Slashdot Mirror
Surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA
androthi writes "Scott Granneman takes a look at some surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA that limit what security professionals and others can do with the new operating system. You want to post benchmarking results? Well, Microsoft may now have a say in it. Vista's EULA no longer shows up on Microsoft's software licensing page, but does still exist — also take note of Windows DRM deciding what you can and can not listen to, and Defender deciding and removing what it considers spyware automatically (by default)."
I don't 'sign' the EULA when i use a public machine...
To quote the Buckaroo Bonzai movie, Microsoft's locked in monopoly is sined, sealed and delivered. The EULA for Vista provides more evidence Microsoft is the 800 lb. guerilla that doesn't care about potential faceoffs on these issues any more. The article seems to think differently:
I'm not sure how the article's author would see the user base reacting. Pick a different platform? How? At what expense? No, Microsoft has got this one in the bag.
I predicted in the late 90's if Microsoft didn't have to pay real consequences for their business practices, eventually they would be rolling out OSes at any price they wanted and noone would be able to do much about it. This was at a time where hardware dramatically was decreasing in price but Windows, all flavors, continued to sustain an amazingly different cost curve. I predicted eventually:
It looks like we're pretty close to both. I'll continue to do my development in my Linux world, but I'm guessing there will be a momentary raised eyebrow with Microsoft's Vista, Vista's EULA with it's almost amazing restrictions (especially compared with already draconian past EULAs) and then business as usual.
Defender automatically removing stuff without the user knowing. That's just asking for problems. How long before there's a widespread outbreak of Defender deleting perfectly legitimate software?
Is not to play
I have the best comment *ever* about this story.
I'll post it as soon as Microsoft oks it.
Have you read my journal today?
There you go, problem solved.
I've held the fear for years that Microsoft would release an OS with a nice little "All your base are belong to us" slipped in, and next thing you know, they have some rediculous claim over you and your stuff, and you agreed to it!
..but thank god i will never have to install Vista on a machine that i use.
You can always turn off the defender in Vista, though they don't make it easy to find the off switch.
No, of course not... it's M$ afterall.
this is awful, but i'm sure few of the people reading this will become vista users anyway.
most of us have probably been bugging our families and friends to try ubuntu or buy a mac for the past few years. i switched to a mac this year and never looked back. there are people with MUCH higher application and compatibility requirements than myself who can switch to linux (or apple)
-- lol pwned
Then betchmark clasue for .net is better then it is for .net2. For .net2 it says you are not allowed to post any benchmark at all, unless you have a written accept from Microsoft.
.net3 you just have to give all sourcecode in your benchmark to microsoft.
With
And in a large enterprise where we use VMware to run Windows servers on our big IBM boxes, how in the world will we be able to insall Vista.
This will mean that Large Enterprises who do hardware virtualization for security and performance uptime will be screwed.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
If we keep brainstorming great stuff like that, we will be able to do all kinds of awesome stuff, like:
study our own computers' performance.
tell people what we find
share ideas on how to improve them
Before you know it, we'l have "free speech" as I like to call it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The more I see Microsoft do this, the more I applaud them. I hope they continue to do more and more of this stuff. I mentioned some of these things in an earlier leaked EULA to my wife and she stated that she'd rather put Linux on our computers than be micro-managed by any software company.
Cool.
Steve, Bill. You and your engineers are doing a great job. Keep it up. Is there any way you could be more restrictive and sell it as consumer choice? If so, do it.
I guess this is another message to OS X and Darwin people/developers. Just build a driver for every freakin' card out there, call the game developers to put their games on your OS, sell your OS on the shelf, next to all other software, make sure that you have all the big guys sell their laptops and desk tops with a choice of OS X or "otherwise", next thing we know, ALL users are dropping this weird thing called MS windows. It is just a matter of time, hardwork, and patience. After all, OS X is BSD, the ultimate nightmare of windowz people.
There are only restrictions involved in posting benchmarks for .NET 3.0 . And these restrictions only require that you state what version you were using and the methodology you took. It doesn't have any restrictions on "bad" results or any attempt to stop people from reporting accurate results. They wrote these restrictions to prevent people from testing .NET on a 386 and then JAVA on a 3 GHZ and saying "See JAVA is faster!" and it's similar to the restrictions for .NET 1.1 and 2.0... it's just because it's bundled with Vista that it's now included with the Vista EULA.
It's *Microsoft's* operating system, you're just *renting* it.
In fact, if you read XP's, 2000's, and SQL Server's EULAs you'll find many of the same limitations. This isn't new for Microsoft. For at least the last 6 years it's been against the SQL Server EULA to publish benchmark's without Microsoft's approval.
People shouldn't just be getting disgusted today. They should have been reading these EULAs for years.
Developers: We can use your help.
Also note that when running Defender,
If you hit space bar, This will trigger "smart bomb" which instantly kills all the bad things currently on the screen.
Also available is MS Missle-Command, though eventually the viruses break through and you need to do a system reset to restart the defense mechanisms.
I've been a Microsoft slappy since I first got into computers when I was a kid back in the Windows 3.11 days and Vista will represent the first Microsoft OS that I will not ever, under any circumstances, run on any PC or laptop that I purchase or recommend to anyone else.
I'm sure I'll have to deal with Vista at work at some point, but for me it's Mac's (with Boot Camp and Windows XP for games) on systems I buy or recommend to others from now on. Vista is a joke. All of the coolest features have long since been stripped out and we're left with an insecure, DRM'd to the bone, joke of an OS with a UI ripped off from Apple. I honestly don't see one compelling reason to upgrade. More DRM, more WGA like "protection" that can totally lock down your system and make it useless at a moments notice. Microsoft seriously jumped the shark with this one.
I have legit XP-Pro for my Windows machines. I think I'll just keep that. Vista doesn't seem to offer me anything except idiotic restrictions and high costs. All the end-user features have been stripped out at this point and it's just a big DRM bomb as far as I can tell. No thanks, M$. Perhaps I'll try Linux on the desktop again, it's been working great on my servers.
Ok, that's it. I give up. I'm going to use some Linux distro for my desktop OS instead of a Microsoft by-product. Up to Windows XP, yeah, whatever. Post XP, Microsoft, "Eat my crusty shorts!!".
And yes, I've tried the Vista RC's. It performs slower than XP. By the time you turn off all that resource intensive eye candy, you end up with a GUI that looks just awful. I don't think they spent any time cleaning that up for obvious reasons.
Worst part is, most of the world has little choice but to accept this POS from MS. Bugger.
