Slashdot Mirror
Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."
Tell me Mr. Anderson: what good is a MICROSOFT LICENSING 6.0 if you are unable to KEEP USING IT AFTER YOU SELL YOUR COMPUTERS?
If you don't like it, don't use Microsoft products.
Now that innovation!
Mabye this is what they kept talking about during all of those trials.
You don't own software. Software is a contract, and even though you shelled out $x for a piece of software, you are bound to the agreement. Transfering a Windows license is like any other contract.. read it carefully and make sure you're permitted to do so.
I'm not saying that MS is good, quite the contrary. They will rape their customers for as much money as they can, but from a bunsiness standpoint they're just just doing business.
If you don't like it, use linux.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
In other news, the U.S. Government is planning to divert all tax dollars paid by citizens directly to Microsoft.
"What with recent License agreements and all, they pretty much own us in all but name anyway. This will just smooth the transition from Country to Corporation," said one unnamed congressman.
The change in finance is made in anticipation of the official change in ownership and name of the country, soon to be renamed Microsoft Invader.
I've often wondered - I've got a Sony Vaio, which came for a licence for Windows ME (which I don't use anyway). But when the laptop eventually dies, does the licence die with it?
Or am I allowed to move it to another computer?
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Maybe Apple was right with their (globally lambasted) "Lemmings" super bowl ad in 1985. Business just blindly walked off the cliff and right into Gates/Ballmers' bank accounts.
Of course I suspect if history had been different and we'd all ended up buying Apple's the result would not be that different. We'd have a Steve Jobs/Borg head icon instead perhaps. =)
At least we didn't all buy Amigas... then we'd all have to off ourselves for being such bleating wankers.
heh.
..."What microsoft is really doing is saying, 'Hey, just recognize you are truly at our mercy.' "
If you didn't already know that, you just haven't been paying attention.
How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux?
comment directly in my journal
If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.
The same goes with many other maintanaince/support contracts. Dont like it? Do business with someone else.
We have customers who still contractually pay for support on HP big iron boxes that havent been plugged in for years.
Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt (heres the kicker!) for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Isn't there still some clause in the US constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment?
From the office of Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf :
In post Saddam Iraq, Microsoft licenses you.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Please do continue your efforts to rip^H^H^H fleece^H^H^H^H^H^H provide "value-added" propositions to your customers through your wonderful License Agreement.
You are making my world domination^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H job so much easier.
Thank you so much in advance,
Yours respectfully,
Linus Torvalds
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
From the article:
e nse_transfer.doc) that outlines the company's transfer policies for mergers, consolidations, and divestitures."
"Microsoft officials pointed me to a page on its Web site (http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/lic
Does this affect businesses only? Is Joehomeuser safe?
sounds like a great deal. I'll buy it!
Not to *use* it, it doesn't. The GPL only asks for your source if you use it's source. It's like consensual sex vs rape...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilaed.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
" what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?"
Give us your URL. We'll find out.
So, why buy Microsoft Products or the PCs loaded with Microsoft Products in the first place!?
As businesses get wise to these kind of contracts, they will get smarter about entering into them. For years now, most companies have been "stupid" when it comes to IT -- but times are changing. Companies are getting MUCH more sophisticated about how they handle their IT.
This is a short term problem.
Those with hotmail addresses are not respected.
Releasing source is a positive. It allows for greater code quality, and it's still free as in beer! There is no cost!
Finally someone has got the formula right
1. Profit
2. Profit More
"I think we can all agree on one thing: 'The Moos of Derision' would be a good name for a rock band."-Dave Barry
But maybe I'm misign something. In the case of a perpetual license, you only pay once. So this isn't an issue. If it's a recurring license, then you renew when the time comes due. If you no longer have the machines then you don't renew. What's the big deal?
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
by now, it should be obvious to all but someone awakening from a coma what microsoft is and does. yet businesses still go with them. of course we know all the reasons. BFD. look, if people want to go with them, it's their business. other businesses will adopt FOSS solutions. they'll be at a competitive advantage, just as people were in the 80's with microsoft. but more MS is evil, please. my 2 year old even konws that!!!
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
The beauty of living under a régime of napoleonic civil code instead of the common law is that such a stunt could never be pulled, as every kind of transaction is rigidly codified in law...
My guess is that this is just a side effect of whatever the standard contract is. When licensing software you don't want to have to negotiate a different licensing agreement with each customer unless you have to. Of course one size doesn't always fit all so this sometimes has some unintended consequences. MS can afford to ignore some of these because there aren't exactly a lot of realistic alternatives. Behavior is nearly always explained by incentives.
While I fully agree that this is not the most ethical behavior, But I also think this might fall under the category of "never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity". I think this is just something that was overlooked or ignored because it was problematic. Plus who else are you going to go to? (*cough* monopoly *cough*)
Instead of whining here are some things that you can do.
Ask computer manufacturers if their machines are linux compatible
(especially laptops)video cards, sound cards, etc.
Most have a toll free numbers.
If the don't support linux ask "them when will they?".
Ask software suppliers it they have ported their products to linux.
Call their main office. Once one company listens others will follow.
We need a "Linux Call the Manufacturer Day".
They will get the message.
I'd say it's more like fucking a whore vs. fucking your girlfriend.
You'll end up catching a nasty virus that doesn't go away from the first one, but with the second one you'll end up paying through the nose for the foreseeable future.
I have been pwned because my
I'm honestly no longer surprised when a new story comes out along the lines of "give MS money, get nothing in return".
First it was per cpu licensing, then refund day, the MS tax on every name brand computer, licensing 6.0, expiring licenses, the "media center pc" (which is nothing more than a PC with a tv tuner), pay for support you don't (and can't) get.
What totally boggles my mind is that in the face of so many alternatives in both the desktop and server markets (linux, sun, mac os x) people continue to pull down their pants and bend over for Bill.
Not only do they not complain, but they do it willingly. People jump at the chance to hand over their hard earned cash to a bunch of crooks.
Maybe MS knows their days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before people wake up out of the mass stupor blanketing this planet, and that's why they're milking those poor fools for all they can.
We are under EA (enterprise agreement) version 6 here at my company and this is how it works. Once a year you tell MS how many computers are using what software products. This only happens once per year. Yes, if you cut the number of machines in half you won't see an immediate savings until the next time you give MS your numbers.
However, if you end up doubling your computers you come out ahead: you basically get free use of the software until you update your numbers with MS.
This also means you could get free use of software if you only used it for part of a year. For example, if you give MS numbers each January, you could install extra stuff in February, remove it in December, and MS would never have to know you used it.
