Slashdot Mirror
Copyrant
MS's most recent abuses of its customers are just the latest in a series of increasing restrictions. OEM's are no longer permitted to include full-capability Windows disks with new machines - instead, what you'll get is either a disk image on your hard drive or an image on a "recovery CD". The "recovery CD" must be crippled so that it won't run on any hardware except that specific machine.
So what you bought is either some extra bits on your hard drive (sure hope you didn't want to use the full capacity of the drive; sure hope your disk doesn't fail) or a nearly-useless CD which is solely capable of restoring your PC to its original state - you'll have to backup and restore all of your data, reinstall all other software, re-change all settings you've customized, etc., if you ever use that CD. But you're a Microsoft customer [motto: "Your time isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to us"], so get used to it.
If you did something foolish, like swap in a new hard drive, or a new motherboard, well, I'm sorry, but you've lost any ability to restore your Microsoft operating system. And naturally, of course, you won't be able to copy it to another computer - even if you delete it from the first one. You can't sell it, you can't lend it, hell, you can barely use it yourself. Office 2000 with its forced registration procedure is much the same, and we're now getting submissions about this from people who didn't catch stories last year about it. Office 2000 binds itself to your system with the registration in exactly the same way as the "Recovery" CDs must be bound by the OEM to the system they ship.
The main effect of this will be to eliminate the concept of "used software". Software vendors like this; they can sell more retail copies if there's no aftermarket.
Generally, copyrighted works are governed by what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. This means that once the copyright owner has sold the item the first time, they lose all control over it - it can be resold without limitation. This matter originally came up when a book publisher was trying to prevent Macy's from selling books at a discount price. Essentially, the publisher (Scribner and Sons, still in business today) had a nice scheme going where it set "minimum" prices for its books. In fact, the scheme is practically identical to the scheme that music publishers have going today, and that software publishers like Microsoft are now moving to.
A brief quote from one of the cases:
The appellant is the owner of the copyright upon 'The Castaway,' obtained on the 18th day of May, 1904, in conformity to the copyright statutes of the United States. Printed immediately below the copyright notice, on the page in the book following the title page, is inserted the following notice:
The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.
The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That sounds just like a shrinkwrap license on software! Or it sounds like what the giants of the music industry [Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Polygram, Bertelsmann and EMI Music] do with their 'Minimum Advertised Price' policies, which has resulted in a class-action suit and an ongoing FTC investigation!" Am I right?
So how did the Court look at this particular issue?
What does the statute mean in granting 'the sole right of vending the same?' Was it intended to create a right which would permit the holder of the copyright to fasten, by notice [210 U.S. 339, 350] in a book or upon one of the articles mentioned within the statute, a restriction upon the subsequent alienation [transfer of property] of the subject-matter of copyright after the owner had parted with the title to one who had acquired full dominion over it and had given a satisfactory price for it? It is not denied that one who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.
Software publishers have this in mind. So they don't actually "sell" anything at all. If you make a contract to license something, the terms can be anything that a court doesn't regard as "unconscionable" - whatever the other party demands. So in fact copyright has almost nothing to do with the "sale" of commercial software products - companies could just as easily license to you software written by, say, the Federal Government (which would be in the public domain) They don't need copyright at all, since the contract alone is sufficient to bind your permitted activities, if the courts say a binding contract has been created.
The idea here is to get away from copyright, because copyright has all those nasty exceptions carved out by the legal system such as the "first sale" doctrine. But if you license something rather than sell it... and if you can cripple it with technology so that regardless of what the law says, the product can't be resold... ahhh, then you're in business!
Why have courts permitted software licensing to usurp copyright? Why do book-title-page-licenses not bind you but back-of-a-software-box-licenses do? Why doesn't the purchase of a copyrighted piece of software entitle you to do just about anything with it except sell copies, just like the purchase of a book does? It's a long story, but basically, I think it's because the first cases to hit the court system looked a lot like standard corporate contract disputes rather than mass-market sales. Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so. And now that people have caught on that this is a Bad Thing, we get laws like UCITA, designed to expressly legitimize these sorts of licenses. Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.
But back to what started this rant. Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft has wanted for some years to move to a rental system, where not only do you not actually purchase anything for them, you get to pay for nothing every year. (In fact, they delayed the announcement of it so it wouldn't overlap with the anti-trust decision - might look bad to be simultaneously losing an anti-trust suit and announcing how you were going to get millions of people to rent software from you.) That way they can extract truly maximal profits from their operating system - raise the rents when it seems appropriate, cut sweetheart rental deals with some companies and viciously expensive ones with others, depending on whether or not you testified for the DOJ...
Microsoft has a couple of goals here, you see. Getting shrinkwrap licenses validated by the legal system allows them to control pricing in much the same manner as Scribner and Sons' attempt at book-wrap licensing. And building protective technological measures into their software, such as the OEM system-lock for the operating system or Office 2000's single-system registration procedure, allows them to get around the first sale doctrine - you could sell the item, copyright law says you can, but you can't sell it, because the software won't work for anyone else.
At a minimum, you could donate it to a charity or school when you're no longer using it and get a tax break. But that Windows 2000 Recovery CD or an already-registered Office 2000 CD are just coasters. Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero. And don't you dare to try to circumvent those controls in order to exercise your legal right to resell the software - that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I doubt you want to spend five years in prison.
In a non-monopoly marketplace, the fact these two products are worth a lot less to you than their predecessors would force a reduction in price. Instead, Microsoft raised the prices on both. Lawyers have considered the interplay of contract, copyright, and technological restrictions - here's a paper, here's another - but the time is long past for this issue to be considered by the public.
And that's why the threats of Adobe chairman Warnock are the last straw. Microsoft and all the other familiar names in commercial software have been increasing their restrictions for years. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy; we're
"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."regardless of what the fictitious figures of the Business Software Alliance say about copyright infringement. Listen to what Warnock is saying: if only we evil customers didn't make copies of software, Microsoft wouldn't force computer manufacturers to cripple the Windows installed on their machines. Yeah, right. Tell me another one, John.
But Warnock is absolutely right: it's a failure of the general population that is responsible for this licensing mess we're in. The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.
If you buy a car, you are almost certainly protected by state "lemon laws". They were enacted to prevent the abuses that were extremely common, and so you acquired certain minimum rights in the purchase transaction which cannot be waived: if the car breaks down all the time, you can return it and get a refund plus your expenses paid. No matter what the sales contract says. Similarly there are restrictions on just how small the fine print can be, how egregious the interest rate can be, etc. The laws have had a salutory effect on auto sales - dealers are much less likely to try to cheat customers, and manufacturers have incentives to build better-quality cars. It is, in fact, a win-win situation - even though auto manufacturers screamed that laws like these would put them out of business in a week.
We haven't got anything of the sort with software purchases. And like Adobe's chairman just told us, the race to the bottom - who can have the most restrictive licensing, who can gouge the customer the most - is in full swing. It took a long time to get lemon laws enacted across the country, many years of abuses and horror stories, many years of opposition by the automobile manufacturers doing exactly what the software manufacturers are doing now: dumping buckets of cash into Congress. Are we going to learn from our experiences of the past and put some restraints on these abusive restrictions? Are we going to makes software sales into sales, and make software companies stand behind their products? We are, no doubt about it; abuses like these will only be stood for so long. The question is only this: How long will we stand for it?
What do you mean I don't own my software?
-- from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/main.html
Adobe software is owned by Adobe. When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application. The use of the software must be in compliance with the End User License Agreement that is included with the software. Misuse of software is punishable by Federal Copyright Law.
We can fix that, Adobe.
This is crazy. This is probably another way to stop people from receiving their "refunds". You are paying for the software, so why aren't you getting the full thing? Because the majority of the people out there either do not care, or they are just too stupid too know. And most of the people using this never buy an OEM Computer anways! Therefor it will not affect us. This is why we need to educate the general public and media on things like this!
huh?
I am a voting adult. I think that this is a great idea!
Make something remotely like the above available as a petition and I will cheerfully sign it. A donation is not out of the question. My vote in the next federal election is already spoken for as long as it looks like Bush is likely to let Microsoft off the hook and Gore is neutral. (Heck, that could be seen as the best way I can see to vote for the above.)
But leave it at an article here and nothing significant will happen. Nor do I have the time or energy to do any significant organizing.
I doubt I am alone...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
As far as I'm concered I bought a Win95 licence and I'll install it from the CD that shipped with the PC or any other Win95 CD I feel like installing it from.
Unfortunately this kind of thing has come around as a result of the blatent piracy that takes place across the entire computing world thanks to the "I'm not paying for that" mentality that seems to be the norm. Especially when the company is Microsoft, people seem to think that they have some kind of moral right to copy and distribute their products willy-nilly rather than give any more money to the "Evil Empire".
This kind of attitude is prevalent on /. with their rampant disregard for copyright, IP and any other restrictions on what they can have - if you can't get something as "Free Software" then hey, do the next best thing and pirate it. It's all for the cause right?
And this is from a demographic that is supposedly earning a lot more money than the rest of society. Does anyone else see the contradiction and indeed hyprocracy in this? You're all quite willing to take plenty of money from the large corporations you work for, but then all you do is bitch about your working hours and engage in criminal activities. Especially the sysadmins.
Until this attitude of piracy being a good thing of course companies are going to try and impose additional restrictions on their software. Despite what the Stallman hardliners might think, people do deserve to make a living of off their work, and this kind of move is simply an attempt to do so. You've only got yourselves to blame.
OSS can be the answer to all of these problems of course. Thats the obvious answer. The problem is of course that
a) The general software buying (Licensing, sorry) public have to be aware of the restrictions being placed on them by companies such as Microsoft
b) The public have to be made aware of free and open source software as an alternative
c) The alternative software has to offer the same or better features that the propriatry software (With it's restrictive licencse) offers
I think a) is becoming clearer every day, as Micrsoft and the other softies extend these types of licencsing and software distribution. b) is also not as much a problem as it used to be, with more and more people aware of, if not actually using, open source software such as Linux and *BSD. c) is something that the Gnome & KDE teams are working very hard on (KOffice, for example).
Now all we need to do is bring them all together, and shout about it.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. I'm so glad i've put the time into learning Linux, cos at least i have an alternative to this nightmarish mess.
I'd just like to say a big thank you to all the immensely generous and talented individuals who have helped Linux and other free OSes become what they are today, because i'd hate to think where i'd be without you.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
This makes me really angry. The problems of re-installing Windows is already one of my most major gripes with the OS. Last time I wanted to install Win NT guess what I had to do? I had to go back to DOS 5.0. Then upgrade to DOS 6.0 -> DOS 6.2 before using a Windows upgrade disk, then a Windows->NT upgrade. I can't even remember all the hoops I had to go through, but it took about a full day. It mightn't be so bad if Windows was not so easy to screw up so badly that a re-install becomes necessary.
Not to mention that I change hardware from time to time. A new video card here, a new disk controller there. Sometimes these require an OS-reinstall.
In the end though, I do have to laugh since my dependancy on all forms of Windows has now been reduced nearly to nothing because of Linux. We don't need Linux to kill MS, they are doing a good job all by themselves.
You know what? I just go to my good old CD-writer and make copies of Windows CDs for me and my friends. So much for piracy battle - now they not only encourage it (they always did - piracy is the only cause why Windows catched in low-income countries with huge markets, like Russia), they make it absolutely vital for business survival. You just *can't* be without windows disk - on every problem they advise you to reinstall.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
So why would Microsoft or other software manufacturer change its policy ? They are still selling their programs.
As long as they are brainless people buying nothing for a high amount of cash, they'll go on.
That's why thinking people are using free programs (ex: open-source). Often, no restrictive licences, and no money to spend at all for a higher-quality program.
Why do you think Linux is so Worldwide liked ?
----------------
----------------
If Internet is Freedom, Linux is Democraty
As long as we sit behind our computers and just bitch about these things and not take direct action of making public statements outside geek forums like slashdot we are all guilty of getting what we get. I was watching c-span tonight and I saw corporate interest after corporate interest represented but no one with an other prospective; the consumers perspective. This was a joint senate house committee on technology and economic policy. Were was the opposing view? We need to stand up and be counted. We need to demand access. Remind these bastards we Vote and all the corporate money in the world wont help them when we vote their collective asses out at the ballot box. We need to take it back.
why i'm switching from Windows 2000 to Linux... Rubbish like this is a great reason. But from my trolling of the web, it's also the best way to assure privacy. No Cuteftp/Gozilla installed spy advert software, no being refused access to the programs I've payed for. With open source, the chance of trojan code being buried is way less. Not impossible of course, but pretty well down there. This could be a really good marketing angle, for somebody who knows what they're doing.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
IANAL, but it seems to me that what Microsoft (and others) are trying to do is get around yet another Federal (US) law that prohibits convicted felons from making monetary profits from their crimes. Admittedly this law was enacted to keep people from selling their life stories or memoirs to movie studios for ridiculous sums (actually, any sum). But since Microsoft has now been convicted of a felony (violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, if I'm not mistaken, is defined as a felony), and they have modified their EULA to basically force the consumer to rent instead of buy the license to the OS, application, middleware or whatever, doesn't that mean they're attempting to profit from their crime?
Just my two cents' worth...please be so kind as to donate the change to the EFF Blue Ribbon Campaign (shameless plug).
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
There are two options here. One is to use more
free software. The other is 'commit piracy'.
If we view this as a choice, we've lost. The other
thing to do is to just keep forking over money to
Microsoft, and a certain percentage, even of
Slashdot readers, is going to do that regardless.
That's fine... but we all have two more options
to consider.
To build. To steal.
Say it like this: 'we can choose to build or to
steal.'
Doesn't sound half as appealing as 'we
can choose to build *and* to steal'.
I know how I feel about it.
-------
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
More and more I think the DOJ isn't needed in light of how MS, and others, are doing things on their own. Windows has a reputation, one that it well deserves, be it from clueless users or shoddy software, of breaking and needing reinstall to fix problems. Sure shipping a recovery only disk or a crippled install disk isn't all bad by itself, but I'll bet ya the full uncrippled retail version of windows rises from this decision. In a similiar vein, the DMCA will die on it's own when people think it's too restrictive. and say "We want to own out software and not have it shut down remotly because of trivial things."
People are a powerful force when pushed too far, and will fix problems on their own at that point. I, for one, think that when the time is right people in general will do something that's good for them. If what's done is good in the long run is a totally seperate rant, but I guess I'm just saying "Let it be" and let companies/people who screw themselves over get what they desereve.
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
Some OEMs have been only shipping "recovery" cds with their computers since I got my first computer way back in 1996. (It was an IBM p-166 (no mmx)). It took me, with absolutely no computer experence at all, a month to realize that this was nothing but an attempt to control the user, at his own excessive inconvience. IBM's rescue disk only let you completely wipe the harddrive, so it was "no working sound" (stupid mwave, anyone remember those? "i can't listen to music, i'm downloading") or lose all my files that couldn't be backed up on floppys. IBM tech support people were mean to me. And I'll admit that this recovery disk prompted me to my very first act of digital "piracy"... installing windows95b from a buddy's disk. Heh. Microsoft, see what you've made me become?!
Just another reason to appreciate open source software i guess...
If its not our fault, whose is it?! Damn those whacky consumers!
"You're going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
Good software doesn't require service and/or support.
Install your software while extremely drunk.
:)
Videotape yourself for future proof.
IANAL, but I believe that you can't legally enter into a contract while under the influence. So click "I agree" all you want! (If you can get the mouse into position)
Alternatively, you could have a minor install the software, since they can't enter into contracts either. Or something like that.
I suppose the evil lawyers have probably created a way around this, but at the very least it could liven up the workplace for those who install software for a living!
Best new white rapper since Pimp Daddy Welfare... Pimp-T!
Very nice piece, Michael. Allow me to chime in with my own editorial on the subject.
Just one nit: "Ordinary people" have been purchasing software over the counter for well over twenty years, not ten. I can still remember seeing Brøderbund's "Apple Panic" hanging on a peg in ComputerLand.
Think what you will of Jerry Pournelle, the fact is that, in the early 1980's, he was one of the best known and most respected commentators on the computer industry. When he first encountered shrinkwrap "licenses", he minced no words in proclaiming such documents absolute bullshit. (This is a guy who writes for a living, so he knows what copyright lets him do.) So, for the last twenty years, it's been no secret to the software publishers that these so-called "contracts" are not taken seriously by anyone.
Unfortunately, there are a few stumbling blocks standing in the way of a sane resolution to this issue. The first is that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, software is not a "good" and therefore is not subject to the normal rules applying to retail sales. The second is that, sadly, there are several court decisions that have allowed these "contracts" to stand. Check out badsoftware.com for more details than you can stomach.
The publishers have all their ducks lined up in a row (lawyers, warped court decisions spanning 20 years, bought-and-paid-for politicians), so I fear the only way to fix this is via a massive PR campaign. Direct people to this and other advocacy sites. Tell your friends, especially those who aren't computer literate. You'll have litle trouble convincing them this is nonsense. In fact, I daresay the only people you'll get an argument out of are software lawyers.
In the meantime, if you find yourself saddled with a machine absent a proper installation CD, return it to the place of purchase and complain loudly. Sadly, it's the only club we have to wield right now, so let's make the most of it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
What I thought was particularly scary was the suggestion that the government needed to "educate" the young people who think piracy is no big deal.
I realize education doesn't seem like a big deal when we are talking about a prosecutable crime but this seems to undermine the entire idea of the US as a republican state. Laws are supposed to flow from the combined will of the people not from lobbyists powerful enough to spend the *peoples* money to convince them of certain positions.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The only thing we have to be vigilant about is that the distribution channels themselves remain open for open source and open content.
Audio indicates the risks of what can happen: MP3 media, MP3 players, and digital audio recorders have been deliberately crippled for the commercial interests of the record industry. Just doesn't just restrict sharing of copyrighted content under fair use provisions, it also limits access to the market of the very people who operate outside the major record labels. By making recording and distribution more painful and costly, the record industry inhibits low cost and free recordings.
So, as a user, I don't worry about this kind of nonsense--it will merely spur the development of cheaper or free alternatives. I do worry when these people go out and try to restrict the distribution of information in general because that keeps new competitors out of the market and has far reaching consequences for a free society in general.
Has M$ come up with a way to end hardware failure? I have seen computers bought at computer flea markets and screwdriver shops that had components fail 24-48 hours after the customer has brought it home. What happens when the OS or app is installed on a faulty hard drive and the restore image is on a corrputed sector?
The days of the sealed black box are not that far ahead.
If design is not Bauhaus, it is Baroque.
This recovery CD apparently restores the whole original state, including the partitioning. If that is so, you will not be able to repartition and reinstall Windows (and then add Linux and/or BSD), because it will restore your original partitioning, which gives Windows the whole disk again.
IMHO, this is a Microsoft tactic intended to keep people from giving Linux or BSD a try. It's all part of the campaign of trying to lock people and businesses in and not let them discover any way out. I knew they would try to pull things to lock out other operating systems, and do so in a way that looks like they are doing something else. This appears to be the start of that effort.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
...real smart move on Microsoft's part there. Did anybody else thing that was just outrageous?
I went away and installed the software (this is in France). When I launched the software I found that it needed licensing keys. Oh dear yet more time lost. However all the contact information in the box (Email and UK telephone numbers) was out of date. No way to get a reply. I spent hours phoning though to the US to try and track down the European licensing center. I took me 10 DAYS to license the software.
Three months later I received a letter from the Adobe law office saying: We see that you have Adobe software in an Educational institute. We reserve the right to come and search your machine at any moment for potential violations of the license. Your acceptance of your software license implies our right to examine all machines and backup media in your possession.
They can't even answer the phone to give out a license number, but they have time to send the bailiffs in to personally read everything on my machine...
Thus work US software houses in Europe
I learned the uselessness of Window's system CDs last year. The computer I got at the beginning of college was a 386, with Windows 3.1. After Windows95 came out, there began to be more and more programs that I couln't use on 3.1, and Windows95 was not going to run on my machine (I might have upgraded to a 486 by then, but it was still too slow). I did the sensible thing, and switched to linux. Last year I bought a new Dell laptop. Since it has a DVD, it seemed that using Windows98 was inescapable. I got my laptop in the mail with Windows98 SE preinstalled. Being used to linux, which I had installed myself more than once on several computers, I was used to pretty much knowing what was on my computer, and a pre-installed operating system gave me the willies. I thought "I have the OS CD, why don't I just reinstall?" Well, I gave it a shot, but it wouldn't install. I had no idea what I was doing wrong, so I called tech support. It turns out, at least according to Dell tech support, that Windows98 does not run on laptops. Dell has to make quite a few changes to Windows to get it to work with their computers (which of course they couldn't distribute if they wanted to). While I haven't made a coaster out of my OS CD yet, It would be more effectivr that way. As in the article, I restored a compressed image from a section of my hard drive (which i was suprised to find I had). This is my only option for reinstalling Windows. So really, this current change is just more 'including everyone' than 'a brand new bad thing'. Flathead
I've been a Computer Geek since the age of 12 , and before I shifted my use of computers to Linux ( thank God I did it ! ), I estimate I installed Win95 and Win98 about 200 times !!
My (world?) record for a ( desperately needed ) reinstall on one day is 42 times. This was when I bought a Compag Presario , and wanted to install a "better" windows than the one Compaq supplied. I ran in a little problems and the count quickly ran up the 42 times mentioned above !
Compaq supplies a OEM Windows CD =AND= a "recovery disk" that installs a Windows and all the added Compaq drivers and stuff. And to install a standard windows on a Compaq was overkill back then.
Now to get to the point : since I have installed windows again and again due to OS crashes that are mainly windows faults/bugs , the prospect of not HAVING a CD that came with my PC to do those 10 re-installations per month is simply idiotic !!
And they think that users will refrain from experimenting with Linux ?(we all know this isn't an anti-piracy policy:)
I guess that the ones who don't have to pay for their software will, but those who DO have to pay for the software won't in time !
Consider these two choices : ...
One - a PC with Windows pre-installed , no CD and thus NO ADDED VALUE
Two - a PC with Linux pre-installed ( or not ) and 3 CD's ; one with the OS , one with 450+ Free applications ranging from Office suits to Web Applications , Games , Graphic Software etc, one with the sources etc, and all that for a price that is LESS THAN the equivalent windows pc with absolute NOTHING but a ( crashable ) OS.
And with the Linux CD's you can install them on all your other ( legacy ? ) Computers for free.
What would you want to pay for ? Option 1 or 2 ? I say : let them force this upon the public and Linux will eventually get a boost in sales , accompanied with the right marketing.
As a consumer I always buy the product that gets me the best value for my buck ! And I think this is a Consumer Rule and not an Exception !
Piracy will get a boost as well, because the demand for a better solution to install a windows will be served by the pirates ( and for free ! )
So hooray microsoft ! Keep up the good work ! Because I DO NOT CARE ! ( I use Linux :) If others will continue to be ripped of , it's their choice , not mine ...
Grand Moff Tarkin ,What do you guys think ?
blaah !
The loss to industry due to unsanctioned copying is... Zero! That's right! Zilch! Nada! Zip!
My methodology for arriving at this figure is every bit as valid as that used by the SPA/BSA to arrive at their figures. Both methodologies attempt to measure events (sales) that didn't happen. Since this is impossible, it hardly matters what fancy formulae you use to justify it. So you can, like the SPA/BSA, pull any number out of your ass and claim that as your loss.
Gimme a fscking break.
Have another example: To combat unsanctioned copying, Unreal Tournament uses a form a copy protection that checks for the presence of the CD in the drive. This technique is easily hackable, and w4r3zed copies exist. However, Quake-3 uses a central server-based authentication system based on the CD key you have to type in when you install the game. When you try to play on the net, it sends your key to your-papers-please.idsoftware.com (note: may not be actual server name), which then grants you permission to use your property. id's system is foolproof and unhackable, since they alone maintain the database of valid keys.
So, if they SPA/BSA's propoganda is correct, Quake-3 should be selling a fsckload more units than Unreal Tournament, since Q3's copy protection is foolproof, right? We can even measure it fairly easily, since they came out at roughly the same time.
Check the sales figures, pal. They're about even.
The propoganda does not bear even the slightest scrutiny. Unsanctioned copying is not, and never has been, a credible threat to software sales. Get over it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Microsoft might be using this to prevent people from experimenting with other OSes, like Linux or *BSD. Since you now cannot reinstall Windows onto a partition easily, and you get screwed over if you mess with the master boot record, Microsoft may be trying to warn people away from Linux. If Microsoft can discourage Linux as being unsafe, because it will prevent you from running Linux and Windows easily on the same machine, guess which the consumer will run?
This may be an attempt by Microsoft to take down the alternate OSes while it falls. If it effectively locks users into running Windows, when more options do open up after the Microsoft breakup is complete, consumers may still stay with Windows because they have had bad experiances with Linux screwing up their Windows setup, and then not being able to start over with a setup CD, since they don't have one. If Microsoft locks consumers in now, the two broken up companies don't need to conspire to lock users in: The users will already be trapped. And this could negate the entire benefit of the breakup to alternate operating systems. That's not a good thing, by any means.
OK, you bought a PC with MS-Windows installed. The software crash, and you must reinstall the whole OS. Looks not too much a weird situation. You can't reinstall Windows from the crippled ISO image. But you bought Windows nonetheless. Will you have any remorse at re-installing Windows from a pirated CD ? No, of course. Hey, you did buy that thing. So these licensing mess will reinforce piracy more than fighting it.
The other reason why it's dangerous for these societies is that Free Software will be even more compelling. When 99% of the worlwide computers will run Linux, *BSD or Hurd (it should be ready one day or another...), people at Microsoft, Adobe and the like may try to consider the situation from another point of view. And, by the way, each day Free Software get improved. We can't say so of Microsoft things. Have a look at KOffice or Gnome Office: it won't last long until MS Office won't have any advantage anymore.
sigmentation fault
I see that this has been going on for many weeks. I suppose Microsoft has seen the writing on the (The 'no install CD for MS; article is dated a week after Judge Jackson's preliminary decree, which resulted in yesterday's Final Decree)
I shouldn't be surprised. As I said in a post in another article, there will be some serious market forces driving MS-OS and MS-AP apart, due to their differing nature, and the OS portion is going to get the short end of the stick.
Since most of the the biggest microcomputer OSs (aside from MS) have a hardware company behind them (Apple, Sun, SGI, etc), we forget that, for all its importance, an OS is simply not a high ticket item without packaged hardware, and it's bought infrequently. Buying each version since DOS 3 cost maybe $20-30 a year, and most of that would have gone to retailers, packaging, etc. instead of MS's profit column. Let's face it, it's peanuts.
MS milked their OS advantage to fatten their real cash cow: the apps. That's not to say that they didn't make money on the OS, but that wasn't what made them a powerhouse. Price MS-Office against Windows 98, and you'll see why MS-OS needs a new revenue stream.
So what will it be? They can milk licensing and partnering in exchange for a peek at their hidden APIs could be good for a quick infusion, but it's a one-shot. They'll need to offer favorable terms to developers for all future OS's or they won't get enough app support to compel immediate upgrades. Damn OS's live too long! Win95a still runs fine.
Sure, they'll still have new computer sales, but the installed base is their major advantage. Hardware, OS, and apps all bloated each other in a vicious cycle. But all that 'stranded hardware' has some real power left in it. And now there may be competitors who can make use of that power (like Linux) and erode MS's installed base from behind. The consumer desktop needs power for games -- and not much else. We have the equivalent of last decade's supercomputers on our desks now. DO we really need that to write letters, surf, and do our taxes?
MS-OS lost their Apps, most of their Enterprise stuff, MSN.NET, MSNBC, MS hardware (input devices, etc.) and now they are stuck with the central piece that made it all tick... and nothing to make tick. The 2001/2 could be a very lean year.
Further, it'll be harder to buy companies and technologies now that stock swaps won't be quite as appealing. All the guys the used to bully have grown up, and though there's a lot of tech funny money around, MS-OS won't have the liquidity it once had.
I foresaw this back at the beginnning of the DoJ business, but I guess I never really believed it until now. Wow. The OS *isn't* the power. Who ever got *giga-rich* off an OS alone, except Gates -- and he did it by fighting dirty.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Bootlegging can only survive in an environment where the goods concerned are unreasonably expensive or difficult to get hold of. And too much software (esp. Microsoft) falls into the first category. Music's suffering the same problem. Software also has the extra problem that it may not be worth the money if it crashes frequently and is riddled with bugs (spare a thought for the poor early adopters of NT).