This is Apple's one chance to release their operating system in a version that is licensed and designed for non Apple machines. Undercut the price of Vista and it's sold.
In other news, this just means that I have a couple more items on my to-do list for the eventual Vista migration:
- Remove the restrictions on unsigned drivers
- Remove EULA from install ISO
- Remove Defender
- Remove WGA
- Remove WMP
- Remove Windows Firewall
- Remove Windows Antivirus
- Remove Security Center
- Set theme to Windows Classic - screw these happy rounded edges on everything, I want my cursor to BLEED on the sharp corners if I hit them wrong.
Hm, maybe I should just wait until a Vista Pro Lite ISO hits the Torrent networks?Microsoft doesn't want us posting benchmarks proving that Vista is worthless...it might hurt their sales.
A different EULA for enterprises, with a higher cost. MS has the margins to cut better deals, and will do so.
Nobody just RTFE anymore.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
After reading the Vista EULA while installing a copy at work for compatibility testing, it became very obvious to me that the only way Vista would make it onto any computer I own is if I were to install a pirated copy of Vista Ultimate with all the anti-piracy features removed. I figure that since there's no way in hell I'm going to comply with the EULA, why follow copyright law, either?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Windows XP Professional works fine for me, and as such I've bought my last Microsoft operating system. I will never buy Vista. Microsoft has completely ignored the requests of it's customer pool on this one, and has instead opted for responding with "you'll lump it and like it."
I have no doubt that in a year's time they'll pull all support for non-Vista versions to improve sales. (I also wouldn't put it past them to release virus's that take advantage of XP weaknesses.)
The upside is that if any company out there EVER wanted to finish Microsoft once and for all, now's their chance. If I were Google, I'd announce a user-friendly Linux install, and provide tools to developers for easy driver and software support.
Really, the only way for Microsoft to survive the expected backlash that will be coming is to lock in exclusive software (MS Office is a gimme), and pull support for all non-Vista versions. Yes, Vista will sell. But not near expectations, and it will have a hell of a time trying to convince people to switch.
Bill Gates was smart to leave before this pile of [censored by Vista] hit the market.
Aren't computers great? They are placed alongside cigarettes, alcohol, cars and guns with "consumer products that you own, but can't choose how you use".
Only difference is in the four above examples, ITS THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING US, not some private company.
I'm tempted to just get it and ignore the EULA. If I get sued, ask the judge "why am I not allowed to use my product the way I want to?" Too bad that wouldn't work. *Sigh*
Maybe I can ask a Microsoft employee face-to-face. "Hey, can I own Window's Vista?" Note the lack of the word "a copy of...".
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
OK, mod me off topic.
The movie is Buckaroo Banzai, not "Buckaroo Bonzai."
And the actual part of the movie that the OP is talking about (the initialization of the Oscillation Overthruster) is "Sined," "Seeled" and Delivered.
Geez. If you're going to quote a cult movie, at least be part of the cult.
John Bigboote? Is that you?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Where to start... .NET Framework components. I do not see this being some great ending of benchmarking the Windows OS. Also, the link for further information does not (currently?) work. So, this could just be an issue that isn't an issue at all.
1. The benchmark testing and posting applies to
2. This version argument is really tiring. In some ways I see their logic, in other ways I think the six version idea is stupid. Actually, there are more versions of XP then two. Technically, there are four. Windows Media Center Edition and Starter Edition. I imagine Starter Vista will be virtually unseen like XP SE. As for Win MCE, I suppose that would be Home Premium. XP Home = Vista Home, XP Pro = Vista Business. Guess this only leaves two extraneous versions...
3. The Virtualization argument is pointless. How many home users do virtualization? How many business (which do the most virtualization) actually use XP Home licenses? I really think this is a non-issue like #1.
4. The license transfer is more stringent version of the current license transfer. The example they give is a bit weak. At work, if you get a new workstation? I seriously think that corporate licensing will have provisions for this sort of thing. How many people buy their own work computer licenses? Unless you own your own business, not many. Most home users keep a machine for several years. If you assume a home user is on a 3-year replacement cycle (the most common business practice I have found), they will probably only need a single transfer before the new OS is out (though after this, you never know.) Also, how many new PC purchases do not come with a new license?
I by no means am a Microsoft supporter. I have said on multiple occassions that Windows XP would be the last Windows OS I would ever use. I intend on changing my mom to Linux when XP support disappears. I do think that some of these arguments are very bogus though. There are plenty of other reasons to hate Vista, including the evil DRM, more Microsoft monopoly violations, and stupid, half-assed "security" tools.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Around end-user's necks.
n opoly)
The DRM noose around the average user's neck is being sold like a nice, new necktie. The 32-bit version of Vista will be dropped ASAP in favor of 64-bit locked-by-microsoft-only version. This in turn kills the 32-bit processor.
Then it is only a matter of tightening the noose.
So what? Well, there is no market mechanism for loosening the noose. Therefore, the price of loosening the noose around your neck is made by Microsoft. (A price maker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Coercive_mo
If you value your personal freedom, you will switch to something freer, then you will tell your friends and help them to do the same. Perhaps a Linux or BSD desktop is a good start.
Sadly, the price will be right though, so most users won't know or care.
Today's lesson: Monopolies and Oligopolies are bad for consumers.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
FTA: It is clearly stating that they're only concerned with benchmarks against
This is the same type of inflamatory writing that gets reporters in hot water -- you could have easily said in the article description that the benchmarking clause was limited to .net 3.0, but instead you chose to go for something a little more sensational. Newb.
/dev/random
And even if I indicate that I accept the EULA, what proves that I have understood it?
Anyway - Windows Vista cracks will appear sooner or later. There are always those who see it as a challenge.
What Microsoft seems to forget is that all these copy-protection schemes that they are running will make life harder for the IT departments. The scale may well be on it's way to tip over in favor of open-source solutions.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Something tells me that it's not going to sell very well. At least, I'm not going to upgrade to it. I honestly cannot think of a single reason why I should.
"You have no rights. We own everything."
My favorite quote from the Vista license is in section 8:
You may not: work around any technical limitations in the software
I guess they are talking about things like intentional limitations such as only installing on one PC. It just cracks me up though.
Ok, call me paranoid, but it seems that the no DRM in a virtual machine component is trying very hard to make it so that people can't use office on a Macintosh. Sure you can pay for Windows, but you can't use office, which is really the only reason to run office on a Mac.