The EA does end up saving money if you were going to upgrade all the time anyway, or perhaps only skip one version. If you tend to skip two or more versions, the EA would most likely cost you more money.
Apparently part of waht I'm missing is the ability to type "missing".
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Most reasonable contracts have escape clauses that kick in if you move, or some such. Very few businesses can convince customers to sign a contract that potentially leaves them paying bills and getting nothing in return. People will, as you suggest, push that nonsense away and head over to the competition.
The fact that Microsoft can get away with this is a testament to the lack of options most businesses feel they have.
Even of Linux really has a higher cost of ownership compared to Microsoft's OS, at least your still not paying for it after you get rid of the thing.
I belive that we shouldn't be trying to convince our bosses that alterative's to MS are the way to go, management usually dismiss that as geeks trying to get some new toys. We should be convincing the accountants who management will listen to.
At least that's what I'm trying to do, other people's circumstances may differ of course.
>
This makes license 6.0 not much different from a house mortgage. My wife and I bought a house this past October, and the terms of our mortgage specifically say that if we sell the house, we cannot have the new owner simply take over the payments. We HAVE to pay off the remaining principal on the loan when the house is sold, no matter how many years are left on the mortgage. This probably has something to do with the fact that they trust me to make payments because they have already fully investigated my financial history, but not the person that is buying the house.
I don't think Microsoft realizes that sometimes they are their own worst enemy, and even if Linux is not "there" yet, it will only push customers towards Linux (and other OSes, such as the BSDs and even the apple OSX). At some moment the overbaring costs of Microsoft software will outweight the petpeaves of Linux.
Just you wait until, along with a new social security number, you're required to purchase a Windows 2014 license for your new child, along with lifetime maintenance.
All in the name of curbing copyright infringement, mind you.
The console gaming market has shown that software vendors will cough up per-sale fees to Sony/Microsoft/etc to license titles to particular consoles.
Why couldn't Microsoft, under the auspices of Palladium (there's another name for that initiative now, if I recall), use DRM and per-sale license keys to "enable" third party applications on machines?
I don't think it would be feasible to charge on a time basis for use of Microsoft products (not yet, anyway, but when everything is WiFi-enabled and connections are ubiquitous... Microsoft Airtime?), so constructive lucritive licensing and support agreements and then getting software kickbacks seems like a great way to ensure that signing up with Microsoft is the gift that just keeps on giving... to Microsoft!
Personally, I'm all for it. The more obnoxious Microsoft gets at charging people for subpar software, the easier it is to make a case for alternative operating systems and applications (linux, *bsd, mac os, etc etc etc).
Tell them that you are the CTO of a mid sized company and due to "insert reason here" you are taking all 10000 of your clients seats to Linux. See what kind of response you get then :)
All we need to do is get Congress to declare the current method of software "licensing" to be illegal; then force the idea that "once you buy software you BUY it--you can use it perpetually--but only one computer at a time, and if you sell it ALL your rights in the matter go to whomever you sold the software.
.sig says...
End of problem. Unfortuantely, it's harder to accomplish than anyone can imagine. Which is why you all need to elect me as Emperor for life. And, just like my
I'm serious. This is a good idea.
Anybody who doesn't might as well give up. Mfgs won't supply unless there is ample demand.
Precisely why we true geeks dont actually buy M$ licenses, on the rare occasion that we use their software. ;-)
PLEASE BOOST MY KARMA.
"I feel it is my duty to look at the porn that kids download before I delete it, to be sure what it is."--School Admin
With Linux, when you want to transfer the license, you have to pay a transfer fee of 72.8 times the original license cost!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AND only if you re-release your application. If you keep it in house, you don't have to release anything.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
We purchase all of the new PCs we order with a Microsoft EA SA agreement. It's a nightmare trying to keep track of which boxes at which location have what version OS on them, what kind of upgrades they're covered up through, and so on. There's a dedicated guy just for our department that does nothing but dealing with licensing.
For anybody who's never taken the time to read through some of these contracts, print one out sometime or read through the EULA next time you upgrade Windows and be prepared to be suprised. Honestly, MS plays by their own rules.
The crappy thing is there is no real alternative. There's over 50,000 computers in this organization. Switching these boxen over to linux isn't an option (sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it). And as expensive as dealing with MS is, it's still cheaper than buying 50,000 Macs and running OSX on them. Besides, most propritery medical apps only run on Windows from what I've seen.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Reduced to SILICON :)
Unless of course you have some really fancy organic computer i don't know about.
mods - he spelt what wrong - response is directly related to parent. On crack tonight?
Microsoft Licensing In Rip Off Shocker? Say it aint so?!
Not only did I spell what wrong, I did it in response to my initial mispelling of "missing". That's usually the way it works though.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Someone spent a lot of time researching something pretty basic - if you sell a computer that has an "open license" (the license is not tied to the computer), Microsoft will allow the ownership of the operating system to transfer, but not the right to "free" upgrades. Umm, duh? Who, in their right mind, if they aren't giving way their software, would?
DAMMIT! STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICROSOFT!!! ARGH!
Essentially, Microsoft are saying "We're going to sell you a three-year non-transferrable support and upgrade contract." Nothing wrong with that. They also let you make payments instead of paying for the full three years up front. Again, nothing bad about that. They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
It seems to be that nobody'd be complaining if they just required the entire payment for three years up-front and said"It's non-transferrable. Cope." People are pissed because Microsoft offers a payment plan, but they won't automatically transfer that plan.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Not that anyone who isn't actually buying or selling divisions of companies cares, but here are a couple of other things you might think about to make sure you're protected:
- make sure each legal entity is the licensor of its own licenses (ie. Bluelight should have been the licensor, not Kmart); then when the division is sold or divested, it is transparent to Microsoft (you may lose some volume discount here, of course);
- if you haven't done the above or are selling assets instead of equity, set up a permanent lease of the computers to the buyer instead of transferring ownership; make sure payments are structured (probably through some sort of escrow account or trust) so the lease is a lease and not a sale;
- in a bankruptcy, ask the judge to tell Microsoft to stuff it, which he may well have the power to do, and if he's a Windows user will certainly *want* to do.
Does it need to be said? IANAL.
On a related note, why doesn't some unemployed entrepreneur out there start a company that buys unused MS licenses (for Windows and Office, say) from companies that are downsizing or going out of business, then resell them to large companies that are being audited by MS? I know a few that would pay decent money just to not have to sort out the mess that is their file cabinet full of licenses, even if they do lose SA.
