Slashdot Mirror
Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT?
sebFlyte writes "'Don't sell PCs without operating systems or we'll send the boys round.' That seems to be the general message coming out of microsoft's antipiracy unit, according to ZDNet. While MS seems to accept that people might want to get hold of PCs without Windows so they can put Linux on them, they don't think that's a good enough excuse. "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft. The FSF has given this policy short shrift, saying: "It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence.""
So again, how is this not a Monopoly?
fak3r.com
Does a move like this do anything to effect all the current antitrust cases?
TFA:
This sounds a lot like a veiled threat to me.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
We Know Where You Live... And Work.
Or get a non-partner reseller to build one for you. Cut the partners out of the loop. MS control is through the partners, if they fear MS will cut off their air supply, they will comply. Instead, hurt them by boycotting their products.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Are they going to try and stop the PC builders market because we dont have to buy windows with out parts?
We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business
Puritans!
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross. Thus the wise say the path to salvation is hard...
Nice computer you got there....it'd be a shame if something....'appened to it..
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
If they are only targetting PC makers that have agreed to only sell PCs with their OS on them, then they have a legal, though morally questionable, right to do this. However, it seems they are targetting all PC makers.
Right now, this is basically just marketing, but if they actually take action against computer makers who sell "naked" PCs, such as refusing to license the Windows OS to them because of it, they run the risk of once again being brought up on charges of monpolistic practices.
To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance, and so forcing PC makers to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed in order to avoid such piracy is not valid. If Microsoft presses the issue too hard, they're going to end up making their lawyers very happy once again.
1. Sell PCs without Windows
2. Get visited by Microsoft
3. Get sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison
4. ???
5. PROFIT
This signature was left intentionally blank.
The headline talks about buying, yet TFA is about selling. Way to go...
I went through this problem when I just bought 10 new computers for my company. We have volume licensing agreements from Microsoft so we didn't want to pay for separate OEM licenses that Dell would provide. The only way we were allowed to do this was if we chose FreeDOS as our operating system. So MS would still get mad if I ordered a PC without an operating system preloaded even though I was going to load a legal version of their OS on it? That's pretty stupid!
Microsoft is recruiting two 'feet on the street' personnel whose role will be to provide proactive assistance during customer visits, and help you get the value proposition for pre-installed software and related services. Give us a call and let's get those feet walking
Two whole people. And they need to be called. So MS is offering it as a service and someone has to notify them. OK so I order my barebones PC and hope the company I bought it from doesnt call MS UK. And if two people show up to my door unannounced - they will receive the short end of my bobby stick (since UK are not allowed to carry guns if i am not mistaken) or I will press charges for tresspassing and have a restraining order issued.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I can't imagine a larger brag that microsoft is a monopoly. It really is straight from the horses mouth with implicit proof of monopoly abuse.
Then they should just sell the PCs with a free OS pre-installed.
There are places that sell PCs and don't force you to pay for windows. I found this website from someone else who posted a link to it on slashdot. They also have other nice things music like that doesn't have DRM.
You can get stuff here
Saying that selling a PC without an OS is a risk to customers and their business is comical actually. Tell me how running Windows isn't a risk. OH...that's right...they already did. They said Windows is more secure. They said Windows is faster. They said Windows is more trustworthy and they said Windows cost less that Linux. I for one think we need to thank our friends at Microsoft for keeping us safe from the evils of the mad penguin.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
"We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business -- with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.
So, since they don't want "naked PCs"...they want you to install a "clothed-source OS" ?
hahahahah
T.Dzubin (submitting as Anon 'cause I've forgotten my login password)
MS will be able to track purchases, and if it looks like you're building your own systems, they come to mess you up. Afterall, pirates are just like terrorists, except for the eyepatch, the big hat, and the dead parot.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
And after all we've done for.... Nah, I can't even act surprised.
Sounds like just more of the same from Microsoft to me...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Now for some serious FUD debunking:
This quote seems popular: "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business"
Now here's the rest of it: "with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services,"
As for the idea that MS might pay you a visit for not buying Windows...it's pure speculation and is not indicated by MS at all.
This describes the situation best:
Microsoft is trying to convince OEMs to sell more of their product? Those fiends!
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
With some applications that we've provided to our customers (that they pay for), we've given them significant discounts if they sign a 2 year agreement to solely use our software and not switch to anyone else's. Most customers are very happy with the software, and they've happily signed the contract. This lets us budget for the support side of things.
Is it wrong for Microsoft to tell their customers the same, if the customers are willing to accept the contract in order to get better pricing or service or whatever it is they get?
It seems to me that if someone accepts a contract or an agreement, there shouldn't be a problem. If people didn't love Microsoft products so much, the free market of competition would replace Windows and Office with whatever better preferred product is out there.
I'm no MS fanboy by any means, but I am a businessman and an entrepreneur, and I don't see the problem. If you don't like their policies, don't buy their products. If you want a better deal, consider the expectations that come with any agreement or contract to secure that pricing.
MS: Yea, I'd sure hate to see somethin happen to that nice pretty hard drive... *waves magnet menacingly close* Wouldn't want to be swimmin with the penguins now would we?
They've been saying exactly this since http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/nakedPC.htm">at least 2000 (Courtesy of the wayback machine).
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
1. incorporating IE into the operating system
2. Windows registry
3. ignoring security in favor of features
4. threatening Gateway for preinstalling Netscape
5. threatening OEMs for selling naked or dual-boot computers
6. buying politicians in White House and Congress so they can continue abusing their monopoly position
7. MS Access instability
8. Cippy
9. MS Bob
10. video of Ballmer in monkey suit
There's more, but not enough time.
is needed for companies, customers and the Gov't to see that M$ is a monopoly and openly and blatantly abuses this position. Hell if a statement like that was made to anyone about some other topic it would be considered blackmail at the very least. This is just another reason to stay away from the crap that Fort Redmond puts out.
You know, if M$ would think about it, most people that buy computers from stores are somewhat laymens. No, not all, but many. If said laymen buys a computer with no operating system on it, whats their next move...buy an operating system. Guess what, when you walk down the software isle, you get bombarded with Windows XP boxes. Hundreds of them. M$ Makes way more money selling the retail WindowsXP than the OEM version pre-installed on the system. This could auctually make them more money.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
That has to be the best post in this thread. It removes the anti-MS hype and FUD and lays this article out for what it is. A description of MS trying to protect its base and limit Linux growth. Yes, they are successful capitalist assholes, but we already knew that. Nothing really surprising here once you remove the FUD claims of MS visits.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
OSless PCs are such a niche market, very rarely are they even bought, and the models available from the major manufacturers without an OS are pretty slim I think (Dell might offer all laptops w/o an OS if they want, but I know some only offer certain models without an OS). Not to mention, who wants the OS pre-loaded on a computer anyways? I don't like a new computer with 20 icons down in the system tray....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
"We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft.
If a person came to me on the street and told me that doing or not doing something is a "risk" for me, I could report the case and ask the police to press charges.
Someone should really test at court, how come a corporation is exempt making similar threat to persons (customers) and other corporations is not subject to the very same prosecusion.
I hope some day a statement like this could land in jail Microsoft corporate officers the same way, as if a person would have made the threat.
I spent my vacation in "national pound-me-in-the-ass park". Not as nice as they promised it would be.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I'm more concerned about still paying the Windows tax. If it comes with a copy of Windows because it's more effecient for the OEM to produce it that way, I'm not going to sell it on the black market, I'm just going to erase it.
Sheesh.
I have an old pc with a legit. copy of windows. If I buy a new one isn't it ok to remove it from the old machine and install it on the new one? I bought a license to run windows on one box, it shouldn't matter which box I run it on.
TFA mentions companies with volume licensing.
I want to install any available non-windows os.
I want a new machine but don't want the latest windows version due to compatibility issues with some old software I want to run ( I do still use one old program that will not run on xp)
Microsoft is just not satisfied with collecting the $$ for legit. windows copies they want you to pay again and again for the right to use the os even if you shouldn't be paying again.
Algerath
... as they have a section for No-OS systems. http://www.pricewatch.com/m-335.htm
:/ Anyone know of a place that sells laptops without an OS?
I build all my own machines from scratch, but what about laptop and notebooks? I've never seen a laptop or notebook that could be purchased without a Microsoft operating system pre-installed.
I shouldn't have to pay for something I am not going to use.
Registered Linux user #421033
I'm a bit confused, not that Microsoft wants their software distributed (duh) but that they're calling it a risk to traffic in OS-less PCs. What possible risk is there?
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
What does a 250 lb. man with a mean streak,a stick and a bad attitude put on the hard drive of his computers?
Anything he F**king wants unless you wanna leave horizontal.
So if you got a problem with the computers I sell,IGNORE IT or stay out of my crosshairs BILL!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft.
Well as soon as you install Windows, there is a risk of being attacked and infected. So the risk is about the same.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
FTFA :
Microsoft has urged UK PC vendors not to give customers the opportunity to buy a PC without a pre-installed operating system.
Just pre-install GNU/Linux... See ? Fixed !
Now I agree MS just looks like mafia, but a GNU/Linux distrib like Debian is free (beer + speech) anyway, so it's a cheap answer to the threat...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Will be visiting you shortly...
"I do believe this dear boy does not have an official copy of Windows installed on his pc, Mr Croup."