I know there is a Mac version of office. But it doesn't have the VBA components that drive many corporations.
Ok, I give up, why you?
The description is a bit misleading on the DRM, it seems to only apply to when Vista is being virtualized/emulated. Still annoying, but less onerous than implied. It's only a matter of time before it goes that far, however.
As someone who does a lot of PC gaming, I find myself between a rock and a hard place on Vista. I have no interest in upgrading based on the feature set other than DirectX10, and have installed Ubuntu on a second machine. I have found Linux to be more than adequate for most applications, but severely lacking as a gaming platform. Even though I have a technical background, I also don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking to get games to work on an OS. I plan on sticking with XP for gaming for as long as humanly possible, but am disgusted by the future of the MS platform on so many levels including this EULA and the OS level DRM. I guess there's no easy answer here (other than to hope for a cracked/stripped version of Vista and violate copyright law), but I felt like venting.
The prohibition on publishing benchmarks is not new. It has been there for virtually all database products (Oracle, Sybase, SQL Server) for a long time. I don't know if I've ever seen it for an OS, but it's not all that interesting.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I estimate that I'll be able to use a copy of Windows Vista and actually use the software for 2 years, before I either upgrade my machine and don't have any more installs left.
I compare it with other stuff I buy and use daily, and break things down to a per-day cost.
Per Day charge:
Vista (Pro equiv, $299 2 years) : $.41 per day
Tiger ($129, 2 years till next os upgrade) : $0.17 per day
XP Pro (Used 1 copy since launch - 5 years paid for OEM, apro $150): $.08 per day
Ubuntu : $0.0 per day , maybe a fraction of a penny considering the cost of media to burn the disk (though I use rewriteables for Linux)
Other things I pay for:
Cable TV: $1.00 per day
Verizon Service w/Blackberry: $8.30 Daily
World of Warcraft Account: $.49 per day
Basically, the cost of using Visa is pretty close to any MMO that charges $15 a month for usage.
If the re-install issues get sorted out and I can get 4 years of use out of the product (which is unlikely due to the frequency I replace my windows (gaming) machine hardware through upgrades, the cost per use is closer to what Tiger costs. Of course this doesn't take into account the costs of maintenance (headache medicine), etc. There is a strong premium for using Vista, and using XP Pro as long as I can only makes that investment better value. (Though, I have had to re-install Vista probably 10 times over the years due to various issues such as bit-rot, malware, virus, etc, major hardware upgrades)
In May of this year when I predicted Vista is going the way of the set top box Matt replied:
...You are teaching them (end users) to:
4 07574
No rational person thinks this, but suppose anyway that that is our secret plan, and that we're going to come up with some scheme whereby apps can't run unless they're magically signed or some other scheme.
Guess what - we already have that, in a few forms even (i.e. SAFER, SRP, etc), and the majority of people don't use it, and don't want to, and even if we did have it, there will still need to be a box that says "run anyway".
The context in which that comment was made:
1. click okay and let the chips fall where they may.
2. turn the PC into a DRM'd set-top box.
We all know you can't teach users anything they don't -really- want to know, so I believe you are paving the way for option 2 with Longwait.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186700&cid=15
Matt's snarky comments aside, the new EULA is yet another step forward with a 64-bit locked kernel coming in the set top box plan.
If you value your personal freedom, please consider an alternative OS. Perhaps Linux or BSD may work for you.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA? No-one's surprised about this sort of thing any more, surely?
The answer is simple: if you don't like it, don't install/buy/use it; and similarly, discourage others from installing/buying/using it.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
...because it made me switch to Linux! Somebody ought to write a law against EULAs. Software should be purchased, not licensed.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
...are clearly just shallow, brand-salivating pooftahs who wouldn't know how to use a real computer.
I mean, why pay the premium for the Apple hardware that lags behind the PC world -- just because you like the shiny chassis it comes stuffed in?
There is no reason that an intelligent, price-conscious user would ever chose Mac over PC.
This edition of Retro-FUD brough to you by The Irony Police. Thank you, and compute in peace.
These stories are free but worth money.
why they want to move out of China.
What the hell the post says Windows Vista EULA doesn't exist? it's there.
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/bradstewart/1658 reports on an updated Vista Licence that allows transfers between machines. Perhaps the poster couldn't find the EULA because it was being replaced?
So if I agree to the EULA and the limitations provided on that webpage at the time of agreement and it changes, am I bound to that ever-changing webpage? How could they possibly hold me to newer changes that I couldn't read about before I agreed, or is this just as laughable in court as I'm seeing it now?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
When the EULA takes away user's flexibility to use the product only outlaws will have the flexibility to use the product.
Only DRM
The much disliked "one transfer" issue is now old news. MS has changed the EULA to allow infinite transfers. http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/9411 7/94117.html
Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
Mod parent down, it's just a lame goatse link posted by somebody that thinks adding a fake destination in square brackets might prevent /. from showing the real one.
I haven't paid for Windows since Win95, (or, at least, more than $5-$10 for the college issue). Microsoft seems to be content with opening a back door to a lot of these policies by issuing an open-license version of Windows to larger clients. There are, I'm sure, enough sysadmins here that one could almost envision a threadjacking regularly commence, similar to when gmail accounts were a hot commodity. Someone simply makes a post saying they have extra copies of Windows, who wants em. I would imagine that, should M$ continue with this policy, that the EULA segments pertaining to license transfers won't really matter. With every version of Windows I have had (after my one retail bout with Win95) I simply enter a serial key, and I'm done. My copy of XP pro still passes the stupid Authenticity test, or whatever that thing is, without any hacking done on my part.
Personally, I'm a firm supporter of subversion in the face of corporate callousness. I have learned the hard way that corporations tend to have better lobbyists, so if an even moderately technical issue needs government intervention, I have learned to prepare for the the worst. I would cite our current net-neutrality debacle as evidence of this.
Companies always seem to cry loudest when they are the victims of IP theft, (real or imagined... the MPAA is feeding all the right people all the wrong statistics) and that seems to spark a lot more policy debate than a failed class-action lawsuit, boycott, or protest. So, at least if i obtain my copy of Windows at a less than ethical standard, there is the chance that there might be some activity (albeit about 50/50 bad to good) that may commence, much more so than if I had simply shelled out 400 clams for something that will (as history has proved without fail) to be inherantly broken.