If MS software were reasonably priced - say £10 for a Win98 CD - then I'd be perfectly prepared to spend out on it, and so would many other ppl.
You're quite right though, we have developed a rampant disregard for copyright, IP, etc. We go by something more fundamental called "common sense", bcos we're currently years ahead of the lawmakers. If lawyers can say, "Oh, you don't own that copy of the software, you're just licensing it and we can take it back off you if we want" (which is what many license agreements amount to), then that violates common sense. Would you accept Penguin going into your house and taking all your paperbacks away, if you lent a book to a friend? And note that authors and publishing companies seem to have no problem making a living within the copyright laws. In fact, the UK publishing companies have set up a price-fixing cartel which should be investigated sometime soon, but the price isn't fixed _too_ high, so there's not too many complaints. CD prices are fixed higher, so there are complaints. And MS prices are fixed highest of all, and there's outright revolution!
I don't deny that ppl should make a living off their work, but there's a difference between 'making a living' and 'chiseling them for all the money we can get, cos we're a monopoly'. It's that kind of attitude that's got MS into their present situation (see news reports today).
Grab.
Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing that's been happening due to Microsoft having too much power! Thank you, DOJ, for splitting them up and creating some competition that should benefit the consumer! Right? Or maybe not - according to the ruling, there will still be only one company handling the Windows OS. They'll still have a monopoly, they'll still be able to unilaterally declare policies like this, and OEMs will still have to take it. We're supposed to be better off now, but I don't see how...
I have a friend that owned a Compaq, which has been using "Recovery" CD's for years now. Last year he put in a SoundBlaster Live & a NIC into the computer. When he had to "Recover" his computer a few months later, the recovery wouldn't work. After wasting a day of his time, he had to call Compaq, who informed him that he had to take the SBLive and NIC out so the recovery can proceed.
This is absolutely insane. Software manufacturers "claim" that software help us make things happen (Create graphics, etc.) - this is anything but that.
Using the standard piracy excuse to further their own pocket-filling goals is nothing new; I'm actually surprised that nobody pointed out the fact that their piracy problems originate in the warehouses that mass-produce copies of software. They're going after the wrong group. >=( This only pushes _more_ people to get pirated copies of their software.
At this point I'm highly doubtful that the BSA has anything of value but to further the goals of its members, and their goal isn't going after piracy where it hurts - it's going after our wallets.
I'm surprised that we haven't heard from any consumer groups about this - yet.
*sigh*
Unfortunately this kind of thing has come around as a result of the blatent piracy that takes place across the entire computing world thanks to the "I'm not paying for that" mentality that seems to be the norm. Especially when the company is Microsoft, people seem to think that they have some kind of moral right to copy and distribute their products willy-nilly rather than give any more money to the "Evil Empire".
As if Microsoft really needs more money. What planet are you from? The company is alive and thriving as ever. So what if a few people make copies, it's a basic copyright. So what if a few people don't pay for the software at all, many probably wouldn't afford the stiff price anyways (hence they wouldn't buy it in the first place). But still, Microsoft is earning on them since they're promoting MS products by sharing them and using them. Do you really think Microsoft earns much money from people actually BUYING the software packages? No, they earn in from businesses and enforced hardware-deals. Tricking consumers, that's where Microsoft has had it's income. (That tax-fraud talked about above is just pocket-change going right into someone's pockets, I'm sure)
This kind of attitude is prevalent on
Ethics and morals are above enforcements and ideals of laws, rules and rights. It doesn't matter what you use as a cannon if the reasons you're using it is based on "bad" or flawed moral beliefs. Law is just a tool, which can be used for good or bad, just like any tool. Indeed, the very notion of "good" and "bad" is subjective opinion based on inner values. So, if you do something "wrong", but you're doing it because you don't want to conform to a violent society, are you really doing something wrong at all? It's all different for every person, and a person that can't understand and tolerate that, is very ignorant.
And this is from a demographic that is supposedly earning a lot more money than the rest of society. Does anyone else see the contradiction and indeed hyprocracy in this? You're all quite willing to take plenty of money from the large corporations you work for, but then all you do is bitch about your working hours and engage in criminal activities. Especially the sysadmins.
Today perhaps, but who knows under what conditions we'll be working under tomorrow? However, your argument is flawed since it is based on the common belief that you can't have good morals and doing the "right" thing (or believeing you are doing so) while being rich. As if having money or being pretty makes you a bad person (reflecting a feeling of inferiorness in the intolerant person). There's nothing wrong in itself with being rich. (Besides, I doubt most
Criminal activities you say? Where? What? There's not much piracy in the corporate world as you'd like us to believe. Perhaps in schools, but what teenager are gonna buy a full suite of Office 2000 and MS Windows ++?? Should every kid save up all their money so they can buy their "personalized" software (plus games)? What the hell should we be teaching kids today? To think for themselves, or conform to every authority demanding their attention?
What is flawed is the pricing software makers are charging.
Until this attitude of piracy being a good thing of course companies are going to try and impose additional restrictions on their software. Despite what the Stallman hardliners might think, people do deserve to make a living of off their work, and this kind of move is simply an attempt to do so. You've only got yourselves to blame.
First you say we make a very decent living, and now software companies suddenly can hardly stay alive? Make up your mind please! Why are we getting paid so much money if the companies are going under? (With all the clueless "Internet-companies" out there, you can hardly use statistics to prove your point..)
In addition, such an argument for limiting innocent customers is so stupidly flawed. How can customers who never pirated anything blame themselves? This argument is so flawed it hurts to think about it. It is primarily designed to get people to feel bad about themselves, so that people like you and others (who feel yourself superior in some way) can still feel you're in control, because that's the only feeling you have left.
Guess what? You don't fucking control me or anybody else who declares so. (Unless you used reverse-phsycology
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
From the Adobe link
When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application.
So are they trying to say "When you purchase the software you don't purchase the software"? The other interpretation is that you purchase both the software an a licence, and can therefore legally transfer ownership of one or the other.
I have been seeing a surprising number of posts that are not compliant with this format. They are moderated down, and I do not believe that their authors are really doing anything wrong but not being aware. For the good of the many, I shall describe that standard format for a post in this story.
Subject: Microsoft {sucks, is bad, is stupid, is evil}
Comment: Microsoft {is clearly wrong, is just plain evil, is just plain stupid}. I {hate, despise, spit on} them. I shall {break the laws, illegally pirate software, violate license agreements} to do what I think is {right, good, better than those stupid-heads}. Microsoft sucks. {Linux, BSD, MacOS} is far superior. I believe that this will cause most of the consumers to choose {Linux, BSD, MacOS} over the {mind numbing stupidity, complete senselessness, idiocy} inate in any Microsoft {product, excretion, filth}. All hail Slashdot.
I hope this will enhance your Slashdot experiance.
you are right!!!!
Where would they stop? Why would they stop? They could soak every penny out of our pockets for using their software. Maybe I shouldn't have written this because they might read this and think of doing it! Oh, who am I kidding, they've probably already thought of this and are just trying to figure out a way to implement it.
I personally believe in paying for software that you use. However, I have no problem not paying for software that doesn't work correctly. If companies were moral enough to ship products that worked correctly the first time without need for patching, I would be moral enough to pay money for them. However, I don't know of a single piece of software that hasn't needed some sort of patch for it to work properly on my machine. And I even bought some of the software anyway because I enjoyed the product that much that I felt I needed to let the company know that I think they did a good job regardless. But the way they're talking, they make it sound like it's my fault for not wanting to pay for their crappy coded software.
Sure, this rant applies more to games, and not as much to OSs or Applications, but it does apply.
I am slowly losing hope for the future, save for free software. I remember being aware of the problems with shrinkwrap licenses more than a year or so back, and thinking to myself, "This is trash; the courts will eventually throw out such licensing.". But on the contrary, things have gotten worse. UCITA has become law in several states. Courts have upheld these licenses (ok, so the linked article talks about a specific contract and not mass-market licenses, but hey, the EULAs are also specific contracts, if Big Company will have its way).
It is deja vu time. I get this feeling that hardware, software, cars, telephones, you-name-it-what-not will all be licensed in the future. Nothing will ever be sold. Except your soul. And Big Company would have found the perfect way to screw copyright law, and you.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
The only real solution is promoting free software. Be it Linux, FreeBSD, KOffice, StarOffice, GIMP or whatever. Talk of Linux, copy CD's for free, help people out when they're stuck. Then we'll all be too busy fixing the problem to bother ranting :)
Microsoft is right - stop piracy - promote Linux.
-Henrik
Ok so people are going to start to realize that they no longer have any rights whatsoever when they buy from MS, Adobe and whoever else begins raping customers in this fashion. IT professionals will of course be the first to realize this and will also be in a position to do something about it. IT managers who happen to be Linux advocates will have one more piece of ammunition to use when preaching to management about the benefits of implementing Linux wherever possible. No longer will our arguments be purely technical and philosophical, concepts management often fails to understand, now we can really talk about the bottem line and not just in terms of purchase price, but liscencing that so limits the maintainability of company assests (computers) as to make them nearly useless. Well that's an argument I believe most managers will listen to. Maybe VALinux will see a bump in their desktop orders because of this
Seriously though, the best way to stop this kind of corporate behavoir is to vote with your wallet, or department budget as the case may be. When purchacing new systems from an OEM make it a point to go over the new MS liscense details with management and explain how following the liscense to to the letter of the law would make even minor disaster recovery very costly in terms of downtime, and then suggest that it may be worth the time and effort for your company/department to switch OS's and retrain the staff. Have a plan with potentional training issues and cost estimates available, give them a demo of Linux running on your workstation (we've all smuggeled linux onto all of our desktops at work already, right?) create/convert some docs ect... Then let managment make a decision, many will probably bite the bullet and deal with being analy raped by big bill, after all staff retraining is a bitch, no matter what the result at least it was a good oppurtunity to responsibly advocate linux to management, and a few of us may get lucky and actually convince management to switch.
As free software keeps getting freindlier and as bloated^H^H^H^H^H^H feature rich as commercial software; and commercial software liscense agreements get worse and worse, it's going to be easier for us to get Linux and other Free Software products in trough the front door, where it belongs.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Recovery CDs mean that a motherboard upgrade, or a change in key peripherals in a machine (say, new drive controllers or video cards introduced after the burn image's creation) will make a system recovery nigh impossible without buying entirely new licenses for the OS and for any apps bundled and tied into the recovery CD. Not so awful if you're using an "appliance"-style machine that has no swappable parts, like an iPaq. Very awful if you're using systems with standard ATX-style cases and motherboards.
It also means that a machine that's getting an OS version upgrade would need to be "recovered"--with the entire hard drive wiped--in order to end up with a reasonably clean, OS-rot-free install of the new OS version. As it is, it's already more cost effective in many cases to start fresh with a new full version of the latest OS when "recovering" a machine that's been upgraded from its original OS. That you cannot install an "upgrade" version from scratch by simply keying in the sequence of past OS license keys is part of the same greed. Microsoft clearly has long wanted it to be such a burden to "restore" a system that's been upgraded that customers would simply buy a new, full license to the latest OS rather than go through a multiple-step install.
Adobe, Macromedia and other companies with tedious, finicky license systems, are no doubt jealous. Their users would rebel if their installation schemes were quite this drastic. Ironically, their software is widely pirated by kids who can't afford it but want to learn it--and then go on to take jobs where they demand a copy. Has it ever occurred to them that the reason so many 22-year-old graphic designers are so passionate about--and competent in--Adobe's apps is that many have been using Adobe software since they were 14 years old?
For anything but a monopoly product like Windows or MS Office, "piracy" often benefits software vendors. This is why Oracle offers freely-downloadable, unrestricted copies of its core product line, as well as unrestricted CDs. Students, startups, developers and the curious can learn Oracle and the Oracle toolset, build a massive application, and test it on a pile of machines without paying a cent. But once they've gotten that far, at least in a country with enforcable copyright laws, they'll call in the Oracle reps and pay the $400,000 they owe before deploying.
No, this move to across-the-board recovery CDs only, which used to be the hallmark of low-end hardware vendors like Packard Bell, isn't about stopping piracy. It's about making system recovery and clean upgrades so difficult that more customers will opt to buy full versions of new OS releases for machines that already have a "license" because making use of that existing "copy" is too burdensome. Why sell upgrades to Win98, Win2K and Office for $90/$200/$240 when you can channel them into paying $200/$300/460 for convenience every time an upgrade is rolled out?
This is only valid if you can only run linux from a separate partition. This is not true. UMSDOS (Unixoid filesystem running on top of FAT) has been availible for a long time, I used it when first trying Slack2 back in '95. Loopback devices are currently the most favoured method
(WTF is 'Invalid Form Key!' and why do I keep getting it?!)
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
"Give computer makers more flexibility in configuring their systems and in selling and promoting non-Microsoft software"
(from this BBC News article)
Doesn't look that way to me.
that we use their software! MS is used that everyone uses their software because it is some kind of "standard". This will change and I hope this will change fast. Then they will need to persuade us for using their software. They will have to advertise a lot more than they used to. But this won't help anymore. And when they will recognize that the majority of users are happy with Open Source and free software, they will have to withdraw from such crippled CDs or license keys. Right now they don't have to advertise and they don't have to care much about their customer's wishes. It's like Intel: We all are used to "the new prices" from Intel every 3 months. This is how you can detect a monopoly: Someone sets the price and you have to pay it. Same thing with MS. They set the price, they set the rules we have to play with if we want to use their software. Only one thing helps: Using and developing free software. Kajetan
And things can get even worse. In the article I read about a recovery CD. Did it occur to you that some of those qrd's can also run on 1 single computer and nothing else? In other words; I payed for the license to use the software but the vendor also dictates me as to where I can use this software. Call this freedom to do what I want to do? And this isn't even the bottom; I have examples where people didn't even got a recovery CD at all. Windows was copied onto the harddisk (c:\windows\options) and all further driver installations were completed from this directory.
Perhaps you are also wondering what will happen when there is an hardware crash and for some reason Windows needs to be re-installed? I think that this is the worst part. Being a (small) reseller of some consumer products (it isn't core business but we sell laptops and peripherals next to our normal business) this whole development scares me. We are actually being forced into a situation where we can't profile ourselfs to the full extent...
Without any attention to use this as a "commercial"; we focus ourselfs on system administration and believe me; it is very good for my business if a customer has some problem with his hard/soft -ware and when we deliver our products we can fix those as well. The result; client happy, knowing we can provide fast and quick solutions.
For example; some time ago we met someone who had small problems with his network. We checked it out and it turned out that he had no license for Windows NT. Since he wanted to expand we sold him the licence he needed and installed, before he actually had the licenses, some other workstations and in a single day (not 8 hours :)) the customer was very happy and could do even more then before.
And now I fear the future... This customer bought some more hardware from us with the knowledge that if he has a problem we can be very quick in solving it if need be. The truth has changed; when he has some software problem there is no way for us to fix this quickly since we can't grab his CD anymore to do a re-install if needed. We are not allowed to back up his pre-installed software (besides; we don't have the capacity to keep copies of *every* oem we deliver. Talking about working hours here). So basicly; the best thing we can do in situations like that is to take the machine back and send it back to our supplier. Customer unhappy because he can't use his machine for a while, we unhappy because we can't deliver the services we used to and MS very happy I guess because there is more money flowing towards their greedy little hands.
Fortunatly most customers understand this and won't blaim us. And these very same customers now also see through this lie of MS that 'they want the best for their customers' (I had a laugh after experiencing this shit and seeing billy boy talk about how bad it was that the US goverment finally took some action.
The good news... Knowing our reputation some of our customers are now also willing to give the Linux OS a try as a fileserver (for starters) and thinking about letting it grow to more specific and more critical tasks as well. So in a way MS makes his own big anti-commercial allthough this heavily depends on the re-seller. We won't put up with this shit and are also filing complains (as if this works :)) and are looking at other ways to acomplish things. But the rest? I would not be surprised if most resellers don't give a damn. For us our business still is a passion, for most it is just money.
See my Windows CD page.
I originally did it so I could see how Win98 runs in VMware.
This is the Death Knell, boys and girls.
I heard it when Apple went from the Velcro-back "we want you to poke around" Apple II+ to the "if you so much as open the case, you void the warranty" Mac (the one where you couldn't install a HDD until Apple introduced their own 'authrized HDD. Their market share plummeted, in favor of the 'commodity hardware' Wintel PC.
I heard it in the copy-protected games of the early 80's. When did you last see one of those?
I heard it from Lotus, once the 1000 lb gorilla of spreadsheets and business apps.
I heard it from IBM when they went MicroChannel with the PS/2 (a technical advance, in many ways, but with a "lock-in the consumer" mentality)
Some companies heard it themselves and spared themselves.
Even newbies were deserting AOL until they dropped their proprietary "we own this user" tricks one by one, and allowed free (as in speech) access to the internet, and third party apps. If AOL had tried to keep the squeeze on their users, and tie them to 'preferred vendors', they wouldn't have bought Time-Warner, they wouldn't even be able to buy time.
I have discussed the market forces that will drive MS-OS and MS-AP in another thread, as well as MS-OS's desperate need for new revenue streams. Check them out, if you haven't seen them. It all ties together.
Like a funeral shroud.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
I think the above post basicaly says all that is needed to be said on the subject.
"i use linux, so screw it."
I paid 30 bucks for Suse 6.4. It came with six cd's worth of software and a 500 page manual. And, to be honest, it was a better buy then the free recovery disk that came with my computer.
I loaned SuSE to a friend and he liked it so much he went out and bought his own copy so he could have it and the manual for himself.
Of course, the biggest irony here is that the operating system you need to install the most, wont let you (or at least restricts your ability to).
oh humm, Two more Linux users in the world--- two less windows users staring at a blue screen.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
...and failed. I seem to remember in the 80's that the computer software industry went down a similar path. They may not have had the rediculous license schemes but a number of games and software required dongles hanging off the back of machines and trashed you drives on bad sector reads that had to be there, but you couldn't copy. Guess what the costomers got pissed off enough they stopped buying these products and went with software that wasn't draconian...
Hmmm... now there's an alternative (Linux etc.) that has some difficulties associated with it that WILL become the alternative choice when these measures become annoying enough that companies and individuals decide to refuse to use it and are willing to learn to use the alternative because its less of a pain in the ass than dealing with this kind of crap.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Good .sig ! ;)
sigmentation fault
Unless you built your PC from ground up you bought Windows.
... contact Microsofts piracy department and complain.. becouse obveously if you never get the media.. the software was stolen...
The only piracy is in people stealing the next version up... and even that is minimal...
So where is the piracy?
I smell dinial..
I think Microsoft is bodycounting..
Meaning they believe EVERY PC runs Windows... every PC that is in use that dosn't account for a sale must therefor have stolen Windows.
This might have made sence back when MsDos was all there was for PCs.. but even then CP/M-86 did exist so there never was a time when all PCs ran Dos. and cerenly no time when all PCs run Windows.
Microsoft is also piracy paranoid. It did hurt them rather badly in the start. It dosn't justify what they have done but it dose explain it.
In the end I think Microsoft is looking at ex-Windows users or users who never did use Windows and count them as having stolen the latest version of Windows.
I personnaly recomend every user who dose not receave a CD
Microsoft will love that.....
I don't actually exist.
Well, yes. On his machine, since he will, with that attitude, become the one sole owner and one sole licencee of his software.
I personally have 8 machines, one of them a MicroSoft Windows machine. I will be the first to tell you that it was installed with a copied version of Windows 98. I DO have a valid license for Windows 98, however it is for one of these 'rescue disks' that came with my Toshiba Laptop, that will restore the system to its 'original' state. Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me.
... but then, it wouldnt be the first time. M$ has been violating US law for years, why not international law aswell.
I use Linux on my laptop, which is my right, I own the hardware, I have every right to run whatever software I damn well want on it, not just the software they supplied on, I mean, I OWN the hardware, and the CD's that were supplied with it. Nowhere in any license agreement did it say 'This software may only be installed on laptop with serial #.....', or even 'This software may only be installed on a Toshiba Laptop'.
However, because these are LAPTOP recovery CD's, they take the hardware, etc for granted, and if I'd used them to install on my windows desktop machine, I would lose the use of about 1/2 my winbox's hard disk, and would have drivers installed that I cant use. Not ONLY this, but the Rescue CD's are in a proprietary format, and stored as a single file, so if I needed EXTRA drivers, say I added something to my machine, I couldnt use the CD to install the drivers, even though I own a full license for Windows 98, so I am basically FORCED to get another copy of Windows 98 to be able to use it. I own exactly 1 license for Windows 98, and have exactly 1 machine installed with Windows 98, but if MicroSoft had their way, I would have to buy another copy if I wanted to use it on anything but my Laptop.
This is just wrong. When I buy software, I want to own it, and should. Some vendors say 'by licensing the software, you pay per use or period, however you get automatic upgrades for the duration of the license'. This I can accept, but does anyone think M$ will ship out new OS CD's to every licensed Windows user? I dont think so, they'll make you go and BUY the new version, and then get your free updates from Windows Update, which every user of the software can use. You end up asking yourself, 'Why am I still paying for this?'
These days, Liunux can do anything I want it to do, support for peripherals comes out almost as fast as microsoft (we have some VERY intelligent reverse engineers out in the market today, but of course, if the RIAA wins its case with DeCSS, then it will become illegal for them to make drivers for linux for new hardware, because they have to reverse engineer the windows drivers...)
I say point me in any direction where ther is a petition to 'stop vendors circumventing copywright by creating "licensing" agreements that would otherwise be deemed illegal if the product was sold'. Or if you like, 'Implement "lemon" laws for computer software and hardware'.
Speaking of copywright laws, how does this work internationally, I mean, some of the conditions M$ puts on its products, are illegal and not upholdable in other countries -- some countries even make it illegal to attempt what M$ wants to do
For one, check out the success of mini-linux, that installes over fat16/32 and (maybe even) nfs.
Thus, scaring people off Linux is not the issue, the main issue scaring businesses away. Making people believe, that they would have great deal of trouble installing Linux themselves, that's the one.
To my mind, if Linux companies (finally) make a "user" installation (OS, XFree, KDE, KOffice, Mozilla, plus some simple network/dialup tools) - the success of Linux will be HUGE. For example, I never use any compilers in my business work. Why? Cause I don't program! But installing Linux without C++ or Perl (or those libs) is a pain!
Give people a nice game/office platform, based on Linux, and they will love it! (give 'em privacy and "some" control - that's it)
After linux is in servers it's not that far from desktop anymore. IMHO it would be that much easier for admins - just mount /usr over NFS on employee machine and never visit it again. If you need to install/update software just install it on server and it's done. With OSS licences aren't an issue.
On the other hand, if MS is going to keep rents low enough it could be success for MS. Nowadays it's licence costs that prevents business from updating to newest MS-OS (in this case W2K) but if those business paid rent each year and always got newest software for their rent there isn't high one-time cost for upgrading and people wouldn't complain about issues like word95 vs. word97 file format compability because businesses would automatically have newest software (and imagine how hard it would be competitors to stay compatible with those secret file formats - changing every year). And it wouldn't cost MS more than today if they distributed new software over 'net. Sure it would hurt individuals but that isn't where the money is. I'm pretty sure I will use Linux, thank you.
In the end I think that Linux can take over server market because it's IMO better and more stable for server usage (yes, I have used W2K). For desktop we still have long way to go - how we can still mess up backspace, del, home and end or DnD or simple copy-paste? At least we have better looking window borders!
_________________________
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
I must say, I'm beginning to see an interesting pattern here. Bizarre? Yes. This is maybe the oddest explanation I've come up with in some time, but it's about the only thing I've seen that makes sense.
;-)
There's a normal syllogism that often seems to go with stories about Microsoft on Slashdot:
Microsoft does bad things.
Microsoft did this.
Therefore, this is bad.
The strange thing is...it's usually valid. Microsoft has a very strong penchant for abusing the market(both the consumer, and if you believe what's been said about their stock manipulation, Wall Street too), and it's this tendancy which Slashdot has a tendancy to report upon.
Now, here's what gets really strange: Microsoft has been executing breathlessly aggressive schemes for market domination while being directly under the thumb of the US Government, whose ire was finally raised by the horde of very well connected companies that Microsoft abused. (I'm actually beginning to realize IBM being forced to buy Windows 95 off the street was a bigger deal, government-wise, than Compaq losing the right to sell Windows 98 for a day.) Neither the Kerberos scam, the SOAP harassment(which ended up with IBM open sourcing their implementation), nor this ultimate example of product bundling had any right to happen right now. Six months ago? Even then, maybe. But not now.
Microsoft does bad things.
Microsoft did this.
Therefore, this is bad.
Microsoft's sins are widely publicized as bad.
Microsoft can select its sins.
Therefore, Microsoft can select that which is widely publicized as bad.
That's a position of power. It's Machiavellian beyond belief, but it's a definite position of power.
The most rational explanation for Microsoft's behavior has generally been that they wanted to goad Judge Jackson into implementing an overly harsh penalty--and bragging about it. Indeed, they may have succeeded in that, as Jackson commented the penalty was more severe than that which would have been ("justly") reached by arbitration. So, we've already got a theory that argues Microsoft is intentionally erring so as to exploit Jackson's emotions(exploits didn't begin with Winnuke!).
Ah! But what errors to make? That, my friends, is where things get interesting. Any thoughts? I've got a few, but I've said enough for the moment
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
As no doubt anyone is aware, hardly anyone just jumps in with both feet to a new OS. The usual way of doing things is to partition your hard disk so that the old OS and new OS can peacefully co-exist.
This applies to anyone who is changing OS - it doesn't matter whether you start using NT, BeOs, MacOs, Linux or whatever. Having recently made the decision to go do dual boot with MacOs and LinuxPPC, I would probably drop MacOs like a shot if it started 'nudging' other OSes I installed off the hard disk, which sounds similar to what MS might be trying to do to Linux.
Micro$oft are nailing their own coffin by doing this. Corporate clients are not going to be amused. For example, what about all those MIS departments that have to set up PCs with specific setups ? Is MS saying that they can't burn CDs of their own disk images ? I don't think any MIS executive is going to be impressed by being told that they can only use a standard setup as provided by MS, if at all. Neither are they going to be impressed by having to pay a huge premium just to get a master CD.
Hardly, "Where do you want to go today ?", is it ?
M.
I agree totally....
In a world where all software is free.. there is no software theft
I don't actually exist.
Here are some possibilities:
All contracts and licenses must be written out by hand, by an employee of the company who is authorized to bind the company to a contract.
All contracts and licenses must be signed in duplicate, by the purchaser and the vendor, with one copy returned to the purchaser, before any goods change hands.
All contracts and licenses must be signed in blood, by the purchaser and the vendor, before any goods change hands. (There is a precedent for this one, you know, the other Prince of Darkness.)
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Having first hand, frustrating experiences with pre-installed, pre configured, "we give you a rescue disk, but no software" and all that crap makes me feel rather strongly on the issue. Setting up my companies blazing 1 computer infrastructure not so long ago I (like millions of others) had a choice between getting the Toshiba box I wanted either with Wank '98 or Wank NT. Attempting to be a professional enterprise I required NT of course. Obviously nobody else required this inventive, user-friendly and browser integrated OS since the distributor claimed to need a month to ship a pre-configured box. Solution: Get the Wank 98 box and cough up an additional 200$ for an NT OEM license. Happy, happy, joy, joy, but not quite: The manufacturer considered my business to be a dump for his ol' NT4 Service Pack 1 software, which of course fails to install on a 13 Gb HD. After completely wrecking the installation you try to use the "rescue" disk nothing was rescued, actually I got the feeling that more damage was done then anything else. To make a long story short, I returned the OEM version and laughed the sales guy away when he offered an aditional upgrade. The good part of the story is that I went to the next bookstore, bought S.u.S.E Linux for a mere 50 or so bucks on six CDs which apparently harmonizes just fine with 13 gig disks. Granted that even as a (fairly experienced) U*X user there is a learning curve. Granted that there are no such great features like break dancing paperclips, integrated browsers etc..., it was the best business decision ever. I yet have to install the full (400$) NT license I purchased (bad business decision) 2 weeks later. As a distributed database geek I have three industry strength databases running, if necessary in parallel and if Sybase releases Replication Server for Linux (which is rumored) I shall be a real happy camper. Especially since I bloody know what's going on on that system . Conclusion: The monopolists of this world actually push consumers into being Free Software / Open Source (take your pick) users, especially since the various distros get easier and easier to install and maintain for Average Q User and more and more businesses get serverly pissed of by broken promises and strangling license contracts...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
You don't get to give out "grades" to trolls you have responded to, just as a jailhouse punk doesn't get to critique the technique of his mack daddy-of-the-day. Trolling isn't figure skating and there are no points for artistic impression. All that matters is whether the mark follows up or not. And no, you don't appear clever, ironic or knowing for recognising a troll. You responded, you fed the troll, therefore you are a mark.