Milo
Legislatures often pass bad laws. Their intentions are good, but the letter of the law often leads to ridiculous conclusions when taken to the extreme.
It usually takes many years to discover how badly a law has been written, because it usually takes many years for people (or companies) to get around to pushing the wording to its logical conclusion. When Microsoft (or the RIAA, etc.) imposes seemingly ridiculously licensing terms on the public, they're actually doing us all a service in the long run, by quickly demonstrating to legislators that the applicable public policies are (in the long run) unworkable.
We know Microsoft isn't going to "win" in the long run (they're losing our data centers already, and eventually they'll lose our desktops and office suites as well), but when they do these extremely silly things they actually help hasten their own eventual demise, by rapidly educating the public (and the policy makers) about what's wrong with current regulation.
Getting laws corrected may feel like it's occuring with glacial slowness to those of us who already understand where things are heading, but it'll actually happen much more quickly than it would otherwise, the worse Microsoft behaves. So I say, heck ya Microsoft! Charge us twice for things you don't deliver...charge us ten times, twenty! Let's show the world what the phrase "illegal monopoly" -really- means.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
exactly the reason I posted the what?... so they mod it down without seeing the (ok slight and subtle) humour in my post...
I bought the XP Home upgrade, installed it, and used it for about 3 months. Then when I was at my campus bookstore I saw that I could get the XP Pro upgrade for $40 through the university, I decided to go for it, and give XP Home to my parents.
... So it's not on any other computers right?" etc)
So, I installed the XP pro upgrade, activated it, and tried to install XP Home at home - of course, it told me there was an 'error' and to call Microsoft. I did, explained that XP home was no longer on the computer I originally installed it on, and after I swore on the M$ bible, they finally gave in and either gave me a new activation key or added an activation to my existing key (I can't remember which).
It took a little bit of tooth pulling, but they let me do it. ("Are you SURE it's not on the old computer?
Player A signs a four-year contract with Team A. Team A trades Player A to Team B. Team A is still obligated to pay Player A as if he were still a member of the squad. (Sometimes Team B will pick up the contract, but that's not always the case.)
It's a little silly, but what about most contracts isn't?
libertarianswag.com
Anyone else remember a /. story from a couple of years ago where a teacher found a bunch of old 386 machines and installed a copy of Win3.1 on them for use by underprivledged children? IIRC, the machines themselves originally had a Windows license. MS tried to rape this guy and demand license fees for all the copies of the ~10 year old software.
It sounds to me like they are just codifying their past behavior into lawyereese in their EULA.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
I don't know if your metaphor is appropriate, or new, or what... but it is pretty damn funny.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
I don't understand your analogy, are you saying that Free Software is like a whore or a girlfriend?
Closed software is the whore, because their services cost money, there is no love, and we both know what operating systems propagate computer viruses.
You're going to have to use an analogy that slashdotters will understand.
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
In other news, Microsoft has announced that Licensing 7.0 is currently in earnest develop. Inspired by the Columbian drug cartel's licensing model called "Addiction & Dependence," Microsoft plans to make its users chemically dependent on its software.
Said one Microsoft spokesman, "This has the potential to cut our costs ten-fold. We won't have to go out and push our software as much anymore. People would come to us. Just think of what would happen on those cold, rainy nights when a user needs Microsoft software but can't get it. The effects of withdrawl would be killer."
Microsoft plans to certify local mechants as Software Peddlers and Ware Pushers to help keep up with the expected demand.
Sources familiar with the development effort say that Microsoft plans to experiment with cocaine, marijuana, and "some of that Nuke stuff seen in Robocop 2" to find the most lethal combination of chemical components to inject in its software.
Microsoft stock was up 3 points today after the announcement.
i'm sure they included this in the cost of ownership they toute.
Funny, there seems to be a correlation between deeply held beliefs and the number of wars and violence.
It doesn't seem to matter which religion or ideology it is or which side you are on, the result always seems to be the same!
The Fundamentalist Christians and the Crusades, Marxists, Fundamentalist Islamists, Scientologists and the Baathists, etc. are really all the same thing, a large collection of irrational beliefs!
I think the next evil regime the US should take out is Microsoft..... Bill Gates you day our numbered... :)
turns in to
bye bye
ONLY if you redistribute a program under the GPL you have modified... If you only use it "in house" no issues.
Your code is YOUR code, if you don't GPL it and distribute it, it does not get magically "infected" by running alongside GPL code.
If you steal GPL code and call it yours--You're scum anyway.
I find your reference to "Pedro's lawn care" racist and demeaning. By your offhand remark you have subconsciously (or worse, consciously) relegated all Hispanics to the level of manual laborer.
The name "Pedro's Lawn Care" indicates the Pedro owns the business. His reference, if he had any, would indicate that Hispanics show initiative, and are resourceful and entrepreneurial.
Many, if not most, business owners hire people to do much of the actual work. His sentence does not indicate who does the work. For all we know there are NO HISPANICS "watering his lawn and trimming his hedges." Even if Pedro's busines were a one man operation, so what? He is still taking some initiative.
One thing for sure, Pedro wouldn't hire some pasty white slashbot living in his mom's basement. What's wrong with trimming some hedges, going outside and getting some exercise. It is something YOU might want to try.
Looks like it is YOU that is the racist.
i only work with one large corporate right now. i'm just a contractor (in microsoftese that would be oucast slave) but am treated very well for a guy who's never met the folks who sign the checks. they are a power company and a large nation wide one. not to name names, but they have alot of wind power as well as local monopoly power where i live. they're a good company . . . . anyhow
since i'm doing Intranet Development for them, they have told me a bit about my target audience. the whole company is run on win2k with office 97, ie 5.5 service pack 2 . that's right, they refused extortion version 6.0. heck, their servers are all apache 1.3 on win2k.
m$ is just conniving at their own destruction with this crap! /end rant
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
Aren't both of those references to the borg? You continually pay for Windows for the rest of your forseeable future AND it gives you tons of nasty viruses (unless you use protection, but even that isn't 100%)
Who were the almost unimaginable morons who signed all those dumb contracts with Microsoft in the first place?
Without them Microsoft would not have a monopoly, there would be industry-wide standards for software, there would be many competitors and one could switch vendors in a heartbeat.
2 things:
1) I can't believe a moron like you could possibly hoard enough karma that you could reach the +1 bonus
2) I can't believe you thought your comment was important and interesting enough to make everyone surfing at +2 see it.
If you don't understand an analogy, keep it to yourself. You don't have to let everyone know you are mentally defective.