I will explain this a little more before I get off my soapbox, because I feel that some will still question the logic here. Napster. Napster (perhaps unintentionally) created a voice to millions of people who decided they were sick of shelling out $15-20 for a CD that they heard one good song on, and came home and found out that there was a total of one good song on, the rest they could care less about. So, in the ensuing months/years, millions of people had easy access to all the music they wanted, no more, no less. (OK, more, but let's say for the sake of argument they didn't download it unless they wanted it). This of course sparked huge controversy that exists today. While some would conclude that the DRM issues we run into on a daily basis are the direct and only result of this, I would beg that you consider that the industry has seen that public has spoken, and while it has launched features to protect its assets, it has also launched features to appeal to the same filesharing crowd they cried wolf on. iTunes. CD preview stations at Borders. Allowing musicians to use the internet to more closely allign themselves to what the public wants. (See the cover story about Beck from Wired a couple months ago). My point is, that while massive theft forced the industry into a panic, resulting in things like the great Sony rootkit scandal, and the overbearing Apple DRM, it also forced them to change, and forced talks between oppsing viewpoint groups.
What will happen if we apply this same concept to the OS market. Predictably, a $400 OS with more limited options will stem greater growth in Apple and Linux. It will also force more people to side with me, and effectively refuse to pay the rediculous amount of money, but admit that we are dependant on a microsoft OS because of its interoperability with 90% of the programs most computer-savvy people need to survive their day-to-day lives. Increased alternate-OS market share and subversion and piracy will be the message that disporves the idea that M$ can do whatever they want with their supposed captive audience. This will stem more stern lockdowns, which will stem more controversy, reaching higher levels
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
I get my kids to click all the EULA stuff. They have special magical powers that exempt them from contracts.
There is indeed an attempt to make EULAs contractually enforceable, the so called Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA).l e applied. The EULA that said otherwise was obviously disregarded.
Wikipedia's article on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCITA, does however claim the UCITA "has only been passed in two states as of 2004 -- Virginia and Maryland". If you live in one of those, you might be out of luck.
In other jurisdictions, EULAs are probably unenforcable. Wikipedia has another article that covers the US situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_license.
In Germany, a few years ago Microsoft failed to enforce the EULA that disallowed separate sales of OEM software. The court ruled that an equivalent of the First-sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_first_sa
C - the footgun of programming languages
Will this EULA keep Vista gamers from telling other players what their framerate is? Nice...
This sig is exempt from disclosure under the privacy Act of 1974.
The first rule of Vista is that you don't talk about Vista.
The second rule of Vista is that you DON'T TALK ABOUT VISTA.
Seems that they're taking the security through obscurity approach when it comes to performance reviews as well. Can't have the public actually KNOWING anything bad.. now can we.
HA, HA!
I don't sign a EULA when I use my own machine. In fact I've never signed a EULA and, fortunately, in some (many?) coutries this means it is meaningless. So until MS requires people to physically sign the document I really don't care what they put in it.
FYI, according to some http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6131900.html?ta g=nl.e589 news sites, MS has now reversed their minds about the restriction about transfering licenses between PCs.
--- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.
At this point, Micro$haft will not be on my next machine. I pay waay too much money, for software that, despite 20 years of practice, CONSTANTLY crashes, and now, on top of all that, I'm being told what I can and can't do with this crap I paid (again) waay too much for?
AND I'm being told what I can and can't have on MY OWN COMPUTER? Screw that, RedHat, you've got my vote.
Actually, I think that's a pretty good point. There's a similar phenomenon that happens with overly restrictive laws. Once they become too restrictive, people stop following them. Once they stop following the overly-restrictive laws, they have less incentive to follow other laws.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
True, I remember a similar clause in an Oracle EULA I read a few years ago. But that does not mean we should simply accept this crap. It merely means Oracle deserves some bashing too ;-)
And finally, I take such clauses as a sign that the software is actually inferior, at least in some scenarios. Why else would they need that clause?
C - the footgun of programming languages
It seems like the author is purposefully mis-reading the terms of the EULA. Under the premise that the average user won't be able to read them correctly.
.net might apply to the whole OS... legally it doesn't. And you can therefor benchmark the REST of the OS, just not the .net components specifically.(Though I think that clause is total bs anyways. ;) )
While I agree that that is a problem(And that is, essentially, the reason why noone reads EULAs. They won't know what it actually means if they do!)... Just because my Mother would think
The virtualization restrictions have been debunked elsewhere - essentially, whether you are using the OS in a virtual machine or not, it is 'legally' 'bound' to that physical machine only - you can't move the VM to a different peice of hardware without taking it off the first piece.
You can still run any copy of windows in a VM.. you just can't buy a license to home, and then run that same license inside a VM inside the first install. You CAN do that with pro/premium/whatever it's called(Which is something I'm glad to hear..)
The article is outdated. Microsoft changed the Vista EULA today. It now allows an unlimited number of transfers of the retail copy from one computer to another, instead of just one as the article still says. You can read more about this change at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=166 Or download the full EULA from http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/defa ult.aspx
I am glad that the pressure on Microsoft worked and they changed that license term!
I guess it's been renamed. That's the free version anyways.
"The problem is the psychology of EULA abuse: Forbid by default even while admitting (as here) when you are placing legal (non-technical accomplishing virtualization is just as easy with any version of Vista) restrictions on some users.
If they dont like these completely superfluous restrictions, defend it by saying there arent very many of them. Fascinating, like I said. This is truly a test of what people will put up with."
source:
http://btetc.blogspot.com/2006/11/eulas.html
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Can anyone tell me one good reason why I would even want to consider vista? I have yet to see any compeling reason to have it.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
...following the American government's example, among other things. Aside from Bush being fascist, Microsoft were let off the antitrust hook pretty much the moment he got into office...so it's completely understandable that they'd be thinking that they can do what they like, at least as far as America itself is concerned.
Just remember...the only real way they can trap people now is with games. Non-DRM mp3s are still available if you know where to look for them, and we still have Open Office. As long as Blizzard keep making the OSX port, we'll still be able to play WoW at least under Linux or FreeBSD, and there are a lot of other games that can be used with wine, as I said earlier.
Even if the majority are willing to swallow the EULA, I know not everyone is going to be...and that is the point. There will be a lot of people who can't do their jobs with these kinds of restrictions...they'll have to either stay with XP, or migrate to Linux or FreeBSD.
I have a feeling that this will ultimately be a very good thing for FOSS.
I'm really not sure of this. The gap between console gaming and PC gaming is getting narrower, and there's really nothing but inertia stopping a console manufacturer from using a keyboard and mouse as input devices instead of a dual-analog type controller.