To put it more simply, it's a win-or-lose game.
and
YHBT
YHL
HAND.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Sorry monkey, but UT is copy protected as well. Is their method as effective? No. But it's still there and will eventually destroy your CD-ROM drive.
> Microsoft clearly has long wanted it to be such a burden to "restore" a system that's been upgraded that customers would simply buy a new, full license to the latest OS rather than go through a multiple-step install.
That's also why Windows "deteriorate" and even Microsoft recognize Windows should be reinstalled periodically...
Does these guys have a clue that it will only erode their position ? I doubt so. They wouldn't act so stupidly else.
sigmentation fault
this is really bad. this kind of action only supports piracy - since the one partition thingy is the major partitioning scheme nowadays, most people can't backup their data anywhere else, so they probably seek a pirated copy of the os (most cases some ms windows) and do a reinstall rather than clear up the whole disk. so software company like ms is not in position about complaining of pirated copies their os.(or actually are, but they should not complain about end users but OEM-sellers)
i can feel my common sense escaping this world.
ound the message used repetitively over and over still nothing grows silen
I want to believe that these inconveniences would drive MIS departments worldwide to migrate toward non-proprietary solutions for their enterprises. Your friendly IT director may not care about the high cost of Windows-- that's the accounting department's problem--- Wasted time and effort are another story, right?
I offer a more cynical prediction. Aforementioned friendly IT director will love the new licensing scheme because it provides a good excuse for restricting what hardware they need to support.
"No, I can't give you more RAM, a faster modem, or a 3-button mouse. The copy of Windows we licensed for you only works with your current configuration."
Darian
~O~
Software cannot be claimed to come with a machine if no independent package of that software ships with it.
If software doesn't install, the package is incomplete. If the package is incomplete, advertising for that software is fraudulent. Last I checked, fraud was a crime which, among other things, invalidated most contracts. Since the EULA likely describes capabilities which Microsoft would have fraudulently removed from the software, such EULA could arguably be rendered null and void.
The fact that installer-castrated operating systems are inherently more risky to remove(since you suddenly need to wipe out more than just the operating system Microsoft sold you to reinstall what you've already purchased!) actually makes this the most intriguing form of product bundling we've seen yet from Microsoft: They're actually bundling Windows now with the data that you create with it. If you try to remove Windows, and ever wish to return, you will now lose all the documents, the email, the graphics, the Internet Bookmarks...you will lose everything.
Windows thus becomes bundled with your own data. It's brilliantly devious, really.
It's also doomed to fail. Coming from somebody who spent two years repairing Windows systems(c:\windows\options\cabs is a lifesaver, incidentally), let me personally state that Win9x systems do not need Linux's help to fall over, die, and require reinstallation. If such reinstallation could not be done without either losing everything or moving the hard drive into another machine for disk-to-disk copying(what, you think you're going to go into Windows and backup to another machine on the network, when Windows now refuses to boot?), Microsoft would probably face a mass revolt from the thousands of MCSE's they trained quite well to do just that very thing.
Revolting MCSEs happen to be a disturbingly dangerous demographic for Microsoft. The Win2K uprising was actually surprisingly bloody.
Hmmm. This is getting fun to watch. Tech soap is always classic.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Oh well, with the break up, dirty tricks like this. And linux getting better/more usable for people like me everyday. I can't see microsoft staying around for too long. Well not in the computer savy community anyway (might be a while before computer illiterate users use linux). But then again, it wouldn't suprise me one bit if everyone just sat back and let it happen.
Anyway....
<RANT>
What the hell is that adobe guy talking about when he says we bring it on ourselves?
They're the ones who charge $500 for a peice of software. I don't care what anyone says, But THAT IS TOO MUCH!
It woulds cost me about $5000 to get all the software I need to use. Thats more that the hardware!!! WHY?! Software is digital information. I can be repoduced infinitaly at no cost, yet those big companies still charge far too much for there stuff. And then they blame US, when we pirate there software.
I'm just a student!! I can't afford to pay that much for a bunch of 0' & 1's!!!!
Belive me. when I can get all the apps I need for linux, I'll be saying goodbye to bill forever!!! Untill then. I will continue to use these expensive products. But I will never pay for them. There you go Bill, sue if you want.
The only software I have paid for was EditPlus(win text editor), and cuteFTP. Why? Cause they didn't charge the f###'n earth for there software, and they actually work. + the arn't greedy big $hits. Out to just make money.
The whole entire world is getting insane. I'm not sure how much longer it will last, or how much longer I can take. But If everyone dosn't fucken wake up, and realise that this is what the future will be like if no one cares about little things like this soon. I'm packing my bags and joining a budhist monastry.
Oh well... that sounded more like a flame than a rant. But hey. </RANT>
Look people, someday someone has got to make a legal case of the fact that MS and the others hide all kinds of restrictive and abusive terms and conditions behind a very confusing (intentionally), rarely taken seriously, clickthrough EULA that in all honesty, most people don't read (mainly when it's for personal use and not business).
.jpgs I use in the websites I design and run. no more. I'm a huge linux user, but photoshop was THE reason for me to boot to windows. I just didn't want to go through the trouble of learning the GIMP. Not anymore, from now on I'll only use The Gimp. Like I said, Supply and Demand will take care of them.
I know it's no excuse to say "oh but I didn't read it and I didn't know", but if they were that honest and forthcoming, you would have to sign a written contract when purchasing the product. Most individuals just assume that what they're accepting makes sense, since after all they're "buying" a product and they expect to be regulated just like any other product purchase. I have yet to come across a person that's not surprised when I explain to them what an EULA really is and what it allows/restricts. And I'm talking about executives, housewives, accountants and lawyers. Housewives being the smartest of them all (seriously!). It just doesn't make sense. Then there's also the fact that clicking on a button, or some information on a disk has absolutely no legal meaning in most countries (like Panama, where I live), but for some mi$terious reason the BSA can throw you in jail if someone as much as points a finger at you and says "pirate!".
Of course, if a country doesn't want to work with the BSA, the USofA will impose economic sanctions on them in about 32 seconds flat (33 seconds if that country has a nuclear arsenal)
And did you know that in most countries, once you open the box of a product, you can't take it back to the store and get your money back? I bet MS knows this. This is another reason for people to not pay much attention to what a contract on a textbox says (that curiously displays 1/25th of the content of the contract and a LARGE I Accept Button): they already opened the box, there's nothing you can do anyways so...
I know this is no excuse and saying "I didn't read it" to the court won't do any good, but surely there must be some legal mechanism to prevent big S/W companies from binding you to a license agreement if they don't go through every effort to make sure that the users understand what they're getting into. Most people would just say "You want me to what??? pay you $400+ to not own this thing when I can download staroffice for windows for a fraction of that (or for free)? Supply and demand will take care of them I assure you.
as of 4AM today I used Photoshop for everything, from little I'm sorry notes I email to my girlfriend when I stand her up to some nice looking
========================
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
How many of us have gotten the "Windows 95 Companion CD"? What a WOMBAT! It had the complete OS but was unbootable! I had to get the right setup files and copy them over so I could do a fresh install which happens fairly often. It's pretty easy but most users wouldn't know how to do this and end up wiping their disk.
I have also gone through the trouble of creating new cabs with edited config that doesn't install the old internet software. WOMBAT!
And now it is going to get even worse...
Looks like the last version of Windows I will ever have is Win95a. It still works fine.
I remember when i got my IBM Craptiva (ooh - did i just violate UCITA?) I got a windows disk with it. Then i come to find out that in order for the disk to work, it verifies that the bios from the box i was using is the same as the one registered on the disk. FUUUUUUUUUUCK THAT!!!!
I don't think there's any way that this can be legal. When you buy a compact disk, you're not just purchasing a "license" to listen to the music, you're buying that piece of music. It's yours. If software licensing changes this...then all those used CD stores are fucked as well, in addition to, of course, the used software stores. (even computer renaisance?).
Basically...consumers are quickly being driven to one of three choices. 1)Blatantly break the law. 2)Vote with your pocket books, or 3) Put up with it.
I myself plan to do both 1 and 2. I'm just afraid the average computer user isn't going to realize they got bitch-slapped by companies like Adobe and MICROS~1 untill it's too late.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I bought a server from Gateway (don't ask me what possessed at the time, I should have built it myself). It was supposed to ship with windows 2000 server but instead it came with Win NT 4.0
So I contacted customer support requesting an upgrade. However due to Microsoft's new licensing crap they could not send me an upgrade since they would be technically giving me two operating systems, or something like that. The only other option was to swap out my server with one pre-installed with Win 2k. Of course I couldn't do that since I already had over a 100 clients webhosting accounts active on the machine. So I didn't get the OS I had paid for, long story short.
Who's to blame here and what action should I take. Gateway has been less than helpful...
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Jeff
stty erase ^H
...the Activist's Way:
Petition petition petition. Press Press Press. You don't just sit around and bitch about it, you do what the Veterans did in the 30's: go and preach it in the streets of Washington D.C. You organize rallys, get spokespeople involved (actors and actresses, they love PR and they get attention) and shake things up.
...the Hacker's Way:
Keep doing what you are doing. That is, making OSS platforms THE platforms for gaming. (if you are not involved in OpenGL or OpenAL or some project that makes linux games a. easy to make and b. ROCK harder than on the closed source OS'es, you are wrong.) If you build it, they will come. If they come, Game publishers will come, too.
A few projects are coming along quite nicely in the Office Products category. Kudos to Gnome,KDE,Abiword, heck the list is just too long, but few products out there do not show great promise *almost* realized.
Then all we have to do is take over the server market. Oh... wait...
I will pay for good software. I just bought UT, even tho i had a copy of it. Why? because it rocks. I didn't need to, I had a copy. Most of us are like that. Nobody minds paying for quality. I have bought Mandrake's distro a few times, even though I had it burned on cd already. You support what is worth your time.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Doesn't it suck that the one form of modern society which is most important to protecting the common person(ie. the Law) is basically incomprehensible by that same person. Ask anybody who has just bought their first computer what their license restricts them to do, and they probably wouldn't know what to say, except that maybe they can use their computer in the same way as any other consumer market item. How many people actually read that stupid box with small print AND THE PART CONTAINED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IMPLIED BY THE CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH IS IN FACT THE DIGITAL EQUIVALENT OF THREAT, IF ONE WERE TO LOOK AT THE WAY BLOCK LETTERS WHICH ARE SO PREVALENT IN THESE LICENSES. Why can't they just write a license that says: Hi, enjoy your computer. You bought it, so it is yours to use. I think any able minded individual can understand that.
This whole thing is kind of like buying a computer from the large computer companies, e.g. Compaq. Wanna new mobo? Sorry, NLX form factor. Want to put a new CD-ROM in? Can't, drive bays aren't industry compliant. So what's a user to do but buy a new Compaq?
Now if you want a new or upgraded OS, you'll have to buy a new box too.
Don't think the hardware companies don't have an interest here as well. They like 'recovery' CDs which lock you into their hardware as much as they do buying Windows wholesale and charging more for it. Why do you think they won't give refunds?
"That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
I just thought of something, inspired by the devil incarinate himself. Since this seems to be the future of propietory software, I figure, why not instead of having to SELL my soul to the devil, I can (while retaining full copyright, trademark rights and everything other prexisting right over it) sell him a LICENSE for the use of my soul. Now, I leave the exact details of this license to the reader, but im sure you can all come up with some nifty EULA's (or DSULA (Devil Soul Usage License Agreements). Email me some ;)
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Throw Linux on TV, Hype OpenSource, emphasize "Free". Watch MS go bankrupt. Who cares which is easier to use. This is the "Slap the forehead, DOH!!!" we've all been waiting for. It won't take too many "What do you mean, I have to buy another license for windows with that motherboard?!" before MS is history. Nevermind trying to actually explain software licenses and "sales" to the average consumer. Thanx bill.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Also, what if I wanted to play with, say, the new Plan 9 release? I'm fairly sure that doesn't run from a Windows partition :)
Steff
Then this advice is surely going to be the nail test to check whether a user has purched a real license.
MS hotline: "Okay -- you can solve this by reinstalling Windows"
Caller: "Fine. Thank you."
Cops: "Hey, we've got just the address of a suspect who can reinstall his Windows without any hassle. So let's take his house by storm and confiscate all his piracy copies. Hit him with all might and main of the law!"
So you should better train your answers this way:
MS hotline: "Okay -- you can solve this by reinstalling Windows"
Caller: "Urgh. I have really important data on the other partition of my hard disk and I've only got this recovery CD which will erase all my data partitions!"
MS hotline: "Be glad that I can't agitate the cops as you seem to have a valid licence to use Windows. Gosh. Now go away and never bother me with silly questions again!"
So it's an ineffective attempt...
Microsoft dosn't really know much of anything about Linux anyway...
I don't actually exist.
ms tech support : So, whats the problem ? luser : windows crashes all the time since i bought a new motherboard. ms tech : no problems! we'll juts do a quick reinstall of windows. luser : how long will that take? ms tech : not long. have you got your windows cd handy? luser : no, my computer didnt come with one. ms tech : oh, a windows 2001 user. You arent allowed to reinstall. Here's our sales number...
I have several computers that don't work well under windows. Boot Linux, any Linux, and things are fine. Slowly, MS is being removed from them.
ms tech support : So, whats the problem ?
luser : windows crashes all the time since i bought a new motherboard.
ms tech : no problems! we'll juts do a quick reinstall of windows.
luser : how long will that take?
ms tech : not long. have you got your windows cd handy?
luser : no, my computer didnt come with one.
ms tech : oh, a windows 2001 user. You arent allowed to reinstall. Here's our sales number...
You seem to suffer from the common corporate post-Reaganomics delusion that companies are entitled to make money, that they somehow have a right to make profits. But that isn't true. You see, corporations exist and are granted certain rights, akin to the rights of an individual, based on a body of legislation and case law going back to the last century. But at any time those rights could be taken away through legislative or judicial action, because a corporation is a fictitious person and not a real one. We granted companies certain rights because it was expediant to do so, and good for the consumer--it offered more incentive for companies to expand and innovate.
:-)
But if companies cease to serve the needs of consumers, corporate rights can be taken away as easily as they were granted. That's why the "no media" policy which is becoming attractive to software makers won't last long if the voters of the U.S. launch a major campaign to have legislation introduced which would outlaw the practice. You see, a corporation has no inherent right to sell me a license to use software, without including the installation media. In fact, a corporation has no inherent right to exist at all--they exist merely because their existence is generally beneficial to consumers, not vice versa.
I want Microsoft and Adobe to continue fucking consumers in the ass, because the more they do so, the more likely it is that courts will overturn UCITA and similar legislation, and the more likely it is that laws will be passed to require media to be provided and prices to be fair. The corporations may have considerable sway and lobbying ability on Capitol Hill, but they don't have the one thing we consumers have: votes. Enough voters will start complaining that their computers say "Insert Windows Install Media" and yet their OEM says Microsoft told them not to provide media, that laws will be passed and assurances made. Microsoft has no inherent rights to do as it pleases. Meanwhile, more and more people will be forced to download ISO images of real Windows installation media, and that's a good thing because, I repeat, Microsoft has no inherent rights to keep those media to itself. It has only the rights that we, as a society, have granted it, and those rights can be taken away. Those rights are in fact fictitious rights since a corporation is a fictitious person under the law.
I in fact support piracy of software from big corporations like Microsoft and Adobe, though not from small-time operations. Why? People have real rights, and corporations have legal-fiction rights, and big corporations have been abusing their rights as of late. Abuse it and lose it. Microsoft has no inherent right to charge me $89 for a simple upgrade (Win98) to a piece of software I paid a lot of money for in the first place (Win95 A), so I burnt a copy of a friend's CD. Did I take money from the mouths of hungry programmers? No, Microsoft is not a hungry programmer, it is a powerful multinational corporation which has been so abusive of its rights as to suffer the ultimate in corporate punishments: break-up under anti-trust laws. It employs programmers, none of whom will have to go hungry because I helped myself to a copy of a Win98 upgrade CD. I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, because I honestly can't afford it--I spend on average about $100 a week inclusive of food, so I wasn't going to buy that CD ever. Did my illicit copy of that CD harm anyone, then? No.
Some people would say, "But that doesn't matter, because it's not your property, it belongs to someone else and you have no right to take it." I had more right to take it than M$ had to withold it, because I am a real person and Microsoft is a fictitious entity; I have natural rights, but M$ has only un-natural ones created in the last century not for the purpose of benefitting companies, but for the purpose of benefitting consumers. And now that Microsoft has seen fit to try to strangle consumers once again, I feel entitled to upgrade to Win2K for free. I think I'll go to USENET and find an ISO image. And do you know who I'll be hurting? No one. Microsoft has abused its power to force competitors out and force prices up--prices on hardware have fallen tenfold in recent years, while performance has met or exceeded Moore's Law, and yet software prices have remained high yet software has hardly improved. I wasn't lying when I said that Win98 was a mere upgrade to Win95, and we all know it. Likewise, years ago in the college lab I used a PowerMac 7200 running Adobe Photoshop 3.0, and yet the newest version of Photoshop is at least as expensive and doesn't have much more useful functionality. The largest software companies are price-gouging, and since they have no right to do that I *do* have the right to neutralize their gouging.
The same goes for music. Up until 60 years ago, musicians didn't make money from album sales--and today most still don't since record companies gouge, and blame it on middlemen who in fact are usually owned by the self-same record company. Musicians made money by holding concerts. Then along came record companies, who capitalized on new technologies to create an industry where once there was nothing. See, the recording industry isn't about music--that's what concerts are about. The recording industry is about selling recordings of music which, while nice to listen to in your home, don't compare at all to a real live concert experience. Therefore, no matter what happens to the record companies, musicians will still be able to make money off concerts just as they always have. The recording industry has no inherent rights to sell me something which, until the selfsame recording industry had laws passed to prevent it, I could have gotten for myself by attending a concert and bringing a recording device. Screw that. The recording industry has engaged in unlawful price-fixing for years, as the results of federal actions against them have recently proven, and since I have several hundred CDs on my shelf which I was unlawfully forced to pay a price-fixed premium for, I am damn well entitled to have a gig or two of mp3 files I got from USENET and Napster. Not to mention that, again, a corporation has no inherent right to be able to sell me something which, were it not for the meddling of the very same industry, I could get for free whenever I go to a concert--and I go to more concerts now that I don't buy CDs. Once we reduce the recording industry to little more than a streamlined distribution channel to sell cheap CDs and a scouting industry for new musicians, instead of a corporate price-fixing monstrosity with more rights than the consumers have, musicians will by-and-large be much happier and will make a larger share in the profits. I reiterate that such industries have the right to exist only insofar as they can benefit the consumer, and right now the recording industry is choking the consumer with unlawful cartel pricing structures and, dare I say it, too damn many NSYNC pre-packaged culture-killing mind-numbing artificial groups designed to exploit stupid teenagers and turn them into mindless buying drones.
In summation, fuck the price-gouging corporations which have ceased their purpose of serving us and have instead started usurping our rights and raping our asses whenever they get the chance just to make a few dollars more. Bill Gates and the chairman of Sony can lick my asshole, because they have no right to get into my wallet by taking away my rights to a fair and non-cartel/monopoly pricing structure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Legal Disclaimer: I lied about having any pirated software and mp3s. I own only licensed software and licensed music.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Unfortunately, the result so far has been the escalation of prices for software (which hurts the small user most, businesses don't give a shit. At a half-decent rate you could pay off a copy of Photoshop in a day.)
Now things are set to get a lot worse - for the small user. Big business often already has an IT infrastructure in place which just re-installs the entire machine to brand-new - you screw your machine up, someone comes and Ghosts you a new install.
Make no mistake, Adobe & co. aren't doing this because they think they're losing revenue (they don't make all that much on new Photoshop sales anyway, and many pirate software users wouldn't buy it). They're doing it because the attitude (what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine also) pisses them off. It pisses me off, too.
I want to see software like the GIMP succeed for many reasons, but recently I'd love to see the pirates move to a different platform so those of us that make a living using commercial software don't pay the price for their actions.
I have a Sony laptop. Well, I make the monthly payments on a Sony vaio. My better half has kidnapped it. When it arrived it was horribly configured with tons of extra crap that I didn't want or need on it. I still use windows for games, so I thought I'd leave a gig for windows and use the other 5 for Linux. Because of the way the recovery CD works, I ended up using my oem cd of win98SE from the office to do the reinstall. I don't see this as being wrong, because I am licenced for the copy that came with the Sony, and I used that key, but what a pain in the ass!
The best is trying to get warranty stuff out of Sony though. Their standard response (including to '2 keys on the keyboard don't work') is to reinstall from the recovery CD. Which just trashes everything else that you have on the machine. To make a long story short, I've just moved completely to a Linux environment on all bar one of my machines (my big games box) and now life is good. If MS do this to all machines, not just laptops, they're going to be pushing customers to Linux. Ain't it great ?
Sure, a lot of people can't handle a fast-moving car. But an awful lot can - why should they be forced to drive 55 mph?
Sure, a lot of people use guns to commit crimes. But an awful lot don't - why should they be forced to give up some of their guns?
Sure, a lot of kids under the age of 17 see movies that they aren't mature enough to handle. But an awful lot are mature enough - why should they not be allowed to go see rated R movies?
Sure, a lot of people pack their cars with explosives and detonate them in front of airports. But an awful lot don't - why should my friends not be allowed to wait in their car in front of the terminal to pick me up?
In other words, I'm pretty amazed that you'd have to look to a comic book for similar examples when there are scads of them out there in the real world.
Frankly, I thought that timothy's little rant was pretty embarrassing, both for the pure whininess of it all, and for the lack of logic and facts he displays. For the most part, the people who get OEM computers are getting a discounted price for the operating system. If they want the full disc, they can pay the full price for the OS and the OEM will give it to them. As for Office 2000, why is it that I had no trouble whatsoever installing it and registering it on two completely different computer systems? Perhaps it's because I'm not using pirated software and getting my registration codes from the internet? Or maybe timothy just needs to stick to things he knows about.
Oh yeah, and I thought that the Slashdot crew were Linux fanatics, so why is timothy so worked up about commercial software from Microsoft and Adobe anyway? If Linux meets all your needs, why even give those evil capitalist pigs a second thought? Is the Man screwing you over (in which case I have to wonder why you don't just go 100% Linux, since it's so wonderful), or am I actually supposed to believe that timothy's just lookin' out for all us poor suffering commercial software users? Har-har.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Ironically, this is a typical Microsoft move - a seemingly simple change that "improves the experience for our customers", but is shortsighted, stupid, inconvenient, and is just an abuse of monopoly power that pisses everybody off. Wasn't there a lawsuit recently about this kind of thing?
For years, Windows has needed the system CD for just about any change made to the system (your mouse has moved - please insert the disk "Windows 95" in Drive D:). They have changed that somewhat - by putting all the install files into a directory on the machine (on a Win9x PC, typically c:\windows\options\cabs), and setting the Registry's installation path to scan that directory for all files. It still doesn't work perfectly, but it was an improvement - virtually all large OEM's do this.
From that, only providing the OS itself on a recovery CD was an obvious step. They also now put a sticker with the OS install key on the side of each PC under this arrangement. Theoretically, this all makes sense to do - because the OS itself is stashed on the hard drive, and any "going to the CD" is eliminated by design. In theory, the only thing you'd need a CD for would be a total reinstall, and thusly having the whole recovery process automated off a boot CD would therefore be a Good Thing - especially for the less sophisticated home user. If you are buying an OS upgrade at some point you'd get a CD then, only when you needed it.
But we know it's bullshit. Microsoft is mainly guilty of not thinking this through and pissing people off at a really inopportune time for them. There are scenarios where the OS CD might, in fact, be needed (playing with a different OS, finding an obscure driver file that otherwise just takes up space, booting the Win2K Recovery Console, trying to boot clean to fix a virus - Windows has some problems with them, I've heard), and the only way to get a CD now is either by copying it form someone who has one, buying a shrink-wrapped copy or, if you are a corporate user like us on one of their licensing plans (Open, Select, or Enterprise) you can get the media for next to nothing. As a Select (applications) and Enterprise (OS) customer, I get a huge box with a master copy of literally _everything_ they make. From that, I can duplicate to my hearts' contect and install galore, but I do need to track and pay for my licenses. When I was an Open customer previously, licenses and media were sold separate; I'd buy whatever combination I needed. And the media was cheap - barely above the cost of packaging and duplication for any given product.
So this doesn't really hurt the corporate user. We have plenty of ways to deal with it, and I rarely have any use for the CD that comes with a system, anyway. We just download the appropriate pre-configured NT Workstation image for a department onto each PC when it arrives with Ghost and blow away whatever was on it in the first place. This does hurt the home/hobbyist user, the small business user (who doesn't necessarily benefit from the licensing programs), and the large OEM (who has to abide by this) as well. Ultimately, this will probably help sales at the small white box companies, since they still get to distribute CD's (for now, at least), since the user categories above may have no other easy recourse for getting media easily.
The funny thing here is that piracy is the biggest competition Microsoft has for market share. Microsoft dominates the market, and I suspect there's more pirated Microsoft software than Linux and MacOS combined. It obviously has had a huge impact on their profits, though... (/sarcasm)
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
This makes me trease the following things even more:
1: DSL Lines
2: My burner
3: #cracks on EFNet
I drove them to this? Fine then. I'll just make disc images with cracks pre-applied and giggle when I think about all the money that these companies spend trying to stop me.
Perhaps if companies like Microsoft and Adobe, who have established monopolies in their respective fields, didn't greatly overcharge for their products (Why is a Photoshop "liscense" so expensive? Because it is the standard, and it is the product that most third party plugins work with.), perhaps consumers would be more willing to pay for them.
But I'll be damned before I pay over a hundred bucks for a buggy OS with a shitty web browser built in, and be expected to PAY for upgrades that are essentially just patches (Win 98 and 98SE) just to make it work right!
Before everyone screams, maybe we should see what these "Recovery CDs" can contain. We ordered a system from Dell a few months ago with Windows 2000 Professional on it. It came with what I assume is a "Recovery CD" instead of the full software. The only difference is that it checks to see if the system is a Dell system before it will let you install. And yes, it kept my boss from pirating it and installing it on other (non-Dell) systems. If that is the only restriction on "Recovery CDs" then there isn't a problem.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Caller: Is this MS Hotline?
MS Hotline: Yes. What is your second question?
</Offtopic>
I think that whole Licensing/Condition Of Use business is a heuristic approach to find out how much a customer is willing to pay/endure before switching to something friendlier. (B.G: "seems the lethal-50% price for a Win2000 CD is 6K$. How many will survive if we went up to 8K?")
It seems that this limit is quite high, just like most car drivers are willing to pay 10 dollars a gallon before they think of switching to a bike or public transportation or buy their gas somewhere else.
The more the BSA and their fellow thugs are forcing the shit out of us, the more attractive Open Source becomes. -- OTOH, I sometimes wonder how many of the MS shareholders did *not* copy MS software products ;-)
Use The Source, Luke!
In my experience, these "Recovery CD"s make setting up multiboot systems very difficult. When my friends come to me with their new computers, wanting to try Linux, they usually want a multiboot system -- they don't want to give up what they know before they've tried the new option. This new distribution method makes it very hard to give them that option.
With the "Recovery CD"s, the only option for reinstalling Windows forces a repartition and reformat of the entire drive -- it will wipe any other operating system off the machine.
It may still be possible to use a dynamic repartitioning tool to squash a Windows partition down and make room for another OS without using the "Recovery CD". Still, if anything ever goes wrong with the Windows installation (which is, empirically, likely) and Joe User is forced to use the CD, then all of a sudden the other OS will be gone.
I recently replaced my machine. I let them put Win98 on it for convenience's sake, but asked my friend with the Red Hat CD to burn me a copy. Sadly, said CD is still sitting on my desk because I haven't had the two to three free days I desire to install and fine-tune the OS. (Hopefully, my local LUG will do an install-fest sometime this summer.) Had I waited a month more to purchase, I could have gotten that same version of RH pre-installed and not have to put up with the occasional bluescreen.