"Perhaps you didn't read the fine print where it says we get to eat your liver if you don't have an official copy..."
in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Buy a PC with no OS with just a formatted disk full of MP3s, and get MSFT and RIAA at your door!
Bonus points for putting ripped DVDs on there.
Automatic A if you put a copy of GPLed rpms from SCO.
Beware, I have a patent on this, and I will be at your door as well.
Jules: You read the Bible?
Ringo: Not regularly.
Jules: There's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the OS-less PC through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am Microsoft when I lay my vengeance upon you!"
That Parrot's not dead, he's just resting.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
...Ubuntu!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Full systems should have at the very least FreeDos on it for testing purposes. While there might not be drivers for network or usb, you can't say it's nakid and you can at least check most of the hardware, and any complaint about it not working out of the box can be totally blamed on the vendor.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This is typical anti-everything journalism.
As some people have already pointed-out, this "information" don't relate the facts. This is just an interpretation of possible results from those facts.
The interpretation is NOT the fact. It just makes for more "entertaining" news to say that an evil company will own you in the future. Usually "evil company" is equal to "biggest company" in a given field. In this case Microsoft.
The FSF Europe is alarmed by the prospect that customers who request a base systems would risk a visit from Microsoft's investigators.
Anyone with some knowledge of EU law... why would these "investigators" be allowed in the front door of any business? I can tell you the type of reception they'd receive at my company's front door. They obviously wouldn't be allowed in to audit our systems - and I can't imagine they would have any legal recourse for it without some sort of subpoena, which would require some substantive evidence.
This site always amazes me at the amount of hatred aimed towards Microsoft. Microsoft wants an operating system of any kind, not specifically theirs (but for obvious reasons they'd want their own), just some kind of functional operating system. The reason for this is to give less reason to pirate their own OS. It's business, plain and simple.
The "Feet on the Street" are not visiting customers (that is, purchasers of computers), they're visiting the vendors of such systems. This campaign is not aimed at stopping the people buying naked systems, it's about choking off the supply by targetting the sellers.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Microsoft suggests that Computer Retailers only sell models with Software preinstalled because they can then sell customers more services. From TFA:
5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services
(5 percent is the number of customers that buy "naked" PCs.)
Memo to Microsoft:
People who buy computers without your crap on it aren't going to want additional services!
It seems like the retailers have a much better model:
Giving the customer what he actually wants...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
I thought it was a due reference...
Microsoft's request isn't all that difficult to follow; just put FreeDOS on every machine. Everybody wins!
So becasue I descided to build my own machine I am now at risk? So instead they would want me to buy a machine with hundreds of preloaded programs that I'll never use, that I'll never be able to upgrade? Why don't I like that idea. I'll admit that I do use Windows om my machine. But I do have a bootable version of Ubuntu and also a version of Mandriva Move 2.0. I also do have have openoffice on other computers for word processing also. I have not made the transition because I'm not that fimilar with linux, and because I do play some games that have not been successful in working with several types of emulators (Wine, Transgamer). But I do support the option to be able to purchase a prebuilt PC without Windows pre-loaded. My reason would be because I could recommend to have a PC package purchased without a operating system that I could load Windows on for a user that I wouldn't need to remove hundreds of applications that aren't needed. Most of my clients have older PC's that now are considering a upgrade, but it's hard to recommend to upgrade their PC and also a LCD monitor because they want one at a cheap price. Packages are always the best way to get a stronger PC, a LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, and sometimes a printer. I've never been able to supply a user with all of that equipment for the same price or cheaper. It'd make my life easier, and cheaper for them. I rarely recommend a package unless the person has never owned a PC ever. I explain my reasons, and if they still want me to build one, I do it without question. I can't stand computers that are preloaded with crap. I'm still trying to clear out the applications out of my new laptop. God it's annoying.
and the dead parot.
The origional Steriotype of a Pirate had a living parot. But due to recent Satire of the Steriotype they like to make the parrot dead. So you have now made a steriotype of a sitire of a steriotype. Wow.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly/
So how is it a Monoply? There are hundreds of different Operating Systems to choose from, and while Microsoft may say what they want in way of "encouraging" use of Windows, they have no power to force anyone to do it.
This may be silly, but it's not a monoply. The EU is as dumb as a box of rocks, and the US is not far behind.
And so you don't hink I'm an MS fan boy, and since it's never a requirement to be fair to Microsoft, I'd just like to point out the MS Suckz! At least I'm sure thats what your thinking.
Oops, I forgot the GNU part in the title of my previous post.
Sorry, RMS.
Really sorry...
NO ! Please don't GNU/free me ! NOOOOOOooo...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Http://geeks.com We sell "debranded" systems(out of stock ATM) which are just HP's without the logos and no OS....and they are a great deal if you alrady have Windows.....which many people have purchased to upgrade a previous PC. Also we do get a few linux freaks in so they pick them up for that. -Daniel
Can I buy a Mac without OSX?
If this "naked PC" business is also refering to Dell's offer, don't those PCs come with FreeDOS installed? That's all OEMs need to do, and they'll no longer be shipping OS-less PCs, problem solved.(?)
Though I suppose even installing FreeDOS might incur an unnecessary expense for manufacturers...
And if they do that, may as well include something more useful like Ubuntu instead. I dunno. Maybe even offer a start-up menu where they can choose: Linux, FreeDOS, or blank. But as I said, I guess imaging the drives in any way would increase costs.
IF you own a TV here, you have to pay a licence fee - about £120. If you dont pay, or if you move house and delay in getting your old licence changed (as I did), you will receive a visit from a licence inspector. At your doorstep, demanding to know why you dont have a licence. If you fail to let them in, they return shortly afterwards with a court order and a police man to get in. Waste of a police mans time, in my case, but i'll be dammed if I let some arrogant twit from the bbc in my door without giving him some agro.
:o)
s'pose I'd better go find those orginal Windows Disks then, for when MS come knocking at my door
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
This action by Microsoft is helpful in a way. System builders should pre-load Linux and avoid all the headaches.
Microsoft has been harping on this for ages. Doesn't anyone remember when they were bribing system builders to report clients who put in bids for OS-less pcs?
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010425.html
Except of getting annoyed. There isn't a threat of a visit which is unprovoked. Microsoft is offering people to come out with your company and lecture people.... which is pretty fantastical. Who the hell would want that? I have no interest in M$, but this article conjurs the threat up. They are clearly offering people the oppertunity to negotiate which packages they install.... its typical marketing guff! I don't use any microsoft software... that I am aware of.
How hard can it be for a builder to comply with this demand? If they don't want to pay the Microsoft tax, image the system with Ubuntu and ship it. The customers will either use the system as is, or they're perfectly free to nuke the hard drive and install their OS of choice.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Send all new systems with a 256M USB thumb drive with Linux installed on it. Set the BIOS settings to boot from USB port. MS doesn't get to collect licenese fee. End user gets a cheap USB thumb drive that is bootable and easily used for other purposes. End user gets a throw-away OS that costs them nothing. End user doesn't get a polluted HD. MS forces makers to promote alternative OSs Done. -CF
God knows I hate Microsoft more than most people...but this might be a teensy bit of an overreaction.
a n.jpg says that the top four reasons people buy bare PC's is:
The actual source of this information says that:
1) This is a UK-only thing.
2) There are only TWO new MS employees doing this.
3) They discuss this during routine customer meetings.
4) There is no hint of coersion implied here.
So what this actually means is that there are a couple of extra marketeers out there trying to pursuade stores not to sell bare PC's.
Furthermore, the MS article http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/nw/sp/storygraphics/sc
* To install their own software.
* To transfer software from an old machine.
* To install Linux
* To take advantage of volume licensing.
The didn't mention "To use a pirated version of windows".
What they ARE saying is that selling a bare system is a missed opportunity for the store. They suggest that if you sell someone a bare machine, you're missing a chance to sell them additional software such as photo processing, music players, etc.
So - yeah Microsoft are most definitely *evil* - but this isn't anything to panic about.
I doubt this will change the minds of many sellers - two guys in one country appealing to store owners who probably made a careful decision to let their customers avoid the MS tax.
You DON'T need to keep re-buying windows over and over again. You DON'T need to buy a copy of Windows only to have it be overwritten with a site-licensed version at work. You DON'T need to buy a copy only to scribble all over it with Linux. You SHOULD be able to save $50 off the cost of your PC if you are in one of those catagories.
www.sjbaker.org
Abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
What's the point of getting a monopoly if you don't abuse it? The shareholders would sue you if you didn't even try to abuse it.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I'll introduce them to my lawyer.
I wouldn't put it past them, but this looks like a straw man that we have predictably knocked over. Congratulations, Slashdot, for another brilliant victory.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Just install a basic Ubuntu setup, it's easy.
Don't allow the bundling of any OS with the PC.
At the same time don't allow the sale of any PC without an OS.
When you buy a PC you have to buy an OS with it. The OS must be priced the same as if sold seperatly.
So if you want a PC with XP then you have to buy XP.
If you want a PC with Linux then you buy Linux.
That way the competition would be totally fair.
I bet Microsoft would love this plan.
Let's see if I get Windows I will have to pay $80 for the OS if I get Linux it will be $8....
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Well of course Microsoft wants all new PC's to be sold with windows. Im sure Goodyear wants all new cars to be sold with Goodyear tires. Gee I wonder if Ore-Ida wants all fast food joints to sell Ore-Ida french fries? Think Sherwin-Williams wants all new houses to be painted with their paint? If I buy a PC without windows, microsoft has no right to "pay me a visit", if they do it would constitute harrasment and I am calling the cops. If I buy a Ford does that mean Chevy and Dodge have right to harass me as to why I didnt buy their products?