... they also have lower cost of ownership over time (less upgrades).
Consoles have networking and multiplayer and downloadable games, which used to all be hallmarks of the PC
If the console manufacturers don't make it a pain in the ass to develop games (which has always been the bane of their existence in the past; more games come out for the PC than consoles for this reason, I suspect), then it just makes sense that would be the direction things go in.
Pretty much everything you can do with regards to games on a PC, you can do on the next generation of consoles. Windows may have the PC gaming market locked up, but that market may not be as big or as significant as they think it is.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
At least they changed the PC transfer agreement for retail copies back to unlimited
I'm only referring to the part about removal by default, but I don't think it's as sinister as our kneejerk reaction would indicate.
Microsoft is aiming that default - accurately I would contend - at "Joe 'my-box-is-a-zombie' six-pack". Your average user just accepts defaults. And in this case we need defaults that protect the rest of us from the machines of non-tech savvy users.
Question everything
No I would not... too bad I can't opt out of the "value meal". Fries now come bundled with every meal. We call this innovation.
I want this account deleted.
I think I've read this on /. before.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
But here's what the license actually says (Home Basic version):
See the difference? The language has changed completely. There's no more reference to this being allowed only "one time".
Does this represent Microsoft loosening the license terms in response to criticism? That seems newsworthy!
I know its "fun" to bash Microsoft, but really this is funny. The 2 things that the summary list aren't even true. As pointed out you can post benchmarks, and the DRM issue only applies to music that is set to not play unless you have a valid up-to-date license for. So it works like any other DRM software.
Whats with the "You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time."
Um, is this for real? When did microsoft write this Eula? Last time i checked, we were on the verge of embarking on a new era of multi-processor machines. Intel and AMD have been boasting about having 4 or more processor machines available in the next year, and Vista will be the OS that will probably COME INSTALLED on these machines. But these machines violate the "current" Vista EULA! What gives! As far as I've heard, Vista should technically support these machines (with more than 2 processors), but what are they expecting us to do in order to comply with this restriction? Are we suddenly going to be expected to buy 2 liscences, or are they going to change their liscence? If they dont change this, are they going to enforce it? In any case, this restriction was valid a few years ago, but it is now outdated; they need to find a new way to distuinguish between high performance servers and user machines.
EULAs are not contracts. They are not legally binding. They are useless annoyances with no weight at all.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Do not talk about MS Vista EULA
...
Rule number 2: DO NOT TALK ABOUT MS VISTA EULA.
Rule number 3: Only 1 machine to a license.
Rule number 4: System will remain stable* as long as it has to.**
Rule number 8: If this is your first time readin the MS Vista EULA, you have to click Accept.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Another great new feature, the Decider, decides which WMDs, i mean WMAs, you can play. It might also Decide to turn your system off and refuse to boot if it doesn't approve of how you're using the computer.
sudo eat my shorts
Is the one displayed when you get your new machine. I have a feeling that this is just a marketing intelligence test- they've put out this EULA to see what we notice, and more importantly, what we don't. Based on the reports I've seen, the final version of the EULA will allow benchmarking, virtual machines, and installation for more than two major revisions of hardware- because that's what we've CAUGHT. Who is to say what is in the fine print that we have completely missed.....and all of that will be in the final EULA.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Given that (IMO) most University IT departments are utterly clueless about supporting anything that they didn't both sell to you, and personally configure, you'd be best giving her whatever you are most comfortable supporting.
At least with Linux, you can set it up with a dynamic dns name, and pray that the University assigns client machines publicly addressable IPs (which isn't that bad a bet, lots of educational institutions have fairly big allocation blocks). That way you can SSH in and remote-administer.
Or you could write up a quick HELPME.sh script that creates an SSH connection to one of your machines at home (using a dyndns name if you don't have a static IP or real domain) so you can administer it. You could even tunnel the xserver connection through that if you're more of a GUI person than a CLI one.
Packing someone off with a brand-new OS that both they, you, and probably the IT staff, will be unfamiliar with, seems like a recipe for disaster.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Yeah, but in reality, is "stability" that much of an issue anymore, anyway? Most everyone I know who uses XP (or even Windows 2000) admits that major crashes and instability are mostly a thing of the past. Sure, you get the occasional glitchy application that causes a memory leak and forces you to reboot after a while. But that's true of OS X software as well. And more often than not, you can pin down the culprit after a while. (Just uninstall suspicious apps until your problem disappears.)
I think the *big* reason people are unhappy with Windows is spyware/virus/security issues. Much of this junk creates the "instability" people talk about. Plus, you have quite a few Windows software packages that have been through so many revisions over the years, they're just bloated monstrosities that slow down people's 2-3 year old PCs. (ACT! Contact Manager is a great example. It used to be a pretty slick application, but in the last 2 revisions or so, it's sluggish on a typical Pentium 4 class PC with 512MB of RAM running XP. Arguably, MS Office has reached the same point. MS "cheated" a bit with Office to make it appear "snappy" by pre-loading a bunch of code at Windows startup - but it starves other apps of RAM.)
At the end of the day, I think Apple likes being a "hardware" company, and knows tying the hardware to an excellent OS like OS X ensures they get those hardware sales. Microsoft, by contrast, doesn't sell PCs. I'm sure they agonize over the pros and cons of selling OS X for standard PCs all the time. But right now, I have to admit, selling OS X like that would probably put an end to their cool Mac hardware. I just don't think there would be enough unique features to justify a Mac purchase anymore? Already, the Chinese rip off their case designs almost as soon as they come up with them. (You can buy an aluminum G5/Mac Pro look-alike tower, or a Mac Mini look-alike. In the past, even eMachines sold an iMac look-alike.)
Oh yeah. And I just found this! In response to parent. Lovely. Just lovely.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
A reporter has no news to report so digs as hard as he can to find something to make something out of. Oh wait! Just like CNN and the Republican party. John Kerry is evil. Democrats are evil. Ya boo sucks to that. :P
And then the enlightened masses here! Read me: if you uses linux, don't complain because you don't care! Same for you Mac users! (it still amuses me that people here don't bash Apple for "selling" unix or hardware or whatever, but who'm I to complain?
Weak people, weak. I'm not defending MS, I'm telling you to use some common sense.
Microsoft just needs to make Vista self-replicating and the job is finished.
Or is there something in the EULA that covers that too.
A reasonable compromise would be to allow different modes for experts and novices.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
of Soviet Russia! '... also take note of Windows DRM deciding what you can and can not listen to...'
