The code is standard; the parsing and rendering methodologies are not.

I, for one, appreciate a book that addresses these non-standard behaviors when parsing standard code. The review posted by samzenpus exposes these insights, and contrasts them from the plethora of "standards reference" books. (many from the same publisher)

Sometimes, hacks are the way to do it. (conditional HTML comments, like CSS itself, are only partially effective) It's not that any, given book leads us to write "non-compliant code", (unless you count FrontPage) but that the differences of current browsers in-use require the "non-compliant" variations.

In my book, when the page you create works for everyone viewing it, it is compliant.

To create a symlink (or hardlink) in NTFS you either need to use Unix services for Windows to get a command line, or use the POSIX compatibility engine programatically (just make the same API calls you would in UNIX though random function names will have leading '_'s just to make it difficult).

You need to

#define _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE 1

or add a /D_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE in the compiler options.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Pos tID=87401&SiteID=1

MS for example takes no responsibility for just about anything that could happen with their products.

It is also now providing OEM system builders with protection for the four major forms of disputes commonly associated with software, which are patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark.

True, it was a licensing purchase. Another directly related article does point out SCO's claim. I'm sure many would appreciate it if you would cite your sources when making such specific claims, I know I would.

The summary of Linux controversies clearly shows that M$ put an interest into SCO's so-called "patent rights" in mid-2003... though the scope of the licensing is only a fraction of what Novell acquired from AT&T. (and still holds today) Certainly not enough for SCO to back-up their own notion that they "own" Unix.

Regardless of Novell's current Linux offerings, the fact that they have a succinct hold on the origins of Unix has a yet-to-be-determined impact on the future of licensed Unix platforms.

Add to that, they've got into bed with M$, and there's but a hint of what was actually purchased with the $350 mega-bills. Though Microsoft has their "Q&A", Novell is apparently all aglow about the new agreement.

This turns out to be off-topic, I know. I truly want to leave FUD aside with all this, however the details are speaking more loudly than my keystrokes could ever accomplish. This issue is already part of Novell's wiki entry and even throws some props to us /.'ers.

Besides, symlinks are damn useful. Unlike shortcuts, they have a distinct file attribute, but do not behave like their target (an advantage, to be sure); shortcuts are nothing but special files, and can be surreptitiously re-assigned to a new target, even a URL. Just check out these vulnerabilities regarding their use. I haven't seen any such problems with symlinks.

Unfortunately, our universities are, for all reasonable intents, owned by industry or at least the major shareholders thereof that sit on the boards and dump piles of cash into buildings to slap their names on. Public universities are just as beholden to this as their private counterparts. Because we've let dollar-democracy rule academia instead of actual democracy, we've sold out to the highest bidders who want instantaneous ROI.

I mean, this really says it all. Golly, I wonder what "Intro to Computers" will look like THERE.

Alphaville, here we come...

You are referring to POSIX I presume. Well, have you seen any native Unix code running on Windows lately? I didn't! Windows POSIX compliance is a joke, it was more of a marketing ploy to tell their client ("we even run Unix!") but in reality it is very broken.

That is why you have Cygwin...

He asked for questions and I ask him why NT doesn't have proper vms-esque device names (dka0, etc). The question didn't go down very well. I supose that would break too much stuff.

I can't imagine them working on GPL'd stuff and having to release the code.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

Firstly, you can't use normal "commands" to create/delete NTFS symlinks. The collection of system calls to create a symlink are badly documented and incomplete.

create a new OS completely from scratch.

They do

People are asking questions about VISTA Symlinking on MSDN. See this thread. The Vista symlink seems to have not much more functionality than "shortcuts" did in Windows 95 or Windows 98.

The issue at hand is why was the API left so incomplete that remote accessing a share that utilizes Vista Symlinking does not work? This is a large oversight on Microsofts part, and basically makes Symlinking useless. Fortunately, Symlinking works great via Samba. Another reason to stick with Linux..

The Windows EULA appears to permit this:

Windows EULA

Without the EULA, its not even clear that it would be legal to copy the software to your own computer!

Ever see an OS written in Java?