Qualified nonprofits (this is me; gotta be AC) get MS software for a few dollars, basically the cost of media, and guess what... SA is now thrown in for free. Hmmm, your corporate volume license was how much to get treated this way?
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.
All about me
kthx
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
License agreements are becoming more and more abusive. I decided to jump several steps ahead (short steps) and write the final EULA:
The final license agreement:
- I can do anything I like.
- You have no power.
- You can't say anything bad about me.
- Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this. He has since become an adult, which is more than I can say for some executives.Microsoft has also been experimenting with licenses that are agreed to when you purchase the computer, stating that you will never run any software other than Windows on it. These fall into a grey area where enforcibility is concerned, but they do raise some interesting questions...
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
With Linux, when you want to transfer the license, you have to pay a transfer fee of 72.8 times the original license cost!
Please share with the rest of us whatever it is that you have been drinking..
---
If they can make penicilin out of moldy bread, they can surely make something out of you! --Muhammad Ali
Is that even if MS went away tomorrow, we wouldn't suddenly have a great new OS to replace them. I mean, 12 years later Linux, while having made great strides, is NOT ready for mainstream yet.
Sad but true.
Once Linux becomes capable enough to make it mainstream MS won't be able to keep it out. Because there is little real financial burden on Linux. It's an open source product where ALOT of the work is done, in essence, for free. So MS can't bully it out of the marketplace by putting pressure on their vendors until the OS suffocates itself for lack of funds like a competing comppany would surely do.
It's here to stay because nobody is paying for it, and nobody is financially burdened by it. So it developson it's own, with TONS of fierce competition from MS. And it does nothing but grow and grow.
People should STOP complaining about Ms being a monopoly and START contributing to Linux/GNU.
One of the above posters said if you don't like it, don't use it. Thats dead wrong. As with everything else in life, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Do something to enhance Linux and/or its acceptance.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Yes, they will. And when you buy something because it does support Linux, let them know you appreciate the work. Manufactures write drivers for Windows. If they believe it will result in enough sales, they'll write Linux drivers too. So when they got the sale because they support Linux, tell them.
I've e-mailed the support people at manufactures who do support Linux. I just got a new machine. It has an Intel motherboard. Intel wrote the driver for the onboard NIC. It works like a charm. If I hadn't had a working net connection on my old machine, they even supplied the Linux driver on the CD that came with it. I wrote a nice note to the e-mail address they gave for support. I told them which motherboard I was using and which distro.
The previous release of XFree86 has the older nv driver which doesn't support my newer nVidia card. Allegedly, the latest version does, but I've been a bit too busy to load it up. However, nVidia has a driver on their web site. I had one problem with it. The sample XF86Config-4 file they provided had a BusID line in it. That isn't really necessary in a single-headed system. Commenting it out made everything work. I sent them a suggestion that they comment it out in the sample and include a quote from the man page explaining what it is used for. I got a response a few hours later saying they would. Thanks guys, great job.
On my old machine, I was using a Linksys NIC. They explicitly said they didn't provide support for Linux in the sense of customer service, but they included an updated version of the tulip driver on a disk in the box. And their web site has information on configuring for it.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
...why the US Army rejected Windows XP. Under NO--repeat, NO--circumstances are they willing to enter a situation where a vendor can shut them down. If push comes to shove because of file-format issues, Microsoft can look forward to selling *ONE* XP computer to the Army until they can convert anything involved into open formats. Period. End of story. (yes, I am somewhat in the know on this)
Specifically, if a landlord requires the full rent to be paid for a broken lease, many states have laws requiring him to allow you to sublet the apartment for the remainder of your lease period. If the landlord doesn't want to allow this, there is usually a way to go into binding arbitration or court to have someone settle who pays what to whom.
Even if your state doesn't, you can continue paying the lease and use the space as a second home, for storage, or for whatever you like (as long as you don't trash the place). Microsoft is saying, "You are no longer living there, therefore you cannot use the space but still must pay for the balance of the lease."
Of course, that's a lousy analogy too. But at least it's refutable.
As for the 'it's just business' argument, it's always completely irrefutable if your belief is that business is the highest purpose of human endeavor. If you believe in anything else, it is a useless argument, because all it does is say 'this is legal and therefore it is moral and ethical'.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt .. for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows. ... MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
If only that were true and Microsoft behaved like other normal companies. It's not evil because Windows sucks, windows sucks because Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly position. To use your examples:
Pedros does not have a monoply position in real estate. For some strange reason, people seem able to use and maintain their lawns without Pedro's assistance and there are many people willing to do the work. I can chose any length contract I want with Pedro or any of his competitors. Heck, he might even have a Red Hat box that does what my old HP does but costs so much less to operate it saves me money to buy it.
The case is much different with Microsoft. There are no large computer makers who sell computers without M$ on them due to previous and present anti-competitive practices. No one but M$ can really maintain those computers. M$ did not offer a variety of service plans, it was "take this now or we screw you harder tomorrow."
It won't last much longer. M$ is squeezing public schools and bankrupt companies to keep their revenuse from showing anything but growth. They can't keep it up much longer and they are already way too expensive. Given the variety and quality of replacements for M$ desktops available, M$ does not have much longer to live. They used a bunch of FUD to scare people into that contract, but the FUD clouds are dispersing. M$ is dead meat at the fist dip in growth. They might make a second or third dividend payment, then it's all over like so many other greedy concept companies.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
and can't suck the life out of its competitors anymore, it instead sucks the life out of its customers, making *everyone* soul-less zombies, as if they didn't deserve to be for choosing M$. Micro$oft will in the short term make a lot of profit from this (almost as creative as the credit card companies applying late fees and interest payments). But in the long term companies will investigate alternatives like Linux and Mac OS X, OpenOffice, Star Office, etc... The only creativity and innovation coming from M$ are methods to bleed more money from an already depressed economy. And I sincerely mean this when I say it. M$ has not produced any innovative software in the last several years, only ways to maintain its profit margin among growing competition from Linux and other software makers.
All your number are belong to infinity.
The answer is, most contracts are in some way transferrable. If your aunt dies and leaves you a computer, its warrantee is transferred to you... in most states it's actually illegal to have it not transfer. If you sign up for three years' prepaid DSL in a house of six college students, and then transfer after the first year, you can (I have) transfer the service over to somone else's name, as long as they're at the same address. If your car comes with 60,000 mile power train protection, it doesn't matter if your car was sold eleven times, you're still entitled to it. (Unless your car has been sold as a salvage vehicle.)