I can guarantee you my next machine will be pre-installed Linux (or maybe BSD --- they might be offering that by the time I can afford a new computer). It's getting easier and easier to obtain a working and vaguely secure Linux box. As enough people feel the pain of the Recovery CD, they may notice that their OEM will now sell them a different OS. Few people are willing to monkey with it on their own, but if those nice young men will sell it all set up and running, they might take the chance.
BeOS would make a neat user-friendly OS, it is VERY easy to install (easier that Win2K), fast, clean, easy to configure. It only needs more support from apps makers and hardware vendors.
I'm guessing that you have to plunk down the $170-$200 full retail price for the non-OEM, full install, non-upgrade CD, as you have been able to do in the past, but the article doesn't say that.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The thing I'm paying for when I buy a computer with windows on it is windows95, as it is advertised. not some subset that only works on a specific set of hardware. At least the ads I saw all said Windows 95/98 and never mentioned omissions in the software delivered.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
It's all in how they spin it. The fact that consumers don't have a CD means that when they do a restore installation to thier machine, they won't be putting an out of date version of _____ on thier computer because they will have to download the newest version (oh, and the newest user agreement)
Sooner or later, attorneys will start to seek out punishing end user agreements. There's a shitload of money to made.
When my dad bought his first computer (from compaq) 4 years ago, it didn't come with any OS on disc. It was installed with Win95 and a few win95 and win3.1 software. Whenever he had a problem (quite often), he would call up support, and they would come and use the said recovery disc and trash everything. After about a dozen times in 6 months, the support gave him the recovery disc, told him how to use it, and never to call support again!!
I fixed the computer when I installed Win95 fresh and told him not to install any of those win3.1 software on it. I told him that he bought Win95 with the computer, and has the right to the original CD. I told him to make sure they give him an original the next time he bought a computer.
Unfortunately, he bought a computer this year. Again, it was recovery disc deal. He was attracted by the bundled net access deal, min contract 2 yrs or whatever. At least this time they gave him the recovery disc upfront. I guess they worked out it was cheaper to stamp one of these things than to get a support guy rocking up to everyone that had a problem...
---
Looks like another in a long line of attempts to introduce Unix style into Microsoft's world. (Remember those license keys you had/have to get from the company you bought Unix software for?) Unfortunately, most users aren't used to "host-based" licensing and all the hassles within. (Like being required to call the vendor when you change the location of the software, or something trivial). Microsoft would love the renting its software per year, but since there is no concept of a 'hostid' in the PC world, they've reimplemented it poorly by refusing to give out media to the customers. At least with 'hostid's, you had the media. :)
It's too bad Intel was beaten into submission with their "hostid" concept by privacy groups, since that would have been the most effective way to lock the software down.
It's also a shame that the absolutely retarded idea of locking software through copy protection is once again rearing it's ugly head. Perhaps this alone will kill off Microsoft better than any market breakup. Back when Lotus was bolting their software to the point where legitimate usage was more difficult than it should be, Microsoft didn't have copy protection, and was then in a position to capitalize on it. Perhaps these new 'draconian' practices will allow smaller, less concerned companies to thrive.
Selling something does not normally imply that the buyer can do whatever they like with the item. Everyone here is quite aware that if someone sells them a book they are not allowed to COPY it and sell or give away one or more of the copies they now have.
But, that doesn't mean that I don't own any of the books in my collection. I can do anything I like with the original books that does not involve distribution which does remove possession of the book's content from me. Do you see? It's about my right to copy.
This is the basic fundimental of copyright law: that the right to make copies is not normally transferred with a work.
Perhaps that's too hard for you to follow. It's certainly M$'s hope that it is.
The act of *selling* implies that you give complete rights of a piece of intellectual property over to someone, for example if you were to sell a piece of literature which you had written to someone, they would have complete rights to sell, modify, and distribute this literature wherever and whenever they wanted.
On what planet? In this one that right is sold as a separate case involving a special contract between an author and (normally) a publisher. If James Joyce sold you a manuscript of a novel you would require explicit permission to publish the manuscript, but not to just sell it on to someone else, correct the punctuation or light the fire with it.
These point have been clarified in courts across the globe.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is pretty accurate. I bought a computer last year with Windows98 pre-installed and I had to call MS customer service twice in the first month. Tha answer was the same in both cases: "reinstall Windows". So, if there is no other way around when you face any problem (according to my experience with MS CS), I thank them for making it easier by providing an image CD, so as we have to click fewer times to install their OS.
And yes, Compaq has been doing this for years. I had to buy 50 floppies to back up an installation in 1995
> In fact, the UK publishing companies have set up
> a price-fixing cartel which should be
> investigated sometime soon, but the price isn't
> fixed _too_ high, so there's not too many
> complaints.
Actually, the Net Book Agreement collapsed a couple of years ago.
Camaron de la Isla 'When I sing with pleasure, my
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I am very happy to see something like this! Why you might ask, becuase *maybe* it will start making people wake up. People need to relize that computers are NOT Windows.
Let me tell you, they are burning every single bridge they have left. MS, don't bite the hand that hand that feeds you. Soon, there won't be any more food down the road. I am seriously begin to think that Bill is losing his mind. No joke, the bussiness moves he is making are completly crazy.
I am begining to think that Bill wants "us" to win. People of the world, WAKE UP!!
until (succeed) try { again(); }
If MS charged 10pounds for win 98 cd this would probably be at a huge loss to the company.
I recently went out and bought a number of games I wanted for about 30-35pounds each. I would have loved to have paid less, but I was willing to pay the price. Why, because I wanted the products and realise that they are being produced in a commercial environment which has huge prosuction and distribution costs.
Also people complain about cd costs. I recently went to a friends gig and picked up two cds of her work which were 5 pounds for 3 tracks??? Why, because she had to record and produce them herself, although she didn't need to pay for recording time due to her job she still had to put a lot of time and effort into them.
I like the concept of licencing, it works in a coporate environment. In many ways it isn't pretinant to the home market, but this is small compared to companies. Liscencing means that we can track software and it's usage and we can upgrade regulary without having to go through the trials of selling old software to try to recoup costs...
Anyway, nuff said...
Working for the (other) man
Visualize a license key scheme, wherein you are given a MD5 hash key that matches the hardware in the system. Change the hardware, you have to call MS and get a new key. Having to call the vendor tends to put a BIG damper on illegal software use.
I have said for a long time that the only reason MS is so successful is that most people don't have to pay for Windows directly. I mean, if you pay for a product directly, you get really cranky when it doesn't work. On the other hand, if you got a copy from your cousin Fred, you will probably not complain nearly as much. Microsoft is maing a huge mistake here, and if they don't back down I think this could cost them the market.
My current theory: this is all an evil plot to make Linux be reinstalled every time Windows has to be. These OS recover CD's tend to wipe out EVERYTHING, including foreign partitions.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
-Adobe Dude.
I can't get over these guys, and thier pompus views on their software. 'We're gonna punish all you nasty software pirates by crippling our software!' Don't they know that this is a competative industry?
Ok Fine, then we'll code something similar, only make it portable, AND we'll make it free.
The new move to "liscenceware" seems to me to be a perfect opportunity for Open Source to move in. Though, say, Linux has a reputation for a difficult install, the appeal of a system that doesn't deal with nightmarish liscence laws can overcome problems with troublesome installations.
Maybe Gates and Warnock own stock in Red Hat - thats the only reason I can see for them to make these poor decisions and statements.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Great ! Microsoft is switching to Free Software (tm) Of course, using the Good Old (mt) Embrace & Extend(tm) tactic. Free as in "Free Beer" Free as in "Free Speech" Free as in "CD-Free" Nothing More !
In TUX we trust
I for instance bought a Sony VAIO laptop which came with a Windows 98 recovery CD instead of the usual CD distribution - Which is ok.
It wont be ok in theory if I want to install it on another machine, but even this might not be true. I tried to see if I could use the Sony Windows 98 Recovery CD on a non Sony machine as a test - and it worked. So no big deal here!
www.cryptomate.em.pt
I am surprised that there is not more dislike of Adobe among Free Software users. Adobe is, was and always has been a big-time MS shill. They make their products by and large only for Windows. The unix versions of their products are crippleware. They have a "we have acrobat reader for linux, you miserable heathen, you should worship us for that" attitude that I absolutely hate. They bend over to take it whenever MS orders them to and are always on call to dutifully parrot Chairman Bills latest nuggets of wisdom. Now that is one company I would like to see in Bankruptcy court.
If it wasn't for the efforts of Peter Deutch and friends at Aladdin, linux and unix users would be almost completely locked out of Postscript and PDF.
Hari.
I work for an ASP (application service provider). We host application software for our clients. We partner with MicroSoft. Microsoft is VERY interested in this model of software 'sales' because they do NOTHING but collect the money. We do all the 'dirty' work. ASP's save their customers money by outsourcing their IT departments. Soon anyone that DOESN'T compute by ASP will be shafted by the software providers.
Hey, for the corporate world, this is a not a bad thing. Business wants to USE their computers, not MAINTAIN them. But for the home user it SUCKS. Maybe MS wants to force HOME users into the ASP model. AOL would LOVE this!
Maybe MS is driving all home users to LINUX?
If Windows wipes a hard-disk to "recover" won't the average user buy a second Hard-disk for data, which could also be used for playing with linux.
In effect M$ are forcing users to buy a second hard disk which will give users more capacity for playing with operating systems. In future will M$ distribute it's O/S on chips? (as part of the motherboard so it costs them nothing, a visable M$ tax!) To "recover they could be reset." But why pay when you can get better for free?
Ok, here's my question. What if you, or say, the corner computer shop says, "hey, lets build myself a computer. Do you, or the local, non-national chain based computer shop get the CD for Windows? Or does M$ just laugh in your faces and sell another CD to best buy? What about upgrading your machine? Is M$ turning this into a world of unconfigurable machines? While there's no real way for them to do this perfectly, it seems as though it'd favor monopoly of larger companies, and put small computer building and repair companies on the street. Is anyone else mortified by this possibility? Here in Mpls, MN, we have the coolest store in teh world- they sell computers, and used computer games(where else can you get a CD of Ultima Underworld I & II?) How are thye going to be affected when they can't even buy a CD of Windows? Time to get a linux partition, I guess.
Simple question: what happens the next time a Viral Beginners Script program decides to go after c:\windows\options and modify the files therein? How do you re-install your system when the install image has been comprimised?
www.eFax.com are spammers
The best way to tell these guys we mean business is to give away free cds to anyone who might be interested. Hey, it works for AOL..... it's gotta work for us. However it would be best to not do that en mass until X4, Kernel 2.4, KDE 2 and GNOME 2 are bundled as standard features in at least RedHat, Mandrake, COL or Corel. Heh, let's face it, we won't be able to get the average joe whose thinking about jumping ship to use Debian or Slackware.
Interestingly enough, this turned into a big problem for Id when someone figured out how to fake the keys. People who bought legit copies found themselve unable to play because their 'unique number' was already in use? SWo did this clever scheme stop piracy? NO - NOT AT ALL. Did it inconvience alot of legitimate customers? YES. So much so that I believe future patches to Quake3 disabled this brain-damaged serial number check.
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
There have been a lot of reply to the original message and several issues raised, I'd like to say my bit if I may. It's amazed me how long it's taken people to realise this issue. It's been going on for months.
:)
I'm a builder for an OEM company in New Zealand. NZ'ers were the lucky reciepiants of the version of office 2000 which HAD to be registered. It asks you 50 times (I'm told) then will cease to work. We were used as test subjects to see if it would work for the rest of the world. That sucked.
But the real issue seems to be people complaining about not getting a cd with Windows. BUY A VERSION THAT HAS ONE, DAMMIT!!!. OEM distributors DO sell them. Over here they cost about $20 more, and I think it's well worth spending the extra $$. When the no-cd version came out the price of the OS dropped so you can either buy the cheaper one and get no cd or pay the original price and get a cd.
great so that's sorted. btw it all came into effect with the launch of win2000.
Also on the non cd versions of the operating system we have to stick and annoying sticker on the side of the case that has the serial number on it so you can complete the installation (as is required by MS and proper OEM installation)
The sticker if scored to make it very difficult to peal off. (come this way from MS)
Now a point to all those people that complain about having to reinstall windows every 5 min. If you did it right the first time and used good quality components and the proper static precautions where used when the system was built you wouldn't have to reinstall all the time. I've done it twice since 98SE came out, and that was because I believed that it would be a good idea to do it after changing the motherboard to a completely different type.
And a word to the linux users, recompling the kernal is the same as reinstalling windows, and I know many Linux users that do that now and again.
Now I said my bit, it's my first ever post and there will be many spelling mistakes and I'll get flamed by lots of people (if anyone bothers to read it at all). But, this is my viewpoint and I'll stick by what I've said
Cheerz - TBG
An IT manager at a large manufacturer says that's exactly what Microsoft officials told him. "I spoke to some of my contacts there, and found out that the medialess format is primarily designed to be a firewall against competitors like Linux," he wrote, explaining it will make it harder to have a back-out strategy in place if an experimental Linux deployment gets into trouble. "Now I don't have any Windows CDs for the backout. What would you suggest I do if problems with Linux cause me to want to revert back to Windows? To discourage corporations and consumers from changing, they are no longer distributing CDs with every machine, in the hopes that fear of change without any practical possibility of return will discourage most users from even looking at other systems."
This has to be some of the worst anti-competative behavior that we've seen out of the evil empire. While they are likely to be punished severely after the Supreme court battle ending 239 years from now, we consumers would have already suffered severe damage. Bill Gates says that breaking up Microsoft would be one of the most irresponsible things to do, causing great harm to consumers. How ironic, that their own actions, even when you would expect them to start playing nice, cause severe damage to consumers.
Yes, I am an OSS advocate, but we must admit that the world will not switch to OSS solutions overnight. Businesses, old institutions, society in general knows nothing about us. This will slowly change over time. In the mean time, we will still need to keep up with society's standard... which sadly is Microsoft Windows.
Because we still must put up with this monstrosity for a while, we MUST FIGHT THIS. This is not only bad for Windows users (Hey admit it. A lot of you dual boot. I quad boot into Linux, Solaris, Win98 and Win2000 because I have to keep up and support these platforms), but this would SEVERELY HAMPER alternative operating systems. Many systems with Stupid-Evil-Empire-Being-Dumb-Windows-Licenses will effectively lose their ability to re-partition and install alternative operating systems. This will slow down Linux experimentation as the above article points out, because it will become riskier and more expensive for people to experiment.
We're all going to be outraged for a while here, but you know how these things go. We're outraged, and after the article disappears from the ./ homepage we don't hear about it for six months. If the implications of this are correct, this could be one of the worst things to happen since ... umm... err... Sephiroth killing Aeris!
DO NOT LET MICROSOFT GET AWAY WITH THIS! FIGHT THIS!
How? I don't know. I'll leave that to other outraged zealots.
Warren Togami
warren@togami.com p.s. I found this really cool sig today... hehe. Quite appropriate.
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
...oh, wait a minute -- he already does.
I know of several cases where people bought site licenses for 1.0 just a couple of days before Adobe announced 1.5. No word from them to hold off a bit because the new improved version was coming.
Sounds like another case of "enormous inconvenience" Mr Warnock.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Java doesn't have pointers
Phear my l33t homepage.
(WTF is 'Invalid Form Key!' and why do I keep getting it?!)
Aha! So i wasn't the only one. Thank good it seems to have stopped, i couldn't post to Slashdot for two days. Oh, and i couldn't report it properly because it seems that the Slash Bug-Traq on Sourceforge has been unreachable. Grrr.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
How many people have Win95 on a little partition of its own for the soul purpose of games? That's all that I have the pile of poo on my system for. Forget Office software, you can get that functionality through KOffice and friends or even TeX, but the games are a problem.
As long as game manufacturers are writing for only Win32 there will be a real reason to buy Win95. I know there are the odd ports here and there and that Wine can run some of the other ones kind-of, but half the reason that consumers buy computers is just for the games. No hardcore game support, no sale. I know that the libraries are there, but the industry support isn't.
From what I can see GPL software is the best solution to license problems. Unfortunatly it will not be a completely viable one until ALL games can be played natively under GPL systems.
I think you meant it as a joke, but I've seen the replies take it seriously.
Having done enough/too much Microsoft product support in the past, where the company is no help at all, and you must pay extra for Tech Net if you are to even have a PRAYER of solving obscure problems, I will not buy a product from MSFT that is sold like this. I will not recommend or suggest to any company I work for that they deploy new projects or desktops on MS operating systems. Or with MS products of other kinds that have these kinds of licenses.
What I will do is struggle along with my existing NT 4.0 full CDs. If I must use MSFT, I will certainly not accept it as part of a computer purchase - I'll either get no OS installed or Linux... Once I can run the one or two programs I must run as part of my employment on Linux, bye-bye MSFT.
I also don't see that MSFT's product line is becoming anything but ludicrous - right now they are selling Windows 95, Windows98, NT 4.0 and assorted service packs, Windows 2000, and still and even more unnecessary, Windows ME (no, not me, defintiely not, maybe Win U). Why exactly do wew need another MSFT product??? Exactly how come? I think the model is beginning to break down and become quite funny.
What other manufacturer causes the reaction when something goes wrong with the product of doing anything at all possible to solve the problem BEFORE calling the manufacturer for help in fixing it. My first reaction is I do not want to be told I must install an upgraded service pack (I am quite happy running NT 4.0 SP3 - well, almost happy. Happier with Solaris x86 2.7 and RedHat 6.0, actually, but for a sh*t box windows OS, NT 4.0 isn't nearly as annoying as, say, win95...). I rode out the chaos of Y2K just fine without upgrading the Service Pack, and I keep the box behind a (Linux) firewall anyway, so within my little consultant's network it is just fine as is. But I DON'T call MSFT. It doesn't even occur to me. I call SUN. I call Red Hat. I call Veritas, EMC/CLARiiON.
Maybe this will hasten the death of software from Redmond, one can always hope...
All of the "BIG" software companies have been too big for too long now. Adobe, Yes they have great graphical software, released Photoshop 5.5 that had very few feature enhancements, and runs 60% slower than 4.0 .. we bought 5 copies of 5.5, installed it, listened to the users bitch (we have slow PII 550's here with only 128 meg of ram) about how slow it was, and then deleted it and re-installed 4.0. Why? because that upgrade (which was expensive) was 100% worthless. and was actually a downgrade. We also use premiere (not for long though... adobe cant touch AVID there...) and stopped upgrading that one 2 years ago because of the same bloatware factor.
:-)
As for our office product? Office 2000 will not grace our desktops, because it offers NOTHING to us. (Although my users tried and like staroffice 5.1
So I really hope that Adobe,Microsoft,etc.. keep doing things the same way, because the users and admins are sick of it now, and we will revolt silently. one desktop at a time, as the servers have already fallen!
Hi, My name's tim , and I'm a microsoft Admin...
(a quote from my microsoft-anonomous meeting... I am a recovering FUD believer...)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wheras there are many 'physical' are designed to protect consumers from fraudulent and unfair business practices, so far every 'digital' law is designed to screw us, the consumers, over by making (probably eventually) every illegal business practice legal, as long as you do it on the net. Sure, that makes sense, if the companies do illegal stuff to consumers, it's wrong, right? So make it legal, then it'll be right!
What is up with this? The Internet shouldn't be about corporations, but the governments are trying their hardest to give it to corporate rule. Eventually they'll say that the internet is it's own country and Bill Gates will be the dictator.
----
Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
All Linux distributors need to do now is place a newspaper ad saying "What rights do you have if you install...
a) Linux
b) Windows
..and then put their respective rights in two columns. The second column looks as though it is going to be blank.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If you recall a story got "out" last year about a "working document" whereby Microsoft would begin charging yearly usage fees.
At the time it was dismissed, but other providers thought it would be the way software would have to be produced in order to protect the consumer form illegal and faulty software.
Well folks, wake up and smell the java, here is the next step. Once you do not have the software to install, then you cannot make an argument that you own anything. If you do not own it, then I am providing a "usage" license. If it is a usage license, it is not "forever".
This is not a Microsoft issue, it is a software issue. MS just provided the place we could observe it. When the projected rush to the next release does not occur (i.e. Windows 2000), what can the company do? They cannot force you to buy an upgrade or new release, today.
This will not be a problem in the future, when I can explain that next year's license is 3 times this years, because you are getting a new release. You do not need it? Sorry, we do not license old versions, and you have 15 days left before your current license expires. Have a nice day.
The Devil is smarter than that. He'll only buy a license if he can figure out a way to defeat you in court and make it a full sale. Otherwise, he's got a lot of suppliers who will just sell theirs to him...
--The basis of all love is respect
It's ironic to me that, on the one hand, shrink-wrap license vendors are hiding behind copyright when it comes to piracy, yet, on the other, they sell us a 'license' so we as the all-impotent consumer have no rights under copyright law to use it as we want.
I am a man of const int sorrows
> People aren't allowed to drive really fast because
:)
Because they went to the government and ASKED for a LICENSE to drive the GOVERNMENTS's vehicle.
Software License = You don't own the software.
Driver's License = You don't own the vehicle.
We ALREADY have the right to travel: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/gov t/driver/driver.html
You don't legally own your automobile unless you have the Manufacture Statement of Origin
( Sorry for the title, just trying to get attention
Your "no problems here" speech actually illustrated the big problem that everyone's complaining about: you're stuck getting an appliance rather than a computer and OS. The non-Dell (This-Machine) restriction clearly indicates that you're not free to do use the OS in whatever way you need to - though you pay for it.
And no, you don't have a "recovery CD". It's a dell-specific copy of the OS... a "recovery CD" would only be able to auto-format and auto-reinstall.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
My experience has been that if you sell an OS with a computer, you have to include some way of getting at least that OS working after a hard disk reformat or failure. No matter how bombproof the OS is, you're still handing it to someone who doesn't know how its internals work, has no idea what's compatible with it, and is virtually certain to corrupt some critical piece of it and make the computer unbootable until your tech support walks them through fixing the problem. Fixing the problem will almost always involve reinstalling *something*, even if it's only a few hosed core OS files.
.. ;-) .. IANAL, but I can't see how they can possibly make a limited install work, especially when the OS is bundled with a third party CPU. You paid for a single user retail license, you should get a single user retail license, end of story. All else is BS.
Apple can at least sort of guarantee that the hardware-specific install that ships with their *hardware* (which MS, AFAIK, doesn't make at all..) will be enough to do a fully functional reinstall on the Mac it's shipped with. I'm assuming Sun has similar arrangements with Solaris. Since MS doesn't build computers, how can they control what hardware the OS is built on without violating antitrust laws? Oh, that's right, they did
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
The version of UCITA that passed in Maryland had a clause added that shields free software from liability claims. This extends to all software that has a free *license* even if that software is part of a package that is sold shrink-wrapped in stores.
So relax already. Maryland is the only state where UCITA is actually law (it doesn't go into effect in Virginia until it is "studied" for a year) and most of the worst UCITA clauses were taken out of the version of the bill that actually passed and was signed by Gov. Parris "I hate working people" Glendenning.
The liability shield for free software is similar to the "good samaritan" law we have that frees doctors from the risk of malpractice lawsuits if they render medical aid at crash scenes or in other emergencies, and indeed was modeled on it.
- Robin
A couple of years ago I bought an AST (don't ask me why..). With it came a Disaster recovery disk and a 'Windows Companion CD' which was nothing more than a neutered Windoze Ninety Five... no installation program.
When I got sick of the AST pulled everything useful from and tried to use it to build a generic machine, your guessed it, the disaster recovery disk would only work with an AST.
And people wonder why only my wifes machine has windoze on it. That makes three out of four machine running Linux. Give me time.....
I would much rather have software companies protect their products with contracts and copy protection than use government force to do it. If I could trade the current system for one with few, if any, sofware patents, copyrights with shorter terms, and no laws against reverse engineering (except for patents), I would gladly suffer software which is bound to particular hardware, or copy protection dongles which have to be plugged into the parallel port. There would always be alternatives. It's not until government starts interfering that alternatives dry up.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
Win95a still runs fine
Surely you mean "Win95a still runs as well as it ever did", which is not to say it does or ever has run well.
Wouldn't you know it, but the Win95 network at work went down at precisely 4:30pm EST yesterday. It must have been mourning Jackson's break-up decision.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Before the release of NT5 (a/k/a Win2k now), Microsoft actually toyed with the idea of 'leasing' their OS's to you. You would have to pay a monthly fee to run NT5.
<shiver>
Can you imagine paying for that crappy-assed piece of software REPEATEDLY, every month you have it installed?
Oh, the HORROR!
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
When you buy your VCR, do you own the program that controls the programming of it? Do you own the program that drives your stereo? Do you own the OS for psx, dreamcast or nintendo64? Do you own the program to the CPU that drives your car? Nope, Nope, NOPE, NOPE!!! You don't, Can you demand that the manfacturer take it off? Or open it? Nope! If i-opener was well designed, and didn't have a way to change the OS, will you not be tied to the source? So what if Microsoft does the same thing??? Why do you worry? Do you even use Microsoft Product? Well, if you do, speak with your money.
duh!
Someone made a good point that griping about it on /. won't get us anywhere. Does anyone have an email address we can contact to speak out about this? I don't like the way that MS does business, but I do use their products, and I don't want to change. But I will if this sort of thing continues. How can we let MS know this? Help us communicate our concerns in a reasonable manner to MS. sig's are silly Nate Baxley
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
I have nothing against paying for *good* software. Nor do I have anything against free (as in speech or beer, I don't care) software. The now defunct PC Accelerator had a great piece on the price of software wherein Mike Saloman (sp?) said he felt game prices were way too high, but when one considers how many pirated copies of each game there are out there, the prices may seem justified. Software companies don't want to make less money but still make a profit on new releases; when they work to produce a better product than the previous version, they expect more profit. That's the nature of the beast.
The important thing to remember here is that I am talking about *good* software. I don't generally consider Windows to be good software. Anything that I imediately have to patch after installing is not good software. Anything that is constantly plagued by security holes, trojans, bugs, etc. is not good software.
On the pay side, I think companies that produce good software deserve the right to choose whether that software will be free, open sourced or not. If they can't do that, then where's the freedom? Adobe makes some good software. I wish they would port some of it to Linux (more than just Acrobat reader), but again, that's their choice.
People may bitch and moan about stupid M$ moves like this one, but less than a third will ever do anything about it, and insinuating that it's close to a third of the people bitching is probably a l. They either expect the government to fix it *cough-mistake-cough*, expect other people to protest, or simply make do as one more right slides away. Personally, I think if people have a problem with the still-developing UI in Linux, they should go to a Mac. Certainly a more stable OS.
/Sig/
You must know something others don't since you managed to get Windows to install 42 times in 24 hours -- that's less than half an hour per install. Care to share?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
If MS wants to sell software in those countries, they'll have to provide the normal, full-fledged CDs.
. . . then all we need is a couple of enterprising resellers to base themselves in that protected jurisdiction, and we're set to go. The magic of the Internet strikes again.
So, does anyone have any candidates? Some place with really strong consumer protections (Oz, maybe?)
I have no
I think part of the problem is that so few people even know what's going on with UCITA and DMCA and all these other things. Looking back to the CDA, it seems that the blue ribbon campaign and the web page blackout did a lot to generate attention and get people involved--and there were A LOT less people on the Net back then.
This is just an idea off the top of my head so please adjust your flamethrowers accordingly:
1) Set up a website informing people about the issues surrounding UCITA and/or DMCA. This site should probably be backed by someone with a good reputation, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
2) Start contacting high-traffic sites that would be sympathetic to the cause. Not just nerd sites, but gaming sites, fan sites, any sites that get a lot of eyes. Get them put banners or ribbons or whatever on their sites to generate attention for the anti-UCITA/DMCA site. Encourage everyone else to do the same on their personal sites.
3) Free software is free software, but would it be wrong to request a donation from those using it? A donation wouldn't be a requirement, but if people like and use your software it may give them the extra incentive to make a donation to your cause. The donations probably should be made to EFF and let them decide how it's best spent in the battle.