All your drive are belong to us.
-Bill Gates
probably want a naked machine. OEM windows is generally not as good as off the shelf windows, so many choose to buy another better copy of windows even after already paying the implicit microsoft tax once.
The OEMs usually package a bunch of crappy software that you don't want in their versions of windows, often slowing done your system. Furthermore if they give you an installer disk at all, it is often a disk that just copies an image of windows directly to the harddrive, totally nuking all partitions. My laptop came with one of these... totally useless if you want to have more than one partition, or want to use the installer disk for any kind of repair that *doesn't* nuke your data. Also, since there's no real installer disk, what if you want to install non default packages? Like asian language files? Or IIS? You are then screwed.
Furthermore, virtually every windows user *already owns a copy of windows* when they buy their machine. At this point microsoft is coming out with new editions of windows at a slower rate than most people buy new computers. Why should I buy another copy of windows for the machine that replaced my old windows machine? It's perfectly legal to transfer over the license.
In summation, OEM windows is the biggest scam ever, forcing you to pay for software you already own again and again. I think we can all agree that it is quite literally worse than the holocaust.
Thats the biggest problem people dont realize, you buy a PC from Dell, Gateway, etc, the OS that came with the machine is only for that machine. You cant ever legally transfer that OS to a new naked PC. Microsoft is correct about that.
Now, If some states should pass some regulations that forbid tieing a commerical OS to a OEM PC's. That will do an end-run around the MS Monopoly.
Software EULA's are almost criminal, the whole copyright laws are written to exclude the consumer's from doing normal actitivies.
I really wish the US had some political parties that could bribe, er use PAC money to change the laws to what the citizens wants/need not corporations demand.
I was thinking of purchasing a machine from Dell a little while ago -- tired of the hassle involved in building my own. They absolutely refused to sell me a machine without windows, even though I already own a legitimate copy of the exact same OS.
What if you are paying the Microsoft tax already? What if you're on a volume license, or an MSDN license, and don't want to double pay for the same OS?
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
an unsaid agreement in the uniform undertaking of limited ownership(copyrights) for the lower and middle class?
Copyright was originally thought of as an infringement on American rights of ownership and property. If you buy something, you have exclusive rights to use or not, alter, destroy, and sell. EULA and license do infringe on a right to hold property, in some cases justified, in many cases, not (included in agreements are often legal search warrants). The legal arguments coming from the field are not unlike having your cake and eating it too.
As far as I'm concerned, UCLA is blowing it big time in it's draconian war against religion, the boy scouts and America. Perhaps the single largest threat to civil liberties since Absolution and their running distraction for the bad guys with cross party interests(want to talk about a unifier? it'd be one for the citizens and not the politicians).
What happens when your personal license management system goes from a ROM/registry entry for software and media and evolves into worlds' food supply, your shoes, the A/C and TP dispenser? (and audited 30,000 times a second).
I usually sell my older computers with the HDs cleaned. I do not want yet another license. I already have one. I want my computers without Windows, and without the license fee. If a computer company can't comply with that, tough for them, I'll move to the next one. Oh, and what fud. "Not including Windows might be unhealthy for your company, you know... things might happen...". Tsh.
As an annual subscriber to a Universal MSDN package I don't think I should have to pay for it twice. That is called racketeering - a federal offense.
Chuck Norris is allowed to sell PCs without an OS.
In unrelated news.... the MPAA and RIAA have urged all distributors and manufacturers of blank CD and DVD media to completely stop making ALL types of blank media........ :P
Chums up, let's do this!
Both "partner" and "system builder" are titles for CERTIFIED ms resellers.
They are not asking that mom and pop shops stop selling blank PC's they are saying hey, we give you a deal on our OS, we give you special treatment with regard to pre-installs, we would rather you not sell blank PC's because research has shown that 73% of blank PCs (PC's that need NOTHING but an OS) get a pirated version of windows installed on them.
5% of computers sold without an OS.
Ok. COULD, just COULD it be that this is about the market share of *nix based OSs? And that this doesn't have anything to do with pirated software? And that MS tries to scare people into buying their OS, to be safe from overzealous copyright witchhunters?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Full Quote: "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business -- with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.
The post says that if you buy an OS you're going to get a visit from MSFT, but the guy doesn't say anything like that. The risk he mentions seems to refer to the loss of opportunities to market software and services.
No Sigs!
I used to have a small business selling PC's in Canada. In order to sell Microsofts OEM OS with my products, I had to pay $10 per PC, regardless if the system had Windows or OS/2 or Linux sold on it.
Eventually Microsoft was forced to stop the practice. But my company/consumers never got a refund for it.
I build PCs on the side for a little extra spending cash. I will not sell a PC with windows, even if a client wants it. I only sell machines either naked or with some flavor of Linux on them. If a client wants windows, I sell them the machine naked and tell them to go to CompUSA and buy their own copy of Windows and install it themselves.
I will take no part in the purchase or sale of Windows.
This is what happens when you do not enforce anti-trust penalties.
The exact same behavior MSFT took against builders who used DRDOS.
Check it out. . .
I know the guy who posted this Slashdot comment on how prominent Forbes writer, Daniel Lyons, a suspected SCO puppet, was asking leading questions of Balmer at Microsoft's request in a recent interview slamming Linux.
Through fluke, my friend managed to get first post. He was also posting with some respectable Slashdot Karma. What happened next was fascinating. . .
His post became the focus of a moderation tug-o-war. No big deal. Happens all the time on Slashdot. --I've posted hundreds of items which piss people off, and I've watched my posts fly up and down on the venerable, "Troll" to "Insightful" Slashdot scale. Except, I cannot ever claim to have invoked more than, at most, say 8 or 9 mod points from the Slashdot moderators.
carsonc's post however. . . Wow.
We were chatting a few days later and he described the scenario to me. It seems that, lickety-split, after his post had gone up, a group of somebodies had gone into his posting history and spent a lot of mod points hammering several of his recent posts from 2's down into -1's. They spent, we estimate, at least 25 mod points worth of specific attention on him. Despite the fact that regular Slashdot moderators eventually won the tug-o-war, leaving his comment in the rarefied air of +5, his Karma had nonetheless dropped so quickly from history moderation, that he was left prevented from posting more than two comments per day, (effectively stopping him from engaging in open forum debate on the very topic he'd launched), and assigning an automatic -1 to everything he might say thereafter.
Yeah, yeah. Big deal. Slashdot Karma wars do exist on the level of schoolyard nonsense, but in this case. . .
A group of somebodies with 25 mod points to blow on a moment's notice? Well that raises interesting questions! Judging by the otherwise bland nature of carsonc's post, which I can't think could possibly have inspired anybody to have such intense emotional reaction and thus mod negatively, --unless they were directly affected by his comments, I can only surmise that it was either. . ,
A) Unwholesome Slashdot editors. --Which, considering Slashdot's fairly clean history of moral conduct over the years, I think is unlikely in the extreme.
or. . .
B) A band of Microsoft employees who had been directed to acquire mod points on Slashdot to be used at the whim of Microsoft's PR department precisely when negative views circulating around delicate points in the news might harm them. And as mod points are not given every day, how many users exactly, does it take to have 25 mod points available at a moment's notice? Enough to require some paid coordiation, I'd say.
Some might cry, "Conspiracy!" and wag their heads like dolts. But with several 1000 employees plugged into the Microsoft cube. . .
Anybody who has seen the film, "The Corporation" knows that such a scenario is not just possible, but -extremely- likely.
In other words. . . Fuck Microsoft. Switch to Linux. Tell everybody to do so now. Ubuntu will mail you 5 disks for free, and they'll support them, for free, for 3 years.
-FL
I think you didn't spell our correctly...
Obviously, this is a particular threat from Apple.
With the capability of intel Macs to run XP, obviously the only reason to buy one is to run a pirate copy of Windows.
Apple must provide a copy of windows with every mac!
It doesn't matter, the minute MICROSOFT is forced to allow PC Makers the option of selling without an O/S, Microsoft will relelase a dumb downed version of Windows and force everyone to Upgrade. Instead of selling much cheaper "normal" Windows machine, makers will be forced to sell using their license so they don't get left behind.
Yeah, because microsoft is above FUD: "But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software."
Which implies that people who don't want to buy windows with their PC are pirates, Theyor not far from it.
The whole thing boils down to "Some people are not buying windows along with their PC ? They must either be pirate, or people who don't understand the value of our offers. You can't possibly not want windows with your PC. This is abnormal."
It reminds me my asshat catechism teacher who told my mother that she should get me to a psychiatrist because I don't believe in god. She probably didn't expect a 8 years old kid to be able to resist her indoctrination.
Attention mods! The post above is a clear troll; he has merely taken an existing article and replaced every instance of the word "penis" with the word "anus." Mod down!
Has MS ever heard of volume licensing? You know when companies pay them lots of money so that they can Windows on every machine. Some of these companies might be interested in a computer with no OS as they have already PAID for it. Also these companies might want to install Windows themselves as there may be special applications/ configuration that are company specific.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm from Denmark a country in Europe. Now I'm not 100% sure how the laws are. But there are examples from Denmark where telenetwork owners have been forced to on their networks for thirdparty networks... because of marked dominace... And it is completly insane to do nothing towards monopoly!