One of the fundamental problems I have with these kinds of "automated decisions" is that it completely throws computer novices. Most people turn on their computer, do day-to-day work, and expect repeatable, consistent behavior from the computer. When the operating System and its components are given license to make system changes without the user's consent or knowledge, it will do nothing but frustrate and annoy these users. Seasoned users can roll with and put up with a lot of idiosyncrasies, but for non-savvy users, it becomes a major problem--not to mention those of us who have to support them.
It reminds me of when I bought a Toyota Corolla. The front headlights are hardwired "On" regardless of the light setting when the key is turned. But I don't want the lights to come on automatically, or I want to turn them off while the car is running--no luck. Next car will be a Honda.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Isn't Dell the vendor that puts fine print "By breaking this seal you agree to the EULAs for any and all software installed on this PC even though you can't read them..." stickers over the power connector?
Microsoft charged less for larger customers in order to seal up their monopoly. If they had charged everyone the same price, then there would have been no incentive for Dell to sell Windows with every computer. As it was, the larger the company, the more they saved, the faster MS got a strangle hold on the industry.
I found something interesting when a neighbor's Dell computer needed to be reinstalled. He no longer had an install or recovery CD and I didn't have one either. I downloaded a copy from the Internet and loaded it on the system. It never asked for a key or anything. I don't think it was a cracked version because it passed WGA fine, and there didn't seem to be any "oddities." I suppose there was a time when you could say "if you bought a Dell, you also bought Windows." So why make their customers go through the registration thing. Their CD's won't load on anyone else's computers, so they were pretty safe to put out a CD that could be loaded on a Dell computer as many times as you like and never enter a key. That was the power of Microsoft's monopoly.
I refuse to pay money to Microsoft unless someone puts a gun to my head. I did pick up a copy of XP (the upgrade) for a neighbor and installed it from scratch using an old 98 CD that I had lying around to show that I could use the upgrade version. The special gave me the copy of XP upgrade for $10 after the rebate. Hopefully that meant that MS wasn't getting a cent of money for that copy. Chances are they were getting something, though. If Gates and Balmer were milking machine salesmen, they'd probably sell two machines to a farmer with one cow, and take the cow as a down payment.
See http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-ret ail-licensing-terms.aspx
I'll own a cheap windows computer ($499) which I use for the required games (mostly EQ) and I'll continue the path I started in 2000 into non-windows land for everything else. I hear that EQ sometimes run well under wine- if they get it 100%, then incentive to use windows is going to be very small.
I am able to get office for $20 so I'll use it when appropriate but otherwise use openoffice for home use.
At this point, I probably give microsoft about $30 to $40 bucks once every 3 years. Wherever they are making their billions from, it was never from em. My total microsoft expendatures since 1995 are about $400 bucks and that includes a natural keyboard.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You may want to take a look at the amendments MS is doing to the EULA before all the Mac and Linux Fan Bouys start spouting off about how this is the death of MS.... .. wait.. too late....
Anyway, Microsoft back tracked on its transferability, only the OEM versions will have the restrictions, the rest are going to have ulimited transferability, just like they did under XP.
As for removing spyware by default... well DUH! It's about time. Do you know how many casual computer users don't hit "clean" when a virus alert comes up? Quite frankly they keep me employed... oh damn... MS may put me out of business if they make their system protect itself and not allow virus's in... wait...now I sound like Symantec.
Before everyone goes nuts, I'm not fond of the DRM stuff that MS is doing or anyone for that matter, but I can see why that seciton of the EULA exists, infact I'm pretty sure the stuff I just saw for stripping DRM from video and music content by using a VM is why this is in there. I'm sure you could come up with a copy paste trick that defeats the content management on documents too... so.. no surprise there. The idea of proteciton is to protect, even if when it's a bad idea.
Prices... no biggie. $259 is nothing. I know.. it sounds like a lot, but it's not. To run the $259 upgrade you'll need a high end PC, and I mean HIGH END, as in, if you spent under $1200 on it, you don't have it. $159, not a biggie, that's what my Pro Upgrade cost anyway...and $99 seems cheap for my $459 pc.
But pricing is minor when it comes to technology, just wait until MS offers a competative upgrade from OSX to Vista Business for $99, and watch Apple threaten lawsuits.... or a competative upgrade from LINUX to Vista Basic for $49...
Anyone who thinks that Vista is going to kill MS should go out and invest in Apple quickly before the stock goes up...Personally, I'm keeping my PC, and I"m upgrading to Vista, and I really don't care what they do to protect their code from pirates, the only thing I did care about was the transferability because I'm an enthusiast who swops hardware on a regular basis, but since they withdrew that, I'm happy.
Btw... just a question... when is someone going to file against Apple for bundling software in it's OS and there by preventing the consumer from having a choice in browsers, video software, web editing software and music? Because I'd reallly like Apple to have to deal with all the third party crap that MS has to deal with just to keep the courts happy.
"Another group that's going to suffer under these outrageous restrictions on virtualization? Web developers, who just want to test their work under IE. Gee, thanks, Microsoft!"
My response: "Due to Microsoft's policy of not allowing Internet Explorer to be tested against our web site, we cannot offer support for that configuration. Firefox is a fully supported browser, and we recommend its use here."
I don't like the idea of Defender deciding on its own what software it likes and doesn't like. I'll be sticking with XP for a long time.
What was once true, is no longer so
This is not new with Microsoft's Viral Infection and Spyware Transmission Architecture (aka, 'VISTA'). If you look back at the older MS EULAs, the same language exists, particularly with regard to benchmarking. There are other stipulations to: you cannot write negative reviews of products or Microsoft, you are not allowed to use remote access tools other than Windows Terminal Services / RDP, can't use their products in medical or weapons systems, you must submit to license audits, etc.
As if anyone ever pays any attention to the EULA -- and therein lies a problem for them (and everyone else). The EULA has not only gotten long and complex, but they are regularly and completely disregarded out of hand by, quite literally, everyone. The fact that they are universally ignored, coupled with their general failure to attempt to enforce the EULA most of the time, and terms that may not be generally legal or binding. If they ever did try and get the EULA enforced, it'd be pretty hard to get a court to be terribly sympathetic (particularly since they are increasingly dubious of click-wrapped software licenses).
So, theoretically at least, Microsoft's claim that I can't sell the OEM copy of XP that I bought to install on my rig may well be null and void because of the doctrine of first sale. I like it.