There are non-transferrable contracts, but those have to be scrutinized carefully. For example, the idea a non-transferrable *END-USER* software license has been invalidated by the courts a number of times. Right of first purchase comes with the right to transfer your license to anyone else. (Do you honestly think there would be any way of transferring licenses for MS software if this weren't the case? There is, as long as it wasn't an OEM copy of Windows... and even then you can transfer it as long as you sell the hardware in tandem.)
Here we have a software purchase agreement which is nontransferrable. It's just that this one is for a big company, and so MS can, perhaps, get away with it.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Dear AC,
Since you were unable to make a worthwhile response to my arguement, I humbly accept your surrender. As terms of your defeat, you must never post here again. Also, you must make a yearly contribution to the FSF in the name of William Gates III, and brush Stallman's beard whenever he desires.
So you had a boxed copy of XP, and it's license, which came in the box, stated that XP could be used on any compatible hardware and transfered to other hardware at any time, as long as there is only 1 copy installed at any one time.
And you think that their changing the EULA with a service pack update can force your original license to suddenly be bound to a single piece of fictitious hardware that the software wasn't purchased with in the first place?
<quote character="Martin" show="The Simpsons">
Ha Ha.
</quote>
No Comment.
Um and what do you think businesses would have to run on those Macs? MS Office perhaps?
:-)
You can't leave the empire that easily (Bwahaahaa...
did anyone read the article? From the /. posting it appears as though you continue paying even after you sell your stuff, but this is not the case. You pay before you get the service, and if you sell your stuff to someone else after you've paid, you need to tell MS so they know who has the need for maintainance. Once it's solf off you no longer have to pay.
There's nothing crazy going on here.
I love Linux and OS X as much as the next guy, but it's not that simple. If you think it is, I can't believe that you work in a mainly microsoft shop like myself and most clients I work with.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
"How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?"
Do you know how to read? Read the article then.
At least when you pay off your car loan YOU GET THE CAR.
BC
You are undoubtably 4000% correct. Those children now have a future and a hope. Thankyou for your solidarity
To avoid using M$ products. This just highlights the extortion scheme that the Microsoft Licensing really is. It's time to start using open source products to help shut this down. Lets face it guys, our politicians have been bought and paid for to look the other way while M$ fleeces its customers. Don't want to get caught in this nightmare? Don't upgrade to new versions of M$ products. Instead start using OSS products. Don't feel that they are not as good as the M$ crap? Start by bringing it in to the non-critical areas. For instance, instead of using IIS, use Apache. Don't code for .NET, code for J2EE, Pearl, PHP or other OSS languages. You don't have to move everything over to OSS at one time. You can move gradually. Each time you move over a piece, you deny M$ its license fees. As this revenue starts to dwindle, they will either revise their extortion schemes, or suffer the fate of extinction. Plain and simple. Don't just whine about M$'s licensing, do something about it.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Lists of Microsoft Abuses:
Overall abuses: Reasons to Avoid Microsoft. (More than 200 in one year!)
Abuses in one product: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Sometimes people confuse themselves by thinking of Microsoft as a software company that is abusive. It can be more clear to think of Microsoft as an abuse company that sells software.
Judging from some of the things I've seen, there must be executives at Microsoft who every day energetically think of more ways to put the customer's back against the wall.
I've spent more than 20 years studying things of this nature, and I think what's happening at Microsoft is a general social breakdown. Usually in situations of this sort, things get worse and worse until something breaks.
Other social breakdowns:
The U.S. government: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories
and What should be the Response to Violence?.
Law in the U.S. state of Oregon:
Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.
and Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash.
Oh, all right already!
--Rob
"Mother says there are rats in the rockery."
--Ratman's Notebooks (1968)
Towards the Singularity.
There are no "free" upgrades under SA. You are paying for it, either up front or over the three-year term.
If you choose or are forced by circumstances not to upgrade you have spent a large amount of money for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Well, may not nothing...
You have spent a large amount of money to have had the RIGHT TO GET AN UPGRADE!!!
Wow, I'm so happy we had that right!
yippee..
Ummm. But we still have the same software we had before....
Exactly why did we spend that money?
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Do it throughout the year. Otherwise, you'll just get a "Oh great... it's another one of those long-haired Linux Freaks not letting me do my job" sigh. No need to swamp all PC manufacturers in a single day. And when they say "no", "not yet", "I don't know when" say "thanks" and be on your way.
Or buy a used one on EBAY. Slap Linux on it. Sleep well at night.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Ya know, the government was able to scare Kraft away from selling Claussen to Vlasic, but can't seem to do anything about MS.
J GpVzU0C: www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/10/vlasic.htm+kraft+vlasic&hl =en&ie=UTF-8
I guess they think a pickle monopoly is more harmful to the consumer than a desktop OS monopoly.
See this article in Google's cache:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:XEme
-M
This quote from the article is right
You are at Microdoft's mercy
What the license agreement states is that you are required to pay off all of your original license agreements with Microsoft
Now that is what I call mercy
Actually, I like this sheisty manuver by MS
*** awakens from dream ***
OK, the idea of MS going under was nice, but I know it isn't going to happen
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Is Microsoft TRYING to kill themselves?? Linux is gaining market share slowly but steadily, and Microsoft is becoming more and more consumer-unfriendly... What are they thinking?
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
"take a look at all the software you could ever want for that platform."
I own 5 different Macs, but the variety of vertical market apps for that platform just isn't there.
Yes, you can do Word, Powerpoint, Email, but what if you want to run AutoCAD. Not something "just as good", but AutoCAD? Or you need to trade MS Access files with a customer? There are lots of smaller apps that a large company needs that only run on a PC. They may be crappy, you may not like them, but you end up running them anyway because you need to.
Your comment simply shows you to be young and naive.
Second, it's much faster and easier to google problems rather than calling $upport, even if you have spent thousand$$$. My company does have a $upport contract with Oracle. The last time I tried using it, I spent weeks being sent from one "expert" to another, none of them really understanding my problem. I gave up and looked for answers on the web, where I should have started in the first place.
Finally, I have never seen, outside of derogatory comments about free software in slashdot, such as yours, those famous "RTFM" words. Get over it, "RTFM" is an urban legend.
This is not about support contracts. (different issue) This is purely software upgrades.
You enter into a Software Assurance agreement with Microsoft that covers three years, payable yearly. This gives you the ability to receive any upgrades to the software in during the contract term.
After one year your company gets into major financial difficulties and tries to get rid of assets. The computers and their Windows/Office licenses are sold/transferred to another company.
The practical offshoots are thus:
1) The selling company must pay the remaining two years of Software Assurance right away. (As if they had any cash to do so)
2) The new company gets the licenses but no Software Assurance even though it has already been paid on the licenses being transferred.
3) The buying company must buy Software Assurance for the licenses they just acquired regardless of whether they were covered under a previous contract or not.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I thought it was common knowledge that this was how Microsoft treated their volume licensing customers. It was what we figured would happen with our several-hundred license shop when we decided to shut down, and it's played out that way.
:) And most of what we're doing has been running off our AS/400 up until now anyway.
The company I work for has one of these agreements with Microsoft, and is about to make payment number two of three in a few months. It's about $20,000 every year for 400 licenses or so. When we informed them we were closing the business before the third payment would come due, they in turn informed us that they would hold us to the letter of the contract, and require that third payment in full.
So if you decide to close your business one month into an MS volume licensing agreement, expect you will have to figure in the next two payments for part of your cost of closing the business. Or else file bankruptcy to get out of it. Either way, Microsoft will inform you that you owe in full to the last penny of your agreement if you try to get out early, and you'll be left holding the bag at the end with whatever version of the software was the "latest" at the time the SA ran out. It sucks, but at the time the decision was made the company was moving to become an all-Microsoft shop. I came in several months after they abandoned that approach (thank goodness), but we are left with the legacy. So we'll be forking out another $20K next year for 360+ unused seats if we want to get the most value out of the contract, even though we'll have a handful of people as a skeleton crew.
This is yet another reason I pushed hard for an all-GNU/Linux approach. Unfortunately, we discovered to our disappointment that GNU/Linux cannot yet handle the needs of a small financial institution like ours. You can chalk that up to lack of good bank-level accounting, payment processing, recovery (in the repossession sense, not tape backups), and loan origination/management software. Eh, well, the stuff for Windows isn't much better than doing it by hand yet either unless you're really big
Oh, yeah, what was my point? Right, if you buy into these agreements, what you save in convenience you pay in terms of contract inflexibility. Know what you're getting into at the get-go, that it's not something you can get out of or "transfer" (despite language to the contrary in the contract which is only for small numbers of machines to individual transferees with somewhat onerous record-keeping requirements), and that you're not really paying for ongoing support, but instead just for the licenses to use the product.
Makes me wish I could start up a new company using solely free software, making annual grants of $20K or so to free software developers...
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
It's almost as if they want people to stop using their software.
Eat a Rock!
They shouldn't be able to do that under the terms of the final judgement.
Not that they won't try. Not that it won't take another 6 year, very expensive trial to prove that they did. Not that they'll behave at the end of that trial....
But that's one thing that I thought I read in the final judgement. Can't penalize OEMs for what other OSs they ship.
And since Microsoft/BSA are very unlikely to go after consumers who have no money
Except to make an example of them to the tune of nearly 100 billion dollars, like the RIAA is doing?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Darwin awards are for people who switch to MacOSX.
If I sign a 12 month lease for a building and my company folded two months, I still owe rent for the next 10 months.
Just because the company goes out of business doesn't mean it automatically get's off the hook for its financial obligations.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
Really at fault are all those administrators that slept when the business classes went on in their education, if they didn't than they would know that spreading of all recources is one of the most important jobs of a company to spread their risks... Guess what, they all bought all their stuff from one brand, really smart... I hope lessons are learned a bit in this time and age, probably not, opertunists are blind most of the time... GPL gives most rights and security against afterwards claiming licence fees for end users. They enable a person to build a small business without being scared that he/she is bothered with the BSA animals. For that the developers had to but in a little bit, as i am both end user and developer dealing with GPL i am happy with the jurisdictional rest for most parties...
This is not a given, It is just something mac users like to repeat to help them justify their over-priced systems. That study you are refering to is only in your mac-loving mind.
Compare a Mac to a cheap PC and I think you'll find that the Mac is more reliable. Now if you compare a Mac to a higher quality PC then they will be very similar. However, once you pay for a higher quality PC you're paying almost as much as you would for a Mac.
But this is all really besides the point. What the previous poster was really trying to say is that it costs less to run the MacOS then Windows. This is mainly due the the high cost of support.
Mac proprietary hardware results in fewer driver problems. Viruses run rampant on Windows - not so on Macs. Everything from networking to setting up a printer / scanner is easier on a Mac. Macs just work, it's that simple. Well, assuming you have supported peripherals.
Now I'm not saying everyone should get a Mac but there are people who would be a lot better off running MacOS. For many other people it would be a waste of money. For most people in this forum it would probably be a waste of money because they have the skills required to keep a cheap PC going. But if your time is valuable you should really give some consideration to getting a Mac.
Willy
(-500, Redundant)
Rich
*That's using the correct meaning of literally
Nobody will drop their IT infrastructure right away. But once in a while, every company switches software systems. 10 years ago, you had DOS, OS/2, Windows 3.x, Novell, etc. 5 years ago, you had Windows NT, Windows 9x, etc. Now you've got Windows 2000/XP. Even within the Microsoft Windows 9x/NT product line, there are huge differences both from an end user point of view and from an infrastructure point of view.
No matter what you choose next time you upgrade, there will be transitioning costs. Even if you have to spend $20.000 more on software adapting and staff training when choosing Linux, you might save $50.000 on licenses. Do the math!
Your boss knows this, that's the really nice part. If the company's IT department can't save money by switching to open source, then they're all incompetent and should be fired ;-)
...it's a shame that the only things they're innovating are new ways to extract every last cent out of their customers.
I think they must have some kind of internal competition going: "Who can come up with the most galling licensing terms? I mean, a policy that will effectively force customers to buy the most multiple, superfluous Windows licenses for the same PC? That person gets a new car!"
Unless you agreed (while purchasing the software) to a contract stating that you would not do that. Don't worry what Microsoft or Sony say after they sold it to you.
You must be so rich that saving a few hundred bucks doesn't matter or your teenaged (pot-smoking, pirated-game-playing) son threw a temper tantrum when you DARED suggest "Dude, you're getting a Dell".
Did you opt to pay the extra $50 for "Conspiracy Blue"??? ...sucker...
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
The new computer with the Windows-licensed floppy drive now becomes the new computer. If anything in your new computer is transferred to your next new computer, that computer now has a Windows license.
...ad infinitum...
Say. Is your computer connected to the Internet? No? How about the wall plug? Any electrons leaving your computer transfer the Windows license to the next computer that you build.
Microsoft is obviously attempting to clone RMS's viral technology.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Who cares what modifications I make to my Linux kernel? Linus doesn't nor would anyone on kernel dev. Nowhere in the GPL does it say I need to make modifications of my kernel, privately used software, to the world.
If on the other hand I was going to offer people MyCustom Linux Kernel I would have to give the source with it.
This has always bugged the hell out of me when people misread the GPL. The GPL only enemerates the sharing contract between contributors. If you are going to share and contribute, do it completely and freely. If you aren't (ie. as a user) then don't worry about it.
Anyway, next time someone refers to the lemmings suicide thing, have a recursive chuckle at their lemming-like behavior :)
Well, after reading about 90% of the posts on this article, I think your post sums up the situation the most succinctly and clearly.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
And how are they going to press the issue?
Are they going to storm your house and confiscate your hardware that you purchased not from microsoft but from some totally different company?
Nah, a bit much I guess.
Are they going to tell you you can't do that even though you know you have every right to?
Boo Hoo, sucks to be you.
And you're going to listen to them?
Hint: It's called extortion my friend.
Btw, I've decided that it shall cost $100 dollars for the right to reply to any of my postings on this website. Please forward your check at your earliest convenience.
No Comment.
The other point is that contracts usually get judged solely on what's contained inside of them, unless there's fraud, illegality, mistake, mutual recission, and a few other exceptions. So if you want to know what you've gotten yourself into, then RTFC. There are no state or federal laws (with a few small exceptions) that force you to agree to certain things, so it's all in the contract. And you don't need a law degree to understand them, either. Most of the legalese is shorthand so that broad concepts don't have to take pages and pages of explanation. Get a law dictionary (don't use Black's if you're a novice- it explains legal terms with legal terms, get one that uses layperson definitions) and go through it yourself. It might not be pleasant, but you'll understand more than you think you will.
IAAL
I like this idea - Slashdotters actually doing something other than crashing good sites. To really get this going however, someone with a little more Linux exposure than my-newbie-self ought to post a list of those companies that deserve a call. I believe somebody mentioned Adobe. Any other suggestions? Also emails work well, too - I can fire off a linuxspam to 40 companies faster than I can make a phone call. A little spontaneous organization (what, you don't read Prigogine?) and quite a few companies will get the clear message that a lot of people want Linux support on their products. I suddenly had the ultradork image in my head of the Linux community forming Voltron.
How about OpenOffice?
Or AppleWorks (Ok, there I'm half-joking) and Keynote? Nissus Writer is almost out too...
Apple does not seem to like the idea of working w/ Microsoft especially... They recently announced two replacements for MS strongholds on Mac (Safari and Keynote for IE and PowerPoint respectively.) Now all they need is a better word processor and spreadsheet. And there are rumors...
Oh, and really, for most business users I've met, AppleWorks would do what they need.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
At our company, we have dozens of "special" apps. most are crap. But so what? You have to support them anyway. That's the *business* requirement.
"so many alternatives" would cover most of the advanced user like all the people here at Slashot.
The average Joe cannot handle most of the *nix issues or know anybody who can. As far as the average PC user is concerned, there is no alternative.
Dell can't sell a blank PC so they include FreeDOS, but to keep Microsoft happy I believe they still include the Windows license in the cost of the PC. No wonder the Windows usage stats always show large numbers of Windows users.
buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
Whether or not you use the ms software for the license timeframe does not matter...you already signed a 2 year license.
in theory, it could be cheaper, but in all practical sense it's more expensive.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've submitted an article with that date. I hope the /. crew prints it or something similar.
There already was a system which prevented you from running software on a machine it wasn't installed for *cough*Apple Lisa*cough*
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
There are laws against forcing people to buy X when buying Y in most countries. I noticed that 3 laptops I bought recently, 2 of them included licenses for XP, and one for NT. Obviously I must have ended up paying for these stupid pieces of dos-gui they dare call an OS. First thing I did was nuke whatever was on those hdds and install linux. I'm not gonna say which mfg, but their web ordering form did _not_ include the possibility to uncheck a pre-installed dos-gui.
See the trick is that we've redefined "support" (similiar to "free" - that's free as in ankle tracking device). On Windows, supported means, it will work- if it doesn't we will help you resolve the sitatuation. With Linux "supported" means it might work. If it doesn't, tough shit. Ask on the forums, usenet, IRC, or recompile something. In other words, good fucking luck! You don't want to mess with anything "unsupported" on Linux, because even "supported" stuff barely works (like copy & paste between X11 apps, Gnome, and KDE- good fucking luck)
This is AMERICA you IDIOT
We live in a capitalistic society and it is great companies like Microsoft that has made us such economic powers.
If you DONT LOVE it, LEAVE IT
You losers will all ROT in HELL for dealing in opensource CRAP
UnAmerican liberal SCUM
You will PAY
USA! USA! USA!
We WON THE WAR
The Enemy has been HUMILIATED
Now it is turn for french SURRENDER MONKEYS, british MORONS and canadian SUCKERS
WATCH the TV you moron
SEE how the iraqi people praising our great President George W. Bush. for getting rid of Saddam and his thugs and promising to lead them they have been taught to live the American way ---THE right way.
Hail Bush
Minitab - no
Mathcad - no
MS Project - no? Hard to believe
MS Excel - yes
Matlab - yes
OK I use Excel more than I use the others, but given that I've left out the special purpose tools (MSC ADAMS) that are my core job which are not available for the Mac, sorry, OSX simply won't do, except as a general office computer (ie pr0n browser and email client).
I'm not anti Mac - I have two useable Macs at home, but for a business it is far more important to run the software you need than to worry about operating systems.
And no, I can't imagine running my numerically intensive tasks in an emulator.
How's this any different that say, Buying a Used GenRad TS86 on the market and then finding that you need the software license from Teradyne?
(same used to be true for Wang, DG, DEC, etc. you could get hardware on the open market, but only one place for software....)
My EULA says the same thing. XP Pro Retail version.
The poster above him either has an OEM copy and doesn't know it or he's making it up. (I think it's probably the latter, since he doesn't even know what the current service pack is... It's SP1)
We always knew that. What's new?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
What dependency hell? All the big applications (OpenOffice, VMWare, Mozilla, etc) are packaged with an installed. Run it, a GUI pops up and asks where to install it. More importantly, the admin can do this remotely or in a scripted fashion.
.MSI format Windows uses. And it works about as well. (Perfectly, if it's written well, somewhat worse otherwise.)
Is the app doesn't have an installer it's probably packages like an RPM or DEB, that's just like the
The only time you worry about dependencies is when you compile code, this is essentially impossible in a Windows environment (even if you have the compiler installed, nobody releases packages in source format on Windows) so it's not a valid comparison.
It's free, but there's more corporate level support than for Windows. Sure you can get an MS tech on the phone, but they'll just walk you through the KB articles, you can get a Redhat service contract that goes from there all the way to 24/7 on-site response.
Care to FUD some more?
Does anyone know of any sites out there that fully outline MS's Licensing 6.0 and other various devious licensing schemes fully, in a point-by-point manner, for the average PHB? Or am I going to have to go digging through articles and EULAs to gleam the necessary information and compile it into a report myself?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If I sell my cell phone, I can transfer the agreement to someone else and have them take over the service.
OTOH, if I sell my computers licensed via this scheme, I have to pay off the standing costs *and* they need to buy new licenses for themselves.
Big difference.
I was installing a MS WMP Codec package today to try to get some files to display correctly, and browsed through the license, and found this interesting section:
Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
I like the idea that Microsoft thinks it can stop software on my computer from running. I installed it anyways, obviously, figuring that either 1) it really won't be an issue, and 2) I doubt that they seriously can/will do anything that will mess up something of mine. But from a technical or legal standpoint, I don't really like this.
- Dave
So that I don't have to pay my corp. laywer his $250/hour, can you point me to any relevant cases? Are you a laywer yourself?
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
In this case, you are proposing to them an alternate contract, which they must accept. Silence can never be a means of contract acceptance. For example, if you are sent a magazine without asking for it with the legal terminology "failure to cancel in 30 days will be construed as acceptance of a subscription and we will bill you," you can't legally be held to their billing request -- and in fact, by not answering you can continue to recieve the magazine for free.
Furthermore, if you sent the contract back to Microsoft, you couldn't use the software until you either recieved a reply or decided to agree to the EULA.
Sorry, but this post suffers from flawed legal reasoning: silence or the failure to respond cannot be considered legal acceptance of a contract. Check with any lawyer...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Apparently, if you don't want to be hooked up to an electric company anymore (because you have your own generator, or solar power, or you just got rid of all your MS servers, ...), you will have to pay up also.a rch.cfm
Search "exit fees" here: http://www.ifmaenergynet.org/ca_update/cali_news_
The new trend is pretty cool: "I pay for a monthly service (not some multi-year contract), and when I don't want it anymore, I have to pay for not having the service."
Bloody Bastards.
Run something else!
There arent that many killer apps not availiable on alternative OS any longer. On a average company you can come a long way with linux if you plan for linux from day one. Same with Apple albeit more expensive hardware is required. The only problem as i can see it is if a company is tailored to run on Microsoft software. With licenses like that it sure looks as if its is well worth the pain to migrate away to ABM.
Im sitting on a friends Windows right now and i feel it lacks a lot of things. The ONLY thing Windows has is more applications, as an OS it is just an empty shell.
HTTP/1.1 400
Very interesting thread, we have lots of Windows users complaining about Microsoft being unethical, and lots of Linux users defendig Microsoft.
The people complaining about Microsoft's business practices are the ones that buy their products, thereby supporting those practices.
Where as the linux people are saying that MS did nothing wrong, and if you don't want it then don't pay. Go get something else. Install Linux. Buy a Mac. Get rid of your computer. Make your choice.
No it's not simple, but it's not as hard as you are told by the MS-Sales staff. Try to plan at least one move ahead and take your easy shots first and maybe there won't be any hard ones.
Start with using file more universal, or even open, file formats and protocols. Without open file formats, standards and protocols, you're not going anywhere. Replacing MS-products that have accidentally wandered into the server room should be the next order of business, if only for security. The move does not have to be big simultaneous all or nothing leap. Bring up one service at a time in parallel, test, and move.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Whether or not the programs people use are crap should be a non-issue. It's the data format for the crap that everyone uses that is important! Therefore you need only be able to read/write/edit the crap files, to be crap-compatible!
No need then to get locked into crap programs, crap platforms, or even crap licensing. There is enough crap in the world as it is.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If you have something as good as AutoCAD and you insist on running AUtoCAD that does not meant there is no choice. That means you are stubborn.
DO you need to get some stuff from Access? Get it in a standard format. I am sure even Access can import to something readable into other programs.
Which smaller apps run only on a PC?
Most use of a PC today (what, 80%,90%?) in a corporate environment is to read email, write a few documents and perhaps organize a few meetings.
That is doable with Macs, Linux, Solaris or any other OS you care to mention.
Corporations that have got a clue are using and creating software that is Web aware, and if they are really competent the software is standards complaint so even the web browser is not a single point of future extortion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Until someone can come up with an OS that's easy to install & support for non-technical people, and are 100% compatible with Windows software and Office file formats, we're stuck with Microsoft software.
MacOS is easy to use, and there's Office compatibility, but there's no way an OS X Server can do what an NT Server can.
Unix/Linux is not easy to use or install for many people and has virtually no Office compatability except with Win32 emulators. Unix servers rock, though.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
CEOs and controllers should be aware that Microsoft's licensing policies can inhibit merger and acquisition activity. Get some press clippings about the KMart bluelight.com litigation and pass them up to top management. Maybe with a note like "you might need this when putting together the 10-K". Mention the "acceleration clause". Those scare financial managers.
Most of the analogies posted here couldn't be funnier.
My cell phone company this
Baseball contracts that
A great example of corporate control. Just because a cell provider does something similar to MS doesn't mean MS isn't doing something bad it just means other companies are getting away with the same crap MS does.
Change does need to happen
Now using Linux on the desktop isn't viable for a host of reasons. (Linux as a Server OS is viable) The return on investment seems better at first.
No cost for OS
No cost for software
But the cost to train all of the employees to learn something completely new on a corporate level would cost way too much. A small business could possibly make a gradual change however a large organization would find it more expensive.
We have tried to replace MS in our organization and have found lots of opposition. Employees have a difficult and frustrating time learning how to use a new software package just to save the company some cash. They just want to get the job done.
Use? Mac/Solaris. Paid to develop on? Solaris and other Unixes, before that Mac, before that OS/2. I've written maybe 20 lines of Windows code in my life, and that was just a port of something I did in OS/2 that the Windows person didn't understand.
I only have a PC at work for IE and Outlook, and Outlook will be replaced by Eudora soon - the old company insisted on Outlook, but it's been bought.
You are no longer allowed to use the hardware if you install another OS onto the machine.
People should read more carefully before they post.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
*quote* 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product. *end quote*
you were either reading from the OEM EULA or just trolling...
The truth doesn't care what I think.