...nobody uses Linux these days...
If i'd order a PC i would include Windows if i'm going to use it because the license is cheaper most of the time.
If i won't use Windows i also wouldn't pay it.
Business week reports "Apple stock up on Windows-based Macs".
"Hey, there's a worm in my Apple!"
Since the IRA has again renounced violence, the boys need something to do!
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the Microsoft tax. Without freedom of choice in software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Quality software will be written by the hobby market.
Almost a year ago, I bought a PC and installed Linux on it. Though the initial work took only two hours, I have spent most of the last year trying to get the hardware working right. Now I have hibernate working and perfectly working audio and accelerated 3d, but still no suspend to RAM. The value of the computer time I have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback I have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using Linux has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never wanted to buy Windows with their computers. (less than 10% of all Linux users use Windows occasionally), and 2) The amount of pain in the ass we have received from Micro-Softs monopolistic tactics and the time spent on working on these issues is huge.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of us use free software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid on some other way, or are doing it just for fun?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by forcing us to buy your software is helping open standards to mature. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for maintaining compatibility with your proprietary software? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into reverse-engineering your products, finding all inconstanties, documenting those and distribute for free? Most directly, the thing you do is robbery.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to collaborate in writing opensource software, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to gather ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Monopolies are not illegal, but the government has the power and the right to regulate them regardless of whether they are being abused.
Then Micro$oft will need a warrant and should be prepared to be pay up in court if they try that here.
The fact that they are attempting to strong-arm ALL of their "partners" is a sign that we may see another investigation into Microsoft business practices. It's also a sign that something is eating at them to the point that they don't like it. hehe, cough Linux cough
Also, the DOJ and State Attorney General will be getting letters regarding this.
"The FSF Europe is alarmed by the prospect that customers who request a base systems would risk a visit from Microsoft's investigators." I am still waiting on the day that I can buy a computer, and instead of them saying "They support Microsoft Windows only" for their computer customers, they instead ask me "What Operating system would you like on your new computer? I don't think they can come knocking on a regular consumers front door demanding to see their new computer just because they got the computer without a Operating System. If they can do this... Regardless of my choosing of Opeating System I plan to tell them to get a warrant. I advise businesses to do the same. I believe its time also for Vendors to drop the "Microsoft only" policy too. This is still forcing users to use Microsoft. Microsoft knows it too. Too bad the Courts don't see it for what it is.
Okay, why does it say that Linux is not good enough of an excuse to get a "naked" PC???
I don't need an excuse. If I was going to buy a computer, I want to buy the hardware, and not be forced to shell out money for software they want to give me if I don't want it. I can't believe they think that OS-less computers are all potential machines to have pirated Windows on it. Honestly the point of getting no OS is just that, to have nothing there; why waste the money on the OS if you're going to erase it anyway? Also, maybe I would buy a computer without an OS because I don't want Windows, period. This has antitrust written all over it, may they burn and die a painful death for all I care. And all I wanted was a laptop with an nVidia card, an AMD CPU, and no OS. I can't find any one laptop with even two of those criteria! (Not blaming MS for this though.)
Gentoo Linux - Wouldn't have it any other way. And fuck beta.
PC resellers could just offer to bundle with Linux or *BSD -- which would make Microsoft's argument completely untenable.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
I could have gotten first post in this story since the entire write-up is basically one giant lie.
From now on, I buy only Intel.
And he makes some pretty inane or even stupid posts. I think the attention he got probably didn't do him any good.
As to MS employees being a reason he was boned, I have to say that's not too far-fetched to me. But really, I'd have more sympathy if slashdot weren't so consistently off the handle in relation to MS. I mean, it's pretty easy to get a smack even for reasonable opinions about MS and SCO. And his slight wingnuttiness doesn't help much.
It's still seems unfair. Maybe meta-moderating can fix this eventually?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
This something for nothing deal where somehow magically they are "owed" huge sums because they threw some inflation money at some bogus company has gotten to the point it's *nuts*. Screw the shareholders! It's time to hold SHAREHOLDERS to the full benefits of the RISK associated with so called "investing". It's RISK, and you are supposed to be watching whichever crooks you hire run the business. Failure to do that SHOULD result in a pure capitalist guilt by association deal. No due diligence in keeping your crooked managers under control, then TOO BAD.
If a company gets nailed for illegalities, over and over again, EVERY SINGLE SHAREHOLDER should get the same exact fine and or jail time. How ya like them apples? Screw them never getting any notice. And if a big corporation keeps losing in court, it should be the same as with individuals, THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT, automatic instant dissolution of the corporation, stocks made worthless, tangible assets put up for auction by the US marshalls.
That would FORCE these profit seeking they don't care about anything but money "shareholders" to think twice about throwing money at some shady company like MS or Enron or Worldcom or Arthur Andersen in the hopes of getting a lot more money for doing nothing other than already being wealthy enough to "own shares". It would make them take a LOOK at what the company is doing, to ACTIVELY take part in shareholders meetings and oversight issues. Screw em, they want the money, let them actually WORK for it.
...so you wont end up swiming with the fishs
come on man, learn some english. "may be..." "will be". It is conjecture at this point. They haven't said that naked boxes correlate to piracy, but they said that if future sales (will be = future tense) correlate, they may have to look into it.
Nothing is going to change until we shoot up a few stock holders' meetings.
Andy Out!
Exactly, just ship with Slackware installed.
Find coupons in Greeley
You think that's bad try to buy a Mac without an OS on it!
In an unregulated market, successful players acquire sufficinet capital (and power) to manipulate the markets to their advantage, by things such as reducing transparency, and building extraneous barriers to entry. It is in their interest to do so, so they do.
Bingo, this market is no longer free; it is manipulated. Sure, those barriers eventually fall (usually as a result of someone else with great capital/power shifting into that market, and bringing their own inherent interest in manipulatin th emarkets, or due to technological shifts that render that market space irrelevant), but for the time they last, they cause damage to the markets.
The only way to avoid that is throug regulating the markets to ensure reasonable market transparency and to limit artificial barriers to entry. That is what the "anti-monopolists" seek to do, adn it is an essential task for the preservation of a broadly functional market economy, as oppsoed to a manipulated market economy tha theavily favors those with the power to manipulate it.
Capatalism should not include strongarming your customers. That is the point of the article. M$ may be a successful company based on dollars but they are treading close to the line of being an organized criminal conspiracy (Arrrhh! I see piracy in that thar word) and may on occasion step over the line. They have their shill(Business Software Alliance - BSA)going around being their protection racketeers. This is not Capatalism where one creates a product and sells it at a price based on cost+ that is a price point set by the market place. This is an artificial market created through threats and bullying.
Microsoft realizes its install process is too difficult for new users, so they don't want anybody other than the techs at Dell, etc. to be exposed to it.
The analogy is flat.
The former statement is a self-referencial logic puzzle. and the latter.. was the latter even actually uttered by anyone?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I worked for a company that converted to Linux from Windows, specificly because they were afraid of getting in trouble for pirated software. People often installed questionable software on their own initiative, or re-installed licenced software but used the same seriel number for more than one machine, etc., etc. The company prefered Windows to Linux, but the legal risks were too high, and the costs of policing every PC (especially people who worked out of the office) was just too high.
People don't kill people, guns kill people.
It only takes one to tango.
And naked PC's cause piracy, so if you sell 'em, you are responsible.
. To my knowledge there is no law requiring a PC be sold with an OS. This notion is purely a Microsoft threat. Again Microsoft has zero basis to make this threat. The only thing they might have going is some agreement with an OEM stupid enough to sign such agreement. So for those OEMs who have been wise enough not to sign their business over to uncle Billy, keep on trunkin' and tell Microsoft to shove it where the sun don't shine.
This um, warning from Billy sounds much like something a mobster, gangster and other low life's would try and do.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Personally i hope the EU slap crippling fines and place severe restrictions on the Redmond based outfit and either Google, Red Hat, or Yahoo release an feasible alternative to the standard desktop OS. Google have the potential with the desktop bar, Yahoo similar (although undeclared) and Red Hat... well i'd just like to see it. Without sounding too melodramatic i want governments to wake up and realise that MSFT is stopping the development of both the Internet and personal computing. It releases software that is at best deeply flawed, acquires software and holds on to it, breaks it, or simply removes it from the marketplace. The situation within the tech industry is nearly as bad as that in the oil industry.
Webmaster www.infogrok.com
I would like to see MS really try to enforce this, and then have the partner back out of the Windows licensing agreement. If there was one large computer maker that would make this happen and install linux only, they'd have a niche market that would probably grow. (Gateway, you listening?)
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Tomorrow's headline: Microsoft demands that Apple buy a Windows XP Pro license for every intel mac they sell, since people *might* try to slap a copy of windows on there! And they have to stick that ugly ass sticker right on the front of the machine.
You can move a full or upgrade retail copy to another computer, provided the operating system is removed from the old computer.
OEM Licenses are forever tied to the mainboard they are originally installed on (one reason for the lowered cost).
If i buy one computer with windows XP and 2 years later, that computer starts to break or whatever else, I can't buy a naked PC and load the windows XP that came with my first computer?
Didn't I pay for an XP license already? Wouldn't that be a reasonable percentage of users who wanted a naked PC, they already have a valid XP?
Or does the license say I can only use XP on the original computer it came with. In which case what the hell am I paying M$ for. Software like data can't just be tied to specific hardware, because hard wear comes and goes. I bought a computer that came with XP installed but I paid for 1 copy of XP that I can move around as I wish. I have bought 3 separate machines with XP which means I have paid for 3 copies, even though i have never had more than 2 of those machines working. So didn't I just get scammed?
How does the licensing work, and isn't that considered abuse of monopoly if I am basically forced to buy more license than I actually use?
Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
Now-a-days, software costs the same as hardware or even more for the average consumer. And I don't mean high end stuff, just the basic OS and virus detection and malware removal. If system developers are persuaded to sell PCs with only Windows, that will give a very big advantage to those offering to sell without. Of course, it will only be an advantage for marketing to the last 5%.
.... about there being too many choices for GNU/Linux distros. It gives them another "excuse" to be playing Microsofts game of not providing lower priced PCs without Microsofts PetrieDish/OS. Well, there's also the money Microsoft pays them directly for putting those stickers all over the place saying stuff about being 'ready for Windows', 'powered by Windows', 'runs best with Windows', 'we recommend Windows', blah, blah ,blah. You can bet that those "feet on the street" are waving THAT in front of the OEMs they find selling safe-secure-reliable/Windows-less PCs.
The other thing they SHOULD be telling those OEMs is that by putting Microsoft Windows on those PCs, they are far, far, far more likely to be getting another $100-$200 for reinstalling Windows for that customer in about a year or two because malware ravaged their MS Windows OS. I know of 3 home users around me who had to do this and I'll bet the number is going up quickly. It's one thing to have to reboot(ctl-alt-del) your computer when it crashes or locks up. It's another when you have to dish out $$$$ to have someone fix it because the SOFTWARE/OS is so messed up it's unusable. This is probably why there's word going around that Microsofts days are numbered. It's also showing more and more in requests for quotes for standards based solutions.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Actually, MS only said that OEMs who sale systems without windows were losing an oppurtunity to sale windows and make more money. They never mentioned any form of legal action, as saling a computer withour windows is not against the law. If MS started refusing to sale windows to companies that don't install windows on all their machines, then this would be 1. stupid, 2. Most likely illegal, 3. immoral at any rate. However, this is not the case.
that slot wasn't just for sticking in floppies!
A CD-bootable operating system IS an operating system.
Case closed.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I use to work on a company where we always formatted the laptops, installed Win XP Pro with the corp license that was legally bought, but still we needed to throw some extra cash to the bundled XP Pro/Home....
:p)
Fucking Microsoft should burn in hell, I hope that they get those fines from EU
Makere
(ok I was too lazy to register
A friend of mine runs a small computer shop a few years ago and was in trouble (threatening lawyer's letter from MS). The reason being there is a "mismatch" between windows license that his customers bought and the number of computers he sold...
Some guys buy install linux/BSDs on their PC. For some other guys like me use windows. However, I don't need to buy a license for legitimate reason: mine is a work related computer (well, it may be souped up with kick ass video card, but hey, it is something between my boss and me to sort out), my employer's site license covers my installation.
It is ridiculous to force me to buy a separate windows license.... If that ever happens, I will start considering a mac mini....
Sounds more like papa billy is going to have to start threatining people to use windows the more and more people pull away from the borg.
Then why send the anti-piracy unit around, and refer to it as a business risk?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Its time to "buy out" your buisness
God spoke to me.
...where is my flying car??!?
OK, so why is the user in danger of getting a unit without OS?!? Heh... if I ran a computer shop, I would purposely sell PCs without OSs. :)
BINGO! I've got bingo over here! I didn't think I could do that off of two sentences... wow. Now that's innovation for ya!
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
From the FTA:
Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.
What an unfair statement to make. I'm sure that Microsoft is just looking out for everyone's best interest.
They did say "It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business".
Sounds like they're just trying to be helpful. Gosh!
Does this seem surreal to anyone? I mean try as I might, I actually cannot comprehend where M$ is coming from, can someone explain to me..?
"You won't eat our meat, but you'll glue with our feet.." --Some cow
Wait a minute - think about what MSFT says they want to do - visit a person who has purchased a computer without an OS? First - where are they going to retrieve this information (how will they know who has committed this act of "sin" (as far as MSFT is concerned)? Next, instead of "GeekSquad" VWs, you'll see little Microsoft buggies driving around, searching for no-OS PCs! GatesSquad! Something doesn't smell right with this action item that MSFT has on its plate... let me get this straight, I want to buy a computer and put RedHat on it - so I purchase the PC without an OS. The GatesSquad then sends me a bunch of dead, black flowers, with a note, "we're gonna getcha.." Next thing I know, a black vehicle (small and not cute, I would have put the name of the Dodge Caliber in here, but that would insult the Caliber).. shows up in front of my house.. seems a bit far-fetched to me. I think that even violates some laws somewhere... don't you think?
Better not sell a car... it *might* be used to facilitate a crime!
that's the *logic* being applied here.
this ia mob like mentality... as in THE mob.
I have to admit, I would love to be able to buy a Mac (esp. a PPC) without MacOS--I'm sure it's a lovely OS, but I'm a Debian developer.
However, there is a huge difference here. MS has a monopoly (and is well-known for abusing it). Apple does not (and is not). If enough people demanded Macs w/o MacOS, Apple would probably start to supply them (or answer to its shareholders). Apple is still subject to market pressures; MS, effectively, is not.
Anyway, Apple makes those Macs that all come with MacOS. MS does not make PCs at all, so your analogy is flawed. Why should MS control how Dell or Gateway or HP or Lenovo or <tiny-local-PC-vendor> does business?
As far as legal definitions go, the question did not state "a legal monoply." All kidding aside, the laws we currently have are written by lawyers, with one primary goal- to get gain. The lawyers encourage litigation, thereby gaining employment. Not all lawyers do this, but the majority do. (seen any legal ads lately). This is a wicked practice, and must be brought to an end.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, while they do a lot of stupid things, very few could be considered anti-competitive in any way. Microsft has not exerted undue influence upon the market- except possibly in the case with BeOS, which they settled a while back. If we hold Microsoft back from innovating, then of course their competitors will, but why not have MS innovation too? Competition, from everyone, is a good thing.
...that Apple would just ship OS X for regular PCs, that way we could all put OS X on our machines and be done with this whole thing.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Our computers come with Ubuntu. *finger*
MadOgre.com
Algerath
but I suspect the majority of PCs sold without an MS OS on them, get an illegal copy installed upon them.
I'm not trying to 'support' Microsoft, or 'diss' Linux - but the fact is the majority of people use an MS OS and cannot use anything else.
Now I don't mean people here, and I don't mean the people trying to convince Dell to sell them a Linux PC - I mean the people who buy those absolutely rock-bottom price PCs from the large chain stores with some god-forsaken telly-tuddied-excuse-for-an-OS Linux build on them - or the fly-by-night money laundering PC store that sells OS-free systems.
Those people install pirate versions of XP.
Now as I'm trying to make painfully clear, I'm not tarring everybody with the same brush blah blah blah - BUT
Doesn't give MS the right to chase up people who didn't buy from them - BUT can anybody think of any software more pirated than XP - or think that maybe MS shouldn't be given the same protection as every other vendor of software?
Not entirely sure what point I'm trying to make - but nobody is forced to buy an MS OS - and nobody has the right to pirate it.
I'm just a bit fed up with the whole double standard applied to MS.
I've tried to used Linux - a success is just getting the f'in thing to find/recognise all the drivers. I'm more than prepared to sacrifice a bit of cash to get a PC I can actually do something with (after a weekend swearing at Linux).
Here's a thought. If the Linux community really wanted to crush MS - make a unified f'in build, with unified f'in drivers that's simpler for my Mum to keep running that XP.
Well I now realise that I've gone way off-topic here - but I am just sick and tired of whiners and they're "well I can do it, so what's the problem" attitude.
I look forward to the day when MS locks their OS onto the hardware (just like Apple) and then we don't have to listen to MS whining about mass piracy and you lot whining about MS being some monopolistic big brother - OH hold on..
So they show up at your shop, you show them the "No Solicitation" sign and then you show them the door. If they don't leave immediately, you call the cops and have them removed like the common extortionist thugs they are. Another question, why are all of these companies reporting these statistics anyways - who's business is it how many naked PCs you sold?
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Microsoft makes it a pain in the ass to try and get peripherals that work without massive hoop jumping on other OSes because 99% of the hardware vendors are complete MS suckoff toys.
MS and their compromised scared shilled vendors make it a pain in the ass by making TAXPAYERS pay for their crap for the "privelege" of having "government services" that run on MS crippled bloatware. They make their software so easy to compromise that all sorts of add-on third party fixes are needed, "forcing" governments to upgrade hardware when nothing is wrong with the hardware, it's the dang CRAPTASTIC EXPENSIVE software that's running on them that is the problem. This affects governments, and our wallets, and it's reflected in the cost of EVERYTHING you buy where this or that corporation is running their manure. Billions and billions and yet more billions of wasted dollars a year, that's what they do to Non-microsoft users or enthusiasts. It is a pure abusive monopoly that should have been broken up years ago, now it is an entrenched *habit*, that's all, a habit.
Money time and aggravation, even if you DON'T want to use their stuff, society forces you to use their stuff second or third hand, and pay for that privelege.
