Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs. "Naked PCs"
alecto writes: "The Naked PC page directed at independent computer shops compares selling PC's without an operating system with "selling a house without a roof." It also implies that the dealer knows "full well" the buyer's just going to install an infringing copy of Windows -- and that they should "politely decline" to sell a machine without an OS. The just-below-the-surface message is that dealers could be liable for infringement if a customer buys a "naked" machine from them and subsequently installs an infringing copy of Windows. (Nowhere in the text is the possibility that the customer might want to install a legal, free operating system mentioned.)" It's very much a salesmen type help piece, but it's a pretty funny read. The most amusing comment is that they say "tell them that you're best equipped to install the OS." I'm kinda curious, who keeps the default install? I mean, even if it's Windows, I always had to reinstall just to make it functional anyway. Maybe that's changed, but I still hear that solution in a context that makes it sound like conventional wisdom.
This would have been my interpretation as well, but now I wonder. Why can't you have more than one copy installed, if the only issue in installing and running a copy is that it creates some sort of derivative copy (on the hard disk or in memory respectively)? If copyright law allows me to create all the copies of the Windows CD contents I like so long as I don't distribute them, how is it any different when I install it onto multiple hard drives, or simultaneously boot several computers with it? The latter can perhaps be covered by the shaky shrinkwrap/clickwrap EULA's contractual licence, but what of the former case of mere multiple installation? I see no "distribution" there.
Not that I've ever bought a copy of Windows, of course - or ever will. That's what Unix and the Mac OS are for.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
from what I hear, speaking English is illegal in France.
.
Then again, lot's of things in France are naughty. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
When I worked in a local computer store near a huge college, we did the same thing. We routinly sold systems with no OS, and were very friendly to Linux people (ok, I was, but I was the sales rep everyone got referred to when they said "linux")
Bottom line, if the computer store isn't willing to give you what you want (ie computer without windows) then don't give them your business. Too many of the stores that will follow this article's advice exist only to fleece people and prey on the computer illiterate anyway. Look for the store that caters to the 'computer savvy' crowd.
Finkployd
It's possible that the original MB is no longer available, and they'll have to give me one that may accept more CPUs, have a faster IDE controller, better video, etc. This is rare but certainly could happen with the little "screwdriver shops" that use off the shelf parts.
Having worked tech support for three years for a major OEM (think cow spots), I can tell you that this DOES happen and it's NOT rare.
You could try this:
You: I'd like a computer. Full tower case, dual 1Ghz Intel Xeon processors, Four 72-gig disks, two pairs both in a mirrored RAID on an Adaptec controller, Gigabyte MX-2TS motherboard, 1Gb RAM, SB Live platinum sound card and a Creative 3D blaster GeForce GTS II video card.
Them: Okay, $10,000 so far. Do you want Windows with that?
You: Is it free?
Them: No, but we're best equipped to install and OS for you!
You: Ah, so I should take the components home, build a computer, bring it in here, pay you to install an OS I don't want, go back home and reformat the hard disk?
Them: Well, uh...
You: The shop down the street offered me the same parts for $8,000.
Or alternatively, you could take this approach:
You: I'd like a computer.
Them: Do you want Windows 98 with that?
You: Why would I want Windows 98? Windows Millenium Edition will be out in a few weeks anyway, I may as well wait. We both know the upgrade will be outragously expensive.
Or another option would be:
You: I want a computer.
Them: Do you want Windows 98?
You: If I do, I'll install it myself.
Them: But we are highly experienced! We know all about how best to install Windows for you!
You: I see. Which card games do I not want installed?
Them: Um... Solitaire?
You: No, hearts and Freecell.
Or...
You: I'd like to buy a computer, please.
Them: That'll be $3,500 plus $70 for a copy of Windows 98.
You: If I want Windows, I'll install it myself, thaks.
Them: But we are highly experienced and knowledgable about computer-related matters!
You: Can you convert the binary 1011 into hex in your head?
Them: No, can you?
You: Sure. You multiply the first digit by 8, giving you 8, then the second by 4 giving you 0 and the third by 2 giving you 2 and the fourth by 1, giving you 1. Add them all together and you have eleven decimal, which we all know converts to B in hexadecimal. Doesn't everyone know that?
Them: Um...
I'm sure you can think of a few alternatives too.
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
I can remember laughing at this a year or two ago; the "naked PC" page is ancient, and certainly predates the no-OEM-CD policy. That's why they don't agree - 'nuf said.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the blatant proganda, the no-CD policy, or the overall absurdity of "you have to buy this from us to buy a PC, only we're not even willing to actually sell it to you because we're afraid of what you might do with it". But what do you seriously expect from this company? The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
> Still, if M$ actually had a monopole then they wouldn't need to mess
(I'll bite) Well, I know for sure that Bill Gates alone has a couple tens of kilograms worth of (electric) monopoles, that is protons and electrons.
(Side note, is it a marginal phonomenon or is the general "Slashdot community" trying to piss off all the non American/non native english speaker in there with spelling and related stuff?)
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Under normal circumstances, there would be a difference.
But nowadays, the corporations are all trying to get the legal system to play along. Thus, we have things like the DMCA, which bans copy-protection-circumvention devices based on presumption of guilt (never mind the many legitimate uses of such devices).
----------
Since when is the Win98 CD I got with my computer "promotional"? Besides, a company can't override the law of first sale with disclaimers like that. The court case over the $1 book ("this book is not to be resold for less than $1...") proved that.
You know very well that the only reason that people would want to buy self-service gas is so they can use illegal slave labor to fill their tanks.
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right? Since Linux runs better on less hardware, it goes on the older systems.
You'd think Microsoft would like your pc naked, just makes it easier for them to rape you.
Microsoft is too big for itself, but you know this. If they had clue one, they might realize that some people already own MS Windows 9x, and are, in fact, replacing an older computer that they no longer want or use.
Go Lakers!
The interesting thing to think about here is the mindframe Microsoft seems to be exibiting.
I mean, damn, exactly how anti-competative do you have to be to think that every PC will end up with your product on it???
This isn't even smart megalomania, and that's the sad part...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I'm wondering about Beon machines; those are pretty chic systems, but do they deserve the derisive term, "Pee-on"? Or are they Linux friendly?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Most people cannot separate the monitor from the computer. Ask them what kind of computer they have and they're just as likely to give you the brand name of the monitor. They have no awareness of the box below it (or if they have a tower, the one at their feet). They call the big box with all the hardware in it the "hard drive" if they're tech savvy. If they're really tech savvy, they call it the "CPU." The cup-holder joke may be an urban myth, but for crying out loud it just isn't that far from the truth.
of course I've also noticed a large portion of the population doesn't seem to be aware that there is a third dimension . . .
I find this Insightful as well as Funny, because it's just another example of the myth that Microsoft is good at marketing. They're not - in fact they're abysmally bad at it, and the only things they've been good at are bullying and impossible chutzpah (even that could probably have been done more competently).
It seems that people want to believe that Microsoft are good at *something*, because otherwise why would they have all that money and sales? The truth, that they've been blindly lucky in a chaotic market environment that they don't understand at all, is harder to stomach.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
What if some of us don't want your Free OS installed on there? Maybe we want BeOS? Maybe we want Windows 2000?
Here's a silly question, how many major Linux based computer companies sell Linux for free with their systems? Last time I checked, a lot of companies bundled retail Redhat boxes with their systems, which means your OS isn't so "Free"
This is the discussion that goes: Is a person with an artificial heart still a person? Is a person with an artificial limb still a person? Artificial kidney (dialysis)? Artificial eye? Brain?
In my mind I've been using the same "computer" for ten years. I never replace more than 5% of the computer at a time, so it never becomes a new computer. I distinguish my computer from other computers by its "personality": directory structure, user names, UI skins, shell scripts, etc.
I don't expect MS or laywers to recognize this sentimental/philosophical point. As computing resources become more swappable and more portable, the philosophy is going to start edging into the business world. Licensing software for "one computer" is a wierd concept in a world where a computer is a collection of flash rams, URL's for resources stored on the net, pluggable IO devices, etc. If you use a laptop, 50% of your computer's hardware is probably modular: you can remove the CD/DVD drive, battery, USB external keyboard and mouse, external monitor, PCMCIA cards, and flash rams. With more people moving towards regular permanant storage of data on the web (ie. all of my e-mail sits in a web mail account and many of my files on a university server) and computers becoming completely modular (my Mac and PC share all of their USB devices), I'm not so sure a computer is something you can point at, pick up, and lug down the stairs. It is more of a concept.
-m
There's two possible motives for that... covering their butt in a legal sense, or actually trying to protect the consumer. Which one do you think it is?
--
Merely finding OSTDs at a (significantly) higher rate in the Linux group would establish a correlative link, but not a causational one. Kudos for the circular logic FUD use of "high-risk group" at the end of the first paragraph, though - just like a real press release in the statistical social sciences.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
I bought my PC from Gateway three years ago. So the experience for a new buyer might be different. But my experience dealing with sales and service were great. They had it shipped to a friend in WI to avoid the sales tax in MN. They made me a damn-near custom machine with a SCSI hd, SCSI CD, low-end processor, and no monitor for no added cost. They upgraded a graphics card that didn't have a Linux driver available and paid ME since the price of the system had gone down (my sales guy alerted me to this). They replaced the CD three times until I got one that worked. And they replaced my hd by sending me a new one overnight. They did everything I asked and more.
The hardware failures were just bad luck and I don't blame Gateway. And even though it took some time on the phone, they allways came through. And they weren't fazed by my having Linux installed (remember that was three years ago).
I'll buy there again, which is about as much praise as you can give to an OEM.
Why shouldn't we expect them to admit that? Why should consumers, or in this case, computer sellers, be threatened by Microsoft because Microsoft's marketing (and management) people are deluded?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Your argument overlooked a BIG factor - a store is a "public accomodation" and its business license requires the owner to make certain compromises. No compromise, no business license.
The easiest way to illustrate this is to play "Guess who's coming to dinner." An individual, in his own home, may refuse to allow a guest to enter on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
But a restaurant owner *can't* refuse to allow a guest to dine in his restaurant, legally a "public accomodation," on the basis of some or all of those criteria. (The exact list varies with local laws.) He may only refuse a patron for legitimate reasons, e.g., the restaurant is full, the patron will disrupt others with his actions or odor, the patron is unsanitary (no shoes, no shirt, etc.)
Likewise a private home owner can refuse to allow someone to stay overnight for any reason - or no reason at all. A hotel can't. A private car owner can refuse to give someone a lift, a public car (taxi, limo) can't. A privately funded school can refuse to educate people, a publicly funded one can't. (Again, all subject to "common-sense" exceptions like the facility being filled, legitimate perception of threat to staff or others, etc.)
I'm still undecided whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing (it depends on how much is shoe-horned in through the back door), but no matter what you think about it this invalidates the argument that Constitutional protections only protect you from the government. They also apply, to a surprising extent, to any business entity which doesn't employ you.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yup, good points. I just had a notebook running a Redhat installation with 2.2.17 go south on me because of some ext2-based freakout; the /lib and several other less important directories are completely shot. Combined with the stupid idea of making both /sbin/init and /bin/sh (pointing to bash) dynamically linked, the box was unbootable until I noticed a statically linked "ash" present - as it is it's still basically not worth trying to recover it. And this wasn't even a crash - I think the BIOS just has some issue with soft-powering off where it doesn't always allow the IDE write cache to clear (but I won't rant on the tangent of PC architecture and notebook BIOSes - then again my PPC notebook is completely dead right now :).
/usr makes sense (granted that's also truer of Debian than Redhat). The machine will have FreeBSD 4.1.1 on it just as soon as I hie me over to a friend's place with a cable modem; the Redhat installation sucked and needed replacing anyway, but it's still a royal pain for to happen right now, and therein lies the other point - 3 serious filesystem errors in 6 years is *completely unacceptable* (to quote another poster's stated rate). This should never happen, and for systems with real filesystem code and sane filesystem layouts it simply doesn't.
This *could not have happened* under FreeBSD using UFS with softupdates. Even if it could I'd still have a halfway usable system, because the structure of / and
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Why does being a racist bastard mean that your testimony is invalid?
It doesn't necessarily. It can hurt your credibility if you don't have quite a bit of corroborating evidence though. People aren't likely to accept the word of a known racist bastard testifying against a member of a minority race without something substantial to back it up.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, you can buy the tresses for a roof prefabricated at a lumberyard/building supply. Likewise for the panels that form the body of a roof. Not exactly the same as buying the roof in toto but certainly good enough for my skill-free carpentry and my in-laws' guest cottage :).
This might be analogous to buying a computer without an OS. Four walls, no roof, is only marginally useful. A computer, no OS, is only marginally useful (space-heater?). However, they imply that the only roof worth putting on a PC is Windows - which, while not a flagrant antitrust violation, does fly in the face of all the windy claims they made about competition in the PC market and free markets and so on, so forth, in court.
Were it not for that astounding piece of hypocrisy this would be nothing but standard marketing boilerplate. With the context, of course, it becomes, if not scandalous, at least amusing.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
I don't know who John_Prophet is, whether his cat or car was actually stolen, or why someone would be imitating him, but seeing such an inflammatory statement posted by someone who had sounded perfectly reasonable in the parent comment kinda tipped me off that something was weird.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
...makes calls to the win 3.1 GUI libraries. It won't run unless the box has win 3.1 on it. (Well, it may work with another older version of windows, I've never had one to try)
I've done this *alot*. Always annoyed me to have to install DOS, then Win 3.1, then Win95. Now the win98 upgrade will let you install if you just insert the win95 CD briefly as a license check.
This whole naked PC annoys me. I have *never* purchased a PC with a preinstalled OS. back when I only had on PC, I always ran it as a dual-boot Windows/Linux system anyway, why would I want Windows only preinstalled?
If some computer manufacturer tried to get me get preinstalled Windows because they're more qualifed to install it, I'd feel insulted.
-Wintermute, and before I get tarred with the piracy brush, I have *legal* copies of Windows 95, 98, NT Workstation, and 2K Professional right now. And *none* of them are on more than one computer.
Actually, since the OEM did the replacing, it is the same computer, at least as far as licensing goes.
I think the direction it will go in is not "installing software on one computer" but "installing software on one mass storage device" (aka hard drive)
Consider yourself lucky they didn't want you to send it in to service. God forbid they actually have to fucking fix something!
Bite my yammer.
Unix will never surpass windows in the marketplace until it becomes as easy to install and use as Windows
Windows isn't easy to install (part of the reason MS would prefer OEM installs over simply selling the thing) nor is it easy to use, many people have huge difficulties using it. Compounded by Windows insisting that end users carry out system admin tasks.
Linux is not a consumer-level OS, students, grandmothers, sales guys, and secretaries don't understand it on one sitting.
What on earth makes you think Windows is "consumer lead" it's Marketing Lead. A major part of it is to force people to upgrade every 18 months or so.
For one exactly how is the slackware file system different then any other llinux file system.
For another he can not get 70% of software installed on a linux system and his record on a bas system is only 40%. What kind of BOZO keeps using systems when he can not even load software on it!.
This guy is a clueless wonder and should be using a mac. I got my 72 year old dad a mac and his compile percentage is 0%. I would recommend a mac for this xonix7 luser too. that way he does not have to compile anything at all.
Most people are ashamed of their ignorance and don't flaunt their failures but this guy seems to want to trumpet to the rest of the world that he is incapable of compiling a program under linux. This is a opposite of insightful get it?
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
"Fair Use" applies only to copyright... because the software is "licensed" under original strict terms that you agreed with before you ever first used it, the concept of "fair use" is no longer applicable as you've already waived any rights you might have had under fair use doctrine.
Nice try. Book publishers tried to do the very same thing in the early part of this century. They printed notices that the book was licensed, not sold and attempted to control the price at which copies were sold to the public.
There was a landmark Supreme Court case (210 U.S. 339) which said that attempts to restrict the sale of a copy of a copyrighted work with a license which impermissably expanded the right of the copyright holder beyond those granted by the copyright statute.
Now, I'm not aware of any case which has tried to apply this SC precedent to software sales, but the legal theory still stands. The sale of a copy of software is still the sale of a copy. You have rights stemming from Federal Copyright Law. The license "agreement" can not take those away.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This last bit here is what's really troubling to me. The rest of the comments are at least vaguely reasonable from a business standpoint: computer builders should offer to install the OS for their users for a variety of good reasons. The last line, though, strikes me as being a threat. When they ask what the seller is leaving his customers and himself open to by selling a naked PC, it makes it sound as though MS considers doing so to be contributory infringement if the user subsequently installs an illegal copy of Windows. They are admittedly showing some subtlety by putting it down at the very bottom like that, but it still suggests that the seller may get himself into legal trouble by doing so.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Also, once you leave the store, that's it, the security guard loses any ability to detain you. They have to contact the police and leave you to your own devices.
Rich
How a pirated copy of Windows is any more or less succeptable to viruses. They should explain that on the page.
It's a claim Microsoft make quite frequently, additional FUD. Though AFAIK the only virused MS software known to exist was some beta stuff put out by Microsoft themselves.
I just don't understand how this case is not open-shut. It is just another example of how frustrating the United States is. Forget marijuana laws which make no sense, lax penalties on convicted violent offenders, the tax bracket system, and the electoral college, wtf is up with this? This should have taken ONE AFTERNOON of a court's time. Instead millions of taxpayer dollars go toward fighting this case. Wtf, I ask you America, wtf?
Or about 5 minutes if you put it on the "Judge Judy" television show.
When will people get it thru their THICK skulls that installing an OS (BE it Linux, or Windows) is NOT THAT HARD!!!! Just RTFM!
Remember that manuals are a (chargable) extra with Windows. Whilst a boxed Linux distribution will come with a comprehensive manual all you get with a boxed Windows distribution is a thin book with virtually no useful information in.
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right?
More likely it's laying stunned in a coffin whilst big business lobbiests stand with hammers passing out the nails. (Or at least this appears to be the case in the US, in the EU it appears to still be alive and kicking but building up lactic acid.)
Book publishers tried to do the very same thing in the early part of this century. They printed notices that the book was licensed, not sold and attempted to control the price at which copies were sold to the public.
Many books still do contain a condition about resale, except that it is self nullifying and meaningless.
It's probably best to buy a full new copy of Windows everytime you make any changes to the hardware of your original OEM'd system or else you may be in violation of copyright law as determined by Microsoft.
You mean "best for Microsoft". It isn't a matter of coyright law, copyright law is quite unambiguious on the issue, since it controls copying not usage. (Software produces have deliberatly tried to imply that "usage implies copying", if book or CDROM producess used an argument like, "it's copied to a image on the retina" or "it's copied into sound waves" they'd be laughed at. Even though this is the same argument as "it gets copied into memory".)
The issue here is the validity (if any) of shrink wrapped software licences.
Thanks for the note - I hadn't thought of that, and though it would still be difficult because of the lack of alternate boot devices on most PC notebooks (unlike, say Powerbooks with SCSI or Firewire), I can see that it would work as long as the package database wasn't also destroyed (which isn't guaranteed in this case, the damage was pretty scattershot). Since I don't have a Redhat CD, I think I'm still going to put FreeBSD on it (which actually doesn't track the main distribution's files via the package system, but will replace everything but packages, /etc, and /usr/local via the binary upgrade procedure, from one statically-linked app (sysinstall)).
;)
Fortunately the machine didn't have any important unbacked-up data on it - but it's supposed to be my on-loan backup while my other machine is down due to a hardware failure! I hate when lightning strikes twice.
Finally I must point out that rpm is likely underrated because it's just so incredibly obtuse; I don't know what those people were smoking when they dreamed up the command-line structure, but I want some.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Your argument overlooked a BIG factor - a store is a "public accomodation" and its business license requires the owner to make certain compromises.
... on the basis of ... race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Of which the US Constitution says precisely zip.
Can your city, county, state, or federal legislature enact laws granting us additional rights? Even rights protecting us from each other? Sure they can. In fact, that is their primary purpose. But the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with it.
But a restaurant owner *can't* refuse to allow a guest to dine in his restaurant
Of which, I might point out, "wearing a backpack" is noticeably absent. As it is from the Constituion.
The exact list varies with local laws.
Hell, you even agree with me. Local laws. Maybe my town has a law saying that I cannot discriminate who gets access to my store based on choice of footware. In that case, I cannot kick someone out because they are wearing sandals. But this is a local ordinance, and has nothing to do with the protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
What the enterprise customer does is set up an initial install with the OS and application and then clone it to new PCs with Norton Ghost. (I recently used the personal edition for $99 to back up a freshly installed dual-boot windows system and I think it's just dandy; now comprehends linux ext2 filesystems).
The problem is that if the enterprise customer bought the PC from a tradition Microsoft OEM, it will come preinstalled with Windows, and they'll be required to pay twice for it, as discussed at Paying Twice for Windows and Microsoft licensing deals confuse customers, study says.
Eventually Microsoft yielded somewhat, but only for the largest customers, as discussed in Commentary: Microsoft hasn't totally reversed its policy on fees.
This is a problem because traditional Microsoft OEMs are contractually obligated by Microsoft to install some operating system on every machine they sell. Microsoft claims that this is to cut down on piracy, but it has the added effect of discouraging people from trying out other operating systems.
The solution? Encourage the enterprise customers to purchase hardware with no operating system at all installed on it from OEMs that have no relationship with Microsoft. Then the customer can do their Ghost cloning without any worry about double license fees. This will work well both for the large enterprise customers that may have been helped by the minor adjustment in Microsoft's policy, as well as the smaller enterprise that were no helped out.
If you work for one of the traditional linux hardware vendors, I'd like to suggest to you that you view Microsoft Windows enterprise customers as a new market opportunity, not just to sell Linux to, but just to sell naked hardware to. If the hardware has no OS installed at all, there's no OS support issues to be concerned with, as there might be if you put some Linux distro on it.
Consider also that although trying to sell a machine bundled with Linux might meet resistance from a company that really does need its Windows applications to do business, selling naked hardware and emphasizing savings on Windows license fees is an easy foot in the door. Once you establish a rapport with the customer you'll have a better chance to upsell them to Linux.
Also consider that if Microsoft OEMs start losing significant hardware sells to folks like VA Linux Systems, Penguin Computing, Tuxtops and the screwdriver shops, they'll be a little more aggressive about getting Microsoft to back down on requiring an OS to be installed.
Of course, an alternative to the traditional OEM vendors is to just preinstall Debian and include a clause in the contract stating that the preinstall OS software is not supported by anyone. That just pretty much screws Microsoft up the Yin-Yang.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
This poster had a valid point which he was expressing through sarcasm. Few people here would argue that the Free Software Foundation's rules should be broken. Both the FSF and Microsoft distribute a contract (or copyleft or EULA or whatever you want to call it) with the software which you are expected to follow. If you don't like the contract, you don't use the software.
The FSF's GNU General Public License is vastly different from a clickwrap or shrinkwrap license like the Microsoft EULA. You don't have to accept the terms GNU General Public License in order to use the software covered by it that you've lawfully aquired. You only need to accept the license if you wish to avail yourself of the special privilages it grants above and beyond what your normal first sale and fair use rights would allow. Microsoft, however, contends that you can't use the software at all, nor avail yourself of your first sale or fair use rights without accepting their license first.
It's a legal fallacy that users are bound by clickwrap or shrinkwrap licenses in all of the world. Even within the United States depending on your jusisdiction, precedent and/or laws are either in favor of shrinkwrap licenses, against them, or non-existant. Thus, it's very well possible that many people are not bound by the EULA and therefore are free to sell or reuse their OEM copies of Windows provided they haven't agreed in any other contracts not to do so. Note that there is currently a precedent in the US against shrink wrap licenses on books: you can safely ignore wrappers that say boxed sets of novels can only be sold together and labels stating that a book may not be resold below a certain price. I see no reason why this precedent might not be applied to software in the future.
It is also unclear whether a person has accepted the terms of the GPL. After all, it is neither a signed and witnessed contract nor a physical barrier from installing the software on one's computer. However, even one does not accept the terms of the GPL, they are still free to use the software. The Free Software Foundation does not contend this fact. However, if the person is engaging in practices that would otherwise be copyright infringement (such as making and selling copies of the software) then they have two and only two choices: either they're infringing copyright, or they've accepted the terms of the GPL.
This is how I treat things. I have an old PC at home that has a restore CD. The Win95 image on that CD is a complete joke -- every installed driver is a Win3.x version. When I last revived that machine I used a copy of Win95c from work, even though that sacrificed MS Works. I think the OEM code from my Windows licence even worked in it. I consider what I have done is fair by all parties involved. If it's illegal then the law needs a serious look at.
Basically - you are bound to the EULA at the time you accept it. they cannot change it at whim after your agreement unless that is written into the EULA.
Not quite, such agreements are governed by the "law of the land". If appropriate statute and case law gives a person an "unaliable right" to negotiate a contract. Then at best any clause in a contract stating that they can't is invalid, at worst the whole contract is void. (Hence such licences typically containing a clause to the effect that all clauses must be treated as independant entities.)
Now, if you're talking about the snippy remarks about Dubya getting elected and imposing a national operating system, that was an admittedly sick joke, and nobody would be happier than I to see it remain entirely fantasy (or nightmare). However, I wouldn't rule it out that easily- the idea was, 'Here's an outlandish, nightmare projection that I HOPE can't possibly happen!', hence the 'I'm picturing Dubya getting elected' rather than 'This is going to happen! The sky is falling, we're all going to DIE!' It's a combination joke/scare tactic and shouldn't be written off _too_ easily: remember how badly Microsoft wants to in effect impose a Microsoft Tax on everyone and not have to do any more work, just do new icons and count money. You shouldn't be so quick to assume they can't get paid a tax administered by the government- haven't you heard of corporate welfare? Dubya's just the sort to rubberstamp such a proposal, too.
Sorry- you strike out ;) you have no argument but ridicule and you're asking people to stop thinking. I'm not making these arguments because of karma troll bonus points, but because the situation both alarms and fascinates me, and I want to put the same evidence in front of people and see if they reach the same conclusion. In this case, I am taking Bill Parish's figures on the breakdown of MS income (I believe he got this from their annual reports and renamed the pie pieces?) for the argument that they're making more in the stock market than they are selling products, I'm assuming the top MS people are _not_ stupid idiots, and with regard to cutting projects I don't think I really need to remind slashdotters of the list of abandoned 'strategic' MS projects that tied up competition's resources for long enough to take care of the threat through further MS expansion. The difference is that I'm suggesting there is no MS project that couldn't be abandoned or defunded if PR activities would return greater profits through stock manipulation. That said, canning Office would _hurt_ the stock price not help it, and you'll not see them admitting to such a thing. On the other hand, Farenheit/COOL/C#/.NET and on and on- which will be the next to quietly fade off the radar, and do you think these fade-offs happen because someone at MS _lost_ _track_ of the project? They're killed because new products are not the most profitable thing MS could be doing, and they're killed quietly so it doesn't hurt the stock price- which _is_ the most profitable thing MS is doing.
You may now post "*yawn*" in the classic tradition of lazy-ass Usenet trolls ;)
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Finland every new computer nowadays comes with a Windows license sticker that is on your computer. You cannot remove it without destroying the license. Microsoft demands that the OEM attaches the sticker to the computer.
An utterly stupid idea anywhere children are present, you may as well glue on a high demonination bank note.
In many situations licence certificates are best kept in a filing cabinet, if not a safe.
I'm not sure what's worse -- the idea that anybody buying a PC with no OS will be pirating Windows, or the fact that the whole page implies that it's the dealer's responsibility to install an OS on the PC so that the buyer won't be tempted to break the law and pirate software.
Next they'll be getting upset when a customer says "I'll have 10, with Windows, just the certificates please, since it's a waste of both our times for you to put that bog standard OEM setup on."
There is a world of difference between a court presuming you are guilty of something and MS putting up a web page saying something. MS can't put you in jail etc.
By all rights it's MS who should be being put in jail. but you can't jail corporations. (Whilst still maintaining a legal fiction that they are "people".)
I overheard a salesguy at CompUSA tell someone that the modem worked faster if it was installed internally. Enough said.
> OEM copies are illegal to distribute without a computer BUT it doesn't limit fair use
You say that as if "Fair Use" even exists anymore.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Didn't MS stop shipping system with CDs for the very same reason?
Did you make this up yourself or do you just believe everything some zealots tell you?
1) Microsoft doesn't ship PC's.
2) MS is very insistent that the CD ship with a machine as an anti-piracy measure.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> I had no problems leaving the store without being searched :)
They tried that at CompUSA. I told 'em that I wouldn't be searched and they didn't have the legal authority to detain me. They called the cop standing outside the store (not a rent-a-cop, in uniform). I decided I didn't have time for it and let them open my bag anyway. After which I walked up to the service desk and asked for a refund, walked over to Best Buy across the street, and bought the same game. I still go to CompUSA to buy games if BestBuy doesn't have it. When you have no car or no plastic, you don't really get a lot of choices.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Lovely... let's just accept and condone corporations lying to us because it could be to their benefit. This is the attitude that let's them get away with such things as UCITA and the DMCA.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
More like selling a house without furniture bolted to the floor.
(Original analogy stolen from RMS, I believe)
Remember, you're not allowed to resell the 'furniture' (or Windows CD) at a yard sale. You're not even allowed to stick it in the microwave without the consent of Microsoft.
Because it's an OEM install, you can't take the 'furniture' to your next home when you move or the house burns down.
Seriously, this is the sort of stuff that the Justice Dept. needs to continue to look at. Is there a unwritten (and they usually are) understanding that if you don't sell the pc with the os installed, m$ will make it tough for you in the future? If so, then this is again a restraint of trade and illegal.
Everyone who *might* buy another copy of their product who ends up not doing so is stealing from them.
About 6 years ago I talked to this guy who used to run a small computer shop and he didn't sell naked machines. I think his motive was greed. I ended up not buying any machines from him because I had a perfectly good copy of DOS that I could use legally.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't think that you can use press articles as evidence that way. If you could, Hunter S. Thompson would've been jailed after his first article...
Besides, they don't actually say 'windows' they say 'an operating system'; we know what they're implying, but implying isn't stating.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Since "naked" will get blocked by all of the U.S. Government-mandated filtering software
:-)
Just couldn't resist....
Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
I would pay good money to see the following:
"Hi there. I'd like to buy a PC."
"Very well sir, would you like Windows ME or Windows 2000 with that?"
"Actually, you can just leave off the operating system."
"Sir, I can assure you that we are best equipped to install your operating system."
"OK, in that case, do dual boot Debian/OpenBSD install with this hard drive partitioning that I'm going to write down..."
fearbush.com
Finding God in a Dog
"Nobody would buy a house without Windows, a PC without Windows is just as bad."
Who ever wrote this isn't really thinking very clearly and isn't acting for the benefit of the end user (surprise, it's microsoft). They're acting for the 'benifit' of the average computer user, but the average computer user doesn't order a naked pc.
:). I know I personally like troubleshooting computer problems. And the owner probably has a legal copy of the operating system they want to install (usually a free operating system). However, I'm sure there are a few cases of people wanted to use unlicensed copies of software.
:). I doubt the average Joe Normal User will order a naked pc, but if Joe Power User wants one, they they should be able to get one without a hassel.
1. Highlight the fact that the PC will not work without an operating system. Mention that preinstalling the operating system on the new PC saves considerable time, expense and trouble. After all, your expertise is valuable. You install system software day in, day out, so there is little question you're best equipped to do it well.
The person ordering this probably knows more than the average person about computers and will know what they are doing. And it doesn't really save that much time anyways, because the person ordering this will probably just blow it away and reinstall anyways. It has nothing to do with saying that the vendor has no expertise, but different users have different needs and abilities and some just like to install their own stuff.
2. Warn customers that acquiring the PC "naked" and subsequently pirating the software is never a good option. Explain the risks: technical troubles, upgrade problems, viruses and the law. Politely decline to expose your buyers or their businesses to such troubles.
As I said before, the person ordering a naked pc knows what they're doing and will most likely be able to work out any technical troubles on their own and will probably enjoy doing so
3. Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting, and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is legal. In short, protect your customer and your good name. Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled. Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers-and yourself-open to?
If someone asked for a computer without an operating system they obviously know what they're doing and more than likely, they want to install a copy of a free operating system on it. And in some cases they will want to install a *CLEAN* version of windows and not the standard default install crap that I've seen most vendors ship with.
In short, selling naked pc's is aimed at a completely different market than the typical computer user and is geared more towards the power users who know what they're doing. Often this market is also of people who want to give a little money to microsoft as possible
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I just purchased a computer for my office, where I need to run NT. Again, I bought a naked PC. I'm not about to install an illegal copy of Windows. Why? Because my department has a site license (or similar such thing) for NT Client.
That seems to be an even more annoying aspect to this attitude of "you must buy Windows with a PC" idea. Those in institutions and large companies who's techs bought a site license to "save money", or even better (for MS, anyway), to "standardize" on an MS OS, will actually end up paying twice for every workstation.
Greg
Well, considering it is a microsoft.com page, I think that it is entirely correct to attribute the author's intentions as malice (or at least intentional misinformation). I do agree on your last point however.
I don't see how a pricing agreement between Microsoft and an OEM has any bearing on my rights to resell the software. Price is immaterial to the discussion at hand - it's not my job to make sure that Microsoft or an OEM don't lose money due to their under-the-counter deals.
Microsoft might have something if they had a click-wrap license on the PC and if you accepted it and if click-wrap licenses are legal, but assuming you never boot the computer into Windows, never agree to any of Microsoft's licensing agreements, and resell every single bit of windows that was sold to you, you should be free and clear.
Of course, if MS has "locked" your install of Windows to your particular hardware somehow, you might not find any buyers...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right? Since Linux runs better on less hardware, it goes on the older systems.
Let's say, for instance, that back in 1999 you bought that super cool, multimedia-ready "GeeWhiz 2000" PC with a Celeron 400 processor and it came with an OEM edition of Windows 98 on it. Lucky you, for that OEM install cdrom of Windows was not one of those deliberately crippled "system restore ONLY" types, but just happened to be a real install cdrom with a real setup.exe program that only wants you to type in that 8-mile long product ID key to run.
Now that the year 2000 has come and almost gone, that little old Celery 400 just doesn't jazz your 'nads any more, but will make a fine Linux box so you go to the local computer flea market and buy a whole shopping cart full of enough parts to build your own uber-fast hotrod AMD Gigahertz Thunderbird gaming rocketship dream machine. You get home and assemble all the stuff and justify your next couple of actions(since the "network is the computer", according to Scott McNealy... and all your collective hardware is your "system" (as in singular) because you network it all together with a cheezy little 5-port 10/100 hub). You install your favorite Linux distro onto the old machine (maybe all its innards in a new case) and are not surprised at all to find that it runs beautifully great at 400MHz, even with only a 66MHz FSB. You then pop that oem Windows 98 cdrom into your new assemblage of "upgrade parts" and proceed to commit software piracy.
That's right, that oem copy of Win98 is legally valid only for the original pile of parts that it was purchased with. Even if you kept the same old "GeeWhiz 2000" case, with its serial number, because you installed a new "system" into it, it is now in the eyes of MS, the SPA, and whatever other gestapo,... a different "computer", and hence illegal upon which to install that oem copy of Windows that came with the original PC.
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right? Since Linux runs better on less hardware, it goes on the older systems.
Of course, nowadays systems often ship with an OEM BIOS-locked Windows disc image on CD. This means that even if you just upgrade your computer, you can forget about using that OEM Windows copy to 'repair' your Windows installation at the 6-month instability fixing session. Nice one. Not that it causes me any lost sleep, since Loki started the Linux gaming scene rolling along I haven't had to worry about booting up Windows for anything other than printing (Canon BJC5100 - paperweight under Linux ...).
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
If ALL machines come pre-installed, you'll have to agree to that licence to buy the PC at all. there is NO WAY I'll agree to that.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I rarely wipe the original Windows installation, even if I'm not going to use it. 1: the vendor may have been privy to hardware settings that are not documented, and I may need later 2: often, all of the software needed for a re-install is not included. One or more "special" drivers may be included, and a re-install may result in a flaky system.
I never trust a set of Windows install media (usually just verify that all of the extra drivers are on disk, in case I need them, and then throw out the CD).
Of course, I use Windows only to run those games and broken pieces of work software which cannot run elsewhere. Both reasons are rapidly declining to 0.
Naked PCs are not useless to me, but hardly 100% useful. I would want Linux or FreeBSD pre-installed instead.
This kills me. I just purchased a Compaq Presario Laptop for use at the office. I shelled out the extra $100 to upgrade from Windows ME to Win2000. My plan was to install Linux, then VMWare with Win2000 under VMWare for the MS-only stuff I might encounter in the office (like that damn MS Visual Source Safe, as if CVS doens't kick VSS's ass any day of the week, but I digress...). It turns out that the copy of Windows 2000 you get is only a Restore CD, not an installable copy. It does an fdisk and reformat before reimaging your system back to "a known good state". Since VMWare fakes out a BIOS, the restore CD won't install, since you are not installing "on the original machine". So I wasted $100 trying to be legal. I have turned to a semi-legal copy, and am soothing my morals by telling myself that I really do own a copy of Windows 2000 (I even have the much touted "Certificate of Authenticity"). I would have been better off buying the machine Naked and then buying a shrinkwrap copy of the MS software I needed.
In point #1 they point out that they are best equipped to install the OS, but then in point #3 they talk about how if they install it you would have the original CD so you can reinstall.
So, as a consumer, I'm qualified to reinstall but not to install?
--
What about if you have a copy of Windows from your last machine and the motherboard fried (along with the video card and everything, so you get a whole new box).
What about me? I don't run Linux, but I work for an MCSP (M$ certified solution provider). We get license of client OS for development. I can use it (legitimately) at home. I don't NEED an OS license.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
There is a difference I am afraid. Apple can legally bundle its software with its own hardware since it manufactures both. M$ does not manufacture the hardware (thank goodness) and to force such bundling practices is a restraint of trade.
I recently bought a Compaq 5100 series machine that, of course, came with a legal copy of Microsoft Windows 98. I wiped the disk and installed Linux on it; it didn't work too well due to poor driver support, so I installed BeOS too. That was a little better, but not much.
Then I decided I'd really be better off selling the machine, since it performed poorly with both Linux and BeOS - I had an interested buyer, even - so I booted the recovery CD to reinstall Windows.
THE RECOVERY CD DID NOT CONTAIN A COPY OF WINDOWS. Instead, it contained references to a partition on my hard drive in which Windows was supposed to be hiding. Without this partition, no install.
Technical support had to send me a real Windows CD, which I haven't gotten around to installing yet (my sale fell through, since the buyer needed the machine right away). To be fair, the CD arrived promptly, even though they told me it would take two weeks. But that didn't erase the truly wretched experience.
Now, our friends at Microsoft might say that it serves me right for installing an alien operating system of evil on my system. At the same time, though, even if I was the world's biggest Windows fan, I would feel profoundly uneasy about this; what if the hard drive breaks down, for instance? What if I'd really like the gigabyte or so of space they're wasting on my hard drive back?
No, friends, this policy is profoundly consumer hostile. The "naked operating system page" is profoundly dishonest since it appears to be offering products that Microsoft is not actually selling.
Shameful.
D
----
This is a bad troll but I'll respond anyway. One sensationalist article about them (and scores of other companies) not paying corporate tax doesn't make "bad press". Maybe you should read the article and the comments from Slashdotters on the link you pointed to.
"the fact that both KDE2 and GNOME1.4 will be providing as good as, if not better, GUI environment for PCs and Macs"
I'll let this statement stand in solitary ridicule by itself. Hmm.. when was the last time I heard that this was happening? As far as I remember the Naked-PC page has been up there forever. What are you, a complete moron?
Mmmm.. Donuts
I used to work for a large OEM and almost every week at our technical meeting there would be questions about Microsoft licensing, often this issue in particular. I spoke to Microsoft about this on one occasion, and their line was basically
"You're on the Microsoft select program, we let you press your own Windows CDs and give you licenses for next to nothing, if you wish things to say this way then don't ship systems without an OS".
Unfortunately I didn't have the authority and the MD didn't have the courage to do anything about the situation.
-- Piracy is a vicitmless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Today, medical researchers demonstrated that there is a strong causational link between users of the free "Linux" operating system and the use of other software not approved by Microsoft. According to the report, these Operating System-Transmitted Diseases (OSTDs) were found at a much higher rate in the high-risk group of Linux users than in the Microsoft crony group.
"We here at Microsoft," said the chief researcher, "don't blame the Linux users. The social stigma associated with Linux use is unfair -- but the evidence that these people are at higher risk of acquiring pirated software and using non-Windows software is staggering."
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Have all computers have linux installed by default!
Ok, this would be quite a good idea I guess.It's free,
Can't argue with thatfast
At most tasks, yes.stable.........
This isn't really 100% true (Perhaps with the exception of Slackware). From my experiences, the default Linux filesystem is extermely finicky and anything other than a careful shutdown ( ctrl-alt-del or "shutdown" or "reboot" ) will end up in a serious FS problem, which at least will require a fsck -f to fix and at worst will trash the filesystem completely.The dependencies under Linux aren't great which makes installing anything a pure nightmare. Of course, this doesn't neccessarily mean it's unstable, but it's not an ideal working enviroment. Once, however, your programs have been installed under Slackware, you have a mostly stable system that rules.
However, the first problem I mentioned, FreeBSD doesn't seem to have a problem with. And the second is quite adequately dealt with due to the uniformity of the BSD systems and the ports collection. You'll find that compiling something under FreeBSD or any BSD is better than Linux (works at least 60% of the time as compared to about 30% for various GNU/Linux distributionsEverything is but a number spoken by itself.
This is a troll, and a bad one at that, but I'll respond to it.
OJ was presumed innocent until prosecutors provided a mountain of evidence. OJ didn't have to provide a mountain of evidence that he was innocent. He just had to introduce reasonable doubt. He did. The jury bought it. He's free.
Where's the problem?
that a few years ago MICROS~1 persuaded the Customs Service to block the import of Taiwanese PCs which didn't have Windows installed. The grounds cited were that the only possible use of these machines was installation of pirated copies of MS software, and thus their importation was contributory to copyright infringment.
Anyone have a cite on that?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
[OEMs] install system software day in, day out, so there is little question [they are] best equipped to do it well.
.), while the second part is clearly (to me) an attempt to avoid leaving the thought "but if we OEM windows, we own the suport FOREVER."
Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software.
I used to work for an OEM, and there is a subtle implication in the second part. The reason that "OEM" versions of MS software are so cheap is that the OEM takes on the support costs.
The subtlty is this, the first part implies that customers are not qualified to install Windows (which, in itself, is interesting, since one of MS arguments against non-MS OSes is that they are too hard for users to install . .
Piracy aside, it strikes me that small shops could sell retail Windows at cost (installed) and save money in the end. In fact they could use it as a selling point, "We give you the 'shiny box' version of Windows, which comes with support DIRECTLY FROM MICROSOFT."
That is a bigger nightmare for MS than wide-spread piracy. Pirated copies of Windows don't cost MS anything, on the other hand, retail copies can end up costing them quite a bit in support costs.
Except, of course for the fact that Windows has no bugs
-Peter
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Which is running QNX and Linux, nothing else...
I thought about returning the Windows part, until I opened the box on my laptop (a Toshiba) to read the sticker that says that by having purchased the computer, I've implicitly bought the Windows operating system too and that I have no rights to a refund on said product. You got $90 of my money for something I don't use. I hope you choke on it.
I was going to return the computer, but the 10% restocking fee on the PC would have cost even more.
You don't want naked PCs, Microsoft, then start a refunds division, cause I'm making sure Janet Reno gets a photocopy of that notice that came in the box, covering the computer. With any luck that tactic'll cost you a few billion at the hands of the DOJ, and you'll be forced to sell ONE and ONLY ONE copy of your software to people. Ramp it up. It'll be busy.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
KDE2 and GNOME 1.4 will be providing as good as, if not better, GUI environment for PCs and Macs
I'll believe that when I see it.
Not bloody likely it'll matter anyway, because app support will still be bad enough to give people a reason to use Windows or Mac...
--K
---
the fact is, in the 'olden days' where the oem cd was NOT node-locked (to a particular bios checksum, etc), that cd distro was for 'the original pc' that came shipped with that o/s. defining a pc is legally problematic (any lawyers out there care to define what IS a 'pc' in legal terms?). if I change a video card, is it the same pc? if I upgrade a motherboard, is it the same pc? if I move to a new hard drive (using a hard drive clone util, like what maxtor ships with their retail drives, sort of a cheap Ghost util) is THAT the same pc?
its all nonsense. the intent (which does make sense) is that one machine runs one licensed/keyed copy of windows. if I run 2 machines on that same key I'm in violation. but I should be able to run exactly one license on the machine of my choice.
no where in that EULA (afaik) does it prohibit -giving- the oem copy away. so if I sell a hard drive to you and give you the only copy of win98 I have (and I'm not using it and its not installed at my site) I cannot see what's wrong with this.
and to my point, M$ flexing their muscles and forcing ebay to cancel ads is way beyond tolerable! if M$ wants to sue individuals, let them. but strongarming ebay is in very poor taste. at least there is a funny loophole that ebay users can use to get around this strongarming.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
In the case of most of the people here, its like selling a house without the tacky plastic/ simulated elephant hide/chintz furniture. Not to stretch the analogy of course.
Gateway isn't more receptive now. While they sell a 'network appliance' that runs on Linux, they are still very, very, EXTREMELY unfreindly towards any mention of running Linux on a PC or server.
While I was still working there they had been talking about allowing servers to be sold with Linux, but any time I talk to a salesperson I am told that servers are only sold with Win2K or NT 4. When I ask if it is possible to purchase without an OS (so I can install Linux myself) I am flat out told that they will not support pirating of Windows products. They will not even admit that it is possible to install anything other than Windows on a server. And don't even get me started on what their phone techs said when I told them I was running Linux on a gateway laptop. You would have thought I just told them I was fscking their mothers!
"Until you install Windows on your computer, we cannot help you with your problem."
Well, it's a little hard to do that when you can't get any video display (turned out to be a loose connection to the LCD).
Bite my yammer.
It's much more like buying a new house without furniture, which is a given.
Thus you're allowed a few moments to scream in the empty rooms and hear the echo coming back at you :
"Fuck off, Gates." (bis)
The way it works is, if they force you to leave something behind before entering, they are responsible for it.
Please please please read the constitution before posting things like this. Things like illegal search and seizure and free speech protect you from the government, NOT from private citizens. Corporations are considered to be private citizens for the most part (they gain a few things, like not having to serve jury duty, in exchange for losing a few rights, but they're basically people). When you walk into a store you lose most of your rights. Sure they can't force you to submit to a strip search, but they can ask to search your bags.
-matt
At the same time, however, they get more from flooding the world with stock options and MS stock than they do from their actual products (not an exxageration!). In this sense, protecting mindshare is substantially more important than protecting retail sales of the products. They cannot be simply a product sold at the store- they must be 'what you use when you have a computer' or the stock pyramid will collapse sooner. (It's going to collapse sooner or later, but MSFT wishes it to be later.)
Conclusion: Microsoft are fully and consciously aware of their situation balancing product sales against stock market valuation, and are choosing in full awareness to abandon their own products wherever necessary to prop up the pyramid of their stock valuation, which is essentially valuable solely because it is valuable (price/earnings ratio is flatly delusional, even if you don't count the fact that MSFT increasingly operates at a loss and papers this over with issuing of options- 'printing money' to hide the problem). A page like this one _cannot_ come from an organisation that considers its OSes to be a product sold in stores alongside other ones.
I think this has disturbing implications. It suggests that they understand their true situation all too well and embrace it- that they would literally cut the budget for things like bug-fixing and developing stable technology, in order to pay for attempts to persuade the world that there is literally no choice but to use Microsoft for everything. This is not to sell more products- the product is no longer important to them at all, they make more money on stock valuation than they do on products and are apparently sharp enough to have figured this out.
Things could get interesting- especially with the Presidential election. I'm personally voting for Nader, unhesitatingly- and I almost hope Dubya wins as a result of this, because then the situation could get so appalling as to _force_ public reaction. I'm picturing Dubya passing legislation making Doze the Official State Operating System and issuing every citizen a yearly license to use it, paid for out of taxes. Meanwhile MS quietly scraps all technical development and puts the budgets towards lobbying... this would be a very interesting situation because, when you do crazy things like that, who will enforce it? Taxation going directly to Microsoft is the best bet. Doing things like criminalising Linux or whatever (surely tempting- call it a hacker OS) is much less reliable, because who's going to enforce it? There's the prospect of 'blue laws' around computer issues if companies like MS get to put through whatever legislation they like.
What interesting times we live in...
Why not ship good old DOS with the box? It's gotta be cheap -- it's moderately usefull (you can at least use it to rawrite boot floppies), and would not subject the manufactures/vendor to any undue support issue like shipping a linux distro would.
To tout Windows on the company's web site is not a sin. Windows is perhaps the most copyright-infringed software series in the world. I've had close to a hundred different burned copies slip through my hands over the course of the years, and for a company whose employees profit off of software sales, this is not a good thing.
On a side rant, this notion that "all software should be free" really bothers me. Ever since the earliest days of bartering, people have imbued prices on goods they deemed as having value. Should I work for years on a OS and then release it for free like Linus did? Isn't that a waste of time and resources?
Granted, I'm not riding along the idealistic viewpoint here. But enough is enough. If Microsoft wants to charge for their operating systems, let them. If I don't want to buy it, I won't. If I do want to buy it for a myriad group of reasons, like having a standardized system that game developers work on and support for a majority of the hardware out there, I will.
Personally, I think Windows 2000 closes the gap to Linux/FreeBSD farther than any MS operating system before it. It really is quite good, and I haven't managed to crash my Windows 2000 box in the months I have used it.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Then I decided I'd really be better off selling the machine, since it performed poorly with both Linux and BeOS - I had an interested buyer, even - so I booted the recovery CD to reinstall Windows.
THE RECOVERY CD DID NOT CONTAIN A COPY OF WINDOWS. Instead, it contained references to a partition on my hard drive in which Windows was supposed to be hiding. Without this partition, no install.
Technical support had to send me a real Windows CD!
This I believe is the KEY! Order a system, wipe it and then call tech support DEMANDING you get your Win98 disk!
I like this.
Forget the discussion. I want to know what you were searching for that turned up a page entitled "Naked PC".
I mean, I'm broad minded, but some people...
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
I've seen a store in Montréal where computers
come bundled with Linux and you add $120 to
get winblows 98 instead.
A naked PC saves us the expense of useless
CDs when we allready have our OS. I prefer
to buy my OS from CompUSA or www.chumbo.com.
I can understand that dogs may like the
frisbees but think about those of us who
don't have a dog.
What the hell do you think we can do with the
frisbees that we have to buy with the PC?
My cats like balls, not frisbees.
Now all we need is to wait for MS to publish this on their French site and sue them :)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
It's three years since I started doing this. Every time I come to a shop to buy a new computer or HDD I precisely state the following:
... and the HDD WITHOUT any OS. I want WANT an HDD clean, virgin and NAKED. Using the same clothes we wear when we get born. DO YOU GET IT? No Windows, no DOS no other OS crap. DID YOU REALLY GET IT?..."
Because I use the OS that I don't need to pay taxes for: Linux.
On what concerns Microsoft's well hearted intentions... Hey Redmonders you owe us US $3000-7000. We asked several machines with Windows NT installed not 95/98. Why the Hell we should pay for ANOTHER copy of your crap? Why I should return the machines to the supplier if I don't want your Win95/98 copies? (that's what IBM people told me...) Why I should pay for a copy of NT for each machine? Why I should pay for that Win95/98 if I even have Linux installed on them? Why do you direct me to IBM when your licensing terms indicate that I can refuse to install and get a refund for it. And why you make agreements with IBM that force this corporation to ask for the return of these machines if I refuse your damn EULA???? Even if an IBM representative well sees that these machines work with LINUX ONLY?
NakedPCs? My consumer right. And it is not your damn business what runs on them if it not Microsoft.
So now Microsoft has finally gotten in on the presumption-of-guilt game? Notice in the article that they claim everyone buying a "naked PC" will just install a pirated copy of one operating system or another (with strong implications that it'll be Windows, of course).
You know, someone really needs to find a way to put a stop to that kind of crap. It's unconstitutional for our legal system to presume someone guilty of a crime until proven innocent, so why should it be legal for corporations to do so?
----------
Seems more like selling a house without the furniture to me.
I always build my own computer systems these days. That way, I get just the hardware I need, with just the OS I want, and I don't pay no Windoze tax.
I only pay for Windoze when it's actually going to be used on a machine.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
If they did not get a lesson from their EULA stupidity and the Windows Refund Day, just too bad for them.
:)
MS will see another horde of users showing up in Redmond to get their refund
Antitrust person: Then why do you presume that if someone buys a PC without an OS, they will just pirate Windows?
Microsoft: That's just it, we compete against piracy!
Antitrust person: So people have a choice between buying your OS with a machine and pirating it and that is completition?
Microsoft: Yes, and we compete against other network appliances and handhelds.
Antitrust person: You mean like WebTV and PocketPC's?
Microsoft: Don't forget the Palm Pilot!
Antitrust person: Doesn't that require a PC to have functionality?
Microsoft: Yes, but if it has a pirated version of Windows....
Good Grief.
Burn Hollywood Burn
IANAL, but the police need probable cause to stop you or otherwise interfere. I believe a private business has the right to refuse to do business with people as long as it's not on the basis of race, gender, disability, national origin...I may not have the phrasing correct, but the point is, they can refuse to do business with individuals due to that individual's actions. So they can throw out rude and obnoxious customers, they can say "No shoes, no shirt, no service", and they can say that as a condition of doing business with them, they reserve the right to search any bags or clothing that might be used to shoplift. Note that the signs are usually posted where you can see them when you first come in, so that in walking in there you are entering into something akin to a shrink-wrap EULA (without as much fine print).
Note that you also have a right not to shop there. You can submit voluntarily to their request, or choose to go somewhere else. OTOH, you cannot legally decline to cooperate with a police officer's lawful request, so they are held to a higher standard of probable cause.
(Doesn't mean I would do business with a place that is very intrusive when it comes to searches...but if it keeps my costs down, I don't mind them checking my receipt or glancing in my bags because I don't steal, despite what BillDaCat and the NYTimes might think ;) )
[command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
...but what the hey, I'm bored.
No matter how you look at them, Naked PCs are bad for your customers.
And bad for our bottom line and ability to inflate user numbers.
Which means they are also bad for you.
Man, tell me if that doesn't read like a not-so-thinly-veiled threat. When can I expect "the boys" to hit the computer shops about ten blocks away from me?
Politely decline to expose your buyers or their businesses to such troubles.
So M$ is encouraging OEMs and indie shops to refuse to sell bare computers to anyone who doesn't want to pay the M$ tax. This is probably the most laughable statement in the whole thing; M$ blatantly telling computer-retailer business owners how to run their business.
Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled.
You mean like this one?
I don't suppose the DoJ can bring up new evidence in the appeal case, because this looks like a rather pointed warning to OEMs and other computer sellers to install Windows and pay the tax or else. How else do you say 'smoking gun"?
And the part I don't get...or else what? Since when did it become illegal to sell a computer without an OS? Will MS start going after those who sell "naked PCs" as "accessories to piracy" now? I hope they do and prove once and for all how much they really care for competition.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Ensign Kim I'm picking up something on sensors.
Tuvok On Screen
Janeway Oh no! It's the Kayzon! They've come to take our ad revenue.
Tuvok It's only one ship. We may be able fight them off.
Janeway What do you have in mind?
Tuvok Ensign Kim, arm the quickies. Include that pornographic link that Belona installed yesterday.
Janeway You may fire when ready.
Tuvok Fire... Direct hit. No damage, but their shields are down to 50%.
Janeway Evasive maneuver Intel-4!!!
Tuvok It's no use. Captain, might I suggest...
Janeway I know what your thinking, but I hate to do it.
Tuvok Hate is illogical. It is our only course of action.
Janeway Very well then. Arm the Microsoft article...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
it appears that the oem copy of win98 is 'only for distribution with a pc'. what is a pc, then? apparently its either a drive or a motherboard. so folks are selling broken/old motherboards and/or drives just to meet the 'license' requirement and to keep M$ from requesting (yeah, right) that ebay cancel their ad.
anyone else feel that M$ has NO BUSINESS telling ebay what to cancel and what not to? if I was forced to buy a PC with the OEM version of win98 installed and I immediately overwrite it with linux and never use the shrinkwrapped win98 cd or license key, aren't I within my 'first sale' rights to resell that unused/unregistered copy?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Folks will note that there are a lot of stores out there that say they'd like to search your bags, but the wording is very carefully structured not to actually say they have a right to, because they know they don't.
I usually let them look at my bags and check my receipt (Fry's and Costco are generally the ones that do this), just to keep them happy. It's no skin off my nose. Unless, of course, there's a huge line in which case I'll just bypass the line; noone ever stops me.
I recently had a customer talk to me as I fixed her database application on her Windows pc, and she asked me if I used Windows 98, ME, or 2000. I said I didn't use Windows at all. She asked if I had an Apple. I told her I had a normal pc that didn't run Windows. (I run Slackware Linux)
She was _flabbergasted_ ! What did I mean I didn't run Windows, everyone runs Windows! Computers ARE Windows !
This is what Microsoft has done, pull the blinds over the eyes of the consumers.
Lars -
Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting, ...
This are particularly important considerations with M$ OSes..
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
3. Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting, and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is legal. In short, protect your customer and your good name. Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled. Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers--and yourself--open to?
Didn't MS stop shipping system with CDs for the very same reason?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Yes, but if a customer specifically asks for it (which is what this ad is talking about), then why ask them lots of questions?
As much as I hate to admit it, from a business standpoint, there are even a couple GOOD ideas. Warn customers that acquiring the PC "naked" and subsequently pirating the software is never a good option.
Businesses tend to not want to be the enforcers/educators of the law, because that makes people think less of them. Think of the things you've bought that could be used in dangerous ways... do the vedors usually warn you not to do anything dangerous with them? No... you're a grown-up.
If you specifically ask for a naked PC and don't sound like a clueless newbie, then why should they say anything?
--
From Microsoft's page:
Okay, now hold up a minute here. I recall a whole bunch of articles just a few months ago about how Microsoft was No Longer allowing major OEM's to ship Windows CD-ROMs[*] anymore. This was, as I recall, to help stop piracy.
First OEM's are no longer allowed to ship Windows CD's, and now this is one of the benefits customers get when they buy a computer with a pre-installed Microsoft Operating System?
Someone help me out here, I'm feeling confused. It doesn't quite make sense, there, does it? Is that not something of a contradiction? Perhaps I'm just not able to completely understand Microsoft's double talk, but this misinformation annoys me.
[*] InfoWorld Article 1, Article 2, Slashdot Editorial
--
Toph
Topher
I wonder if they're liable under UK law for ...
false advertising. After all, I read their
website from the UK
Absolutely! OEMs should follow Microsoft's advice and install an operating system on every PC that leaves their doors.
I am sure that if these OEMs were SHOWN how Linux/BSD (or name your other FREE OS here) could be configured to be an easy to use Internet ready solution, maybe this could happen.
"all our computers leave the shop 'clothed' in FREEDOS."
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
mov ax,13h int 10h
Operating System:
... /*insert every other free OS here*/
[] Linux free
[] OpenBSD free
[] FreeBSD free
[] iBSD free
[] NetBSD free
[] FreeDOS free
[] DOS 6.22 add $22.50
[] Windows NT Enterprise Server unlimited seat license add $30,000.00
[] No operating system
Installation:
[] Pre-installed
[] Since I can now tie my own shoelaces and cross the street on my own, I will throw caution to the wind and attempt my own installation.
If no operating system, please choose one of the following options:
[]I have legally obtain an operating system and intend to install it myself.
[]I have every intention of screwing poor, starving, innocent OS manufacturers of their hard earned earnings. I am a bad person. I will report myself immediately to my local law-enforcement authorities.
stores that ask to see your bags or hold them etc are attempting what amounts to illegal search and seizure
*sigh* When are people going to learn? The Bill of Rights and similar documents restrict what the government can do, not private entities like people and corporations. Ever notice how the Bill of Rights uses the phrase "Congress shall make no law" a lot? That's right, it prevents Congress from passing laws. It does not say one damn thing about what I'm allowed to do to you.
If I'm a store owner, I can make it a condition that, in order to enter my store -- which is my own property -- you have to submit yourself to search. You are in no way obligated to submit yourself to said search, but I am also in no way obligated to serve you. It's my store; I can tell you to get out if I want.
(Now, you could make the case that, since you never signed a contract, I cannot hold you to the agreement, but you would have to bring it before a court of law claiming damages or something. Hardly worth the effort. Just go to another store.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
It was a parody on dumbentia, but this Microsoft page really LOOKS like it!
http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/scared.pdf
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
--brian
I just tried to by a Dell a couple of weeks ago sans OS, and they told me that they didn't want to expose me to the trouble that would cause me. So I went elsewhere. Problem solved.
Nate Baxley
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
I think it is very likely that anyone who asks for a "naked PC" knows what they are doing, and are fully aware of how to install an operating system. I buy all my PCs without an operating system (in fact, I buy a collection of parts and assemble them). If a vendor gives me the Microsoft-sanctioned spiel, I'll just have to politely tell him not to patronize me.
Or is it just a scheme to make Linux users pay for a MICROS~1 operating system each time they upgrade their machine?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
You are assuming, as are most of the other posters here, that you are buying a copy of the software.
You are not.
You are purchasing the right to keep and use a copy of the software under certain circumstances, as detailed in you EULA.
This is a completely different thing.
There are limits and restrictions on what you can do with the software. Now, I have not read a Microsoft EULA for a long, long time (strictly penguin-ware at home) but it would seem to me that, once you accept the idea of buying this rather neboulous concept of a "licence" [and I, personally, don't think contract law should allow it], then it is quite reasonable that any contractually binding restrictrions can be imposed.
It would seems to be entirely reasonable -- within this framework -- to limit your use to a single computer. I don't know if Microsoft actually does this, but I can't see why they wouldn't? Seems as reasonable as the whole EULA concept [i.e. not at all...]
It fits well with Microsoft's policy of shipping versions of Windows that is "crippled" to a particular hardware configuration.
<rant>
If you value your freedom, then by all means buy and pay good money for a copy of some useful or interesting software. Even if you don't get a copy of the source. But don't sell yourself to lifetime bondage [*] for a copy of edlin.
</rant>
([*] I checked a Microsoft EULA once: your obligations did not end if you returned or destroyed all copied of the software. Even death didn't free you: your estate would still be liable.)
Hi!
When abusing the +1 posting bonus, it should be required to attach some sort of label (like with moderation) to one's own post. That way the above poster can clearly label his/her post as "Troll" so that the rest of us won't waste our energy countering the obviously inflammatory and ignorant statements.
I do not have a signature
Hey, wanna be safe?
... You get the idea.
:-)
Buy any machine built around the PowerPC or Sparc or MIPS or Alpha or ia64 or Cray or S390 or
M$ has nothing that can run on those.
Give Bill the finger.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I can sell a used CD.
No Garth Brooks I'm not paying you more than once. Wait I don't listen to Garth Brooks.
To parse that you'd have to know the RIAA tried shut down used sales.
I can put new tires on my old car and my old tires elsewhere on a swing.
Am I infringing on the dealers tire rights?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Not so sure. OEM copies are illegal to distribute without a computer BUT it doesn't limit fair use. In other words the manufacturer of that Celeron in your example cannot distribute his relatively cheap license without a computer BUT you as the consumer can use it as you wish. Again one use at a time. Now MS and others may disagree since they want to shape license agreements in the most favorable light for MS. But fair use is not yet dead though the lobbiests stand above its body with sharpened knives.
"Fair Use" applies only to copyright... because the software is "licensed" under original strict terms that you agreed with before you ever first used it, the concept of "fair use" is no longer applicable as you've already waived any rights you might have had under fair use doctrine.
So the bottom line is a PC needs Windows to run. If that isn't the most anticompetive presumption I've ever heard, I don't know what is. Did it ever occur to them that there might be people who want to put other OSes on a computer? Or that they already have valid liscenses and want to install Windows themselves from scratch, free from any of the crappy software that comes with it? Paired with the growing practise of recovery disk images, this isn't an option anymore. This is definitely a good idea for anyone who makes their own disk images for multiple computers. The truth is, though, it did occur to them, and this is one more step to making evading the Windows tax a criminal offense.
Me: HI! I would like to buy a computer
,man command>, may I'll read the FAQ, and if all else fails ask a question in #debian!
Salesman: Ok, we sell all kinds of computers! What would you like?
Me: I would like a AMB Athlon at 1ghz on an Abit KT7, with two 256 megs DIMM's, five 40 gig IBM drives, a DvD and a 48x CD-ROM, a voodoo 5500, a netgear 312tx, and a Sound Blaster Platnium 5.1 in I want it all it crammed into Enlight 7 bay server case.
Sellman: Ok, that comes to $3,538.53.
Me: But in your ad, the parts comes up to $2,986.98. With tax, that's 3,176.45. Where does the other come from?
Sellman: Windows 2000
Me: Hold on, did I say I want Windows?
Sellman: Your PC will not work without an operating system. Preinstalling the operating system on the your new PC saves considerable time, expense and trouble. After all, my expertise is top notch. I install system software day in, day out, so there is little question I'm best equipped to do it well.
Me: I want to run Debian.
Sellman: That won't without windows. It's not a good idea to acquiring a PC "naked" and subsequently pirating the software. It's simple never a good option
Me: Debian is NOT PIRATED SOFTWARE. Also Debian doesn't run in windows!! It's Linux.
Sellman: Oh! Linux! We sell that. Here. (puts a Red Hat 7.0 box on the counter)
Me: GOOD GOD MAN!! Are you crazy?
Sellman: What? You ask for Linux. This is Linux.
Me: THAT'S NOT LINUX!! That's some corprate trash riddle with bugs. I wouldn't run that if you paid me a million dollars. I quit jobs becuase I had to use that crap.
Sellman: I thought you wanted to run Debian?
Me: Debian is an os. It's Linux.
Sellman: Hmmm, (looks arounds)
Me: What are you doing?
Sellman: Seeing how much Debian costs.
Me: Debian is free!! You download it from the debian mirror site, I have my own, and apt-get updates by ftp.
Sellman: I have to point of the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. You'll have the original CD and you can reload the software.
Me: DEBIAN IS FREE AND I HATE CDS!!
Sellman: If you buy this(points to RedHat 7.0 box) You'll have a manual for everyday troubleshooting, and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is legal.
Me: What? If I ever need to check something about Debian, I would do
Sellman: I'm just trying to protect your and my good name. That's why I sell PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled. Otherwise, who knows what I'm levaing you and myself-open to.
Me: Protect my good name? What's wrong with my name? Are you saying there is something wrong with me becuase I run debian?
Sellman: You said you downloaded it from the internet. It's ether pirated or shitware.
Me: Debian is the best damn Linux distro on this green Earth!! Look, I'll forget that you're a moron, just sell me the system, I'll walk out of here and I'll never ask you another question.
Sellman: I can't, I have to sell you an OS.
Me: Forget it, I'll buy the parts online.
MarNuke
The incredible cheek of these people!
Regards, Ralph.
The thing is, those who want a 'naked' PC plan on isntalling their own choice of operating system. Why ask for a naked PC? Since then they aren't relying on the dealer/oem to install one they don't want and certainly don't want to pay for.
In the current consumer market it may make sense to use WinMe or Win2000 as the default -- for those who *want* Windows. If someone doesn't want Windows, why make them pay for it? Thus the request for a 'naked' PC. Won't/Can't sell a 'naked' PC? Fine, put any free OS (Linux, BSD, even FreeDOS, etc.) on it and it isn't naked.. and the customer can keep the OS or wipe it and not be out the "Windows tax." Microsoft should be free to make money -- providing they make it *honestly*. If a customer wants Windows, sell it to him or her. If not, don't go mugging him and forcing him to pay for Windows anyway. 'tain't ethical.
It's a matter of not screwing the customer. I don't agree that *all* machines should run Linux. For many, that'd be a problem. But do let the customer have a choice. What happened to "the customer is always right"? A seller may *advise* a customer -- but should not dictate.
Think the customer is wrong? Suggest, but don't dictate. The customer is free to be wrong. And some value that freedom more than being forced to be someone else's version of "right."
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
I just bought myself a new machine, and it had the option for 'no OS, just format hard drive', as well as Win98, Win2K and WinME. (No Linux installs, interestingly enough - but there's also no Linux drivers for the Radeon yet that I know of.)
Now, what, they're going to demand that all hard drives come with a copy of Windows, because installing a hard drive might cause an installation of an infringing copy of Windows? I think that WD and Maxtor will display the Half Peace Sign to Microsoft in that situation - they don't roll over very much that I've seen.
What IS an 'infringement' anyway? If I take the HD out of my P2-266 running Win98 in a partition and ghost it over to that partition on my new HD, is that an infringement if the P2-266 no longer is running? Or, according to MicroSoftDoubleThink(1), should I have gone to get a totally completely brand new copy of Win98 and gotten on my knees and thanked Bill Gates for the glory of his taking my money from me?
I invite Bill Gates to bite my wide pale white-boy ass.
(1) MicroSoftDoubleThink is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. What Do You Want To Think Today? We'll Tell You. Don't Worry. Be Happy. Love Big Brother Bill.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
I loved this:
If I buy a naked PC, how exactly am I "at risk" of acquiring an unauthorized OS? Will I walk down the street with my new PC and a copy of Windows will jump in from an alley? This is just silly. People who choose to use an unlicensed copy did so willingly. There is no risk, the buyer either will or will not.
This also implies that if the OEM installs an operating system, that the customer is safe from the "legal risks." If the customer takes his happy little WindowsME box, downloads a copy of Windows 2000 and installs it, he's most certainly at legal risk.
I'm also fond of the repeated implications that an OEM who sells naked PCs might be liable for some sort of damage. There are plenty of valid reasons to get a naked box (My business has a site license for Windows or I'm installing a different operating system). No sane person would find an OEM guilty of copyright infringement. (If the OEM sold or gave away unauthorized copies of Windows, or actively encouraged people to get such copies, that would be a very different story.)
Bah, typical Microsoft FUD. There are good reasons to sell naked PCs.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Irrelevant -- by definition, the issue only arises with people who request a PC with no pre-installed OS, not "normal consumers".
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Why don't you read through those pieces of paper affectionately known as an EULA. It states specifically that you are in the wrong if you try to repackage their software. Who dicates how much cars cost or how much a can of peas costs? How dare Del Monte charge more than the brown label store brands! Preposterous! By pirating software you actually are stealing from them, thats why it is called piracy and not something else.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Apparently Bill likes the Taliban's thinking on religious freedom and wants to apply it to the software markets.
(Yeah, this piece of stunning MS prose implies a whole lot, but that's a different piece of cake altogether.
From an OEM standpoint, this makes sense (though any OEM or retailer that doesn't already know this stuff shouldn't be in the business). Buying a computer without an OS is, for many (most?) customers, kinda useless. Then again, any biz worthy of the name should know about Linux and BeOS and *BSD and all those other toys anyway.
As much as I hate to admit it, from a business standpoint, there are even a couple GOOD ideas.
Sound practice, that. If the customer says, "No, I'm not pirating anything, I'm putting Linux on that machine," the retailer has done their part. They've done just about everything they can legally do, short of refusing the sale. And if they won't sell you a so-called naked PC, the guy down the street probably will...(The whole discussion of whether it's a retailer's job to act as unpaid agents for the anti-piracy faction is better left elsewhere.)
I couldn't resist making a slight change to their text. Read on:
SELL YOUR CUSTOMER A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM?
Your customers depend on you. Trouble is, if you act on your customers' willingness to buy Windows PCs--knowing full well they are at risk of acquiring free operating systems elsewhere--you expose them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles. Hardly the stuff of great business relationships, particularly when they come back to you for help. And even if your customer manages to acquire and install free operating systems elsewhere, it still costs them far more time and money than they bargained for. No matter how you look at them, Windows PCs are bad for your customers. Which means they are also bad for you.
Hmm....sounds good to me. :-)
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Frankly I find Microsoft's suggestions as to what salespeople should point out to me as a customer anywhere from insulting to... well, horribly insulting. My likely responses to said salesman:
I was walking out of Fry's with a bag of stuff I bought. Their normal procedure is to check the bags and make sure it matches what's on the receipt, marking the receipt afterwards.
In this one instance, there was a long queue to get out, so I decided to bypass it as I would normally do. This one Fry's 'associate' demaded (ie, asked in a polite but demanding tone) I stop to have my bag checked. I decided to make an issue of this; the conversation went something like this:
"Excuse me sir, I need to check your bag." (No please).
"I refuse, sorry." (Smiles and keeps walking).
(Getting in the way). "I'm sorry, I do need to check your bag before you leave."
"Well, I'm sorry too, but under law, you have no right to check my bag without probable cause."
By this stage, we've got the attention of a supervisor, who came up to us, waited a moment to get the gist of the convesation, then guestured to me "Move along sir... sorry for the trouble".
A friend of mine had a similar experience, but, weirdly, the supervisor had said "Have we demanded that we search your bags, sir?" :)
"No."
"Then have a nice day, thank you."
In this case, I think the supervisor was worried that my friend might have complained that they were demanding to search bags. If anyone cares to notice, a lot of the signs saying that bags will be searched are worded in such a way that its not a demand, but a request. In California, at least
I'm sure that everyone is excited to bash Microsoft, but use half a brain cell and realized that this is just a sales pitch.
1. Notice that its addressed to OEMs. Not consumers. OEMs know enough about technology that they know about Linux and can read contracts.
2. Its also to help computer retailers make more sales. Its just a sales pitch. Oracle/Sun/Apple also does this.
3. This is not news worthy. Microsoft wants their OS on every PC sold. Wow. Really big news.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The independant PC vendors can just install Linux or FreeDOS or something else they know people will wipe (or maybe even want), and viola, it has an OS.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Ok Slashdot people. The /. has been loosing quality for quite some time. But still sometimes people do some good hits. Well this may sound not quite well when flaming Microsoft. But here the problem is more about consumer rights and what M$ is doing with them...
Did you well read the NakedPC article. Well read it? Ok go and read again and come back right here...
Let's open a document package for a IBM 300GL of July 1999. Well there are two plastic packages. One for IBM hardware itself. Other for Microsft docs. You open IBM pack first. Well does not follow exactly the law. But the basics are there:
-Security measures
-Instructions for installation
-Information on consultations and service
-Warranty
-Other notes
Everything is in Russian and English. There is also a note that shows that this product follows EU directive EC 89/366/EEC. Well everything almost goes according to Russian Law.
Now we open the Microsoft pack. What we see?
Microsoft Registration Card
Starting working with Windows98
The first page of "Starting Working.." shows a Certificate of Authenticity and two warnings:
-"Distributed with New Computers Only"
-"For technical support you should direct to computer reseller"
Now on the last page there are a few instructions and a mention that this product is licensed by Microsoft Licensing Inc.
Now let's go to the best of the best...
On the second page of this document there is a copyright warning that states that no part of this document can be reproduced in any form and for any purposes. Sorry Redmonders, on Russian Law I still have the right to cite it under certain restrictions. Besides my citations end here...
Now we go through every page of this beautiful document. We list every page. And we come to questions. Serious questions.
-Where is the EULA?
-Where is the Warranty?
-Why this guide talks about installing Windows on other computers? What is written in the first page?
Until now no one in Russian revoked the obligation of having a printed Warranty. That strictly follows Russian law besides. Here I still have the right to reverse engineer programs under several restrictions. Your electronic EULA that appears at computer start does not follows this btw. Besides the EULA is meaningless as nowhere in Russian Federal Law is written that "clicking here you agree to..." means a form of agreement. An agreement is only an agreement if you have purchased a product with a written license. Not an EULA or a HELL, but a written license that follows the Russian Federal Law. You don't distribute your products with such stuff.
Now let's go back to IBM's docs. Nowhere in these docs I can see anything related to Microsoft's products except a reference to trademarks. Besides IBM's warranty excludes any reference to software and strictly states that techical support extends only to hardware.
Meanwhile...
I can't know how much I exactly pay for the Microsoft product. People talk about sums raging from $50 to $100 for a Win98 copy. Everything I get is: IBM 300GL - $$$$. Officially IBM never tells me the exact cost and only mentions some "internal agreements" with Microsoft.
This is the way Microsoft defends its consumers: NakedOS. And they talk about legality of selling NakedPCs
Buy the PC without a harddrive, and buy the harddrive separate. I did that when I bought my laptop which of course is Micros~1 free. I didn't even have to return any CD with that legacy OS !!
RFC1925
If you purchased Windows 95 a couple years ago and are planning on installing it on your new computer, why should you pay the Windows tax again? If Word 6.0 does everything you could possibly want in a word processor, why should you have to pay to upgrade to a newer version? People are getting sick of the neverending upgrade cycle. Computers are becoming less and less novel, and people are depending on them more to do real work. People don't expect to have to buy new file cabinets every year because paper sizes change and new documents don't fit in the file cabinet. Yet they are forced to pay for new versions of Word just to be able to read new documents from other people, and buy new versions of Windows just to run applications. It's not going to last.
My wife and I have several Windows machines at home - she's a technical writer, specializing in MS Exchange, I do Windows development. I don't believe (with the exception of my laptop) that we have any machine that isn't slated to eventually have multiple OS installations... generally some mixture of Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K.
I have also set up multiple dual-boot systems for various small businesses with a dual-boot configuration of DOS 6 and Win9x... typically, DOS in order to run legacy applications that blow up under Win9x, Win9x for email and more modern apps. Never mind that we've gotten to the point where Win95 is a "legacy" OS as well... anyone yet had to install DOS, Win95 and WinME in order to support legacy apps?
When I ask a dealer for a naked system, it's not because I'm planning on pirating software; it's because the tradiational, AOL-using, consumer view of "one computer == one OS" doesn't always hold true.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
For work, I buy quite a few machines a year (about 20-30 depending on contracts) from Dell. I then gut the machines, add my own hardware (Digiboards, Network Memory Boards, FO Ethernet, Colorgraphics boards, etc...) and my own operating system. Problem is, the only way I can buy these machines is with a modem, video card, and Winbloze ME. I have a drawer full of WinModems, video card (pretty good ones too) and Windows licenses. How much money am I wasting paying for Windows ME, that I don't need and have no use for. Of course, M$ likes it this way, since I effectily paid for two copies of Windows. The WinME that came pre-installed and the Win2000 I had to buy seperatly to put on the machine. It is a rip-off, and I would build the machines myself if it was an option.
Okay, now hold up a minute here. I recall a whole bunch of articles just a few months ago about how Microsoft was No Longer allowing major OEM's to ship Windows CD-ROMs[*] anymore. This was, as I recall, to help stop piracy
Yes indeedy. So they ship system-restore CDs instead, which have a system image on them -- aka Windows. But they're targetted to that model of machine only, and you get all the OEM stuff.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You are not.
It depends on what state you live in. Some jurisdictions have upheld click-wrap licenses. Others have not.
Actually, click-wrap's standing may be questionable even in jurisdicitons that rely on ProCD.
ProCD held that the EULAs were valid contracts because the customer had the option to return the software for a refund if the customer disagreed with the EULA. There was no judicial notice taken of the fact that the majority of retail stores will not give refunds if the software package has been opened.