The fact is that I bought it before I agreed to anything. Just paid Newegg. So, now they say by my using it I am agreeing to the license? I don't think so. Pretty specious... What? I am going to pay full price and then not use something? I own it already so I can certainly agree to anything. At the very least I should be made to agree before they take my money.
BTW I say "sell" instead of "transfer license". I own it. I got the OEM disk. As long as I remove it from my system I can sell it. Makes sense to me.
I always thought these EULAs were better founded. But they are kind of bogus put-up jobs, like the signs in paid parking garages that disclaim responsibility. Sure, if you leave your briefcase and it gets swiped they can disclaim. But the radio? Part of the car you paid them to protect? No way! They are liable. They put the signs up in hope that people will not even present a claim. Same way these EULAs are put-up jobs to keep people from exercising their rights under first sale.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Oh no! Microsoft is putting ridiculously restrictive, probably illegal clauses in their EULA! Alert Fox News!!
McAfee put a "no benchmarks" clause in their EULA a while ago, but when they tried suing a PC Magazine for benchmarking their software, the judge said you can't disallow your customers from reporting accurate information about you. Duh! I can't believe they actually thought they could away with it in court.
However, in spite of previous precedence and the obvious illegality / constitution violation of such a clause, I'm not so sure I could defend myself in court if I decided to put up some basic benchmarks regarding how well software runs on Win/Lin, and Microsoft decided to sue me over it.
Someone must have lived under a rock for a long time in order to label this as "surprise!" Stupid slashdot editors.
How do you know my router's IP address!?!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Hasn't a precident for this already been set by the courts. Software companies trying to use draconian EULA's to keep unfavorable reviews and benchmarking results out of print is nothing new, and they've been shown to be unenforcable and an infringment of First Amendment rights.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The first sentence would begin "Your reading this EULA indicates your acceptance of it...."
If you want to avoid the problems with Vista, just run something like Windows 2000 in VMWare Server on Ubuntu. I've set my router not to permit the Window's IP address any access to the web. All email and web browsing is done in Ubuntu. No trojans, no viruses, no Windows updates, and no Windows Disadvantage issues. You can run just about any Windows software you need (excluding games, of course). I even do all my development work in that virtual machine, with no problems. If I want the pretty Aero Glass pictures, I'll just install Stardock. Problem solved.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Having just looked over the Vista Licence (really) I noticed this:
3. C. - Icons, images and sounds. While the software is running, you may use but not share its icons, images, sounds, and media.
I've no idea if this is new or not, but it sounds remarkably like you can't take screen shots of your own desktop. Or say make Linux(or other things) look like Vista (for those who want to).
Course if this doesn't mean that what does it mean?
Microsoft is into full-on "all your base" mode now
You mean that at one point they wern't??? Had to be 20+ years ago...
Traditionally Microsoft hasn't prosecuted the end user for copyright violations, only businesses and governments. I believe this to be for two reasons;
1. The cost involved in hunting down and dragging to court every individual.
2. That (until recently) office applications have historically been incompatible with those from other software designers.
Basically if everyone was pirating and using MS apps at home, it would force big business to play along, just so that they wouldn't have to completely re-train everyone in the office, and also so they can force the good little wage slaves to work from home. That and its far easier to hit a big, lumbering target that can't get out of the way.
A company would rather not challenge an EULA, it is risky.
Whether it can be applied or not it will be easier for companies to comply with it whether it can be enforced or not.
They would rather not find out. As such these things have implications.
Reminds me how companies got scared of speaking how well OSS was going for them when SCO was threatening.
The fact that SCO didn't go far doesn't mean that it didn't have an impact.
i think this is a good thing. i would wager dollars to donuts that defender will tell you when it removes photoshop from a system. that way it can (presumably) be reinstalled and flagged as o.k.
always mosh clockwise
Avoid the constraints of the EULA-- use someone else's copy on someone else's machine. They can't hold you to provisoins of the software if you're not the owner. Then you can publish all the benchmarks you want. MS might have a case against the owner, but not with you.
Which other EULAs? I know that they exist, but which ones? It is important. For example, if Musicmatch Jukebox had a EULA like that, no problem. We would simply not download it, not agree to its EULA, and be done with it. Windows has had the extremely frustrating effect of becoming the standard OS, in case you've had your head under a rock for the past zillion years. Either we, or people close to us, must agree to this EULA sooner or later (Linux just isn't quite feasible enough yet). What it says will affect us somehow, if only minorly, in the best case scenario.
/. bashing.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The noobs who just want to do email, web and some light word processing. They'll run what came on their computer as long as they can figure it out. They'll complain if their computer can't play Deer Hunter or some embedded web video. I guarantee you this category outnumbers the home power users.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...involves not using the software, and not using it and ignoring the contract.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Valid contracts don't need to be signed in every case; it would be ridiculous if they needed to be. You can't walk into a restaurant, order food, then walk out without paying and claim that it's because you never signed a contract.
I haven't paid for Windows since Win95, (or, at least, more than $5-$10 for the college issue). Microsoft seems to be content with opening a back door
Yes: that's a "differential pricing" strategy: you charge everybody as much as they are willing to pay for the product. It undermines market and competition mechanisms.
It will also force more people to side with me, and effectively refuse to pay the rediculous amount of money, but admit that we are dependant on a microsoft OS because of its interoperability with 90% of the programs most computer-savvy people need to survive their day-to-day lives.
You don't "refuse to pay", you simply become a Microsoft customer at a lower price and thereby support their operating system monopoly. If everybody Windows user actually had to pay the average Windows price (say, $150), you'd see Windows market share plummet and all the interoperability and software availability arguments you make would fall apart.
If you don't want Windows to continue having a near monopoly, you have to switch to some other platform for your day-to-day work; there is no easy shortcut. It matters less whether you send the money for it to Microsoft, what matters is that in those interactions with other "computer-savvy people", you behave like a non-Microsoft user.
If switching from Windows is too hard, at least switch to open source applications on Windows as much as possible: use OpenOffice and complain to people when they send you files you can't read. It's the latter part that breaks the monopoly.
this must be a new use of the word "surprising" that i was not aware of.
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
1. Ok, I'm with you on the benchmarking thing. No problems there.
2. Technically, there's a fifth version, Windows XP Corporate. It's functionally identical to Windows XP Pro, but has much more sharply restricted distribution. It's also not laden with all of those irritating antipiracy protections and registration requirements. It also has a separate CD Key set, so I'm counting it as being separate. And if you count Windows XP N, which came without Media Player, you've got 6. Now we're just even with Vista. I'm willing to bet that one of the six for Vista is going to be Vista Server. We might even get an Advanced Server.