4) Add more steps--this is obviously an incomplete plan. These are basically the steps I've thought of to generate attention and funding. I know it will require a lot more than that.
numb
these programs that require registration take up the developers time and the company's money. the company believes this is a way to fight against piracy. all it does is annoy people who purchased the program legally and take up unnecessary disk space. plus it is an added piece of code that developers need to test and i'm sure their bosses (or sales people) make that part of the program a priority which takes time away from the integrity of the product itself.
the only way to stop this madness is to stop piracy. unfortunately, i don't see this happening. but there must be a better way to authenticate the actual buyer without interrupting their use of the program. any ideas?
www.microsoft.com/OEM/nakedPC.htm
And look at #3. Hmmmm....this new policy pretty much shoots that out of the water...
Andy Akins
MS has been using convenience, automaticity, and Plug-and-play as reasons to choose their OS for years. Now free software systems can trump them on this very real issue. Anyone involved in the sale of pre-installed Linux systems, take note: MS just handed you one of their primary advantages in ease-of-use.
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
In a survey released by the BSA in conjunction with the visit, software executives estimated that by 2005, 66 percent of software will be distributed over the Internet, compared to 12 percent today.
Well no duh, how many software are available over the net now? Linux (10s of distros), {Free,Net,Open}BSD, Plan9, and AtheOS, all the associated free (speech) software, not to mention free-beer stuff like BeOS, QNX (soon), Netscape, several different compilers, VMware, and shareware. Sigh. Stupidty strikes again.
It was Henry Spencer who said: "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
God what a bunch of clueless IDIOTS the M$ marketroids are. I quote form the article at http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/01
"These policies are limited to those PC manufacturers that have direct liscense agreements with Microsoft, so generic OS backup CDs will still be in the distribution channel."
What does that mean to the end user? It means that if you have one of the OEM installs with a disabled backup CD, a warez copy of a generic OS CD will be a mandatory tool. End result? Bootleg copies of Windows OS CDs will become as common as dirt. Move over, AOL, another installation CD is going to become the next popular drink coaster.
Yet another case where M$ proceeds in blind ignornace of the real-world consequences of their design choices.
From telling the DOJ that "removing Explorer would disable Windows" (because their demo of deleting all DLLs/EXEs used by explorer, including shared libraries and stuff like GDI.EXE and KERNEL32.EXE) to the Halloween papers "LDK 1.2 contains JFC which we're going to be pissing on at every opportunity" to the telling of PC vendors, "if you sell any other OS on any line of machines, we will cancel your Windows license all together", I'm surprised that Microsoft has room for that many feet in their mouth. Even after the endless accusations and the start of close scrutiny by the DOJ and state courts, MS continues... continues... continues... to demonstrate utter comtempt for the consumer and the law.
Truly MS deserves to be broken up. Mote than AT&T. More than Standard Oil. NO ONE can say MS wasn't "given a chance to set things right" or two chances or 10 chances. They've dug their own grave so deep and so dark that not even light can escape it.
MS is a spoiled brat.
This new Microsoft policy makes it incontrovertibly evident that Microsoft's Legal department has been infiltrated by RedHat's Marketing Department.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
This does not violate the law or the EULA, nor its spirit.
MS is just proving yet again that it is a manipulative dominating monopoly that SCREAMS to be broken up. They'ce shown zero remorse nor any attempt to "fix things" since the DOJ investigation bagan. They've slapped more people in the face with their practises time and time again, from the "we're going to be pissing on JFC at every opportunity" [Halloween papers] to threatening PC makers with "**all** your products run windows or none will". Pure spoiled brat behaviour. MS so deserves to be busted down as hard as possible.
The following was posted on comp.os.linux.advocacy -- I don't have the actual issue of InfoWorld to check the quote.
p. 117, Infoworld, June 5, 2000:
regarding Microsoft's un-announced policy of no longer including a CD-ROM
with computers sold with a Microsoft operating system installed...
QUOTE:
"The lack of a CD-ROM will clearly serve as a disincentive to anyone
wishing to experiment with Linux."
An IT manager at a large manufacturer says that's exactly what Microsoft
officials told him. "I spoke to some of my contacts there, and found out
that the medialess format is primarily designed to be a firewall against
competitors like Linux," he wrote, explaining it will make it harder to
have a back-out strategy in place if an experimental Linux deployment gets
into trouble."
END QUOTE
What the hell do we do about it? Seriously, I'm asking an honest question.
I've seen the Geek masses that congregate on SlashDot rant, flame, vent and make some absolutely brilliant points about the current state of the commercial software industry, copyright law, and the overall fight that is currently taking place between Big Corp. bottom lines and individual freedoms. Every time a new story shows up the same pattern is repeated. Geeks and clueful computer users alike express their disgust for the erosion of freedom. But.... I ask again, what the fuck should we do?
Continuing to preach to the choir isn't going to rewrite laws, educate politicians, or make Big Software Corps think twice about crossing The Line. We need a group of people to look up to and scream HELP! And not only that, but we need to know that they are doing to listen and put their heart and soul into combating this steady erosion.
The problem that I perceive with many Geeks (I won't say most), and I hold my hand high to be counted in this group, is that we don't seem to have quit enough ambition to fight on foreign soil. Meaning, taking on the Big Corps on their ground in the legal system and the the halls of government. Transplant us from hacking deep in the bowels of software and set us down in the twisted mess that is politics in the late 20th century and we curl up in a ball in the corner.
Well, that's just not good enough. We need to start organizing lobbying efforts. We need to start putting some real effort into fighting fire with fire to preserve the industry that many of us hold so closely to our hearts.
So, who will it be? All of us? Or none of us?
--
Scott Brady
Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero.
Can someone with in expertise tax law tell us whether this is true? This strikes me as the sort of patent tax dodge that the IRS wouldn't stand for: just like a consultant can't take a tax deduction for time donated to a charitable organization.
--
"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
Not for us, Mr. Warnock; only for you.
As you more and more work to make enemies of your customers, more and more of us will cease being your paying customers.
You can either find a way to make money in the new paradigm, or you can watch it recede into the distance as you wipe fruitlessly at the tire tracks on your shirt.
--
Like others have said on this topic today, I'm extremely glad that Linux is as functional as it is so I can use it instead of windows. If MS is going to do this, they can kiss their profits good bye, because I for one will take put up with it. As far as Adobe goes, they overcharge for their software in the first place. Hardly anyone can even afford it, so it's not piracy that's hurting them, it's their insane prices. So, can anyone say GIMP? Gimp rules, and it's completely free. So, obviously if more and more people use Linux, Adobe will loose out with Photoshop costing an arm and a leg. Not to mention all the other shareware programs you can download that render graphics as well. So, they are only going to pay for this down the road, and I think we as the customers must show them that we are not going to be bullied!
I know that my uncle had a Compaq Presario that came with only a recovery disk. And the biggest problem with it was that it would only recover to the same size hard drive...so he had to buy another copy of Windows when he upgraded the hard drive...And I believe he bought this machine in 96...so this is not a new concept.
The more we will slip through your fingers.
The more restrictive they get, the more they will irritate the public. Eventually, someone will step up to the plate and offer less restrictive agreements. Be it Open Source or some other company successfully marketing their software, the people will eventually develop little tolerance for this behaviour. but first they must be aware that there are alternatives out there.
I'm taking the Open Source road and gradually weaning myself off of any software that is not free. Eventually, when I build my skills enough, I will contribute back to the pool of available software. I hope to see you on this road.
Saider@yahoo.com
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
"Also people complain about cd costs. I recently went to a friends gig and picked up two cds of her work which were 5 pounds for 3 tracks??? Why, because she had to record and produce them herself, although she didn't need to pay for recording time due to her job she still had to put a lot of time and effort into them."
that's not really a good arguement (what does 5 pounds equal in US?) - record companys can MASS PRODUCE cds very easily and how much do you think it costs them? not much in such large quantities.
while your friend OTOH is only making a few cds and thus her production costs are higher, which would mean she needs to charge more.
not to mention that the artists aren't really the ones making any money on the cds - most of their income comes from concerts, etc.
so - to compare your friend with a large record company does not make for a good arguement.
-Jae
If people want windows on their machine, then you factor in the purchase of the full retail version of the OS and tell them about it. They get the CD that way to do with what they want, none of this OEM restore disc bullshit. If they want to save themselves the Microsoft tax then that's their right to do so. My small computer building and on-site pc repair side-business will operate like that (when I get my disclaimer et al checked by a lawyer :>). I'm really just doing it for a hobby though as I like playing with computers and if people need help in the area I'm happy to provide it. If the business was my livelyhood I might feel unhappy about it, yes..
--
Delphis
I think the UCITA and these bogus software licenses can only help open source software. It may take a few months or a year, but sooner or later we're going to see articles on FUDNet about unhappy consumers. When word starts to get out, more and more people and companies will be flocking to open source software.
Further, I haven't seen much closed source software that doesn't have an open source analog. Obviously there are going to be programs that people need that don't have OS equivalents. The people that need them will get screwed. Maybe that will spur more OS projects.
And, how many times in the last year have we seen a headline like "Linux: Not Ready for the Desktop." That's bullshit. I've been using Linux as a desktop almost exclusively for over 2 years. It keeps getting friendlier. After my latest Linux install (I tried SUSE 6.4 this time), I realized that it is now easier to install Linux than that "operating system" from Redmond.
I don't support these licensing shenanigans either, but when life hands you lemons.....
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Like I said, it may be our fault.. for being complacent.. for still 'buying' the 'software' even though we don't like the terms.... But the things is.... and we would do well to never forget this.... the common man runs this co untry, whether anyone likes to think so or not. OUR dollars are what count, and OUR votes are what can change laws, not corporations..... The law exists for the betterment of society. Business exists to serve society. If either of these is not going our way.. it *IS* within our rights to change it.
This is another reason to support work on free (as in speach) partitioning software. I really like the idea of what Mandrake is doing with their installtion. I wish more distros would do this. Right now for newbies, I have to recommend them buying PartionMagic. None of the newbies I talk with are willing to go whole-sale Linux. Nore are they able to allocate an entire disk. Almost all of them have to re-partition. I certainly like the PartionMagic software, but their license is egregious. I is basically licensed to one person on one machine. That means if I died, my wife would be unable to legally use the software. I talked with them about this and they confirmed how restrictive it is. They sell additional licenses (like site licenses, unlimited users for one machine, and unlimited machines for one user). I told them that this license was begging poeple to violate it. The persons responce was as close to telling me to illegially use the software as it could be without actually condoning it. I then ranted about why they included a license they didn't think their users could abide by.
Doug Alcorn
"MS is a spoiled brat."
I saw Bill gates on the news after the ruling. I thought he was going to cry. . . His words sounded like "my lawyers can beat up Janet reno."
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
Another great way to fight this would be to get OEMs to help us! Micro$oft may be a virtual desktop OS monopoly, but they still make lots of money from the likes of Dell and Gateway. If hundreds or thousands of PC shoppers began telling GW and Dell that they would not buy PCs made by companies that did not include a full copy of the OS that would leave those companies with few choices:
a) Pony up the dough for an extra license per PC in order to include a retail copy, or
b) Offer other OSes like Linux or BeOS, or
c) Loose customers.
Faced with these choices, manufacturers could place an enormous amount of pressure on M$. With a full-scale OEM revolt, Gates and Co. would have strong incentive to reverse their policy. At the very least it would be nearly impossible for them to continue claiming it was something OEMs asked for!
Yes, they should do more with models. Recompiling the kernel is not something you would let the average user do.
Now suppose that Benjamin Franklin was alive today and just now proposed the idea that large buildings be constructed with taxpayer dollars and more of those tax dollars be used to purchase books and magazines (copyrighted material) so that the public can come anytime and read these materials freely.
The print publishers would FLY INTO A RAGE and call Franklin every dirty name they could think of from "thief" to "crook" to, yes, even "pirate" who is "opposed to people profitting from their hard work" and "taking the food out of baby's mouths bacause writers won't be able to support their families anymore".
Of course, today, Franklin would have proposed that libraries included software, video, and audio, and indeed, all copyrighted works. Indeed many public libraries today do lend VHS and CDs.
And it wasn't just for the purpose of education and betterment of the public. Most books were an entertainment medium in the 18th century as much as movies are today. So don't isolate Franklin's idea as having only altruistic motives.
And who would say that closing all libraries would be a GOOD idea? Very few I'll wager. Why should it be any different when it comes to CDs/movies/software than it is with books/mags?
And oh yes, despite the existance of libraries, (gasp!) people still make money and can even (choke!) earn a living as writers and publishers. Well imagine that. Free access to copyrighted books and magazines didn't kill the industry after all. In fact, it expanded it. Just like VHS rentals resulted in Hollywood making more money today from home video sales than it ever did or ever will from theatrical ticket sales.
Ever rent a movie, video game, book, or magazine. Then you too are as much a pirate and thief an yo label others to be.
Let he who is without sin...
You can't use a CD-R copy of another CD-ROM because that breaks the DCMA. You can't just use another official CD-ROM that you got from your neighbor if Microsoft changes the EULA to require that you only use the CD-ROM that Microsoft or your respective OEM issues to you.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Management is finally waking up from the narcotic effect of the marketing wool that MS has been pulling over their eyes. A new world is forming. It's cool to be part of it. These restrictive licensing antics are simple the desperate floppings of a dying, obsolete, lazy company.
Lot of people I know are converting to nothing but Linux at home, being sick of the BS and refusing to pay for something for which there is a superior and free alternative.
...to do that is to ensure that Micro$oft products are never replaced by another. Monopolies make more money (MMMM), end of story.
Monopoly, it's the only way.
Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
And we can always use click-wrap license to protect ourselves: "By accessing the download service, you hereby agree not to sue anyone invloved in any Software you're about to download here. There is no exception nor special clause to this agreement. The source for the code is supplied so you can verify before using if this software is suitable for you, and as you can download it for no cost, you don't place yourself in a customer situation. No reclamations will ever be accepted. If this don't please you, logoff, go elsewhere and don't use our software." or something like that. This seems like a pretty good idea. What do some of you who are more familiar with UCITA think?
Doug Alcorn
The more I read articles like this the more and more I'm pushed into the open source community. I'll confess that I run windows 2000 on one of my computers, but the way they are moving is ridiculous. If something such as this does eventually show up, I have a feeling I'm not the only one who will fall over to the linux and open source software community.....
Destrago Z. Scudiero -Noize Incorporated -Void42
See, the problem is, to a forum like slashdot, we all know what we're doing, and we have the time, and let's face it, the inclination, to bitch about microsoft. The average consumer buys it because so many other people do, and it's in pc magazines. They feel safe.
I recently bought a computer for my family. I went gateway/microsoft. They wanted email, web-browsing..didn't want too much new stuff. Not only didn't I get a windows cd, but, thanks to gateway, there was a program called goback that locked the master boot records. Needless to say, I couldn't partition. Forget about partitioning, and then losing it when you HAVE to reinstall windows at some point...now you can't even partition in the first place. And the sneaky thing even gives you a message that you can't write to the boot sector, maybe you should check your virus software.
So: The Gateway's of the computer retail business will do what Mircosoft says; they're in a comfortable position. But on the flip side; they're somewhat aware. You can buy athlon systems from them, and even linux in some cases. They might not do what we want for the same reasons, but they'll do it if they see a profit. Likewise, our congressmen and representatives might not back us because they believe, deep down, that information should be free and accessable, but because they relize that a sizable percent of the population does, so it's only good politics to appear to do the same.
So it seems that if anything that we dream of is going to come about, it's going to be under the standards of those who hold us back. We not really winning then, are we? They're just giving the lollypop to the petulent child. Awareness and RECOGNITION of our gripes is something far more ellusive.
Doug Alcorn
Also, if you simply modifiy the setup program itself that can increase the difficulty of simply burning an image from the i386 or CAB folders a lot.
Granted they'd have to make some fundamental changes in their install and boot procedure (what? provide network support on boot? remember network settings? *gasp*...no that can't be done...) but it's within the realm of possibility. Frankly, given Micro$lop's current behavorial pattern I wouldn't be surprised to see this implemented fairly soon.
However, I do agree that we are probably going to see pirate version of the OS's out pretty quick. Probably even before the retail versions ship. I don't believe that even all M$ employees are happy with this policy. Actually I know for a fact that they aren't.
Apparently M$/Adobe don't realize that they are making the issue worse. The people this is going to affect ARE NOT the ones who are using 'pirated' version of software. And those who are, won't be stopped for a minute by this. It's the same nonsensical "take the guns from the non-criminals so that the criminals won't have them" rationale that the government is using. This flawed logical reasoning seems pretty prevalent in the corporate structure right now.
and this goes for all electronic media. Is that if people think a product is worth having then they will buy it. If they get a pirated version it means that they will use it but don't actually think it's worth buying. So they wouldn't have actually bought it anyways. Since these people won't pay for the product. The maker of the product isn't loosing any money. Instead they just have a lot more market share in the future.
You have heard of the Free Software Foundation, right? Microsoft is irrelevant.
You seem to argue against yourself. First you describe the 'first sale' doctrine, then mention that it doesn't apply to software. Then you argue that software licenses violate the first sale doctrine. Huh?
A small note: the publisher referred to is "Charles Scribners' Sons", and is commonly called "Scribners"; not "Scribner and Sons".
Just make sure you never lose an opportunity to point out this disadvantage of using Gates's software - not as not a pro-Open Source or anti-Gates measure, but as simple common courtesy to all those uninitiated suckers who're going to find themselves in the shit by using it. As for those who are initiated and not suckers, what the hell do you want to install a new version of Gates for? Wipe your disk clean and reload the old CD-ROM.
That only leaves initiated suckers to be dealt with, and that's outside my field (^%
Adam:What kept you?.
Adam:What kept you?
God:Rome wasn't built in a day
First of all, this is not a flame. But I think this is important to point out.
Michael is not a lawyer. Use this article as food for thought, but in my opinion, he has not show in the past very much understanding of the law, and quite frankly, he is so biased and paranoid that very often he does not see or explore all sides of an issue.
This is an important issue, and I applaud Slashdot for posting links to various articles. But I would caution people against assuming that the whole story is being presented.
Frankly, if Michael is going to start quoting law, then I think he should have stated very clearly that he's not a lawyer. Of course, if he really wanted to do a good job on this article, he could have spoken to some real experts on this subject and given us some real insight into the issue.
But I guess that would have meant admitting that he wasn't an expert on the law.
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but it's the same thing when Katz starts talking about Technology. There, we can at least tell when he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If Slashdot wants to editorialize about issues of law, wouldn't be a good idea to get some experts on retainer? You guys have the money. Use it!
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Are the hardware vendors keeping quiet because this essentially means more hardware sold redundantly?
Think about it. If you want Windows 2000, you have to buy a machine from a hardware vendor and have them put it on. If you've cobbled together a decent machine out of spare parts, you get to stick with Linux, old NT licenses, or Solaris.
Hardware vendors:
"Gee it's just too bad that your 500MHz - four processor Xeon system that you paid $15,0000 for last year is unable to run Windows 2000 due to Microsoft's filthy license agreement. Can we interest you in a four processor P3 for another $15,000 this year?"
Think of all those folks you may have known who share/borrow WinDisks for the drearily frequent reinstall rituals. Suddenly that doesn't work; who in their right mind assumes that they'll just go and start shelling out for EACH AND EVERY copy on EACH AND EVERY machine? Micros~1 gets a nawful lot of free tech support from those of us who take pity on Aunt Tillie and our drinking buddies and help them navigate Winders. Now all those altruists are going to buy an E-ticket for each session AND donate their time? Hah.
Not before taking a gander at free ( as in beer )software - they've already had to learn a bit to start with, and the installs get easier all the time. I intend to start volunteering my Linux and OpenBSD skills around the neighborhood - I've done a whole *one* install of each ( lookit me admin! :) But that's enough. In a month, I'll know MTA's; in a few more, I'll know firewalling and networking. And a legion of AOLusers will just be stumbling out into the sunlight....
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a sack of weed" - Brigham Young
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Yes, Microsoft's policy is stupid; yes, it will encourage piracy; yes, it will make OSS/FS more palatable to the masses. But I doubt it will make any difference with the masses who buy pre-installed Windows boxes from Dell, HP, and Gateway. And MS is interested in the masses, not us geeks.
All about me
I haven't had a byte of MS software on my hard drive in about 3 years (And 3 years before that I had a DOS 6 partition in case I ever needed to reset my network card IRQs.) I'm not going to have a byte of MS software on my hard drive any time in the foreseeable future, even when MS-AP Office for Linux comes out.
And I assemble my hardware in pieces so the next hardware I buy won't come with a license either.
Truly, life must suck for the Windows users.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As other people have no doubt said, this really drives home the fallacy of buying software. Free software really is the way to go. Not only do you get rights, you get the ability to fix bugs, adapt it to your purposes, and otherwise do with it as you please.
I recently received a mail from someone about my personal OSS project (FilterProxy), asking me if it was OK for them to use it in their company. People just aren't used to this concept. They expect to be ripped off. They expect to pay exorbitant fees and have to go threough a lawyer to get all their software.
Well more power to us. I just hope that other industries besides software are able to follow someday.
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
I have managed to gain access to the following Microsoft press release, which was reportedly pulled before release. --Jon ====== Microsoft Proposes New License Agreement REDMOND, Wash., Apr. 1, 2000 - Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today released the details of its new Active License, which eases license administration for IS administrators. The Active License replaces the old End User License Agreement. The key feature of Active License is its ability to add new access licenses as necessary. Instead of having to type an installation key when installing the Windows operating system, system administrators simply type in a credit card number. This information is then sent to Microsoft, which will bill the credit card appropriately. For users of Windows 2000 servers, this also eliminates the need to purchase add-on access license option paks. As each additional concurrent user is added to the system, the credit card is automatically billed for that access license. "The cost is quite reasonable-only $35US for each concurrent user. And there's a price break for web servers: only $25 for each incoming HTTP connection," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. When asked how Microsoft expects to compensate for the expected loss of revenues to competing operating systems, CEO Ballmer responded, "we have integrated a module which automatically detects the presence of Linux/Samba servers in the corporate network, and bills the credit card for each connection to those servers as well. This will ensure the recovery of costs associated with the development of our proprietary Server Message Block protocol." About Microsoft Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device. NOTE: Microsoft, Windows, Windows 2000, and Active License are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners. SOURCE Microsoft Corp. /NOTE TO EDITORS: If you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft, please visit the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ on Microsoft's corporate information pages./ /CONTACT: press only, Sue Duvall, 425-637-9097, or sduvall@wagged.com, or Rapid Response Team, 503-443-7000, or rrt@wagged.com, both of Waggener Edstrom, for Microsoft Corp./
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
What you you are decribing isn't a recovery CD. I've gotten recovery CD's with PC's marketed to home users and they are totally useless. The recovery CD's literally contain only a disk image and an install program for copying the disk image to your hard drive. Reasons why this sux:
:) I think they eventually had another repair guy (this was all on warentee) come to the house and flash the video card so it would look like an original card
- You can't reinstall without wiping your disk. With a Win install disk, you can repair or reinstall the OS on existing partitions without (hopefully) loosing your data (although you have to re-install any apps that do registry settings). With a recovery CD this is not an option.
- If you want to re-partition your disk you can't use the recovery to install the OS to a different partition. If you want to dual boot linux or even just rearrange your disk you need to buy (or aquire) an install CD.
- If you re-install your OS, you have to install all the included "software". Love getting a half gig of commercials and other assorted useless crap (magic schoolbus?, encarta?, sotware for hardware i didn't buy?). Good luck cleaning up your registry after your "clean" install.
- If you need to re-install any of the free included software, the recovery disk is often the only copy of this software you get, so it's reformat the disk or you're SOL.
- You pretty much have to waste a chunk of disk space to store the windows cab files (or copy them to CD) since windows is always asking for them.
- if you add/replace hardware your recovery cd may not work anymore
- if you use a different OS on that machine, you can't use the pre-packaged OS, that you paied for, anywhere else.
But what you're describing is still really lame. You *have* to buy Win when you buy the hardware, you pay for it as part of the hardware price, but you can only use it on that hardware. What if you install a different OS on that machine, can you then use the prepackaged OS else where? Well, then will dell let you get an OS-free machine at a reduced price? What happens if you add or replace hardware? Will your CD still work?
Actually, this happened to my folks, they had a prepackaged PC with a bad video card. The manufacturer sent out a repair guy who had to replace the video card. But the new hardware invalidated the recovery CD so then they had no OS or drivers
- bridgette
Visualize a license key scheme, wherein you are given a MD5 hash key that matches the
hardware in the system. Change the hardware, you have to call MS and get a new key. Having to
call the vendor tends to put a BIG damper on illegal software use.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That made my day.
Having to call every vendor of every software program you own tends to put a BIG damper on hardware upgrades.
Examples:
Please use smilies when making jokes like that...
Microsoft offers value to millions of people. Evidence? They buy the software. Revealed preference. Most people never reinstall their software. They don't know how. Why should such users care?
If Microsoft wants to rent them the software instead of selling it, more power to them.
If you don't want to rent software from MS, well, (and I can't emphasize this enough): DON'T!!!
But stop treating me as if you speak for me, agitating to interfere with reasonable (although maybe stupid) uses of property rights. We don't assign people (or corporations) rights based on intelligence; rather, based on existence as a person, real or fictitious. Like it or not, stupid people have just as many rights as you do. And you want to take away those rights for the stupid, you endanger everyone's rights.
If, by changing their revenue model MS reduce the value of the product, then they will find out the hard way. The market will function just fine.
There is absolutely no market failure in sight here, to justify interfering with freedom of contract. If people want to rent software under terms that you don't understand, let 'em. Perhaps they know their needs better than you do.
There's no moral or legal reason that MS must sell you their product rather than renting it. If they choose to distribute their software that way, that's their right. The same way it is Linus' right to distribute Linux under the GPL. If you don't like the terms of the MS rental, don't rent the software. Use something else. No one's forcing you to use MS products.
By pirating and continuing to use MS products, you are directly contributing to the network effect that keeps MS in a dominant market position: "I need WinXX, since everyone else is using it, and I need the .doc format".
MS has an inherent right to charge whatever they want for their upgrades, or anything else. Just like you have an inherent right to say "that's bullsh*t, I'm not paying that much", and choosing not to buy and/or rent it. That's called a free market. If MS overcharges, or otherwise annoys their customers, those customers will migrate somewhere else. Or at least they would if they hadn't stupidly allowed themselves to be locked into proprietary standards through the aforementioned network effects.
The answer to all of this: Don't pirate MS products. You are making things worse. Just don't use them if you are unhappy with the quality or price. The more people that do that, the better off we all are.
Allan
Desktop: Win98 Office97 Never update, look at linux+KDE in future Server: Linux,Apache,Sendmail,etc.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
Now whenever you buy software, you have to head to Amazon or Borders or ... to buy a book that explains it (the online manual being next to useless) and you have to pay for support. Throw in the bugs, the bloat, the installation headaches, and the licenses on top of that, and it is not surprising that the loyalty of the customer is lost.
This oxymoron "recovery CD" and other "piracy protection" will just make it worse. The company essentially accuses me of being a pirate, and insists on making my computer harder to use unless I become a "pirate" by circumventing their protection. This will unwittingly encourage their customers to become criminals.
I feel sorry for MS's customer service dept for this one.. I mean they are people, just working for a really immoral company. (I wonder if they will start needing to take all sharp objects away from these people)
How many people do you think will call up and complain that they do OWN a licences and want the software that goes with it.
Another question that im not sure if it is even true. Couldnt you (with proof of ownership of a licences) call MS and demand that since you own the licences they send you another copy (even at minimal cost(S&H and maybe media)) since the CD was "destroyed"? I mean by this, you do OWN the licences, why the hell shouldnt you have the software that goes with it?
Just a thought bouncing around in my head.
me
Always remember while it takes 42 muscles to frown, it only takes 3 to pull the trigger on a decent sniper rifle
The problem is NOT a lack of regulation. For starters, the regulators are always eventually captured by whatever they're allegedly regulating anyway, so the net result of more regulation would be benefits for the industry.
Or did you not ever wonder why you get such poor service from government-protected (i.e., regulated) monopolies?
More importantly, the answer to the problem is very very simple:
Stop buying Microsoft's trash. Stop buying anyone's trash who tries to inflict this kind of crap on you as a condition of the sale.
There are alternatives now. Use free software. Not only is it of vastly higher quality, you actually own it: you're not getting just a license (GPL-covered stuff gets a conditional exception here since it imposes a condition upon that ownership).