It's a HUGE hidden cost that they don't want to acknowledge. Now, how about the sheer aggravation of having MS fooled and brainwashed users in your friends and family circle, where YOU get to "fix" their busted malware crap, or be put in a position to deny a favor to them, because you just get tired of "fixing" stuff that comes pre broken with no warranty, making *you* look like the bad guy when you finally tell them "No, take it to the MS fixit shop and pay the big bucks, I won't do it anymore, waste of effort and time"?? How many WASTED man hours of labor go to fund this obvious-as-hell "broken window" principle of "creating a market"? Millions a year? People don't think we ALL don't pay for that privelege, one way or the other? Can I deduct MY hidden MS tax on private goods and services and government taxes when I declare I don't want any of my money to go to them? Where the hell is my "free market choice" when it is this pervasive throughout society? Where is it? You CAN'T escape paying them criminal turkeys, either directly or constantly one or two steps removed. You'd have to go live in a cave someplace and completely withdraw from any sort of society to avoid having your money taken from you that eventually goes to them or suffering one way or the other because of their crap.
Anyone who keeps claiming there is a "choice" to "not use" MS products is seriously and chronically living in a state of psychological denial, is deluded, and is a basic economics ignoramus, and can't think past ONE step in a given situation.
It is time to PULL Microsoft's incorporation charters.
I will concur... mostly. While Microsoft does engage in some strongly predatory practices, the extent to which they can and/or do truely impact the market is grey. Also, lawyers are most definitely in the business of creating opportunity for the debate of law, which coincidentally usually equates to $$$ for them.
The article in question certainly insinuated anticompetitive behavior but also stopped just short of any real allegations. For now we need to let Microsoft just "be Microsoft". If those monopolistic tendencies do come out, then and only then do we need to step in an slap them around.
As far as holding Microsoft back, you are also correct. Let then innovate. Heck... let anyone innovate who's willing to do the work. I'm an almost pure free-market capitalist, meaning that less government intrusion = better economic growth and opportunity. It's a win-win.
A lot of pea-brains and needle-dicks won't make the connection, though. The former by accident, the latter on purpose. Feel free to mock them - both groups.
1. stupid, 2. Most likely illegal, 3. immoral at any rate
2nd reply- I think that describes the activities of just about any company willing to put profit above the law in order of ethical importance.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Thats what I do, I build a machine from parts, boot up a slax / knoppix / whatever they want linux cd / let the machine run for the night to test the hardware and send it on its way. If the customer likes the live cd they can install it, after they get the hardware from me with the OS i provide, is there any reason I have to believe they're going to automatically pirate windows?
First they have to get it, then they have to decide whether they actually want it.
Always build systems that are supported by linux, then you have no issue.
Now that Monoposoft has equated Freedom Of OS Choice with Nudism, Linux is really going to take off!
Now if we can only find some girls...
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"The actual source of this information says that:"
Stop right there, what source, who said that?
"Supplying base systems, or 'naked PCs', is a missed opportunity, according to Michala Alexander, Microsoft's head of anti-piracy."
So the head of Microsoft anti-piracy unit said it, a title you omitted. What MS is trying is to equate selling blank PC with piracy in classic MS FUD styly.
It all the way through the paper, e.g. "we want to urge all suppliers not to supply naked PC's... it's a risk to your customers".
A risk to your customers?!
Even the cartoon makes it clear.
"My Software license.....er the dog ate it".
They didn't say "don't ship without Windows installed" (although I'm sure that's what they meant), they said "Dont' ship without an OS installed."
There's a simple solution for vendors wishing to sell PCs without an OS installed:
"Our default operating system is Linux. Customers who wish to have Windows pre-installed may choose to do so for an additional fee. Since we realize that many of our customers will choose Windows, we always maintain a sufficient stock of Windows pre-installed machines to enable a customer to pick one up with no waiting."
Or, make your default OS FreeDOS and give customers the option of Linux at no extra charge or Windows for a fee.
Or, if the traffic will bear it, sell them all for the same price, which will boost the profit margin tremendously on Linux machines (note: this might piss off Microsoft).
Believe it or not, someone actually said that stupid thing. And he was being serious. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
As a documentar, but it wasn't correct. The GM said at the time they were being killed by the labor market in Michigan. And they were right, the contracts they signed with the UAW then to keep their plants open are the ones that are killing them right now. The Jobs Bank came into being in that timeframe.
The awards for movies are given by artists and mostly for art. Don't confuse recognition of artistic principles with statements underscoring factual correctness.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Microsoft has a unique position where they never have to worry about Windows piracy since almost all PC automatically come with a Windows license. This saves Microsoft a lot of money in its anti-piracy efforts.
What Microsoft is probably doing is targeting manufacturers who don't produce any PCs with Windows licenses. Microsoft probably suspects that a majority these machines are getting pirated copies of Windows installed, and they're probably right. After all, it is a lot cheaper for a manufacturer to license Windows for each and every PC they produce than to purposely license only 95% of their PCs, so the last 5% can be used by the alternate OS market.
Just because a PC is licensed for Windows doesn't mean it has to come with Windows. A lot of manufactures are now selling Linux only PCs -- especially server models because of the demand. The demand for non-windows PCs would have to rise to about 15% to 20% of the market for it to be cheaper for a manufacturer to stop licensing Windows for each PC they produce. At that point, Microsoft will find it almost impossible to enforce its Windows licensing.
A unloaded hard drive in not as much an invitation to pirate as it is to EXPEREMENT! Maybe that is what microsoft fears
I have a coworker who after watching us order componants and build our own PC's, go excited an ordered his own. With his former Dell, that he always felt uneasy about messing with the partition, but that new empty drive was just BEGGING to be played with, so he installed Ubuntu today.
I don't know if he will stick with it, but the chances are good as he is not a gamer. But even if he does not, Linux has mindshare between his ears, and he is not afraid of it anymore.
You Ubuntu people will be interested to know that it is your free cd's with shipping that made him pick your distro. (I am a KDE guy, so it was not me, lol)
If Microsoft doesn't think you should sell "naked PCs", how do they justify sales of the retail version of their OS?
No monopoly here. No, sir.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The aspect of this that's always annoyed me is enterprise purchasing. Buy a 100 or a 1000 or 10,000 PCs and you get 100 or a 1000 or 10,000 Windows Licenses. Installed. But as an enterprise customer you don't want that individual key'd license. You want a bulk license that you can load onto the machines with Ghost or any other of the many tools for building uniform desktops. You therefore need to buy a Microsoft volume license of some sort. You've paid twice for Windows. Most companies either accept this or ignore it as a cost of business. But it does add about $150 to $180 per machine to the acquisition price. With a business PC costing well under a $1000 today, that's a big hit. Just a gripe.
Umm, they aren't going to 'send the anti piracy unit around'. The original article talks about Microsoft employees helping to sell Windows on customer visits.
In the zdnet article they said -
"I can confirm that the... personnel are not participating in customer visits. This is an error in the copy and will be amended in future material on the subject," Alexander claimed.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Before you make the purchase, make it clear that you do not want the pre-installed software, and that you will consider any un-patched security flaws in it at the time of purchase to be defects. Since you are sure that it has such defects, you will be returning the defective software for a refund.
Microsoft did this back in 1988 etc, in those days, the small pc company I worked for (in western canada), made genetic vanila tower pc's etc.
We were not supposed to sell a pc without the MS tax, and the company did let us employees build our own boxes without the tax, but the company would not sell a pc (non ms tax), as some small outfits ocasionally got caught and besides, there was only drdos os out there, no real threat from linux yet.
If we had got caught, we could have lost our ms contract and gone out of busness..(you cannot sell pcs without the ms discount on ms products, it is not proffitable).
Also too, Intel was flattening any alternative x86 chip manufacturer out in those days (and keeping cpu chip prices really high), so, you could lose your Intel contract if Intel thought you were interested in any x86 compettition (so you kept your nose clean in all respects as Intel and ms were really close together at that time).
Besides, the company was there to make a proffit, not support any type of then non-existant open source or alternate source of operating system/cpu manufaturer mentality.
It would be years until AMD made better, cheaper systems possible. (I was almost fired for even mailing a info card to AMD (for myself) for chip info and the bosses were totaly paranoid Intel would find out!)
Basically, face it, today, we have choices and Intel and MS can get stuffed and MS should be sued to the ends of the universe, both for their past essentially illegal gangster monlolistic behaviour/practices and thier REALLY badly engineered deffective products.
Support open source (hardware and software), after all, what are you going to do 10 years from now when any retail motherboard you get is going to have essentialy 10 pounds of DRM chips in it...hopefully, by them people could make their own non DRM "motherboards" with a bunch of cheap FPGA's and share the designs over the net.
IF you were to make/buy futue FPGA "motherboards", they would have to be like the current generation of FPGA prototype boards (with usb, mouse, keyboard. vga, etc (and cheap too), (I have not seen any with svga outputs yet, but I don't know all the FPGA protoboards out there)).
In order that the DRM/Hollywood/MS crowd can't say that these boards are essentially pc's without the drm as they would just be FPGA development boards. (so as to not geting them confiscated at the border, if you are in the US, or else your country happens to support the future insane US DRM laws against importing motherboards/hardware without drm intalled on it).
Then again, if the FPGA development board HAD to have some sort of drm (to get by border customs), then you would simply reprogram the FPGA's to strip out the drm crap, after all, its a FPGA prototype system, its function is to be programmable in all system aspects!
And right after that:
Alexander also insisted that Microsoft was simply trying to help its reseller partners by explaining how they could grow their businesses by selling its software and services. But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software.
