Slashback: Norwegian, Nader, Handheld

Slashback below with a handful of updates on Walmart's OS-free PCs, another X-Scale PDA, Ralph Nader's plan to slip the Big Government carpet from beneath Microsoft, and how you can help save Norwegian history. Film88 gets slapped down by the copyright barons, but 802.11b gets a reprieve. Read on for the details.

Putting it all online. "As earlier reported on Slashdot, poor Ottar Grepstad has difficulties getting into his database. Now they're available for download! This is one geeky challenge you don't want to miss. :-) You'll find the story here (click on 'the password mystery'). 'use Xbase;', anyone? :-)"

The loyal opposition. Helmholtz Coil writes "Yahoo! is carrying a rebuttal to the letter James Love and Ralph Nader wrote to the OMB, from the fine folks at ZDNet. Some interesting points, very interesting tone to the whole piece. The question is, though-when can we expect a rebuttal to the rebuttal?"

They need a Free OS focus group :) Gecko writes "Remember the PCs without a pre-installed operating system, selling at Wal-Mart's? OSNews got their hands on one of these and they test Windows, Linux and BeOS. Apparently, the company behind these products had immediately replaced the on-board winmodem with a hardware PCI one, in order to be compatible with Linux, but their new AthlonXP/Duron PC models now come with a newer S3 Savage4 DDR integrated graphics card that is not supported by XFree86. One keeps wondering why they sell these PCs without Windows, if they are not able to test their hardware with other OSes before sending them to Wal-Mart for sale."

A new meaning for Pocket Rocket. Hot on the heels of XScale introductions and announcements from Toshiba and Fujitsu, Brian writes "Acer, Inc. today announces the Acer n20 series, eight months after announcing support for the Microsoft Pocket PC 2002 platform, the announcement also made Acer one of the few manufacturers to support both the Palm and Pocket PC platform. PDA LIVE.com again has the scoop and the photos :)"

I hope the pace picks up on the introduction of machines based on Intel's XScale processor.

Dog Star. DHR writes "An update to an earlier story shows that Sirius the satellite radio provider has finally come to their senses and withdrawn their petition to restrict the 2.4GHz band."

Intermission. bubblegoose writes "Yahoo has a story about Film88 being taken down by the MPA. They say it's because the servers were in the Netherlands, I think it more likely due to a good /.'ing."

Comments

target of OSless PC

[Hollins]

One keeps wondering why they sell these PCs without Windows, if they are not able to test their hardware with other OSes before sending them to Wal-Mart for sale.

I don't think Linux users are the target buyer for these PCs. I suspect most of them are being sold to:

1. Folks with a PII/300 who want to upgrade and are planning on installing their OEM Win98SE
2. People who intend to install a pirated windows, most likely a copy from the office or a buddy

Both of these categories are in violation of MS EULA, but I would guess 80% of the machines end up with Windows on them. Most people who install an OEM copy of Windows will have no idea that they're breaking the law, which I believe is a large part of the reason click-wrap licensing gets away with so much.

I'm curious, how prominently are these PCs advertised as not having an OS? Is Wal-Mart getting many returns because nothing happened when the machine was turned on?

Re:target of OSless PC

[Qrlx]

Both of these categories are in violation of MS EULA

We really need a court or two to weigh in on this issue of reinstalling the OEM OS on a new PC. I can see how Microsoft wants to protect their revenue stream by selling you a new OS when you buy a new PC, but I'm not sure if that's solid enough legal ground to stand on.

What, aside from Microsoft's assertion, makes the OS and the PC inseperable? If this is legally possible, why don't we see it all the time? For example, it's well-known that a car that costs $15,000 has got $30,000 worth of parts in it. Yet the auto manufacturers make no claim that you can't take the fuel filter from your old Honda and put it in your new Honda, or sell it on the street, or make a funny hat out of it.

Additionally, what is meant by the term "computer?" Is it the CPU, or the HD, or the RAM, or the MB, or what? If you upgrade all those items, one at a time, are you then required to buy a new OS because it's essentially a new computer now?

I (and many others) don't think Microsoft's assertion that an OEM OS is only valid on the computer it was sold with is legally viable. But until a court addresses the issue, we'll just have to take their word for it. Or not, like the people buying OS-less PCs at WalMart. I'd love to see their faces when the U.S. Marshalls break down the door.

Maybe a highly ethical Wal-Mart employee out there will feel compelled to provide the BSA with the names and addresses (via credit card receipts) of all those who've purchased OS-less PCs, thereby ensuring that our economy doesn't lose untold more millions due to software piracy.

Re:target of OSless PC

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Both of these categories are in violation of MS EULA"

There's a third category of people installing retail copies of Windows that've been removed from the previous machine. That's 100% legitimate, as far as I know.