I don't understand why a Linux user cares about the abuse Microsoft heaps upon their users anyway. Just say "No thanks, Bill!" and walk away.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
A problem slashdotters have is that we tend to live online, and presume that all computer users who are online do so too. I haven't bought a newspaper becaues I use the likes of slashdot, my yahoo, and bbc-online to stay up to date. This is not mainstream media however. An effective campaign has to focus on the likes of newspaper letter pages, radio/tv call-ins as well as internet news agencies and forums. Look at any tech story on TV - They'll usually gauge a reaction from a computer 'expert' but they don't usually do a Joe-Soap_Computer_User_In-The-Street quickie. I think that's because most Joe Soaps aren't aware enough of issues that often comes down to their basic rights.
And the internet isn't just in the US. We've seen them implementing laws like the UCITA or DMCA which, while being US laws, end up having a kickback effect to the international community because often, the rest of the world looks to the US first.
I'm not aware of the EU or the WTO ever really getting involved in the laws that the US are laying down. They should be alerted more to these issues, hoping that they can put pressure on the US. You can be sure that US consumers are not the only ones who suffered from Microsofts behaviour.
I'm kinda distracted and can't tell if I'm making my point well or not, but if you don't get the gist, oh well...
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
Um i don't give a fuck what MS says, i'll do it anyway.
...ok?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
It seems that Microsoft is taking a few leaps backward.. If they are going this to lock in more profits and prevent "piracy", then they are wrong. Most people pirate things simply because they cannot afford to pay $180 every 3 years to upgrade their OS. Hell, this computer I'm typing this comment on didn't cost that much. But anyway, people don't steal things that are cheap.. (when was the last time you saw someone steal a candybar? (I have yet to see it myself))
Anyways, Microsoft will be eventually sealing their own fate and in the end will lose to free operating systems... (See such examples as MCA by IBM and DivX DVD wannabes)
I digress, so I shall end.
-MoOsEb0y
>I would disagree, bootlegging will continue because there will always be people who want to
>pay less or nothing for a product which others think is reasonable.
At some point a product becomes so reasonably priced that bootlegging becomes negligible. For example VHS movies:
If I wanted to copy a VHS movie, I'd need:
2 VCRs (vs. just 1 to watch the movie) extra $150
Macrovision remover $50
and for each movie:
blank tape $1
movie rental $3-4
Or I could just spend $10-20 and buy a real copy of the movie.
Does anybody remember the 70's-early 80's when it cost $100 to buy a movie on VHS? Reasonable pricing IS the cure for bootlegging.
I called Dell and spoke to a sale rep. I asked the sales rep what Dell's implementation of this policy would be. The sale rep informed me that they are still shipping Windows CDs with systems.
Therefore, I am a bit confused. Does this policy affect only Windows 2000? The Infoworld article said that this policy was suppose to be in affect for all versions Windows. If that is true, then is Dell a special OEM with respect to this policy and is allowed to ship Windows CDs with its systems?
> No one's forcing you to use MS products.
Well, we know that at least one person -- Judge Jackson -- disagrees.
> If MS overcharges, or otherwise annoys their customers, those customers will migrate somewhere else.
That's like saying if the US government overtaxes for road repairs, US citizens will choose other roads. *THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE*. The tasks that MS Windows completes can only be completed by MS Windows. Tasks such as athenticating Win2K Kerberos clients, or running programs that work with Office file formats. There are other OS, but they don't actually compete with Windows because they complete different tasks. It's like a boat competing with a truck; sure they're both vehicles, but most people can't actually switch to a truck if the only boat manufacturer is charging too much.
well, if microsoft is making windows non transferable, aka, you cant install it on your machine when you upgrade it, then that just gives you the total and absolute right to pirate any and all microsoft products. I think the software industry has their heads planted deep inside their asses. I cant think of any other industry that expects you to fork over hundreds of dollars for....for nothing....you dont get a cd, you just get a "license", a license that says you have the right to be fucked (oh thank you ucita) and raped as much as the software company feels like raping you. Well, no thanks guys....i'll just fire up the 12x plextor here...because there is no way i am giving any of you a damn penny anymore. You (as in the software publishers) can pretend to write an honest product, and i can pretend that i paid for it. I think you idiots should be talking to the gaming publishers...at least they have a clue. For example, Blizzard.......you give em 40 bucks, they give you a great game, and you can play that game on any damn machine you want. no fuss, no muss. But i guess doing something makes sense is something they forgot to teach you in Harvard Business School or where ever you learned to be a suit wearing idiot....
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Envision this. You're a moderately savvy computer user. You have one machine at home, with Windows pre-installed of course. You want to try this new thing you've heard of called "Linux". (Or BSD, AtheOS, Plan 9, whatever. Linux is the most common newbie choice, I'm sure.)
So you do some reading and find out what you need to do. And being moderately savvy, you are prudent enough to make sure you can change your mind and put Windows back if you want to. So you look at the CD that came with your PC, if any, and maybe you call the OEM, and eventually you find out that you can't reinstall from this damned thing.
(Actually, I'm not clear on this. Can you reinstall from the damned thing? It looks like that's what it's intended for. Anyway, let's assume you can't for now. It certainly applies to the people with no CD at all, just a recovery partition.)
So naturally you're a little pissed. (Note to UK readers: "pissed" = "angry", not "drunk".) And after a little while, either through your own insight or reading about it, you realize that this is deliberate---that Microsoft did this specifically to keep you from doing what you're trying to do---try to break out of the Microsoft Monopoly.
Now you're really pissed.
You're pissed enough that now you really want to try Linux, and get this goddamned Microsoft crap out of your life once and for all.
But what can you do? They've got you by the short hairs. Sure, you can try Linux, but if you don't like it, you can't go back to square one. Unless you want to drive down to CompUSA and plunk down another couple hundred dollars.
Some people will go ahead and jump with no parachute. But a lot of them will take the more prudent course, especially if they use their PC for any kind of serious work. And Microsoft wins again.
This is where we can make a difference. We can supply people in this situation with some parachutes. A program to copy your MBR to a bootable floppy, then restore it later. A program to copy your entire disk to one or more bootable CD-Rs, then restore it later. Bundled with the major distros, maybe.
Of course Microsoft will scream "copyright violation!" Fine. See you in court. You don't have a fscking leg to stand on, and you know it.
When IBM and Apple were selling "Magical-box" systems only, Intel and Microsoft took-over by feeding on the hardware junkies who weren't afraid to use a screwdriver. Now Microsoft is supporting the complete system manufacturers ONLY and hanging the do-it-your-selfers out to dry. Is this a divide and conquer tactic? Once all of the H4x0rz have migrated to Linux, who is going to save the sheep from the wolves? Next Microsoft will begin stealing old age security cheques from the elderly.
My favourite bit was how Bill kept saying (whining) things to the tune of "well what Microsoft is doing is good for the consumer.. prices are low, etc" and then some guy from the audience asked this question:
"Standard Oil and AT&T both said the same thing... oil is good, low phone charges are good, what's the problem? Yet they were still found guity of antitrust"
Ol' Bill got a bit flustered over this one... spouted a bunch of evasive PR-speak bullshit. Then again, all of his responses were pretty much like that.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Like the article said, some OEM's have been doing this for a while. A certain MAJOR OEM has been shipping a "companion" CD with their computers rather than an actual copy of the OS for at least 3 years...and then it wasn't even an MS requirement. I don't like the idea of not getting a copy of the software I purchase for my computer or not being able to move said software to a new computer (should the old one self-destruct or become too old or whatever). Tying the software to the specific hardware is too restrictive...but I can see why the software companies want to do it. Who among us doesn't know some person who has probably more than $15000 worth of pirated software like 3DStudio, various games, etc. Granted, there is a lot of stuff out there that you can get for free without pirating, but that doesn't mean that everyone goes and uses it. This is a case of punishing everyone for the actions of a few. I don't agree with the measures being recommended or talked about...but it has to make you think about what their alternative options are.
Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
What a bunch of bozos.
Government regulation of the software industry, intended to restrict the Microsofts of the world, is all too likely to affect free software in unexpected ways. (By way of comparison, consider how regulations on business, intended to control the behavior of large corporations, make it harder for individuals to start up their own small businesses.) When you create a law, you enable government to restrict a field of action: and this restriction will be used against people in ways that you may not have expected.
(Who would have guessed, when racial hate-crime laws started to be passed in the United States, that the majority of people prosecuted under them would be members of racial minorities? And yet a black person who assaults a white person is much more likely to be prosecuted for a "hate crime" than vice versa. Laws intended to combat racism have instead been used to further institutionalize it.)
Have some faith in the people. If Microsoft makes Windows any more of a pain in the ass than it already is, people will indeed convert away from it in increasing numbers. With the resurrection of Apple and the rise of Linux-based OSes, Microsoft can no longer safely expect to be the only starfish in the sea -- so if it continues to behave like that, it will find itself floundering on the shore rather quickly.
If you insist on involving government in the process of Microsoft's obsolescence and demise, then do it as follows: convince government agencies, legislators, and the like to prefer alternatives to Microsoft products. Americans -- is your state government involved in the suit against Microsoft? Call up your Attorney General's office and ask them if they're still using Windows, and if so, why. (MS Office is not likely the reason, as most lawyers use WordPerfect.)
Four years ago, I purchased the computer I'm typing this on now. It was pretty damn near top-of-the-line for its time; a Pentium II 266 with a 6.4 GB HD and Windows 95. (I didn't know any better at the time, and I was a heavy gamer back then, so Win95 to me was revolutionary. So shoot me.) I didn't get a CD with the computer, just a copy of the CD on the hard drive. I had to return the computer a few days later due to a defective hard drive, but the next HD also had the CD copy on it. Fast-forward two years, I'm interested in learning Linux, so I made a back-up copy of the CD files on a Zip disk. Last September, I used that backup disk to reinstall Windows after wiping and repartitioning the drive.
If I understand what I've learned over the past six months correctly, then the act of making that backup disk was illegal under the EULA that I never had to click through the first time I got the computer since Windows was already preinstalled!
Another thing; just before returning the computer due to the defective drive, I had an interesting phone conversation with the guy who built the computer. When I asked about reformatting and reinstalling, he asked if "I had bought the CD". This escaped me, as I said "Yes, I have Windows" - it was on the drive, remember. After a couple repetitions, it dawned on me what he meant. And now, something else dawns on me - didn't I already pay for one copy of Windows? Would I have had to pay for two copies of Windows in order to be able to legally reinstall the OS after exercising my right to format my hard drive and do with it as I wish?
If so...what a pile of stinking, smelly bullshit. I'm glad I switched almost completely over to a more free OS. As little as I trust government (I'm a Canadian; I know all about government contempt for citizens), it's a good thing the US judicial system is laying the smack down on MS; with Gates' tactics and ambitions, we could have been very close to a situation where the only choice was Microsoft and its self-serving, consumer-abusing licenses, whether we wanted alternatives or not.
This is also the reason I continue to mirror copies of DeCSS and CPHack (not the files Matt Skala wrote, Eddy Jansson's GPL'd software). I don't know who gave people with more money the right to limit my own freedoms. I'll respect copyrights; just don't put stupid, profit-serving restrictions on me.
I also forwarded this article to several of my friends and family, and encouraged them to do the same. I'll do what I can to spread the knowledge.
Also...can I mirror this article on my own site? I'd love to host it there for the rare visitor to see.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Sorry Cally, I must be behind the times.
Grab.
Recently in my local computer store I was shocked by the lack of hardware for sale that doesn't require a windows operating system. All the computers for sale come with some flavor of windows. (In the past few months I have seen an increate in the number of high end machines that come with Linux.) What piracy? You buy a machine and you get windows, no choice. The only possibility of piracy is the small percentage of the population willing to build there own.
I used to be a paranoid, now, I'm just a noid.
The way an open market works, when a certain company abuses customers' rights, they should go out of business, they theoretically should be overrun by a competing company that doesn't abuse their customers. But as we have seen with Microsoft, this doesn't work. I think what we have to figure out and correct is not necessarily more laws that protect the consumers, but less laws so that the corporations have less of an ability to manipulate the consumer. What I continue to see is big business using government to manipulate and exploit the consumer. However, if we take away laws instead of creating more, then the government has less of an facility to be a tool of big business.
Now the fun begins. I boot up, and I notice that the 8 gb HD is almost a 1/3 full! WTF? Compag has loaded my hard drive with almost 3 gb of useless crap. Well, uninstall, uninstall, uninstall. After using it for a while, I began to notice some video problems. Certain games, which should have run fine, were giving me the notorious BSOD. So I decide to reinstall Windows. I look in my box, and lo and behold, not a Windows install disk to be found. Instead, I find a cute little Compag recovery disk. Just great. In an attempt to avoid all the Compag complications on the disk, I wipe the drive and borrow my friend's Win98SE disk. Now this is the same version of Windows alledgedly on the recovery disk, mind you. I begin to install, and wtf?, it doesn't recognize my hardware. I try again, no dice. Well, at this point I give in and try the recovery disk. Apparently what the recovery disk has it not an installation version of Windows, but rather an image of Windows taken off a machine identical to mine. This time, hardware is no problem.
PLease take note here. The regular full version disk of Windows 98SE does not recognize the hardware on my Compaq. The version on the recovery disk does.
Well this just blows. It means that Compaq has used some funky hardware and drivers in order to tie me to their version of the OS. At this point I am pissed. I promptly run out and get me a copy of Red Hat. Guess what, no support for the hardware. Just wonderful. Now I'm stuck with Compaq's crap on my brand new computer. I uninstall everything I can, but still have problems occasionally. What's worse, when I have a problem with Windows, I can't just reninstall on top of it, because the recovery disk wipes the drive first. Now I have a bunch of zip disks with backups of everything I don't want ot lose, which is pretty much everything.
Microsoft is going to eat it if it insists on forcing this issue. This will revitalize the DIY market for computers and create an entirely new market of disgruntled users ready for a change. Next time, I'm building my own computer with top quality, standardized hardware that I can run Linux on.
Thanks alot, Microcrap.
This is all true, and it highlights another point.
We don't need more bloody legislation to deal with this problem!
The comparison between abusive software liscensing and lemonade automobiles sounds like a strong argument for regulation: right or wrong, it's a fair statement that automotive transportation and computer software are both "necessities" of the modern American lifestyle.
But there is a fundamental difference here: it takes thousands of people working in close coordination, plus millions of dollars in tooling, factory space, etc to build a decent automobile. If the automakers have you bent over, you have two choices: spread'em, or take the bus. Not so with software. The very existence of the open source movement is ample evidence of that. There are alternatives, and as commercial software becomes more heinous, there will be more alternatives.
It's true, there is likely to be a year or two (probably not more, given how fast the software world moves) of discomfort before the system's natural mechanisms correct the imbalance. Regulating the industry might address these issues more directly, but:
1) It will probably -- no, certainly! -- take longer to get the laws on the books than it will for the system to self-correct.
2) Regulation of a complex, feedback coupled system (like the software or most any other industry) usually has unintended consequences. For example, if the government gets invovled in regulating the nature of EULAs, this puts us on a slippery slope. If they can be paid/pressured into creating laws that restrict under what terms commerical software may be licensed, they can also makes laws controlling how free software may be licensed. And the entities that would benefit from such control (i.e. the commercial software companies) can bring more pressure to bear than can the average consumer.
Is that what we want?
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
I've installed Windows 95 from floppy disk. They built a special hospital just for mE afTeR ThaT.,-~'^'~-.,
Microsoft built their empire on OEM sales, by establishing themselves as the path of least resistance for an entire generation of new computer users. They have millions of users who've never bought Windows off the shelf, and who probably wouldn't know where to look even if they wanted to. I think they're taking a big, big risk chancing pissing those people off. People aren't very computer savvy in general, but most of them know that when you buy software, you get a CD; they don't differentiate between the software and the medium. The "Where do you want to baa today?" effect is the best thing they have going for them right now. The last thing they should want to do, particularly post-breakup, is to disrupt that and start people thinking about what they're buying.
"Hey, my computer didn't come with a Windows CD. What, they don't anymore? How am I...oh. Can I get one without Windows and just buy it at the store? Oh. Same price? So it's free, then? No?? Oh. So I have to buy it and then buy it again??? Just keep the damned thing. I'm sending it back."
I think this will put OEMs in a very bad position. Some of the more clueful ones will finally start offering Win-free boxen at the appropriate discount in the name of good customer relations, but that's still time and money they don't want to be spending in the slash-and-burn, low-margin environment that is PC sales. Ultimately, MS has pretty much destroyed the one compelling reason to buy whole PCs -- getting everything in a single package -- and this will only hurt the PC industry as people turn to piecemeal upgrades to avoid paying for things they don't want and can't really use.
Given MS-OS's comparatively limited revenue stream, I see a higher price tag on Windows as an unavoidable result of the breakup; will people always select Windows off the shelf if it costs $200 more than everything else on that rack? They probably will, at least for a while. However, as the populace gradually becomes more and more computer-literate, it will be interesting to see if enough people begin trying out other operating systems to level the playing field, or if the desktop mindshare owned by Windows will continue to provide them with an effective monopoly long after the appearance of competitive options.
to the telling of PC vendors, "if you sell any other OS on any line of machines, we will cancel your Windows license all together"
Microsoft does not make a Windows operating system for m68k, Sparc, MIPS, PowerPC, or any other architecture except x86 and Alpha. Does this mean if you sell Wintel boxen, you can't sell PowerPC boxen?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Besides which, MS is going to be too busy appealing the breakup over the next few years to worry about licensing violations.
-Legion
Ralph Nader is the ONLY guy who will be up as a presidential candidate this fall who has the INTEGRITY to the PUBLIC, the EXPERIENCE of public SERVICE, and the INTELLIGENCE and INDEPENDENCE to do what is RIGHT!!! Do some research! Find out about this man!
He may well be this countrie's only savior...
start here--great article on him:
http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html
What are geeks supposed to do, then? MS obviously won't be able to release a non-bastardized version of the OS, because everyone and their brother would jump on the opportunity to copy the CD onto their own system, since their version was crippled by the vendor, and people will see it as the same product. Geeks who custom build systems won't be able to install MS products, because the OS doesn't come configured for the certain hardware they purchase, and it's impossible to install drivers.
Can you imagine paying for computer software subscriptions like you do to a magazine, you ISP, or cable? That's insane. Systems will probably be completely proprietarized, so that the MS software can't be removed either, IMO. Who knows? Maybe they'll slap a ROM disk onto all new hard drives, where the OS will be hardwired. (How many times have YOU had to reinstall windows on a computer, due to crappy MS programming, or some other reason?)
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I think you went just a little to easy on them, here.
Early 1980's:
Early 2000's:
Enough said.
Obviously, IANALNDIPOOTV (I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Do I Play One On TV), but isn't this just an in-software attempt to circumvent the ban on exclusionary licensing practices? Contempt of Court perhaps?
Everything's been downhill since the TRS-80
Thanks to Microsoft and their medialess sales, all people are going to get now is a console. Everything else will eventually be controlled by the big hardware vendors, which gives the power of innovation and understanding to elite professionals and corporations (those running server professional) and effectively blocks middle ground or inexperienced users who may want to break into their machines for do-it-yourself projects from being able to learn and become informed consumers.
If you're never allowed to see the inside of your machine (for fear of screwing up a preset function or confusing a driver), or mess around with the dll and ini files of your operating system to learn how a program works (again, for fear of screwing up the os), then you can't very well find the problems to complain about, can you? Let the fridge call the repair boys, you needn't be involved... and if you happened to need some file our weak operating system did not properly protect? well, sorry... no one was supposed to know how to break in, I mean, we've kept all the disks.
Well, windows 2000 is a horrible hairball of an operating system. I think NT4 is about the only thing I'm even slightly willing to use of theirs for a long time.
What's really sad is that this has effectivly condemned lower class people to no alternative other than AOL and complete and total exploitation by incompetent hardware vendors who will probably not have the solutions to the problems this will cause. Those not already in the technical elite will have an almost impossible time being allowed into the computer revolution, except as ignorant, passive arcade rats plucking away at their consoles, and the inequality between those who have the knowledge and those who don't is only going to continue to get worse.
Want to customize your compaq or your dell? You'll do what you're told, buddy, or prepair to be at the mercy of our woefully inadiquate customer service division. Leave the technical stuff to us. We want you to view crashing your os as a sign of your own inadiquacy as a computer owner, so you'll never know if it was the os or not. This has got to be some kind of deal with A0L/p
There is a statute (17usc117) that says that _using_ software as intended is legal:
Actually, there is an interpretation I can see in this clause that legalizes software bootlegging (downloading the software from 31337w4r3z.com is "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program").Will I retire or break 10K?
sure read it, but first you need to know my key
The police in some places can ask you to surrender your keys.
Will I retire or break 10K?
3 tracks on 2 CDs?!?! I hope they were long tracks!
I don't see how software need be treated any differently to music or books. You buy a CD, it's yours. You buy a book, it's yours. If you find the book's got a page missing, or the CD won't play, you take it back and ask for another one, or get your money back.
(Incidentally, I'm not saying it has to be bug-free - hey, shit happens. But there's levels of shit happening, and some shit is just unacceptable. But MS's lousy coding habits and a lack of coordination generally aren't the theme of the thread, so I'll avoid creep.)
On the CD analogy, there was a shop in my town at uni that sold old demo CDs that had been round the radio stations. They'd sell for £2-4 for 15-20 or so tracks, and there's be a real mix of all sorts of stuff. Half or more would be crap (or not to my taste anyway), about a quarter to a third would be moderate, and there'd usually be a couple of really good ones. At that price I don't mind a few duff ones.
Now the MS analogy. MS's habit of tying stuff together means that you have to buy everything in one big lump, even if you only want some of it. Would you accept having to buy one CD at random from each shelf in the shop, plus a dozen CDs containing lift music, just so you could get the Pink Floyd CD you really wanted? Didn't think so. In my case, I actually prefer IE to Netscape (heretic, but what the hell), but Outlook is definitely in the "lift music" category - OK in short bursts, but soul-destroying over time. But if I want Windows on my machine, I have to get it preinstalled with Outlook too. I don't want it, but I'm forced to pay for it anyway with the license agreements, and even if I could find someone to sell Outlook to (if anyone actually liked it), they're all linked together so I can't.
On the subject of licensing being suited to companies, maybe companies do buy a lot of licenses. Companies are also the main buyers of new cars, too, but I've not seen a car license agreement yet, and they don't have a problem disposing of their old fleets of cars.
Grab.
>>>I had to throw something together fast that would make it past the lameness filter.
You had to, huh?
This is as opposed to noting that it's called a lameness filter because what you are doing is LAME and not doing it.
>>>Wow, nice bigotry.
Anyone as lame as you has no place to complain about anything anyone else chooses to say about you.
---CONFLICT!!---
IESS in Northbrook?
Visit
The only way they are going to keep their monopoly is if they put in place enough restrictions to keep them in power no matter the outcome in the appeals court. Microsoft never has and never will seek mercy from the DOJ or anyone else. What they always have and always will do is manipulate events so that the outcome will always be in their favor. Microsoft isn't stupid. They know their odds. They won't stop trying to win the case but they don't plan on lossing much ground if they lose.
The articles suggested that this licensing ploy was Microsoft's response to those who would install a dual-boot system with Linux and Windows. I think this is a great opportunity. Think about it. Something goes awry with your master boot record. Which OS is in deeper doo-doo? Windows, because you have nothing but a lame recovery CD while you have a full-blown Linux distribution in hand. Dilligent Linux vendors should sieze this poor business practice on Microsoft's part. Supply documentation and support for reclaiming the lobotamized Windows partitions for use with our stable, usable Linux partitions. Microsoft is gambling with this: if Windows goes, everything goes. Linux vendors can turn this around. Put a big link on your top pages: "How to fix a broken Windows 2000/Linux dual-boot installation."
I put one PC together last year that had a very new video card. It was just another no-name card, typical OEM wholesale fare. It was new enough that Win95 did not have drivers for it, so I had to use the ones that came with the card. The drivers came on a CD that was enclosed in a sealed paper envelope. Covering the flap was a sticker that read:
I swear I am not making this up. In order to read the license, I had to open the envelope. However, by opening the envelope, I automatically agreed to whatever terms the license laid out. Automatically.Originally, I thought it was humorous that some company that no one had ever heard of (so unknown that they couldn't even be bothered to put their own name on the product) was so paranoid about what people might do with the drivers for it. I was so amused by it that a photocopied enlargement of the sticker is hanging in my office.
In retrospect, however, I completely missed the hidden message sent by that little sticker. The message is loudly amplified by the present debate on Microsoft's licensing practices. That message is this: "We are the software company. We will settle for nothing less than total submission by all who wish to use our software. We will not tolerate anyone using any of our software in any way that we disapprove of, nor will we tolerate anyone attempting to use any software other that ours. Don't bother trying to defend your rights. You have no rights."
There's the crux of the matter. This isn't just about reducing software piracy or keeping people from trying alternative operating systems. It's all about control.
--
møøse bites are pritti nasti.
God this is enough to make me want to start helping out with Koffice etc.
:=)
Now only if I knew C++!
Seriously, this is bad in general, but could be good for Linux. Even if restricted copyrighted software was to come to Linux one day, if we still have control of the OS, they can kiss our ass if they think they can control us. Does it have to get a restrictive one time use security key over the internet? Write a utility that scavanges it the first time its used. Is it IP or mac address locked? Lie to it every time it asks the operating system for these bits of info. Yes, this is piracy, but I would consider it civil disobedience. As many wonderful people have espoused, we should not blindly obey all laws, only the just ones.
Better yet, just write better free equivalents. My decision to use Linux years ago is continually showing itself to be a wise decision.
If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
Nope, Schaumburg.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Interestingly enough, this sort of thing began at least a year ago. Autodesk posthumously revoked the sale of licenses on their CAD products last summer. If you ended up with an extra seat you could no longer sell it and transfer the license to the new owner. In the past many companies bought CAD packages and hired consultants to fill a short term work demand and then sold the extra seats after the project was completed. I know of a couple of small companies with $15k+ worth of coasters at the moment. What suprises me is that they did it with no regard to the previous policy that was in place. It strikes me as being a bit high handed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
You might be able to get away from the influence of software manufacturers for a while by using free software - until they've got so many patents covering so many tiny ideas, you won't be able to hit a key on your keyboard w/o violating half a dozen of them.
The software industry (including media sources) want total control of information flow - and they don't want any outs, legally OR illegally.
. . . I heard some jerk saying "even if Microsoft is a bully, it has never hurt consumers." The next time you hear sombody tell you that, pull out this story and begin your best forced laughter.
On CNBC "Hardball" last night (CNBC is very much tied with MSNBC, you know), they had a panel of three discussing the recent DOJ decision. Only one of them was against MS, and they only let him talk for one minute while the other two spewed FUD for ten.
------
Not a typewriter
The real issue is HARDWARE choice, not software Think about this... acmeOEM basically offers 3 or 4 hard drives with new systems. With 3 or 4 video card choices. With 2 sound card options With/without an ethernet card With a faxmodem or voice/fax modem. 3-4 X 3-4 X 2 X 2 X 2 options This is between 72 and 128 recovery cd's for HD burn images. You will not see this happen with retail computers AND you will never see driver updates and patches on these cds either. You will see fewer and fewer choices. You will need another hard drive to experiment with OS's if you receive a recovery CD. Restoration cd's are a little better, offering upgraded driver possibilities, but still taking a long time to load. They can cover more product lines and pre-partitioning your drive can lead to the ability for multiple OS's. THE TREND TOWARD INTEGRATION is stronger than ever, indirectly TAKING AWAY CONSUMER CHOICE IN HARDWARE as well. This is extremely bad news for choice. However, this engineering decision will greatly reduce the burden for technical support for novice users. Those of us who like to dink around with (and legitimately use) other OS's will be hurt, but this will reduce call times and make technical support more limited to qualified people. This will be good in the long run for the vast majority of the computing public. When I did desktop support, a Pentium II 233 used to take an hour to reload properly with OS and drivers. Now with a system restoration CD a Pentium III 700 computer can take about 15 minutes with drivers automatically loaded. This increases the likelihood that your problems will ultimately be resolved and allows a technician to significantly reduce software troubleshooting in order to prevent (what used to be the god-awful) format/reinstall. This will end up saving a lot of people's time at the expense of choice. I believe the OEM's have as much to do with this as Microsoft. I took many calls where people could not find their Certificate of Authenticity (legitimately, and a few fakers, too) or the Windows CD. This ultimtately made it harder for the consumer. In addition, if your Windows cd arrived or became damaged, your OEM could not replace it for you. You were shit out of luck unless you decided to send the system in for service. Now OEM's are actually responsible for getting the OS up and running and can't hide behind the fact that you can't find your COA or may have received a damaged CD and hadn't needed to use it yet. There may be some good in this too. Ultimately less hassle in case of the bad happening, but less choice on the front end of hardware selection and software selection too.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
Not "cause enormous inconvenience", but "provide" it. They want enormous inconvenience, because enormous inconvenience stops people understanding their computers.