And earlier in the article we find that:
Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software. In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.
In other words, this is an "oops, I said too much, I'd better put a good spin on it".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Or, if the traffic will bear it, sell them all for the same price, which will boost the profit margin tremendously on Linux machines
Not if a Windows/Linux PC maker has to choose more expensive hardware that is supported by Linux over cheaper hardware that is not supported by Linux. For instance, unless and until scanner makers start cooperating with the SANE project en masse, it's hard to find a cheap scanner to bundle with a computer.
It is better to try and possibly fail than to not try and definately fail.
There's failing, and then there's failing. In many cases, the failure resulting from trying is worse than the failure resulting from not trying.
But, if you fail, something has been learned
Unless too many people before you have already failed catastrophically, exhausing all conceivable methods of breaking the entry barriers. If it is almost certain that you will fail in exactly the same way that another business has failed before, and you will lose more from failing than from not trying at all, then what?
I have never heard of a hardware store being sued successfully for selling spray paint.
In which state or province? Perhaps UnanimousCoward lives in a different jurisdiction whose laws do require retailers to keep various kinds of paint behind locked glass.
If you uninstall it from one PC, you are free to install it on another regardless of what the license says.
But then your OS won't activate, and in at least the United States, Australia, and other nations that have implemented the WIPO Copyright Treaty, you are forbidden to circumvent the access control on your copy of Windows.
MSDS stands for "Material Safety Data Sheet". Its something you have to have around when you have hazardous materials in a workplace. It tells stuff like LD50 values, fire control, etc.
Excellent typo for MSDN!
Did I sign a contract promising to abide by the OEM license? No?
You also didn't sign a contract giving you the right to decrypt the encrypted .cab files that act as access control around the copyrighted operating system.
It's called "Rent Seeking" behavior, and it's one of those little problems with the free market
From the Wikipedia article you linked: "Rent seeking is often associated with lobbying for economic regulations such as tariffs." These economic regulations are state interventions into the market. Copyrights and software patents are an example of such a state intervention. On the other hand, in a more free market, economic rents tend to be competed away. Do you have any links to pages where readers can learn about the specific types of rent-seeking behavior that a more free market would bring about?
Nothing prevents you from going to any of the various white-box merchants and building your own.
Other than the market failure of incomplete information? People tend not to know that these white-box vendors exist because the vendors fail to inform the public. On the other hand, I see print ads from Dell and Microsoft in Time magazine. Of course, one could go through a local Linux user group, but again due to the market failure of incomplete information, the public fails to realize LUGs' existence.
That is all.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Maybe it is just time to switch to FreeBSD.
Oh but they use GCC... Does that mean it is actually GNU/Free(as in freedom)BSD?
If I pick up a surplus computer that has a bad hard drive-- stick in a new drive and install Windows on it-- won't I have an argument that the computer must have been sold with Windows on it originally so it's legal based on the fact it must have come with a license, because you can't buy it any other way?
Give me omnipotence and invincibility and that fucking company (and others like them, but ms in particular) would exist no more...
Just shows that US government has balls only to quash and spy on citizens but not actually take a significant chunk out of microsoft's (lower-casing/deprecation of their name intentional/perpetual in my book) ass. I wonder if the EU will resist ms and their dirty shit.
My next PC will be NAKED or will be piecemeal. If I walk into a store that won't sell me a naked PC, I'll visit them and pester them by asking for a barebones PC. When they decline or say they can't, I'll name a places as in "Oh, wait, I'll go to 'x company'".
I once ordered a Gateway computer years ago, and SPECIFICALLY told them NOT to ship me the ms mouse. They shipped it anyway. SO, I videotaped my torching the fucker. I told them to send me a generic mouse. I am SURE gateway had them, but the order taker must have been on a power trip.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
First of all to write off Roger & Me as 'incorrect' is foolishly dismissive. Despite his (well rebutted) detractors and his editorial over-indulgences, Moore's message, arguments and content remain entirely worthy of thought. Anybody I've met who rabidly despises the man has been, in my view, deliberately avoiding some difficult realities.
Secondly, Michael Moore did not have anything to do with the film in question.
Third, the director of "The Corporation" spent a LOT of time doing a LOT of fact checking, and as a result it is an excellent film worthy of attention, which it indeed recieved. --If many others thought it worthy of attention, then perhaps it is foolish to denounce it without having even seen the thing simply because it happens to be a 'movie'. Further, I would say that it is doubly foolish, as in the case of the poster, to think that by so denouncing, he was somehow lending weight to his argument. Stupid.
-FL
The only "PC" Ive ever bought is my laptop. All the desktops before that I bought a motherboard, then I bought the particular case I liked, then I bought a graphics card that suited me, etc. Do they only go after those selling fully assembled hardware without an OS, or do I need to set up a filing system to keep track of these things as well?
But what's wrong with that. They're only talking about busting OEMs that install unlicensed Windows.
They want to sell more Windows licenses to be sure, and they're doing Xxx things
1) Visiting OEMs to check if they are buying an OEM license for each preinstalled machine they sell.
2) Trying to convince OEMs to bundle software rather than selling blank machines
3) They had some idea about recruiting people to provide proactive assistance during customer visits which they've now said was a typo.
But this is presumably aimed at big companies who buy a load of blank PC's and install them themselves. Or whatever, since they aren't going to do it, it's hard to know what it means. It could be that they'd send dudes round with powerpoint presentations on laptops, or it could actually have been a typo. The 'send the boys round' interpretation is either paranoid or a troll or bit of both.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I tried to mod you insightful but you were already at maximum moderations.
Things are good
Include FreeDOS or some other simple OS on the machine.
Now its no longer an "OS-less" machine.
Support costs are almost non existant (as if anyone is actually going to use FreeDOS and even if they do, it should be dead simple to support)
Special order can be done You will wait. And it has all nice stickers over the box. This is a system upgrade.
Ie case power suppy motherboard processor ram every bar harddrive. The Harddrive comes in a seprate box blank and bigger than the standard. Ie Updrade + harddrive upgrade can equal a complete machine.
Need a small server box. A apple mini fitted perectly. Mind you it was a little cheaper than buying a apple mini with a smaller harddrive so they do charge for the OS install. Funny point is that the box has a licence to install Mac X on it in the furture if you want to.
But this is presumably aimed at big companies who buy a load of blank PC's and install them themselves. Or whatever, since they aren't going to do it, it's hard to know what it means. It could be that they'd send dudes round with powerpoint presentations on laptops, or it could actually have been a typo. The 'send the boys round' interpretation is either paranoid or a troll or bit of both.
It COULD mean that- but that would not be in keeping with the previous activities of this branch of Microsoft- which is more into sniffing around and slapping $50,000/seat fines on people who threw away the cardboard packaging after installing DOS or whatever.
The fact that they were even THINKING about sending people to MANUFACTURERS to try to get those MANUFACTURERS to stop selling blank PCs of the type we've all bought at one time or another (well, those of use who build systems for the fun of it have) is kind of scary- especially given EUCD/DMCA implications.
It may be paranoid to you- but it isn't paranoia without facts or precident behind it- going all the way back to 1976 when a young Billy Gates wrote a nasty letter to the editor in the Southern California Hardware Hacker's Club Newsletter about the piracy going on with Altair Basic paper tapes.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I didn't say I rabidly despise him. I didn't even say I don't like him.
I like him, I liked the movie, but it wasn't factually correct. I can say this because I LIVED IN FLINT AT THE TIME, same as him. My father was at the negotiating table with the UAW for the contracts that were signed at that time.
He filmed his take on it, it was one take on it, it turned out to be incorrect.
GM looked at the contracts, said "we can't put up with this for long" and began to leave. Moore looked at the contracts, said "GM's making money right now" and said GM was bullshitting when they said it didn't make financial sense to keep those factories going. Moore's view was one-sided and short-sighted. GM's view was correct, those contracts were murder.
I didn't denounce "The Corporation", I ave not seen it. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument bolstering it. And whether you think "Roger & Me" is relevant, I notice you didn't rebut the meat of my argument, which is that you have unwisely used awards for artistry as support for the correctness of the message presented.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Even if you see through the FUD, Mircosoft's rumblings about "naked" PCs lending themselves to promoting piracy is just silly. Next, the DOJ should warn land developers about selling homes to people that don't have cars to put in the garages, since an empty garage might promote car theft. Other instances where "nakedness" promoting bad behaviour:
o MP3 players
o Wallets
o Refrigerators
o Frat parties
Where will the madness end?!
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I'm glad to see Microsoft hasn't changed with the times. Still spreading FUD through the sales staff.5
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/10/14524
Hey Microsoft. I've bought 8 naked PCs since 2000 (and wiped Windows XP from two new laptops), come audit/arrest me for running Linux.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Every time you buy a PC, that comes with WinDoze, you end up with another license.
WHY?
If you bought windows, ONCE, why buy it a second time, a third, a fifth?
Just because you trash a pentium and grab an AMD dual core system, why pay AGAIN for Windows XP?
Personally this is pure FUD - did the old copy of windows go stale? Isn't it market fresh?
Just a TAX on computer users, screw them - go Linux!
Oh, and iTunes DRM is pure RICO monopoly bullcrap.
France has it right, force Apple to open up.
I would like to see all Apple downloads as OGG files.
According to msft, msft is not trying to stop linux, only unlicensed versions of windows.
I hate to remind everybody of this: but windows is installed on over 90% of x86 systems. There is a fair chance that people are pirating.
Still, I don't think msft any right to make such demands.
Linux is well-known as running better than Windows on lower-end hardware, something that will become even more true when Vista finally makes it out the door.
True, but which video cards that are still available are well supported? Without a supported video card, all you'll get is a 16-color, 640x480-pixel, slow-ass X.
Unless your definition of cheap starts at the bottom of the professional scanner range, you're really off track here.
I'm just bitter that my Microtek Scanmaker 4850 flatbed scanner, which was paid-for before I thought of switching to Linux, remains unsupported after years. Remember when dial-up was still the most popular Internet access and there was the winmodem problem? There will still be the winmodem problem in geographic areas that can't get affordable residential broadband. Without a lot of money to re-buy hardware, what should I do to help the cause?
SANE supports hundreds of scanners.
But if SANE doesn't support the particular scanner that a PC maker has already bought in bulk, then the PC maker has to re-buy scanners.
Most people don't want a scanner bundled with a computer system because they either don't want/need a scanner, or if they want one, they usually already have one.
Trouble is that I already have one, and it happens not to be one of the supported hundreds. I would have to re-buy.
But for most people, who just need a computer for Internet access, light word processing, managing digital photos, etc., Linux is ready.
"Managing digital photos"? Not if I can't turn prints into digital photos without re-buying the scanner.
This is pretty irritating - where I used to work, we had 120 machines in student labs set up running Knoppix from their hard drives (no Ubuntu at that time). No for-money software on them at all. I don't think the BSA's methodology adequately accounts for machines that legitimately generate $0 in software sales.
-Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
I suggest that all Americans dump the U.S. manufacturers and purchase your computers in Asia. In Asia you can purchase any computer without an OS and there are no US government agents or MS agents that can do; diddy. So foget American and buy Asian and your problems will be solved.
I'm thinking of starting a PC building business, we'll ship with Dos 3.3 compatible software pre-install on 300G hard drive.
I hate it so much when /. is spam.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
But there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in this article. And they were trying to stop manufacturers, sorry MANUFACTURERS from installing pirated Windows, and trying to persuade them to enter the exciting world of software services.
And I've built or bought half a dozen machines over the last ten years. Most had an option whether they had Windows installed or not.
If you really don't want a Windows license, buy all the parts of your PC from different MAUFACTURERS with different credit cards. If the Microsoft License Police manage to collate the purchases with help from the NSA/CIA etc and call accusing you of having a PC, just say some of the bits went wrong or you sold them. Don't buy a case, just put the motherboard on a tinfoil sheet. You can use the same stuff you make hats from. Buy a steel reinforced apartment door to give yourself time to throw the parts of the PC out of the window before the Microsoft Gestapo can break it down. Do not sleep either at night either, that's a rookie mistake. Make sure you are alert at 3-5am, since that's the most likely time for them to raid your apartment. Most importantly, make sure you memorise the Linux source code so you can still think about it when they take you to Gitmo after the raid.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Foot, meet bullet: and patents are granted by what...? The state, of course.
Exactly. But because government takes money from MPAA studios and BSA software publishers, you won't see the Windows copyright overturned or even the right to reverse engineer hardware drivers affirmed. So how do we get from 0 to a more free market
OK, take 2:
if you think all conceivable methods have been exhausted, you simply haven't tried hard enough and deserve to suffer the monopoly.
If it were possible to have toppled Windows by now, then one of the six billion people on this planet would have already done it. How can I duplicate the contract that IBM and Microsoft signed in 1981 to include a copy of MS-DOS with each PC?
Now, such resources can either be put to try to cooperatively replicate what the monopoly has produced
How do you plan to have the free software community replicate the relationships that Microsoft has with home desktop and laptop PC manufacturers and especially with home PC chipset and peripheral manufacturers?
But there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in this article.
Thanks to corporatism, this concept can't be described as wrongdoing at all. Microsoft, under the EUCD and DMCA laws, is perfectly within their rights to stop manufacturers from selling blank machines- for the same reason that movie companies are within their rights to keep us from having blank DVDs, software, and drives that can bitcopy rented DVDs.
And they were trying to stop manufacturers, sorry MANUFACTURERS from installing pirated Windows, and trying to persuade them to enter the exciting world of software services.
Nope- they were trying to stop them from selling BLANK MACHINES that would allow the end-user to install pirated copies of windows.
And I've built or bought half a dozen machines over the last ten years. Most had an option whether they had Windows installed or not.
Yes- so have I. But they do have a point that a machine being sold with a *blank hard drive* could indeed be considered piracy hardware under the EUCD or DCMA.
If you really don't want a Windows license, buy all the parts of your PC from different MAUFACTURERS with different credit cards. If the Microsoft License Police manage to collate the purchases with help from the NSA/CIA etc and call accusing you of having a PC, just say some of the bits went wrong or you sold them. Don't buy a case, just put the motherboard on a tinfoil sheet. You can use the same stuff you make hats from. Buy a steel reinforced apartment door to give yourself time to throw the parts of the PC out of the window before the Microsoft Gestapo can break it down. Do not sleep either at night either, that's a rookie mistake. Make sure you are alert at 3-5am, since that's the most likely time for them to raid your apartment. Most importantly, make sure you memorise the Linux source code so you can still think about it when they take you to Gitmo after the raid.
I agree with all of this- except for the tinfoil sheet part. I find cardboard boxes (also known as "Leaning Tower" cases to us Oregon Institute of Technology graduates, because the old 286 boards we'd put in them rarely fit) work much better at not shorting out the electronics.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Theoritical? There are still many repressive governments in the world! Also, even in the countries that were ounce republics, ruled by the will of the people, we are increasingly seeing socialism creep in. Canada and European countries are prime examples of this. And the US isn't far behind. The problem is, greddy, corrupt politicians and citizens who just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to take action. Solcialism is slowly penetrating our society, and choking it. Of course, as socialism usualy is, it is only being used as a tool by those in power to increase their power, not in an effort to truly be of service to society. That is the danger of Socialism.
Regarding "Clockwork Orange" I read the Wickipedia introduction, and I reject the theory almost in it's entirety. God gave man his agency, but it is not free. We can choose our actions, but we cannot choose the consequence of those actions. We have choice to do many good things, and the consequences will likewise be good. But if we choose to do bad, the consequences will be bad. Our agency is not free from effect! And we are not forced into following Satan or God- we make the choice, therefore we are not "wound up like clockwork" by one or the other. Our choices directly effect our happiness, but those choices are still ours to make.
As far as people choosing to do good or being forced to, I like to use the example of Hurrican Katrina. Do those people need help? Yes. Would it be right and good for me to provide help? Certainl;y. But, when my money is forcibly taken away from me by the government, and then wasted, and some of it actually trickeles down to where it helps people in need, then I am helping them, at least some. But I have no choice. I can't help them anymore, I don't have anymore money- the government took it all. I am forced to work long hours simply to pay my tax bill, so I can't go down and help with the cleanup. What we have here is a classic example of politicians increasing their power, while reducing mine.
Now, if I didn't have to pay more than 20% of my income to Uncle Sam, I would have a lot more to donate to disaster relief. Chances are I'd donate it to some organization that I know and trust, and I'd keep track of how my donation was spent. Now if I don't like the way this organization handles my donation, I won't donate to them anymore, I'll find another organization to work with. In this way, I know that my time/money is being used as effectivly as it can.
Now the question comes up- would very many people really donate and help if they didn't have to? It wouldn't really matter, because even if less people helped, it'd be done ten times more efficently, and more people in need would receive better assistance- note I said better, not more.
scum
Heh, I keep doing that. Actually, that is the exact reason I typo'd it. I am working on an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) search program for work for the last month :) We scan in all our MSDS to pdf format and archive it. Ever since I started the project I keep typing it in, like: http://msds.microsoft.com/ LOL :D
;)
Pretty good catch
Read "The Market for Liberty". It addresses that question in greater detail than I can.
But basically, the idea is to spread the notion that the lack of a state is a good thing, one should wean one's self from the state's services as much as possible, and to use whatever measures are practical to erode the state's power (including the vote, of course). When the meme spreads to tens of millions of people, one is close to a tipping point: Look at the issue of illegal immigration in the U.S. Wishing 12 million people to go won't make it happen, and enforcement is impractical. By the time the tipping point is reached, it will be too late to stop the trend toward liberty.
However, this is a long-term vision. Politicians, used to thinging in the short-term, won't even see it coming. Do not expect a rapid revolution.
If it were possible to have toppled Windows by now, then one of the six billion people on this planet would have already done it.
I think one Linus Torvalds did a pretty good job of starting to provide alternatives.
How can I duplicate the contract that IBM and Microsoft signed in 1981 to include a copy of MS-DOS with each PC?
You don't have to. Unless, instead of "toppling Windows", you're seeking to replicate BillyG's wealth. That's a different goal.
The point is, you don't win against the powerful by playing their game. Find a different game to play, to which it is difficult to adapt. No, "giving away" code does not make one rich -- except to the extent that one (a) has code that meets their needs, (b) can receive much more code than one gives away that might also meet their needs. Cooperatives can become very powerful, particularly those with no central authority (because they will restructure themselves "on the fly" as long as cooperation is beneficial).
But, again, "toppling Windows" is not the same as "getting as rich as BillyG". You have to be clear about your goal.