The question is whether or not there are many people like that out there. Retail boxes of Windows tend to get decent placement in computer stores, so theoretically there are people buying them. Also, for a novice user (which I suspect includes a lot of the Walmart PC customers), it's generally easier to buy a new PC rather than upgrade pieces. So it's not unreasonable for there to be a number of legitimate purchases of the system for Windows use.

Re:target of OSless PC

[Cody Hatch]

Only if your an auto company. :-) What he means is, if you want to build a $15,000 car, you'd have to buy $30,000 worth of parts, and that's not even counting labor.

Similarly, a computer with an OS costs less than a computer and an OS (each sold seperatly), not even counting the labor required to install it.

Now, some companies think they have some "rights" to a package of parts they sell you, and have some say over what you can do with it, above and beyond any laws that might govern your use of it. With a car, you can do anything you like with the car OR the parts, as long as you don't break laws. But some computer companies are attemting to restrict what you can do with the bundled parts they give you, even when you aren't breaking any laws: i.e. installing an old OS on a new computer.

Common sense says this ain't going to fly. Unfortunatly, it may take a while before that becomes the case.

Re:target of OSless PC

[leongalt]

He means if you part it out. If you take all the parts off a new car and sell them, you should recover considerably more than you paid for it. The difficulty and reason more people don't try to do this for a living, is that you'd have to sell nearly every part of the car. It would be easy to sell the first 25% of the parts, but it would get progressively harder to finish it up. Not worth the effort for most people. The reason the parted out car is worth more in parts is due to the mark-up on replacement parts. The car company has quantities of scale working for them, after-market replacements do not enjoy that benefit. Hence, a replacment bumper might cost $300 to replace, when it only cost the factory $100 to make the original.

Re:target of OSless PC

[BeBoxer]

The spare parts cost more. If you take your car apart, and sold the parts, they would be worth more than the car. People don't do this because it's too labor intensive, and most folks don't like used parts all that much. So to turn it around, if you bought all the spare parts you would need to build a car, it would cost more for the part alone than the whole car.

Which is just like with a PC and Windows. The PC and Windows are worth more apart than together, due to the steep discounts on OEM versions of Windows. But auto manufacturers can't stop you from parting out your car. Why is M$ allowed to stop you from parting out your PC? I should be able to buy a Dell, put Linux on it, and sell the new copy of WinXP for whatever I can get. Just like I can buy a new Ford, put in an Alpine stereo, and sell the OEM stereo.

They are selling it without a os because...

[chronos2266]

it drives down the final price of the computer. Most people go to walmart expecting lower prices than the competition. In order to maintain that image, walmart decided to drop the windows license out of the cost of the computer, effectively lowering the price for the same hardware. People see the better deal at walmart and don't think twice about how they are going to get windows on there, illegally.

OS free pc's at walmart? For who?

[GoatPigSheep]

From my experience, most of the people who shop for pc's at retail stores such as walmart are not very experienced with how they work. Generally the more experienced users either build their own system from scratch or get one custom made for them. Most people I know who buy pre-assembled pc's have no clue how to install WINDOWS, let alone linux. And most linux users know enough about pc's that they would not buy a pre assembled one from wal-mart.

I am not certain who they intend to market these pc's to, as the type of people who buy them generally would want windows anyway. There is no point in forcing these people to go through the windows install, no matter how easy it is. And I doubt they would make much business with linux users, as most would not buy a system from a retail store.

Re:OS free pc's at walmart? For who?

[Sloppy]

I am not certain who they intend to market these pc's to, as the type of people who buy them generally would want windows anyway.

I don't know who they're marketed to either, but I think it's a weird conclusion to jump to, to think they might want Windows. Unless they take their office work home with them, they probably have no preference at all. Maybe it's Aunt Cleo, who just wants a machine to surf te web and email her nephew. Windows has no advantage for that sort of thing.

Here's my guess about the target market: it's anyone who is ignorant enough to buy it. Mark buys the machine from Walmart because w/out Microsoft tax it is cheaper than what Target is selling then takes it home and "it doesn't work." Now they need to buy get an OS, and Walmart's advantage evaporates. But Walmart already has the money.

Re:Nader

[captain_craptacular]

Yeah, thats a great precedent. Lets violate someones rights because we don't like them. I really don't think you want to allow politicians access to the slippery slope of deciding who gets what rights.

Re:walmart pc's

[rapidweather]

btw, the cheapest one at Walmart is $400.00. (without monitor). I for one, would want to shop around at say, baber.com for a barebones machine, if I had $400.00 to spend. Also, they have some information about Windows (not included or installed) that will give some of you a laugh. Anything I get with a 40 gb hdd is going to get partitioned, and I'll have both Windows and Linux on it.
P.S. If, and this is a big IF, I ever got one of those new emacs, I'd partition that with Mandrake first thing.