"Ooops, I meant to say..." No, I think we can pretty safely conclude, we know who Satan is.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
You can make personal copies to your heart's content of that copy of software, but you are still not allowed to use the software legally unless the copyright owner extends permission to you, which they do as part of the contracts that we call "licenses".
Some more thoughts on this:
Anybody else here Californian?
Willie Brown is essentially about as close to a political demigod as it gets--probably about as close to sausage with a smile as ya get, but even if you don't like how he gets things done, you can't deny the man knows politics, charisma, and everything in between.
Anyway, The Real Slick Willie (couldn't resist) is infamous for the stunt he pulled after term limits forced him to leave his ultra-powered position in the state legislature.
He destroyed his own position.
Realizing that he wasn't going to move up in the heirarchy and keep the level of power he was accustomed to if he moved up the political ladder, he decided to move down--he went from the head of one of the largest state's assembly to Mayor of San Francisco. Less real power in some respects, but he still gets to rule as the king he's accustomed to being.
But the problem with moving down on the totem pole is that somebody else gets to take your place, having learned all your tactics and probably itching to use 'em against you.
Didn't happen to Willie, though--as his last set of acts, Brown stripped his position procedurely of all of its power in the assembly. If he couldn't keep his power, he sure as heck wasn't going to let anyone else use it against him.
Thus it's in Microsoft's best interest to behave as abusively as possible--beyond just pissing Judge Jackson off, illustrating the damages an intelligent monopoly can do with a mere file format patent guarantees that, when Microsoft is no longer on top, they'll be able to use the precedent they set themselves to make sure they get to access file formats, bridge themselves into monopoly markets, etc. Ask around Silicon Valley--there's a general consensus that a number of Microsoft greatest enemies are primarily jealous of their power(rather than disgusted by their tactics).
Look, it was obvious Microsoft knew they'd lose. We've had a few years here of Loss Management--and they've made billions doing it.
It's just like Willie. If you gotta go, then go--but don't let anybody take your place, and don't let the mystique die. There is power in all positions.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Wrong Holmes, of course. It's rather sad that the only culture people remember these days is porn. Vive l'Internet!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I don't think it will take very long for people to realize what they've done and refuse to use their software any more.
Considering the rate of improvement of Linux: the ease of use, software availability, and stability, we will be in the perfect position to welcome with open the millions of people seeking computer freedom.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
1. IANAL, but my interpretation of the final ruling leads me to believe that requiring a user to bend over backwards to fix their Windows installation is covered is against the ruling. Microsoft is being punished for limiting consumer choice, and not providing a real installation disc limits us in pretty much the same way as disallowing OEMs to offer other OSes.
2. Remember DIVX? You know, Circuit City's attempt at video rental domination? Ler me refresh: DIVX discs could only be played on the player they were purchased/rented for. The disc wouldn't play after the rental period expired. You could purchase the disc (and watch it forever if you wanted to), but you could only play it on the machine you purchased it for. Sounds much like what's going on with Office 2K, doesn't it? DIVX took a while to die off, but it did, and I'm confident the same thing will happen with this practice.
People don't like it when you restrict what they can and cannot do with something they spent their hard-earned money on, and I've a feeling that most people will vote with their checkbooks on this one.
Physically its mine.. If i buy a Ford Mustang then that instance of the Mustang is MINE. I do not claim to own the "Ford Mustang", but that one is mine... there are many like it, but this one belongs to me.... Its mine... get it? (anyone wanna sell me a Mustang?)
It should be so with software and books. When I buy a book, that copy is mine... no one can take it back... no one can tell me I can't sell it at a garage sale. I have that right. With software, as long as I do not duplicate the software I should be within my rights to sell it off (even at a profit) modify it for personal use, or whatever else I feel like doing.
Just like AOL CD's.. If I wanna use 'em as a coaster or frisbee then I have the right to do so without AOL coming along and demanding I return the CD...
Its a good thing that Microsoft is on the way out otherwise I might have cared about that Windows aspect of things...
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
The software is good and functional, but there are several problems with it.. and I will start with the most obvious:
When you install the software the CD generates a random key. In order to 'unlock' the software you have to call a 1-800 number, that no one has ever answered to date, leave a message and wait for them to call you back to unlock your software. I have had to perform several upgrades, reinstalls, etc., in which my fellow appraisers had to wait most of the day to do any work - even though we paid for the software, the unlimited right to use that software on this one machine (supposedly). WHAT A PAIN.. I wish that I had more of a choice. Unfortunately in order to put bread on the table I have to use this software to get business.
Some of the other things include the fact that you have to PAY for updates that supposedly fix bugs in the software. What kind of a sick joke is that? If I make an appraisal riddled full of errors and a client calls me to perform corrections and I say, "That will be $50.00 to correct the errors in the appraisal." They are going to laugh, say, "forget it," and go find someone else that is a little better at supporting their product. This whole thing is a big JOKE. MS, Adobe, Polaroid, etc.. have no respect for the customers. So while everyone on here may complain of legality, rights, monopolies, I offer an alternative term: Respect.
Wholen1You can't fly with eagles running with Turkeys.
Here's some food for thought... When you buy a car, if something doesn't work right, they either fix the problem, or discount the price of the car so that you are not monetarily inconvinienced. I just bought a Jeep, and there was a problem with the license plate mount. I took it back to the dealership, and they fixed it for me. They didn't point me to a website where I could acquire a part that could be delivered to me that I would have to install myself. No, they fixed it for me. Why? Because I paid for a piece of merchandise that I expected to be in operational condition, and it was not.
Conversely, I have had experiences where I have acquired something, and it was broken, and it was not fixed for me. This something was picked up at a swap meet at my place of business. I didn't pay for it, I didn't expect repairs. Sure, there's probably something I can get out there to repair it, but I didn't expect the individual that I got it from to provide me with that information. Why? I didn't pay for it.
Now let's take those two examples and apply them to the software business. You would think, given any kind of good business sense, and common logic, that if you paid for a piece of software, not only would you expect to get something that was fully functional, but also something that if there was something wrong, the company that produced it, or at least the dealer of the software, would fix the problem for you. Not point you to a website to download a patch that may or may not install correctly, and if it does install, may or may not corrupt all the data on your hard drive. This example would, of course, apply to M$ and other software 'giants' out there.
Then, on the other side of the coin, you have open source software. You don't pay for it, you don't expect ANY warranty, and if there's a fix for a bug, you probably have to hunt it down yourself.
But wait! Let's step back into the real world for a moment. Let's look back at this equation. Given the constants S=Software, P=Paid for, F=Free, T=Tech Support, U=Unsupported, you would expect these formulae:
S + P = T
S + F = U
But it doesn't work that way, does it boys and girls? Looking into the real world you realize that the M$ software that you paid for has little to no actual support to speak of, and if you mention anywhere in the computer community that you need help with a Microsoft product, you will be scoffed at and humiliated for even using one, but the open-source software that you downloaded, legally, from Jim and Bob's FTP server in Podunk, Arkansas is actually kind of supported on the internet. Not officially, mind you, but if you need help, you can get on an IRC channel, and be talking to a LIVE person within 2 to 3 minutes of initializing the modem dialing procedure, whereas if you want to get support for the M$ software you paid for at the store, you have to go through an IVR system that would drive the most patient people to near insanity, and then, as if that weren't enough, you have to then sit on hold for 30 minutes to 3 hours to speak to a live human being, who has been answering stupid questions all day, and really doesn't want to talk to you about your piddly little problem. Sounds like a serious role reversal to me. A good one for us Slashdotters, because we have the sense to use an open-source software package, and not waste our time calling the tech line at M$. But a bad one for your cousin Myrtle who just wants to see the e-mail that has pictures of her baby nephew, and doesn't know much about the computer except to turn it on.
oh, BTW, try calling M$ for tech support on the copy of Windows you downloaded from Jim and Bob's FTP server in Podunk, Arkansas
My whole point is that we should come to expect more from software companies. But it's not going to do us any good to piss and moan about it in a forum that is not viewed (read: respected) by any of the large software vendors. If we really want to see a change, we have to do something about it. In this country, we were blessed with at least one liberty by our government, and that is freedom of the press. We need to get out there and show them that while the press is free to say what they will, they should be saying things about what is current and what matters in the world today. Let's face it, in the current business world, computers are the single most used commodity aside from paper, and they're quickly replacing a number of the tasks that were performed on paper. So why not contact your local television station, or your local newspaper, or even a national television network or newspaper. Let them know that we as the open source community demand to be heard. If they receive enough calls/letters/e-mails from people like you and me, maybe they'll do a 2 minute spot on new operating systems, or the injustice of these new EULA's... or maybe I'm just pissing my time away complaining like the rest of us. But we do have the power to be heard by more than the people that already know what we have to say, and are saying the same things. Let's use that power!
Chris The Nefarious Tech Goblin
Reminds me of one of favorite passages...
Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if
the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive
advertisements said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighborhood, 4) and
in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened
it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault
or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should
consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the
manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for
as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of
serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches. Crowley had
been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer
industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that
drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached
just saying: "Learn, guys."
-- a footnote from Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett in "Good Omens"
(Crowley is one of the main characters, and a servant of Hell).
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
Alot of companies and some ISP's are based on Microsoft's Enterprise applications. God knows what kind of CD's they will include for doing site upgrades and fixes. Better look at those TechNet CD's (and perhaps burn a few as well for others). =) -- M
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
FINALLY!!!
This is the first tiem some one has made a poin that I constantly try to make in conversation when talkign aout MS. Various pundits for MS keep saying software price has gone down. When in effect it goes down. $89 for Win98 which is basically a bug fix with a few new features thrown in is ridiculous. That is the same price as Win95, yet Win98 is probably about 90+% the same code. A while back I figured out how much Win98 was worth to some one who had already purchased Win95 OSR 2. My estimate was a maximum of $30.
Don
You're right; every time I hear him speak, I tell my father, "It sounds like he's whining".
I'm sorry, but I can't understand the 'I think it's crap, but I _need_ it anyway' mentality. If I think something's a shoddy product, I don't use it. I guess the non-MS companies/developers/advocates need to step up to the plate and state the case that people don't _need_ MS and that other solutions exist. It's being done, but more of it is still needed.
I agree with a software boycott, but why not support the developers of competing products? Sure, Gates isn't getting any money from you, but you are helping make Windows/Office/etc even more widespread. This helps reinforce the idea that people _need_ the software and require the proprietary documents that they produce.
It's easy to see the reason for their actions: they believe there will be no consequences. They've severely restricted competition in their marketplace and now's the time to put the thumbscrews on the occasional pirate. People will bitch and moan, but if they perceive that an alternative doesn't exist, they end up going along with it. Fortunately, there are free alternatives so hopefully this will backfire on them.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
h4kk1ng th3 pl4n3t (sorry for k-l33t speak, just couldn't help it :-)
* ****************************** * ****************************** /MSG switch for resident extended error msg /P switch on DEL/ERASE command /C with FOR /V /V /P is the top level process. /C so that it works if there is no space /CDIR /MSG /W /P scrolled first line off the screen in some /E: values of 993 to 1024 the COMSPEC was getting /x:on not working properly with DIR/VOL * ************************************
;segment ordering
;ds = DATARES ;OldDS = old ds
;restore ds to old value
;restore ds to its old value
;discard the old ds value
;/*
; * Microsoft Confidential
; * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1991
; * All Rights Reserved.
; */
;**********************************************
;
; MODULE: COMMAND.COM
;
; DESCRIPTIVE NAME: Default DOS command interpreter
;
; FUNCTION: This version of COMMAND is divided into three distinct
; parts. First is the resident portion, which includes
; handlers for interrupts 23H (Cntrl-C), 24H (fatal
; error), and 2EH (command line execute); it also has
; code to test and, if necessary, reload the transient
; portion. Following the resident is the init code, which
; is overwritten after use. Then comes the transient
; portion, which includes all command processing (whether
; internal or external). The transient portion loads at
; the end of physical memory, and it may be overlayed by
; programs that need as much memory as possible. When the
; resident portion of command regains control from a user
; program, a check sum is performed on the transient
; portion to see if it must be reloaded. Thus programs
; which do not need maximum memory will save the time
; required to reload COMMAND when they terminate.
;
; ENTRY POINT: PROGSTART
;
; INPUT: command line at offset 81H
;
; EXIT_NORMAL: No exit from root level command processor. Can exit
; from a secondary command processor via the EXIT
; internal command.
;
; EXIT_ERROR: Exit to prior command processor if possible, otherwise
; hang the system.
;
; INTERNAL REFERENCES:
;
; ROUTINES: See the COMMAND Subroutine Description Document
; (COMMAND.DOC)
;
; DATA AREAS: See the COMMAND Subroutine Description Document
; (COMMAND.DOC)
;
; EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
;
; ROUTINES: none
;
; DATA AREAS: none
;
;**********************************************
;
; REVISION HISTORY
; ----------------
;
; DOS 1.00 to DOS 3.30
; --------------------------
; SEE REVISION LOG IN COPY.ASM ALSO
;
; REV 1.17
; 05/19/82 Fixed bug in BADEXE error (relocation error must return to
; resident since the EXELOAD may have overwritten the transient.
;
; REV 1.18
; 05/21/82 IBM version always looks on drive A
; MSVER always looks on default drive
;
; REV 1.19
; 06/03/82 Drive spec now entered in command line
; 06/07/82 Added VER command (print DOS version number) and VOL command
; (print volume label)
;
; REV 1.20
; 06/09/82 Prints "directory" after directories
; 06/13/82 MKDIR, CHDIR, PWD, RMDIR added
;
; REV 1.50
; Some code for new 2.0 DOS, sort of HACKey. Not enough time to
; do it right.
;
; REV 1.70
; EXEC used to fork off new processes
;
; REV 1.80
; C switch for single command execution
;
; REV 1.90
; Batch uses XENIX
;
; Rev 2.00
; Lots of neato stuff
; IBM 2.00 level
;
; Rev 2.01
; 'D' switch for date time suppression
;
; Rev 2.02
; Default userpath is NUL rather than BIN
; same as IBM
; COMMAND split into pieces
;
; Rev 2.10
; INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
;
; Rev 2.50
; all the 2.x new stuff -MU
;
; Rev 3.30 (Ellen G)
; CALL internal command (TBATCH2.ASM)
; CHCP internal command (TCMD2B.ASM)
; INT 24H support of abort, retry, ignore, and fail prompt
; @ sign suppression of batch file line
; Replaceable environment value support in batch files
; INT 2FH calls for APPEND
; Lots of PTR fixes!
;
; Beyond 3.30 to forever (Ellen G)
; ----------------------
;
; A000 DOS 4.00 - Use SYSPARSE for internal commands
; Use Message Retriever services
;
; Convert to new capitalization support
; Better error recovery on CHCP command
; Code page file tag support
; TRUENAME internal command
; Extended screen line support
;
; Improved file redirection error recovery
; (removed) Improved batch file performance
; Unconditional DBCS support
; Volume serial number support
; (removed) COMMENT=?? support
;
; A001 PTM P20 Move system_cpage from TDATA to TSPC
;
; A002 PTM P74 Fix PRESCAN so that redirection symbols do not
; require delimiters.
;
; A003 PTM P5,P9,P111 Included in A000 development
;
; A004 PTM P86 Fix IF command to turn off piping before
; executing
;
; A005 DCR D17 If user specifies an extension on the command
; line search for that extension only.
;
; A006 DCR D15 New message for MkDir - "Directory already
; exists"
;
; A007 DCR D2 Change CTTY so that a write is done before XDUP
;
; A008 PTM P182 Change COPY to set default if invalid function
; returned from code page call.
;
; A009 PTM P179 Add CRLF to invalid disk change message
;
; A010 DCR D43 Allow APPEND to do a far call to SYSPARSE in
; transient COMMAND.
;
; A011 DCR D130 Change redirection to overwrite an EOF mark
; before appending to a file.
;
; A012 PTM P189 Fix redirection error recovery.
;
; A013 PTM P330 Change date format
;
; A014 PTM P455 Fix echo parsing
;
; A015 PTM P517 Fix DIR problem with * vs *.
;
; A016 PTM P354 Fix extended error message addressing
;
; A017 PTM P448 Fix appending to 0 length files
;
; A018 PTM P566,P3903 Fix parse error messages to print out parameter
; the parser fails on. Fail on duplicate switches.
;
; A019 PTM P542 Fix device name to be printed correctly during
; critical error
;
; A020 DCR D43 Set append state off while in DIR
;
; A021 PTM P709 Fix CTTY printing ascii characters.
;
; A022 DCR D209 Enhanced error recovery
;
; A023 PTM P911 Fix ANSI.SYS IOCTL structure.
;
; A024 PTM P899 Fix EXTOPEN open modes.
;
; A025 PTM P922 Fix messages and optimize PARSE switches
;
; A026 DCR D191 Change redirection error recovery support.
;
; A027 PTM P991 Fix so that KAUTOBAT & AUTOEXEC are terminated
; with a carriage return.
;
; A028 PTM P1076 Print a blank line before printing invalid
; date and invalid time messages.
;
; A029 PTM P1084 Eliminate calls to parse_check_eol in DATE
; and TIME.
;
; A030 DCR D201 New extended attribute format.
;
; A031 PTM P1149 Fix DATE/TIME add blank before prompt.
;
; A032 PTM P931 Fix =ON, =OFF for BREAK, VERIFY, ECHO
;
; A033 PTM P1298 Fix problem with system crashes on ECHO >""
;
; A034 PTM P1387 Fix COPY D:fname+,, to work
;
; A035 PTM P1407 Fix so that >> (appending) to a device does
; do a read to determine eof.
;
; A036 PTM P1406 Use 69h instead of 44h to get volume serial
; so that ASSIGN works correctly.
;
; A037 PTM P1335 Fix COMMAND
;
; A038 PTM P1635 Fix COPY so that it doesn't accept
;
; A039 DCR D284 Change invalid code page tag from -1 to 0.
;
; A040 PTM P1787 Fix redirection to cause error when no file is
; specified.
;
; A041 PTM P1705 Close redirected files after internal APPEND
; executes.
;
; A042 PTM P1276 Fix problem of APPEND paths changes in batch
; files causing loss of batch file.
;
; A043 PTM P2208 Make sure redirection is not set up twice for
; CALL'ed batch files.
;
; A044 PTM P2315 Set switch on PARSE so that 0ah is not used
; as an end of line character
;
; A045 PTM P2560 Make sure we don't lose parse, critical error,
; and extended message pointers when we EXIT if
; COMMAND
;
; A046 PTM P2690 Change COPY message "fn File not found" to
; "File not found - fn"
;
; A047 PTM P2819 Fix transient reload prompt message
;
; A048 PTM P2824 Fix COPY path to be upper cased. This was broken
; when DBCS code was added.
;
; A049 PTM P2891 Fix PATH so that it doesn't accept extra characters
; on line.
;
; A050 PTM P3030 Fix TYPE to work properly on files > 64K
;
; A051 PTM P3011 Fix DIR header to be compatible with prior releases.
;
; A052 PTM P3063,P3228 Fix COPY message for invalid filename on target.
;
; A053 PTM P2865 Fix DIR to work in 40 column mode.
;
; A054 PTM P3407 Code reduction and critical error on single line
; PTM P3672 (Change to single parser exported under P3407)
;
; A055 PTM P3282 Reset message service variables in INT 23h to fix
; problems with breaking out of INT 24h
;
; A056 PTM P3389 Fix problem of environment overlaying transient.
;
; A057 PTM P3384 Fix COMMAND
; before the "string". EX: COMMAND
;
; A058 PTM P3493 Fix DBCS so that CPARSE eats second character of
; DBCS switch.
;
; A059 PTM P3394 Change the TIME command to right align the display of
; the time.
;
; A060 PTM P3672 Code reduction - change PARSE and EXTENDED ERROR
; messages to be disk based. Only keep them if
; is used.
;
; A061 PTM P3928 Fix so that transient doesn't reload when breaking
; out of internal commands, due to substitution blocks
; not being reset.
;
; A062 PTM P4079 Fix segment override for fetching address of environment
; of parent copy of COMMAND when no COMSPEC exists in
; secondary copy of environment. Change default slash in
; default comspec string to backslash.
;
; A063 PTM P4140 REDIRECTOR and IFSFUNC changed interface for getting
; text for critical error messages.
;
; A064 PTM P4934 Multiplex number for ANSI.SYS changed due to conflict
; 5/20/88 with Microsoft product already shipped.
;
; A065 PTM P4935 Multiplex number for SHELL changed due to conflict
; 5/20/88 with Microsoft product already shipped.
;
; A066 PTM P4961 DIR
; 5/24/88 cases; where the listing would barely fit without the
; header and space remaining.
;
; A067 PTM P5011 For
; 6/6/88 trashed. Turns out that the SETBLOCK for the new
; environment was putting a "Z block" marker in the old
; environment. The fix is to move to the old environment
; to the new environment before doing the SETBLOCK.
;
; A068 PTM P5568 IR79754 APPEND
; 09/19/88 because the check for APPEND needed to be performed
; before the DIR's findfirst.
;
; A069 PTM P5726 IR80540 COMSPEC_flag not properly initialized and
; 10/30/88 executed. Causing AUSTIN problem testing LAN/DW4 re-
; loading trans w/new comspec with no user change comspec.
;
; A070 PTM P5734 IR80484 Batch file causes sys workspace to be corrupted.
; 11/05/88 Expansion of environment variables into batch line of
; 128 chars was not being counted and "%" which should be
; ignored were being counted.
;
; A071 PTM P5854 IR82061 Invalid COMMAND.COM when Word Perfect, Prompt
; 03/02/89 used. Comspec_flag was not in protected data file be-
; ing included in checksum and was being overwritten by
; WP. Moved var from Tspc to Tdata so Trans would reload.
; Also removed fix A069 (because flag now protected).
;
; C001 VERSION 4.1 Add new internal command - SERVICE - to display the DOS
; 07/25/89 version and CSD version in U.S. date format. Files
; changed - TRANMSG,.SKL,COMMAND1,TDATA,TCMD2A,USA.MSG
;
;**********************************************
;
; Revision History
; ================
;
; M021 SR 08/23/90 Fixed Ctrl-C handler to handle Ctrl-C
; at init time (date/time prompt)
;
.xcref
.xlist
include dossym.inc ; basic DOS symbol set
include syscall.inc ; DOS function names
include comsw.asm ; build version info
include comequ.asm ; common command.com symbols
include resmsg.equ ; resident message names
include comseg.asm
.list
.cref
CODERES segment public byte
CODERES ends
DATARES segment public byte
extrn AccDen:byte
extrn Batch:word
extrn EchoFlag:byte
extrn ExeBad:byte
extrn ExecEMes:byte
extrn ExecErrSubst:byte
extrn ExtCom:byte
extrn ForFlag:byte
extrn IfFlag:byte
extrn InitFlag:BYTE
extrn Nest:word
extrn PipeFlag:byte
extrn RBadNam:byte
extrn RetCode:word
extrn SingleCom:word
extrn TooBig:byte
extrn OldDS:word
DATARES ends
INIT segment public para
extrn ConProc:near
extrn Init_Contc_SpecialCase:near
INIT ends
;*** START OF RESIDENT PORTION
CODERES segment public byte
public Ext_Exec
public ContC
public Exec_Wait
public Exec_Ret
assume cs:CODERES,ds:NOTHING,es:NOTHING,ss:NOTHING
extrn LodCom:near
extrn LodCom1:near
org 0
Zero = $
;; org 80h - 1
;;ResCom label byte
;; public ResCom
;; org 100h
public StartCode
StartCode:
;; jmp RESGROUP:ConProc
;*** EXEC error handling
;
; COMMAND has issued an EXEC system call and it has returned an error.
; We examine the error code and select an appropriate message.
; Bugbug: optimize reg usage in following code? Careful of DX!
; Condense the error scan?
; RBADNAM is checked by transient, no need here?
; Move below Ext_Exec.
Exec_Err:
;SR;
; ds,es are setup when the transient jumps to Ext_Exec. So segment regs are
;in order here
assume ds:DATARES,es:DATARES
; Bugbug: can we use byte compares here?
; Might be able to use byte msg#s, too.
; Store errors in a 3 or 4 byte table. Msg #s in another.
; Speed not high priority here.
; Move this to transient.
mov bx,offset DATARES:RBadNam
cmp al,ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND
je GotExecEMes ; bad command
mov bx,offset DATARES:TooBig
cmp al,ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY
je GotExecEMes ; file not found
mov bx,offset DATARES:ExeBad
cmp al,ERROR_BAD_FORMAT
je GotExecEMes ; bad exe file
mov bx,offset DATARES:AccDen
cmp al,ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED
je GotExecEMes ; access denied
Default_Message:
mov bx,offset DATARES:ExecEMes ; default message
mov si,offset DATARES:ExecErrSubst ; get address of subst block
GotExecEMes:
mov dx,bx ; DX = ptr to msg
invoke RPrint
jmp short NoExec
;*** EXEC call
;
; The transient has set up everything for an EXEC system call.
; For cleanliness, we issue the EXEC here in the resident
; so that we may be able to recover cleanly upon success.
;
; CS,DS,ES,SS = DATARES seg addr
Ext_Exec:
;SR;
; The words put on the stack by the stub will be popped off when we finally
;jump to LodCom ( by LodCom).
;
;; int 21h ; do the exec
Exec_Ret:
jc Exec_Err ; exec failed
; The exec has completed. Retrieve the exit code.
Exec_Wait:
mov ah,WAITPROCESS ; get errorlevel
int 21h ; get the return code
mov RetCode,ax
; See if we can reload the transient. The external command
; may have overwritten part of the transient.
NoExec:
;SR;
; ds = es = ss = DATARES when we jump to LodCom
;
jmp LodCom
;*** Int 23 (ctrl-c) handler
;
; This is the default system INT 23 handler. All processes
; (including COMMAND) get it by default. There are some
; games that are played: We ignore ^C during most of the
; INIT code. This is because we may perform an ALLOC and
; diddle the header! Also, if we are prompting for date/time
; in the init code, we are to treat ^C as empty responses.
; Bugbug: put init ctrl-c handling in init module.
;SR;
; The stub has pushed the previous ds and DATARES onto the stack. We get
;both these values off the stack now
;
ContC proc far
assume cs:CODERES,ds:NOTHING,es:NOTHING,ss:NOTHING
pop ds
assume ds:DATARES
; pop OldDS
test InitFlag,INITINIT ; in initialization?
jz NotAtInit ; no
test InitFlag,INITSPECIAL ; doing special stuff?
jz CmdIRet ; no, ignore ^C
pop ds ; restore before jumping; M021
jmp RESGROUP:Init_ContC_SpecialCase ; Yes, go handle it
CmdIret:
;SR;
; Restore ds to its previous value
;
; mov ds,OLdDS ;
pop ds
iret ; yes, ignore the ^C
NotAtInit:
test InitFlag,INITCTRLC ; are we already in a ^C?
jz NotInit ; nope too.
;* We are interrupting ourselves in this ^C handler. We need
; to set carry and return to the user sans flags only if the
; system call was a 1-12 one. Otherwise, we ignore the ^C.
cmp ah,1
jb CmdIRet
cmp ah,12
ja CmdIRet
pop ds
add sp,6 ; remove int frame
stc
; mov ds,OldDS
ret 2 ; remove those flags...
NotInit:
;* We have now received a ^C for some process (maybe ourselves
; but not at INIT).
;
; Note that we are running on the user's stack!!! Bad news if
; any of the system calls below go and issue another INT
; 24... Massive stack overflow! Another bad point is that
; SavHand will save an already saved handle, thus losing a
; possible redirection...
;
; All we need to do is set the flag to indicate nested ^C.
; The above code will correctly flag the ^C diring the
; message output and prompting while ignoring the ^C the rest
; of the time.