Having read the ProCD opinion, I am under the impression, that had it been brought to the court's attention that there is no oportunity to read the EULA before paying and that both the software manufactorer and the retailer refuse to refund the money after reading the EULA, the court would have ruled differently.
Then there is also the question of fraud. According to the lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason Staples will not give refunds for opend software is that the manufactorers will not give them a refund for opened software.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
I don't care really, except that I should be given a CHIOCE! The last thing I want to hear is that you have to take it my way.
Just so you know, for machines with 'image' CDs instead of install CDs, the cabs get installed to the hard drive. (windows\options\cabs generally)
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This might not get noticed seeing as how this is getting to be an "old" post by recent standards :)
.CABs and etc, just no setup.exe. Use the one from the \cabs folder and you're good to go!
But from my experiences, most OEM machines DO HAVE the installable files (All from \Win98 on the OEM CD for example) in the C:\windows\options\cabs folder. The setup.exe is almost always there, you can burn that folder to CD and have a installable OEM copy right there.
Others that come with a "Companion" CD (Old practice, most don't even do that anymore) have all the
I can't find the link to ESR's article from Linux Journal about the fact that Microshaft makes alot of their money by playing games with their own stock this combined with Neal Stephenson's thoughts on the importance of mindshare to M$ in ITBTWTCL makes it obvious they *have* to maintain the illusion in the average Joe's mind that Winders is *the* OS. If it ever becomes clear to users that winders is not a fundamental part of the computer in the same way the mobo is there will be a mass revolt and people will start to understand that they do in fact have choices and this will be very bad for M$.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
In the same vein as MS's argument, the gvn't today has announced a new set of regulations. Since having people run around nude is illegal, they are now requiring all doctors and potential mothers to dress their children before they are born.
A Government Spokesperson said that "Microsoft had a wonderful idea. If we dont clothe our children before they are born then there exists the possibility that they might break the law by walking around naked."
Having worked at Gateway for two years I will tell you what I tell anyone I know that is interesting in purchasing a computer:
Stay the hell away from Gateway! Having been on the inside I can honestly tell you that I have no idea how the hell they stay in business. They destroyed their service department (they didn't want educated technicians, so they took away the 'service' part of it and made it a bunch of crappy tests on an assembly line look alike. Pass the tests and there must not be anything 'really' wrong with your computer). They litterally go out of their way to get the most clueless morons they can find on the phones with customers. Plus, they pretty much piss off the few good employees they have by telling them that whatever computer experience and/or education they have doesn't matter, they aren't worth more than just above minimum wage because they are going to be assigned to a 'push the fscking button' type of job anyway.
If you want a computer, stay away from Gateway. Unless you really enjoy dealing with clueless idiots all the time. Of course, you're reading slashdot, so that could be the case.
Bite my yammer.
When I bought my notebook it came with win98SE bundled. I promptly booted it up to make sure it worked then installed Linux-Mandrake, wiping out Windows entirely. I now have a OEM windows disk and Product ID code not in use. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a naked system and not have to pay for Windows again if I was to actually want Windows on the new system? People buying Naked systems are not the type to call up for software support. These are the type of people a small computer shop wants to sell to. No troubling tech support outside of hardware malfunctions.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
So now Microsoft has finally gotten in on the presumption-of-guilt game?
:)
It is funny how this works. Consumers are assumed to be guilty, whereas the Company is assumed to be "perfect"
The other day my wife and I walked to the store to pick up some groceries. To make it easier we brought a back pack with us. When we entered the store, the doorman told us that we had to leave our pack at the front door. They have bins that you can put it in. However, right on the bin it said they were not responsible for lost or stolen packs.
I refused to leave my backpack there... I told the doorman that I could not leave it there because they are not responsible if it is stolen. I told him if he has a problem with it he can search me on the way out.
He then let me enter the store with my pack on my back, and I had no problems leaving the store without being searched
Don't let them screw you around. Stick up for your rights.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
https://oempub.microsoft.com/scripts/oemapps/tools /feedback/feedback.asp
and post your disgust. I did.
Please take down the following page:
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/nakedPC.htm
It is fundamentally misleading and therefore immoral. Have you guys been awake at all during the last 4 years and especially during your anti-trust trial?
Don't you remember during the trial how you whined about Linux being such significant competition? Linux is free. FREE TO LOAD ON NAKED PCs!
Quit acting like obnoxious bullies and start behaving like decent Americans.
I've been a Microsoft Supporter and Customer for years but you're REALLY starting to piss me off.
Alan
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I remember them too. I just can't remember who they were, or how to get ahold of them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Note that the signs are usually posted where you can see them when you first come in, so that in walking in there you are entering into something akin to a shrink-wrap EULA (without as much fine print).
Are there any cases that deal with this issue? I'm wondering how binding these signs are and whether their placement is well-regulated or not. What if I go to the store without my contacts in and I don't see the sign? There's probably a hundred reasons I could think of that could prevent me from reading such a sign. I would love to know how these things work. It does sound somewhat similar to a shrink-wrap EULA, but we aren't even sure how legal those are, at least in certain states or districts.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The irony is amazing... after regurgitating for months(years?) to the media they are not a monopoly, they have the odacity to make the claim that customers buying naked PCs must by necessity install pirated versions Windows, implicitly making the claim that there are no other options.
What more damning evidence could their be as to the outrageous lies spewing out of Redmond?
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
...that we're not even talking about free software as an alternative for a second...
If I own a valid copy of windows9X - and my old machine is kaput. (Lightning strike took it out, let's say...)
I should have to buy another license of windows??? Did it get fried by the lightning strike too?
What if I just wanted to replace my old clone system - and I just want the box... I shouldn't have to pay for another license - that's insane.
The whole argument is garbage.
BlackNova Traders
My last machine was purchased from a small local shop. I went in with my little list, and they looked over it. When he got to "No OS - and I won't buy here if there is a charge for the OS anyway" he looked at me and said "Linux user, huh. Want to use our T1 to burn an ISO?" and offered some nominal charge (talkin Cheapbytes cost, here). I was puzzled - does this happen often? The answer is yes, with the qualifier that its due to his close proximity to a college, and lots of people want Linux boxes to run small servers on, do CS homework, etc. He also showed me the huge pile of Windows CDs that he apparently can't move, legally, because of the way the licensing agreements work, when people buy "naked" machines.
But anyway, isn't it odd that they say a PC without an OS is like a house without a roof, but they charge for it? What I mean is, when I build a house, the roof is built into the cost (like the Windows "tax"). But they also sell roofs stand-alone at Best Buy, and make builders buy N roofs at a time, even if they aren't slated to build N houses. Doesn't make sense to me: the guy in the above bit doesn't want to deal with all this stuff. He wants to sell computers. That's all he cares about. Since you go to him to get things custom-built, he lets you put your own roof on, since its your house.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
My suggestion to anyone with one of those crummy OEM copies of Win is to try the this technique when you go to reinstall Win from the recovery disk. I mean, how many different ways are there to screw the customer that don't require something really fancy? I'll bet dollars to donuts that other Win95/98 PC manufacturers use this technique (that a pre-existing, correctly named partition must be on the hard drive) to appease Sauron and his Nazguls.
Of course, one day we will have to eliminate Windows from Linux PCs altogether.
Unfortunately, that day isn't here yet. Its coming soon, though.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Their page doesn't talk (directly, that is) about Windows, so it's still OK. However, I think going one step further (like using this to pressure computer shops into selling Windows with every PC) would be claiming that MS has a monopole on operating systems. They should be very careful about that (I don't know why I'm saying that, I know they won't!)
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
IBM PC DOS Is still supported and sold
Valid point if you don't understand copyright or the GPL, which many(most) people don't. I'm no GPL scholar either, but from what I do understand, the GPL does not restrict your usual first-sale or fair use rights at all. When you get a piece of GPL'd software, you have a choice. You can either accept the GPL license and have the right to distribute modified versions of the software, provided that you make the modified source code available as well, or you can reject the GPL license and simply use the software within the bounds of normal copyright law. That means you can't distribute copies at all. That's one of the major difference between the GPL and Microsoft's EULA. With the GPL, you can use the software whether you accept the license or not. With the MS EULA, they try to take away every right you have and then pile on every restriction they can think of.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One link away is this page, detailing illegal ways OEMs may be pirating windows. An excerpt for your pleasure:
Hard Disk Loading
The second form of piracy affecting the system builder is generally referred to as "hard disk loading". Under this practice a system builder will illegally pre-load a copy of the software onto the computer prior to sale. In this case the system builder makes a deliberate decision to load illegal software onto the computers he sells, usually as an incentive for the end user to purchase from him. In most cases, he doesn't even bother supplying any media, license agreement, a manual or documentation. Hard disk loading is particularly prevalent in less developed markets where there is no end user expectation of such "extras", or indeed a full understanding of software being a separate concept to hardware."
Isn't Microsoft's primary objective to eliminate any understanding that software is a separate concept than hardware? Here they make it sound like preloading an OS is a bad thing, but if you take out the word "illegal" from the above quote, their statements are arguments against preloading Windows at all, pirated or not!
F....U....D!
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Things like illegal search and seizure and free speech protect you from the government, NOT from private citizens. Corporations are considered to be private citizens
See what the US Code says about this question:
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added]
--Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
The above was taken from this page which also has lots of interesting legal briefs & correspondence between private citizens and the US Gov't.
Basically, it says that a corporation is a private citizen in some respects, but is also legally a PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. I wonder if this means that illegal search & seizure laws would apply if Walmart employees attempted to search you without your consent? (since the corporation is legally a government entity....)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
Hurry up and get your lab stuff done. :)
--
Ben Kosse
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
my company is a subsidiary of a corporation (reed-elsevier) that have a multi-million dollar contract w/ ms that includes licences to all of there products. since we cannot by pc's w/o windows from most major vendors, we have to pay twice for windows in many cases! this is how they treat there "Selest" customers think how much the little guy gets the shaft!
i have walked down train tracks, walked down train tracks, drunk at 3 a.m. it not magic, it's no great trick, w
I'm not an expert in license agreements, but is it not legal to move your copy of windows from one machine to another? Because in this day and age, it seems to me that many people need to upgrade or replace their hardware every couple of years while not necessarily having to replace thier O/S. I'm sure that there are still a lot of people running windoze 95 even though thier machines are newer that 5 years old.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Doesn't windows take care of providing the user with the above?
illenium.net - ultimate sk8 shop online
Going after the "pushers" won't work. Where there is demand, there will always be people willing to supply. Anti-piracy technology will advance, and piracy technology will advance right along with it. If nothing else, you have to attack both supply and demand with equal ferocity, though a stronger focus on demand tends to have a better result.
Interestingly, this is sort of the same problem with the "War on Drugs." You can attack the supply all you want, but as long as there is a demand, you're not gonna stop every manufacturer, every courier, every dealer. Drive demand into the toilet and the supply problem will take care of itself.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
You can't COPY it, of course, because of copyright law
Actually, you can copy it. You just can't distribute copies, and you can't have more than one copy installed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers--and yourself--open to?
Is Microsoft really implying here that they could take action against a computer seller just because they sell machines without an operating system preinstalled? That's the way I read it. Sounds completely and utterly ridiculous to me, but then the DMCA sounds completely and utterly ridiculous as well, and it's real enough.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Now I've got a Microsoft site that backs that up. Thank you Redmond!
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The problem is European is pronounced as if it began with a "Y" and which is correct: "A yellow jumper" or "An yellow jumper".
But there are so many illogical things in all dialects of English that it's really not worth getting upset about them. Aluminium does beat aluminum though.
Rich