Re:Maintenance

[frovingslosh]

That's certainly one possibility, but how many people make the same call when they take the computer home, turn it on, and it doesn't boot up?

At least a nice GUI could display a helpful message, and confirm that the box you bought works before you shell out as much as $299 for a MS OS (yes, I know there are less expensive ways to legitimately buy XP Pro but many customers apparently do not).

Seems like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I still think the manufacturer should consider pre-installing Linux. While I would like to see it be a full blown OS with lots of extras (certainly a browser and a full office suite at a minimum), maybe the best thing to avoid the "How do I use this calls" could be to ship a stripped down version with no useful applications - the GUI could inform the user that the system clearly works but that they will need to install their own OS to actually do anything with the computer.

ZDnet's editor

[DustMagnet]

But technology doesn't mix well with government regulations that dictate how to build and distribute technology products.

He clearly missed the whole point of Nader's argument. Nader didn't ask the government to regulate anything, except it's own purchases. Nader himself said it was better than government regulations.

Re:Walmart?

[Cody Hatch]

Please tell me your kidding. Comparing sweatshops to slavery is ludicrous (and to think I've seen people complaing that calling copyright violation "piracy" was bad...).

People in sweatshops are there by choice (unless they are actually slaves, which does happen (rarely) but then the problem is the slavery, not the sweatshops). The reason people choose to work in sweatshops is because the alternatives are WORSE. Is it a awful thing for a 13 year old kid to be working 12 hours a day for a few cents? Yeah. Would it be better if he was starving on the street instead? Not really.

Also, don't make the mistake of judging wages in terms of the price of a cup of Starbucks Super Mocha Java. In China, it's common for young women from the interior to go work in sweatshops on the coast for a few months, then go back home to the village, where they're now quite well off (yes, even at sweatshop wages), and can easily find a husband.

What is your boycot going to do? Well, actually, you'll probably just get ignored, but if you do have an impact, it'll probably be that Walmart's suppliers shift production to automated factories in Mexico. Yeah, that'll sure help the starving kids in Myanmar...

If you want to have an impact, calculate the difference in price between everything you buy that was made in a sweatshop, and it's factory-made equivalent, then donate that money to a charity. You'll do far more good.

Re:First Pacman Post

[cetan]

No waste is generated.

This is completely wrong. The waste generated, aside from the pheromones it produces to attract the ghosts is, course, the ghosts' eyes, which we all know are completely indigestible.

what goverment should do

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of regulating they should educate and advertise. This of course also includes organization as well. Let private orgs serve as watchdogs, form trade associations and the like... but by setting up a regulatory agency or expanding the ones that exist you in essence create a stagnant pool that is easily corrupted and abused (worsens the problem) while draining the very money and drive from the economy that you (the agency) claim to cherish.

Re:The "rebuttal" to Nader...

[Malcontent]

"But where they differ from Nader, and the only real disagreement is whether there should be any mandate on forcing Microsoft to release source, sell source, etc. "

If this is what they were arguing against they were beating a straw man. Nader did not call for that. ALthough his letter was primarily about MS that particular section of his letter dealt with "office software" in general terms. He was suggesting that the govt might be able to buy the source of some "office software" cheaper then buying MS licenses year after year. Personally I think that makes a lot of sense. If let's say open office isn't good enough could the govt buy the source code for wordperfect office or smartsuite for less then what it costs to equip the entire govt with MS office? I bet it would. As a bonus the source code would become public domain. An all around good deal for everybody.

I want to do this and email it to piracy@ms

[systemaster]

I'll buy the OS less PC and use my same monitor and keyboard, To me it looks like the same computer(tower is under desk) I just replaced a worn out part of it(the tower) So I'll call it the same computer, so I'm not breaking the license, just reinstalling it on the same computer after a rebuild. Hell I'm a dumb consumer, monitor = computer, tower = CPU, I just bought a new CPU the computer is the same. How can that be illegal.

Re:Walmart?

[joss]

You probably overestimate the difference between being a slave and working in a sweat shop. An economic position where one must work hard for 18 hours purely to survive is pretty close to slavery. I suspect that the workers would be better off if they really were slaves - the owners would then have more incentive to invest in training and would be inclined to take better care of actual property.

You're right up to a point. It is worse for those working in sweatshops for you to simply boycott sweatshops' products.

People used to argue that it would be wrong to boycott slave manafactured products because unless the slaves were productive and profitable they would probably be executed. Again, it's a reasonable argument, but it misses the point slightly.