;
; Clean up: flush disk. If we are in the middle of a batch
; file, we ask if he wants to terminate it. If he does, then
; we turn off all internal flags and let the DOS abort.
or InitFlag,INITCTRLC ; nested ^c is on
sti
;; push cs ; el yucko! change the user's ds!!
;; pop ds
;; assume ds:RESGROUP
pop ax
mov ax,SingleCom
or ax,ax
jnz NoReset
push ax
mov ah,DISK_RESET
int 21h ; reset disks in case files were open
pop ax
NoReset:
; In the generalized version of FOR, PIPE and BATCH, we would
; walk the entire active list and free each segment. Here,
; we just free the single batch segment.
test Batch,-1
jz ContCTerm
or ax,ax
jnz ContCTerm
invoke SavHand
invoke AskEnd ; ask if user wants to end batch
; If the carry flag is clear, we do NOT free up the batch file
jnc ContBatch
mov cl,EchoFlag ; get current echo flag
push bx
ClearBatch:
mov es,Batch ; get batch segment
mov di,BatFile ; get offset of batch file name
; Bugbug: verify the following shell interface still works
;; mov ax,MULT_SHELL_BRK ; does the SHELL want this terminated?
;; int 2Fh ; call the SHELL
;; cmp al,SHELL_ACTION ; does shell want this batch?
;; je Shell_Bat_Cont ; yes - keep it
mov bx,es:BatForPtr ; get old FOR segment
cmp bx,0 ; is a FOR in progress
je no_bat_for ; no - don't deallocate
push es ;
mov es,bx ; yes - free it up...
mov ah,DEALLOC ;
int 21h ;
pop es ; restore to batch segment
No_Bat_For:
mov cl,es:BatEchoFlag ; get old echo flag
mov bx,es:BatLast ; get old batch segment
mov ah,DEALLOC ; free it up...
int 21h
mov Batch,bx ; get ready to deallocate next batch
dec nest ; is there another batch file?
jnz ClearBatch ; keep going until no batch file
; We are terminating a batch file; restore the echo status
Shell_Bat_Cont: ; continue batch for SHELL
pop bx
mov EchoFlag,cl ; reset echo status
mov PipeFlag,0 ; turn off pipeflag
ContBatch:
invoke Crlf ; print out crlf before returning
invoke RestHand
; Yes, we are terminating. Turn off flags and allow the DOS to abort.
ContCTerm:
xor ax,ax ; indicate no read
mov bp,ax
; The following resetting of the state flags is good for the
; generalized batch processing.
mov IfFlag,al ; turn off iffing
mov ForFlag,al ; turn off for processing
call ResPipeOff
cmp SingleCom,ax ; see if we need to set singlecom
jz NoSetSing
mov SingleCom,-1 ; cause termination on
; pipe, batch, for
NoSetSing:
; If we are doing an internal command, go through the reload process.
; If we are doing an external, let DOS abort the process.
; In both cases, we are now done with the ^C processing.
and InitFlag,not INITCTRLC
cmp ExtCom,al
jnz DoDAb ; internal ^c
jmp LodCom1
DoDAb:
stc ; tell dos to abort
;SR;
;We dont need to restore ds here because we are forcing DOS to do an abort
;by setting carry and leaving flags on the stack
;
ret ; Leave flags on stack
ContC endp
;SR;
; ds = DATARES on entry. This routine is called from DskErr and LodCom1 and
;both have ds = DATARES
;
ResPipeOff:
public ResPipeOff
assume ds:DATARES,es:NOTHING
savereg
xor ax,ax
xchg PipeFlag,al
or al,al
jz NoPipePop
shr EchoFlag,1
NoPipePop:
restorereg
return
CODERES ends
end
Copyright law doesn't cover use. It covers copying.
Anything that I buy I can use for whatever purpose I want (as long as its legal) without getting permission from the author. A licence isn't neccesary to enforce copyright. Redistribution of copies is still illegal even if you own a copy.
For example, I have a book here. I don't have a licence to read the book. I can use the book for any legal purpose I want. I can't copy it. I can't use it as a murder weapon. I have a music CD. It contains a copy of the music. I don't have a licence to listen to the CD. I have the right to listen to the CD. I have a computer game CD. Not a licence. I have a copy of Linux. I rejected the GPL. I still own a copy I just can't redistribute it. I don't have a copy of Windows. Despite the fact that this CD that I legally bought has a copy of Windows 95 on it. I have a licnce to use it. Spot the anomoly.
Dyolf Knip
Dyolf Knip
Why should it be any different when it comes to CDs/movies/software than it is with books/mags?
I agree with your point, but you must admit that it is much easier to make a copy of a CD or software than it is to copy a book.
I don't think software has become so expensive, but that less comes with it anymore. It used to be that when you bought software, you would get a semi-useful manual that you could learn from, and you would get some support in case you had trouble.
That's the only reason that I've ever bought software, even if it was shareware or legally free software. Case in point: I had the download version of WordPerfect 8 for Linux for quite a few months before I finally bought a boxed version from Sam's Club. I certainly could have not paid for it, but I wouldn't have a backup copy of it on cd(no CDR yet), the 700+ page manual is actually useful, and the price wasn't outrageous.
Why don't they just realize that it is the corporation's greed that is turning people into pirates? If they actually produced a quality product at a good price, only the hardcore 'I don't pay for software no matter the price' types would still be pirating it. Unfortunately, many people just see the internet as an amplifier for this greed, and that just sickens me.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
MICROSOFT: Um, Mr. Derivative, there seems to be a problem with your purchase of Windows 2000....
ME: What do you mean?
MS: Well, it's the check you wrote to pay for your software rental.
ME: What's the problem?
MS: Well, you didn't sign it.
ME: Oh, that's just part of my EULA.
MS: (confused) Huh?
ME: It's a policy I've taken to prevent counterfeiting US currency. If I don't sign my checks, that prevents cash pirates from copying it and cashing it for themselves.
MS: But *we* can't use it if it isn't signed, sir.
ME: Didn't you read paragraph 83, section 7(b), subsection 2(iii), line 18 of the EULA? It's microprinted on the back of the check, by the way. I didn't sell you my money. You're leasing it from me.
MS: But it's *our* money now!
ME: (triumphant) EULA!
MS: How are we supposed to cash your check if it isn't signed?
ME: You aren't allowed to redistribute the check! I own it!
MS: But you *gave* it to us!
ME: *Leased* it to you. You know, it's people like you who forced me to put that clause in the EULA to begin with.
MS: We didn't agree to your EULA!
ME: Yes you did. Paragraph 34, section 8(c), subsection 9(i), line 109, clearly states that your even looking at the check is an implicit agreement to all the terms of the EULA. Furthermore....
MS: ENOUGH! Give us that OEM CD back!
ME: I can't. Your EULA said I can redistribute it to anyone.
MS: But we're Microsoft!
ME: *Anybody.*
MS: Fine! See if we let you buy our software anymore!
ME: I thought you leased it.
MS: That's what I meant!
ME: Either way, I'll just get a copy from my friend.
MS: That's illegal!
ME: No it isn't. It's a Linux disk.
MS: (hangs up)
--
The real Captain Derivative has a Slashdot ID.
This is one of those things that pushed me and a LOT of other people away from proprietary Unix and proprietary Unix software a long time ago, wasting all that time tending to stupid license managers and expiring license files. Win/Mac users would (rightfully) point out to me that this was a big waste of time compared to the simplicity of installing shrinkwrapped win/mac software and typing in a serial number. Of course, my solution to this problem was to ditch proprietary software altogether.
I remember to mention this when we were discussing about the Kerberos "enhancement" in Win2000: I think we should have some sort of "Federal Software Commision" to regulate and force the software industry to follow certain quality rules, provide warranty and support for the product for a minimum of years, etc.
---
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Despite what the Infoworld article claims, this only applies to Windows 2000, not "all versions of Windows except for the Server Edition of Windows 2000."
My new home PC probably has a real Windows 98 SE CD-ROM. Our new W2K systems in the office have no CD-ROMs.
I love this from a Microsoft rep: "This change is based on feedback from end-user customers"; yeah, I'll just bet end-users were complaining about it being too easy to reinstall Windows.-(
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I was nodding my head right along until I got to your solution, I'm afraid.
The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.
I disagree. The failure is not insufficient government regulation of the software industry. The failure is too much regulation of the software industry -- via copyright.
Remove copyright -- an artifical, government-granted monopoly -- from the equation, and everything falls into place. Copyright is what gives these companies the "right" to sell these licenses to individuals. It's time to recognize that copyright is obsolete, and move on -- find NEW revenue models. The chairman of Adobe is right that it will be incovient to have songs you can only listen to on one walkman (or worse, pay for everytime you listen to it). But what he fails to see is that people won't stand for it. We rebelled against too much copy-protection in the '80s, and we will again, but this time it'll be with Free Software, and our friends in the software industry will be fucked. Good riddence.
Sorry I'm towing the copyleft-radical party line, but that's the way I feel. I hate government, and copyright is part of that.
Luke
P.S.: And don't give me that crap "Yeah, but the GPL wouldn't be valid if we didn't have copyright!" Whatever. The GPL is only the way it is to emulate not having copyright. Once it is gone, we won't need the GPL anymore...
If you install Linux on such a computer, say, and then something goes wrong with Windows later so you need to use the Rescue disk & you lose everything you had on the Linux partition: aren't there laws that (even though a contract says otherwise) protect you from that? Car manufacturers can't have contracts saying "any damage involved using this car is not the responsibility of Ford" for example, so how come Microsoft can?
It's important to remember that we live in a capitalist society and money can find another outlet.
Part of the reason Microsoft has any competition at all is due to the growing number of customers who do not appreciate either the quality of Microsoft's product or Microsoft's tyrannical corporate culture.
As Microsoft's explotation of it's customers increases, they will begin to push more people out of the MS fold and into alternitives. Once an average user gets burnt by a copyrighted version of MSWord, a Corel product will suddenly have a bit more appeal.
Abuse of customers leads to the creation of Alternatives. Look at the artificialy elevated price of CD's and the emergence of Napster. Consumer's will find a better deal if you fleece them too much.
Let Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot and all hail copy protection! One reason Linux is getting so much press now days is simply because people are finally getting fed up with MS. Microsoft is simply adding more fuel to a fire which is finally starting to burn them.
Granted that Microsoft--and a host of other "bully" software companies/markets--may actually implement this communistic-computing system (which grants corporate control over the end-users themselves), without inspiring some form of L.A.-style riots, what do they seek to gain? (Besides an all-access pass into the pocketbooks of America--wait, did I say America? How little-minded of me!)
I guess they are playing their hand on the fact that, as typical human beings, we tend to follow like sheep (or, more appropriately, lambs to the slaughter). However, as history suggests, we will only swallow so much before we incite change. I surmise that it will only take months before parties of face-painted individuals start tossing boxes of Windows 2k out of stores and into the Pudget Sound in some form of a Bellvue Tea Party.
I honestly hope that Microsoft chokes on this decision and its potential aftermath. People will not pay to rent software to operate a piece of machinery they own--and those that will are already used to the idea that they own nothing, and some larger force owns it for them (benevolenty allowing said person to use it in return for monetary compensation). And you think I was so far off with the 'communist' statement.
Suddenly Linux looks more attractive than I had originally thought.
-=:{(~)}:=-
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
Think about it.
A content public is too complacent to take action. What open source needs exactly this kind of action from big software companies--restrictive, ridiculous extortion. The more the better.
Take a look at history. Every mass revolution has taken place not out of ideology, but because people were dissatisfied. Like or not, it's going to take a lot of motivation to convince the public to switch from Windows/Office to some difficult-to-use, complex Linux system, and that kind of motivation is never going to come from the open source community.
So let them bring on the BSA scare tactics! Let's have software rented by the month! Draconian software licenses! The more the better, because the more they sqeeze, the more people are going to turn to other solutions, and that's exactly what we want.
When you buy Windows you can use it w/o having to agree to the license (although you're on your own as far as installing it goes)
That's why I have my thirteen-year-old cousin install it for me (breaking both the shrinkwrap and the clickwrap). I'd like to see 'em try to enforce a contract against a minor.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Seems to me that this will make people more likely to try out other operating systems, when their copy of Windows gets screwed up, or their hard drive fails, since they will have no way of going back...
--Arcum
Microsoft has behaved like a textbook monopoly with regards to how they distribute Windows:
First you flood the market.
Then you restrict distribution.
Early versions of Windows (pre-95) were practically given away. And who can forget the absurd promotion of the release of Win 95?
Now go down to CompUSA and try to buy a full-blown copy of Win 98 (or W2K). The best you can do is the "Windows 98 Upgrade", which is totally useless for most purposes.
If you are a scratch-builder, or want to dual-boot, you're out of luck.
The good news is that even CompUSA (which recently sold its soul to MS) carries a half dozen different Linux distributions.
And people can come in and steal the codes. Not to mention, Lan games should be easier to setup and run by players. For example UT has become the most popular since it has the most flexibility. The people can't even get a damn q3 game going. And not to mention Ive taken it off because I already saw one of them trying to steal my codes.
It'll seem small at first. A few articles in the newspaper, your computer illiterate friends actually making intelligent comments about how much big computer companies are cheating them instead of going along with the latest TV opinions. But it'll get bigger, just like similar changes in other industries.
Prices will still be high, but at least you'll get somthing for your money. Commercial software will, like cars, be expensive but functional.
Then free software will take over the market. But until then, watch for stages of the cycle described above.
it's green.
You make a good point. I was more pirate friendly until I started thinking along those lines myself. Piracy actually takes away the ability of other companies to compete to make a better product or charge less. If people say it's too much to pay, but then pirate it and use it anyway, other software platforms are the real losers. The Wintel monopoly wouldn't exist anyway if it hadn't been for IBM clones and people pirating DOS and Windows.
It also hurts the movement towards open standards. Is there a completely non-proprietary format out there for word processed documents? A lot of the Word documents floating around out there could have been done in rich text, but I'd prefer it if there was an open standard like HTML to create documents and spreadsheets in.
The company that I work for at present has tried to maintain MS Office 95 as their standard office suite. Slowly it is being chiseled away at by demand for Office 97. It starts with people who claim they need to work with documents from outside the company. And then they thoughtlessly create documents in 97 format and email them out to 20 people inside the company. Those 20 then claim that they can't do their jobs unless they are upgraded to 97. You can try to reason with them, but it is hard to overcome the mentality. Most of them are using Office 97 at home (they probably pirated it), they like it better, or they just feel like they are being cheated because they don't have the newest software. Every day I get asked by users why they can't be upgraded to Office 97, or why the company standard is not Office 97 or Office 2K not the company standard.
What they think they are missing I don't know. Most of them barely know how to use what they have. I've seen the work that most of these people do. It could be done with a 15 year old word processor. And most of them only spend a portion of their day in front of their pc anyway. I am constantly wondering how much product we have to sell to buy a license (we actually pay for the Office2K licenses)so that someone can hack out a memo once or twice a week (or less). I'm convinced that most of them only need Word and Excel readers, but that will not answer, politics being what they are.
They don't even consider the logistics of a wholesale upgrade of 1000 users (the cost and time involved). Most of them consider M$ the defacto standard and act as though the IS department is impeding business by not granting them the latest software. It's actually a management decision. The President asked our manager to submit a report on the cost of upgrading the whole company to Win2K/Office2K. He did, and he hasn't heard from him since on the issue.
Well, I've droned on too long already.
-tta
Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so.
Huh? Do you have some data to back that up?
A LOT of individuals bought PCs, Macs, Amigas, Ataris, Pets,TR-80s and so on up to 20 yrs ago. And bought software. Maybe MORE than now, because the machines didn't come with a few CDs filled with programs.
I guess nothing exists beyond when YOU started using computers?
phhhffftttt.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
so its my fault that adobe charges $500+ for their software? or how about any other "high end" software? i saw an autodesk ad in a 3d magazine that simply stated "please dont pirate our software" it didnt even say what they sold.
if they dont want me to pirate their software, sell it at a reasonable price
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Bill Gates (money for short) is trying to extract every penny out of your wallet he can. Fight back now. BSD, Linux, even MacOS. If you want DOS apps, try Lineo DR Dos. If you want windows, dig out an old ver, just don't pay for any new software from M$. If you get a new PC, try to get it without an OS. Install Linux, BSD, your old ver of windoze. as long as you aren't paying tithe to Money, it doesn't matter what you do. Anything has to be better than "renting" software and not getting to keep it. Consider this:If you rent and are forced into an upgrade cycle, they can make the software as buggy as they want. Why? Because they'll make you delete off the old version of windows when they produce an "upgrade". When your hardware gets too old to run their new version of windows, you're royally screwed. Even if there is a split, it's doubtful that the tactics will stop. Show them who really needs who.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
All concerts (including those that aren't) are promoted and run by Ticketmaster and the recording industry. Just as evil, if not more.. TM has a crazy-ass monopoly.
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
more like in any society to which you actually have to pay money(gasp!) to recieve a product.
the amount of money or availability have nothing to do with it(seeing that both issues are relative to each consumer)
amazing..isn't it...
As for us to blame, it's your fault. Have you checked the prices of your software lately? For an NT server setup, $500. I've heard of paying $500 for Adobe software. Honestly, if you were an average consumer, could you afford this easily? It's your fault for your greed. You're just mad at us because you got burned. It's like the MP3 issue. If you price CDs more fairly, they'll stop pirating them as much!!! Adobe fotoshop is one of the most exorbriantly priced products, with NT coming in a close second. I can get a Linuxmall CD for around $3 plus postage that has all the software I need to become a web server that is much more secure, stable and even easier to set up. The GIMP is a replacment for fotoshop, and has features that are nearly the exact same as fotoshop, and I get it for free. (C) 2000 Mr Roboto enterprises, All rights reserved. If you think you can copy this without permission try. I'll sue and you'll loose big! J/K
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
I couldn't agree more. Companies that thought that they had monopoly power in the tech market, and tried to leverage it, have usually fallen rather irrvocably.
It makes me wonder if breaking M$ into 2 companies that are (at least somewhat) competitive isn't helping them survive and prosper.
There is no spoon
No matter what I said, they didn't seem to realize what was happening with this. I was accused of being 'out to get' M$ (which I am, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong) and I wonder what it will take before people realize what is happening.
One of the interesting things about this is that my mom said if it is really this bad, people just won't buy M$ products out there. It has to start somewhere, and my parents aren't going to be the place to start. Think I'll buy Penguin Computing/VA Linux computers instead of Dell now...-Elendale (that wasn't too bad...)
Ack! I can't resist! This sucks. Really, really badly. As one who frequently dual-boots (required for me unfortunately) this is the end of my Windows upgrading. No longer will my computer come with the latest version (admittedly, not free) but any new 'breaking of software' that happens will cause me great trouble. I might end up protesting even if i'm all alone!IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Yes, let them do it, so that, as John E. Warnock, the chairman and chief executive of Adobe Systems said : "You're going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
One word : GREAT !
This way, closed software will simply DISAPPEAR, because much much more inconvenient.
That's all.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
-Elendale (remember now, when you step up to vote: Vote Elendale!)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Many people are commenting on the possibility of lisencing hardware. With this new Windows lisencing this is already happening whether hardware companies want it to or not. Since the OS will only "re-install" on the exact machine it was shipped with then if you upgrade or even replace a broken part with a superior one you won't be able to recover from the inevietability of Windose (Let's face it there is no way that it won't crash). Hopefully hardware vendors will help us out with this one.
It's amazing how spiritual an elaborated beer commercial can be. -- Philip K. Dick
This has definatly put me off MICROS~1 (as if I haven't been put off already). But now I wouldn't even consider buying a PC that's preinstalled with Windows. I've been considering buying a brand new PC lately, and although my current computer is totally Linux-Mandrake, I was willing to give Win2K a try. How can you argue with a mouse pointer that casts a shadow? But this has changed my mind. When I get a new PC, I'm just getting the hardware, and installing an OS I have complete control over. Microsoft show no signs of discontinuing the trend of treating customers and users like shit. As far as I'm concerned, I have the right to own the software that makes MY comptuer run. It's all a move towards a world where we own nothing, we're all just purchasing-slaves to the companies.
I remember my old 8-bit Amstrad CPC computer. I don't remember reading any licening agreements on its software. As far as I was aware, I had the disc with the software on it, hence I owned the software. I could do what I wanted with it. It was mine. Now that whole pretty basic concept has gone out the window (pun!).
The arguement by some po$ter$ that this is just typical commie-pinko-slashdot-pro-piracy-whinging is rubbish. I buy all the software I can afford to, and after that point I would own no more, if copying software did not exist. For instance, when I ran Win95, I could not afford to purchase Office. That simple. I'm a student, I had no money to pay that much for a word processor, so I could not have bought it. If it were not for me borrowing a copy off someone else to install I probably would have been typing up my reports in Write. Point: Piracy rarely stops software purchase, rather it allows people who couldn't afford to buy the product in the first place (ie. non-customers) to use it. Just like MP3s don't stop people buying CDs. I spend loads of money on CDs...a significant proportion of my income. What can I say, I'm a music addict. One of the reasons I still live at home and don't own A car I guess. In any case, I also download loads of MP3s off the internet. But it's never stopped me buying a CD because I spend all I CAN on CDs then fulfil the rest of my music needs with MP3s. Umm this has kind of gone way off topic now, so I'll end rant here.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
Actually production costs probably equate to most minor releases because she doesn't pay for studio time, is her own sound engineer and producer and works in the field of sound design and has access to copying facilities. What people pay for is the time and effort she has put into creating the music and the many long nights playing live and practicing, not to mention the weeks spent in a studio recording and engineering whilst holding down a full time job.
Working for the (other) man
Networking: DECnet was way ahead. That was developed and extended way before companies like Novell even existed and made networks popular. They lost out to tcp/ip due to (once again) stuberness. Neverless DECnet was early and superb.
Clustering. From the mid/late 80s you could just stick a few VAXes together via a part that virtually was unbreakable (starcoupler). The magic relied entirely on the software. A cluster was completely transparent to the users. You just connected to the cluster and you where assigned a session on the node with the least load. When I see what HP is doing now with Metroclusters (Year 2000 AD) the comparision comes up between a Nokia 8210 cell phone and a phone system made out of two tin cans and a thread.
There are other examples, but in a nutshell I'd blame the breakdown on:Almost religious fanatism engineering wise
Not listening to the market
Being true visionaries until middle/end 80s and then getting fat, lazy and arrogant
Missing very vital developments (PC, U*X, Work Stations, tcp/ip, etc..) and then doing to little too late
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
question:
If I buy a book and it's falling apart at the bindings, can I copy the text of that book onto a CD?
If so, can I then sell the CD in stead of the book (or with the book) because I bought the copy and the only way I or anyone else can still use the information within is off of the CD?
I seem to run into doubts about the book model when I think of the information in a digital format. Is this common sense kicking in or is it an oppinion based on copyright holders who try to get the most from the consumer while giving as little in return as possible.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
No question about the fact that the q3 key prevents a lot of ppl of ripping the game.. but saying that this protection is full proof.. no way ID is getting to much confidence lately.. just look at the sequel of doom (3), there is just one doom, with sprites as monsters and blue and red keys.. anyway.. there is already a crack on the internet so you can play q3 anytime.. not on pure servers though but who cares about that.. the hack changes your own pc in a id-check-pass-here-server... perhaps do something about that your own attitude to the gaming world.. games like q3, doom 2 suck.. coz it just can't live up the expectations of the ppl who playd the previous versions of the game... trying somthing new these day's seems to be very hard for software companies.. just trying to get every penny from a previous hit.. and that sux.. where is the inovation, creativity etc..?
FDLFBMS Friends Don't Let Freinds Buy MicroSoft
--
This is true! (and couldve used some more up-moderation) Such a shame, when I miss a "hot" story one day when I am not at my computer. Anyways - I DO have a Compaq, and their recovery CD - and I WAS able to replace/repartition the HDD to dual-boot Linux (RH5.2, awhile ago). My comment is - this may not be as "horrible" as it sounds. Yes, it will allow more "lemons" (and then laws will eventually get passed by real people forcing the votes) - but a "good" company will still be able to do business effectively. Would I buy another Compaq? I don't know, but this scenario is not as "terrible" as it sounds. Would I "sign up" for the ability to affect my representatives' votes on this issue? Yes. Do I already vote? Yes. Since this article is dead (one day old, already) I'll stop here, but I just wanted to say - DITTO (to the title)! :)
We could take the other view of corporations as moral persons and enforce their responsibilities as such.
Do they have the death penalty in WA?
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
Regarding copy protection, many game CD's are.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
At first, when I read this ranthread, I thought that my long held theory that software houses actually need piracy to prosper was proven wrong. But then, I came to my senses.
I was thinking something along these lines:
1. What makes software such as an OS or office suite valuable? One answer; ubiquitiousness. In econospeak, network effects. Like a telephone or email, the utility of the application/OS increases nonlinearly the more people use it.
2. How does a firm get past those awkward years when the network effects of their software are negligble, until they can really start to rake in some dough? Simple, give it away to build market share.
3. How does a firm buy caffienated drinks for its minions when it is giving away its software? Well, you charge the customers who can afford it.
4. The customers who can afford it, got that way by being shrewd negotiators, if they see you giving it away, they will demand it for free to, right? Yes, so you make it so that it is illegal to obtain the software for free, but that it is only worth it to enforce that law when a customer is a certain $ize. That way, judgement proof customers basically get the stuff for free, building a user base, until they get big enough to afford it, then they have to pay. The big guys subsidize the little guys who are getting a free ride (or at least that is what they would like you to think)
5. Now, technology allows you unbundle each and every bit of value your software provides to not only the big firms, but each individual little user as well. You already know what the market price of the software is for "licensed" users (non-judgement proof) and because you are a monopoly (don't take my word for it) your pricing has nothing to do with the actual cost of making the product. Now you can go after all the little guys for whatever you figure they will pay for each bit of value that the software provides, and since it comes installed on the machine (Free!, Like Shareware!) They will happily fork over the small amount that you ask for. Maximum profits accrue to the firm that can wring the most money out of each market segment, just ask the airlines 'bout coach, first class, etc.
Does this bring down the cost of software for everyone? Not if we are on a monopoly pricing curve.
What does it all mean? I am not sure. This whole thing justcameoutkindoffinnegan'swakish, I haven't really thought it out yet.
What really irks me is that I think the answer lies either in copyright or contract, and that teh two should be mutually exclusive. In other words, you don't go to jail for violating a contract, and conversely, there should be no contractual modification of fair use or first sale doctrines.
----enough already ---------------
Where do you get *your* entropy?
There's a serious product liability issue here, as well.
Speaking from the UK perspective, the UCITRA passing into law would have had me ordering a rifle by mail-order and looking for a handy book depository to perch on.
Those EULA, Shrink-wrap, click "I agree" widgets and so on have always been at best doubtful to incorporate disclaimers and terms between a software company and a business end user and - what with the Unfair Contract Terms Act - totally useless as regards the consumer here in the UK in so far as the manufacturer couldn't persuade a judge that they were fair and reasonable.
Which, frankly, they mostly ain't. There's usually a clause in there that states that the software is supplied "as is" and as such the manufacturer, supplier or what-have-you cannot be liable in any way, shape or form for the product's failure to perform as advertised or, indeed, at all. As it happens, it's more or less completely impossible to rely in a UK court on a term that excludes your liability to actually perform on your contract (which, at the end of the day, is to deliver working software).
Not that it makes a blind bit of difference: most of the customers don't sue anyway.
I have been perennially annoyed by the willingness of clients to simply grin and eat excrement when supplied with lousy software. I have a client now on the brink of taking a supplier to court after eighteen months of misery for their stock-control, accounting and payroll department.
Had I been supplied with the dreck they got for somewere north of four grand - and this is four grand sterling, mind, not your johnny foreigner funny-money - I would have been round the manufacturer's premises frothing at the mouth and calling their MD out to give satisfaction at dawn.
My client, on the other hand, ran its business on spit and string for the last quarter of 1999 and the whole of 2000, after having done without computerised stock control - which they'd paid for! - since March 1998.
Only now do they decide to come to me, having thrown another couple of grand down the u-bend on trying to sort the mess out. And they wouldn't have done that if the supplier's proposed settlement was simply to sell them a different system at a slight discount.
Naturally, I shall be taking that "software supplied as is" clause and ramming it where it'll do some good, but it no longer surprises me that the software-selling community gets unbelievably arrogant with its customers.
The moral? If you behave like a serf, you shouldn't be surprised if you get kicked like one.
AndrewD-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.