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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
----
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
(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:
Because we don't want to pay for it if we won't use it... is that not a good enough reason? Or should we just tax the entire population of Earth for the cost of one license each since we are all "potential users."
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
=(.\')=