3. I'm a home user who does virtualization. Of course, I'm also running XP Pro. I'll assume I'm not the typical home user, but who on Slashdot is?
4. This problematic license transfer issue is accompanied by a less stringent set of rules for determining what a 'significant change' is. I may now be able to swap out a video card without having to re-register.
You make some good points, but I think the changes won't force many people to switch OS. People just don't like to learn something different.
Right around 2000, I decided I was not going to tie my skills and computing activities in general to closed software. Started running Linux in various forms, also continued with my SGI IRIX machines. (Yeah they are closed, but cool in that there is no DRM anywhere in the box. It does what it does nicely enough.)
Took a while, and I went without a lot of interesting stuff for a few years. Coupla things happened. Realized I didn't need as much software as I thought I did, and I found myself with more money than I would have otherwise had.
I cracked and ran cracked software just like everyone else did. Don't do it today --completely legal. Makes these licensing discussions we see today just nuts! It's hard to believe people are actually debating the merits of this crap.
I own the following licenses:
(1) copy of XP Home purchased along with a killer loss leader deep discount box
(2) copies of win2k obtained in a similar manner
(1) copy of office 97 professional or whatever they called it at the time
(1) copy of L-view pro (no upgrades because it's getting too cluttered these days
coupla games and that's it!
It's not fucking worth it. Everything else is open or something I really just don't need, or can run on my employers license pool.
How to work today with this attitude? Simple. I only run Microsoft stuff so long as somebody else has paid for it. I find them increasingly happy to pay, so I always ask and politely decline those scenarios where I would have to personally agree to such crappy licenses.
I actually hope they really crack down on piracy in all forms. The really great geeks among us will continue to do what they do, largely uninhibited. However, Joe bag 'o dougnuts will just get pissed and things will change for the better.
If folks really understood all the terms of the various licenses they are asked to agree to and knew enough to actually consider the implications they would be far less inclined to continue the madness.
So I'm not gonna run it, unless somebody else, stupid enough to do so, or who can afford the expense because there is a solid return for them pays the bill. Microsoft has peaked with XP, it's downhill from here. That means extracting revenue from the customer as often as is possible for as much as is possible. Messy. Better to start learning how to compute on open stuff and begin putting computing in perspective.
We need to continue supporting open systems and talking to vendors about it. Don't support Linux? Thanks but no thanks. Write letters, talk to people, return defective non-open, didn't say so, products. It does not take everyone running the stuff to matter, just enough of us to continue to be significant.
Blogging because I can...
And just as a sidenote. My HP laptop hard drive failed, I got a replacement and used the restore CDs. The restore CDs give you the option of a clean OS install without all of the extra stuff. I didn't know this until I did it, and I don't know if other OEMs do the same. But I was pleasantly surprised.
I'd bet not all OEMs offer installation options, nor do those that do offer them offer them across their entire product lines. I'm typing this on an HP myself and I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes, my hds have failed as well as my motherboard, and the recovery disk do offer some options but it installs some things by default without the option not to install them which forces you to use add/remove if you don't want them.
Should there be a Law?
I used to work at Geek Squad
I was supprised when I found out there weren't many people at Geek Squad who could work with Linux. A few weeks ago I bought a new pC with Linux preinstalled but because it only came with a 40GB hd and a cd drive I decided to install another hd and a dvd. After a while of trouble getting the hd installed and recognized I took it down to Best Buy. I finally got someone there to try to get linux to recognize the hd but he made it clear there would be no warranty. He took about an hour to get the hd working then I asked if he could recommend a dvd drive and install it as well but he said nobody there was authorized. I asked him if he could recommend someone who could and he gave me the address of a stand alone Geek Squad, but the Linux expert there said they couldn't work with Linux at all. He was the only one with the ability and if he left they'd be high and dry. He just suggested I look on the net or find a geek in the neighborhood.
I have been toying more and more with the idea of buying an Apple.
The system I got with Linux is a tower, but I really want to get and have been waiting for Apple to release the Macbook Pro with the Core 2 cpu. Now that they have I'm hoping I can order one in the next week or two. Because of MS's tactics they have driven me away from Windows.
FalconShould there be a Law?
but admit that we are dependant on a microsoft OS because of its interoperability with 90% of the programs most computer-savvy people need to survive their day-to-day lives.
Hmmmm, I wouldn't consider you a computer-savvy person if you can't find fully functional if not better Linux replacements for 90% of Microsoft software (except games). Even with games if you are calling yourself "computer savvy" I think you can set up wine or winex or something and get most games to run on Linux. Hmm...I've heard strong cases from people in specific cases (graphics, music editing, some office software), but to say that computer savvy people are dependant on Microsoft OS is a little over the top.
I haven't touched Microsoft software for like 5 years and I guess your comment struck a chord with me, as it implies that I am not "computer savvy", heh.
Hear hear!
Ironically, I installed Fedora Core 6 in a VM during a single (under 1 hour) phone call between my wife & her mother. When she hung up the phone, I showed her how cool FC was, and how the net connection, Firefox, the package manager & Calc all worked right out of the box.
This was a big accomplishment for me, since I'm green at *nix & have historically had less than stellar luck getting TCP/IP & package managers working smoothly without extra research.
Her reaction? She thought it'd be cool to be the only chick in her office who could quip that she used Linux at home.
Pi Ran Out
All I got was the system disk. No box. No manuals. No Nothin' And, yes, I installed it. It now rests, along with all the other docs and resources for that system, in a little plastic briefcase dedicated to that purpose.
However, in practical terms the OEM disk would be hard to sell on its own. That is, if, say, I put Vista (not bloody likely) on this rig. The catch is that MS would not activate the system for the new buyer if it was on different hardware. They would know as soon as the box logged on for updates that the OS had migrated. And now with WGA it's hopeless. I could of course call MS and get permission to migrate the system claiming the new platform (the OS buye's)to be my own. But that is just sleazy and I wouldn't do it. Really. The other option would be to take them to court. Hmmmmmmm? Nope. Maybe some other time. To practically sell the system I would have to sell the whole rig, which is obviously something I can do -- with MS bundled. I am a manufaturer after all. Output = one computer per year. Woo Hoo.
I think one reason that DRM and Activation is getting popular is that these EULAs are legally weak. Knowing this the companies have turned to technical restraint. And because of the DMCA they can keep you from unlocking whatever they sold you. Sooner or later we will see if that is unconstitutional. I think not.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy