I also haven't seen this behavior; perhaps your rollover minutes from 12 months ago are expiring at a quicker rate than you are accumulating them now? My experience with Cingular has been that they will subtract from your Cingular-to-Cingular minutes first, then anytime and night/weekend minutes, and finally your rollover. But download your billing statement from their site, you can access a format that's easily imported into Excel (.csv I think) where you can use their rate codes to break down your charges pretty quickly and see where the minutes and charges are allotted.
Before I had Cingular I thought rollover minutes was a pretty good idea, but it turns out my cell usage is pretty consistent month to month. I think I've only ever dipped into rollover minutes once. Rollover really only helps if you have wildly differing usage month-to-month that averages out to be less than your monthly allotment (oh, and your low-usage months must preceed your high-usage months). Otherwise you may as well step up to the next plan, it's almost definitely going to be cheaper than paying overages.
*cries* This is quite possibly the best reply I've seen on Slashdot in 2006. If I didn't know better I'd almost accuse you of getting a friend to set up the first post just so you could go all Geico-ad on it. I'd argue it's more funny than insightful due to structure, but hell, you can have the Insightful karma boost.
You sir, have earned a spot on my friends list. May your comedic genius continue to grace the comments pages for years to come.
Sony has helped out the whole consortium by saying "we are serious eough about Blu-Ray to put players in every console and drive down costs faster for everyone".
Sooo... Sony is foisting a roughly $200 price increase on me as a consumer of their next gen console because they're interested in saving me money? I don't buy it. They have an idealogical agenda to push which includes Blu-Ray winning over HD-DVD. Your argument boils down to the fact that because the drives are expensive, those who do want them should be subsidized by those who don't until the drives are reasonably affordable. This will help out everyone, whereby "everyone" means "those who are willing to pay a premium for a larger capacity data storage format." It's only hindering those who want a PS3 but can't afford the ridiculous price point.
I was going to mod this up (or funny really), but I just have to comment instead. This is the point in the call I about fell off my chair laughing hysterically. It's best if you can listen to it, because you get the unbearably long pause right after George asks the 3rd question. I can almost see the gears in her brain chunking along, desperately attempting to understand how a dollar amount could possibly begin with a decimal point, but just... not... quite... getting... there.
George: Do you therefore recognize there is a difference between.002 dollars and.002 cents?
(pregnant pause) Andrea: No.... There's no.002 dollars.
Of course,.002 dollars per KB is exactly the rate poor George is being charged by the billing system. I'm not sure I'll be able to make it through the rest of the call, I can't stop listening to that little snippet.
The part they don't mention is that the activation server only hands out activations on networks with 25+ computers. The machine may be permanently activated, but after 180 days, if you don't have 25 unique machines (and no, virtual machines can be detected and don't count), the activation server will deny your request to reactivate.
That doesn't preclude from downloading another pre-activated KMS Server, but this isn't really a permanent solution.
What an odd coincidence. I just today bought an electronic accessory packaged in this stuff and had a terrible time opening it. A couple months ago, I had found a site that was lobbying against this type of packaging, and my first instinct was to locate them and give them a donation.
Given that I don't even know what it's called (Infuriatingly Difficult Plastic Packaging?), I can't locate the site again. Anyone seen this before?
For the record, providing people with sharper/better tools to open this packaging is not a solution. That's just a workaround to the real problem. The problem is the packaging, and the solution involves new packaging, not a slightly less dangerous or more efficient way of dealing with it.
Note: none of my sources were really authoritative.
Then they don't really matter much, do they?
It was from the websites of a couple of universities. Do a search for "general-purpose" and MSDN and you'll find what you're looking for.
Rather than a bunch of hand-wavy "Microsoft is bad because they restrict what you can do - just go search for it", how about providing actual evidence, with attributed sources? I don't even know where you pulled those license snippets from, since you didn't provide attribution. I linked you to the official master license for MSDN, which is both current and overrides any product-specific EULA's included in the overall MSDN subscription.
The section you quoted above "MSDN Library--Additional Rights and Restrictions" clearly applies only to "documentation identified in the Library as the file format specification for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and/or Microsoft PowerPoint". It certainly doesn't restrict the types of software you can create with your MSDN subscription to the extent you asserted in your original post.
The second section is even less relevant. It says you can't redistribute MSDE (Microsoft's database engine) with word processing/spreadsheet/database programs that you write. Fine. Write your own database engine and use it however you'd like. They're still not telling you what you can do with your MSDN subscription.
Furthermore, neither clause you mentioned is present in the current MSDN Eula, giving them no weight to current MSDN subscribers. I stand by my original claim: that your original statement is false. Microsoft does not restrict the type of software you can create with your MSDN subscription. I suggest you either qualify your statements to the extent they are true or retract them completely.
The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.
This statement is a complete and utter falsehood. MSDN is a program for software developers, but Microsoft doesn't limit the kinds of software you can produce when you purchase an MSDN subscription.
I'm willing to back up my statements though, so you don't have to take my word against anyone else's. The MSDN Master End-User License Agreement is freely available for download, or you can consult the MSDN Licensing FAQ online. I challenge you or anyone to quote the section of the license that restricts development of a "general purpose suite of office software."
On a smaller note, MSDN isn't really a program "used by subscription". You purchase MSDN licenses, which are perpetual licenses and can be used forever. Each MSDN purchase, however, also comes with a 12-month subscription whereby software updates are sent to you monthly for the next year. This helps keep you current with new releases of software. At the end of the 12 months, however, the software is still legitimately licensed to you for development and test purposes. You may continue developing software, or even sell the whole package to someone else. Of course, this is all laid out in the license linked above.
I really really would like to. My hosting provider (1and1) has given me the following two answers:
August 2005:
At the current time we do not offer the addition of SPF records to your DNS records. I have passed your concerns on to the development team as a suggestion to have them added to our services.
November 2006:
Unfortunately, we do not know yet if it is possible to add SPF records to DNS entries.
I really don't want to get rid of them, as they have otherwise spectacular service with ginormous amounts of web space and transfer limits for very very cheap. I think they allow me to use external DNS services, but who wants to go through that hassle for any significant number of domains and subdomains.
Anyone have suggestions for additional ways I can motivate my provider to provide support for SPF? Case studies/stories of other ISP's doing so would probably work best.
Barring that, I'd take suggestions for good free/cheap DNS services.
With regards to the right to continuously reinstall some products, you are correct, however that must be done on the SAME PC. You get 10 activations to use.
From the same FAQ page you linked to:
In general, you can install MSDN software on any number of computers. However:
o Only persons with MSDN Subscription licenses can use the software on any of the machines
o Some products, such as Windows XP, require product activation, which may limit the number of computers on which you can install and activate. See the section in this FAQ on Product Activation for more information.
o If you are using Office for business purposes, you may only install on one computer.
o Many product keys are only effective for 10 activations. An additional product key may be requested by calling MSDN customer service.
And below, in the product activation section:
MSDN Subscription product keys can be used to activate software on up to 10 PCs. An additional product key may be requested by calling MSDN customer service.
Like I said before, the license doesn't prohibit you from installing on as many machines as you want/need. If you run out of activations, you're entitled to more, so just ring the customer service line and they'll help you out.
As for the MSDN Subscription, for a few hundred bucks, you don't receive _unlimited_ volume licensed editions of _desktop_ operating systems. You get a limited number of activations (about 10). I have such a subscription. Maybe if you spend more than a few hundred bucks, you do get them unlimited.
I didn't say you received volume licensed editions, just that you could install unlimited times. Read the license. You have the right to install an unlimited number of times on an unlimited number of computers, subject to the development and test restriction. They give you retail media and keys to curb piracy, not as a means of limiting your licensed rights. If you happen to run out of activations, just call up the MSDN help line. They'll gladly issue you more keys. In reality, I've only had to do this a few times as activation isn't required until after 30 days. I reimage so often that I only very rarely hit 30 days on a test machine.
Everyone has been massively mis-interpreting the license agreement, starting with the author of the original document. Instead of believing an incendiary article, let's hit each point with evidence:
Article says: "allows you to only move it to another device once" Vista EULA says: "The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device."" XP EULA says: "TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer." Conclusion: iffy at best; more restrictive at worst. I believe the "internal" designation in the XP EULA was meant for corporations, who retain this right with volume licensed editions of Vista.
Article says: "Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine." Vista EULA: "Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device." A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device." XP EULA: "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer")." Conclusion so far: Microsoft hasn't forbidden me from installing in a virtual machine. Note that the Vista EULA says I only must "assign" my license to a device, I don't necessarily have to "install" to that physical hardware device. But let's examine the clause that gets everyone all confused:
Vista Home Basic/Home Premium EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system." Conclusion: All it's saying here is that I can't use the same copy of the software for the physical machine AND in a virtualized environment. Notice that it very clearly restricts ONLY "the software installed on the licensed device". ie, if you install Home Basic on your physical PC, you can't install the same copy in a VM. This is fair and in line with the XP EULA.
Vista Ultimate EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device." Conclusion: This is an ADDITIONAL grant of a license. If you pay the price for Ultimate, Microsoft is granting to you an additional right to run ANOTHER copy in a virtualized environment. Note again that it allows you to use "the software installed on the licensed device" in a VM.
Get over it people. The VM thing was a claim from someone who has the reading comprehension of a 5th-grader. If you want to know what your rights are, read the EULA yourself. I'm not a lawyer, I don't enjoy EULA's, and I didn't spend more than 5 minutes reading the published EULA, but I can still understand English.
As far as testing goes, if you really care about testing, get an MSDN subscription. A few hundred bucks gets you perpetual (forever) licenses to every OS Microsoft has ever made for dev & test purposes. These can be used in virtual machines, physical machines, across a network, wherever. Oh, and did I mention you can install on an unlimited number of machines an unlimited number of times? (subject to the same dev & test restrictions of course). It's a worthwhile investment if you're a software developer.
But here's a question regarding Activation: What happens in a few years when Microsoft discontinues Activation support? 10 years from now? Will the activation servers run forever, or will Microsoft quit activating the software? I should download the VLK edition of Windows XP just to ensure that I can still run XP when they decide to not allow activations any longer.
This question was among the first asked when Microsoft introduced product activation in Windows XP 5 years ago. The answer is posted at Microsoft's Product Activation FAQ, quoted here for your convenience.
Will Microsoft use activation to force me to upgrade? In other words, will Microsoft ever stop giving out activation codes for any of the products that require activation?
No, Microsoft will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade. Activation is merely an anti-piracy tool, nothing else.
Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle so users would no longer be required to activate the product.
Note that the product lifecycle for business products is 10 years, so you still have another 5 years of activation before Microsoft releases the official "activation crack" patch.
At any rate, the way to go about this would be to design a special DVD player which wouldn't play normal movies unless they also had some kind of storage media inserted into them containing cryptographically signed data on which parts to skip over. That way, you could sell the original movie filled with nudity and kids wouldn't be able to play it unless they also inserted the media that instructed the player how to skip over that nudity.
If an application needs to access any critical areas of the OS, the running threads, the registry, or anything else deemed critical or potentially harmful, it should prompt for password.
However, the password-prompting behavior isn't the panacea you describe it to be. It works well for people who understand the underlying system including permissions and concepts like user vs. administrator. It doesn't work well for people who just want to get their work done, or download the latest music video. I believe it was Bruce Schneier who said "Given the choice between dancing pigs and security, users will choose dancing pigs every time."
Imagine this scenario: ITAdmin: "OK, here's your new Vista machine. It has this great new thing that will prompt you for your password for anything potentially affecting the system. When you see the password prompt, make an informed decision about whether you trust the application before typing your password. That way, you'll stay safe against viruses and spyware." LUser: "Uhh, OK" (1 month goes by) LUser: "My machine is running slow and it's got a lot of popups." ITAdmin: (Examines machine, discovers massive spyware infestation) "Have you been typing your password in the dialogs that come up?" LUser: "Maybe once or twice, I needed to when I was downloading stuff." ITAdmin: "@*$%!"
The problem will never be solved by asking users to put in a password (or click an extra confirmation) to run something potentially dangerous, because they'll ALWAYS say yes (dancing pigs every time...). By giving users administrative rights to their own machines, you are saying "I trust you as an all-powerful administrator of this machine. Please make an informed security decision about every piece of software you download before you run it." This is a fundamentally flawed principle, because end users are NOT security professionals, and we shouldn't expect them to be. That is the job of the ITAdmin: he should be taking away administrative rights from end users so that they can't make system-wide changes.
For home users, the problem is much harder. Imagine the conversation above, but replace "ITAdmin" with "SalesGuy". Oh, and by the way, SalesGuy doesn't have a vested interest in the machine once you've handed over your money, so your spyware infection results in just another profit opportunity (replace the last line with "$$$$!").
My brother developed a 2-document crypto version: you use one document to encode or decode the other.
Sounds suspicously like a one-time pad, which was developed long before your brother came up with it. It's also horribly insecure (your brother's implementation, that is). Read any basic cryptography text to understand why. Real one-time pads are 100% secure if implemented properly, with the caveat that the key has to be at least as large as the message. Poorly-implemented one-time pads can actually be worse than no cryptography at all, because they present the illusion of security that's not really there. In reality they're not so very different than the simple substitution described in the article - they're targeted at keeping your kid sister out, not a dedicated professional.
he says that in terms of increasing effectiveness, crypto should:
Rather than relying on someone related to you who clearly doesn't have a grasp of simple cryptographic theory, why don't you read a little from a recognized expert?
(1) Make it difficult to read (writing in mirror images).
If my little brother can decipher your message by holding it up to a mirror, that's not cryptography, that's a cereal-box game.
(2) Make it difficult to break (cryptoquotes on up to PGP)
Ahh, the single relevant point of the bunch. This is the SOLE point of cryptographic techniques - to encipher a message such that only the intended recipient can recover said message. Well, one out of four's not bad.
(3) Make it difficult to detect that communication is even going on (watermarking a photo with encrypted text, or photocopiers printing copy information in very light yellow ink)
Well, see, now we've stepped out of the realm of cryptography and into another discipline: steganography. This is the art of hiding the very existence of a message - not a method of securing that message from other potentially interested parties. Though the two are related (and, clearly, easily confused), they serve different purposes. Repeat after me: Security through obscurity is no security at all.
(4) Convert the decryption agents to your own side.
Wow, that one really came out of left field. Not sure I've ever heard that one described as a design point of cryptography, much less the most effective one. If you want people to read your manifesto, surely publishing it outright would be more effective than obscuring it and hoping the enemy has smart cryptographers. (Unless, I suppose, your alternate universe values cryptographer's souls some order of magnitude more than regular folk, but in that case I'm willing to bet that there are still several more effective techniques one would employ first.)
Cryptography is one of those areas where (unlike, say, brain surgery) it's quite easy to convince yourself you have developed some new expert technique. Even the crypto experts are cautious about making such statements - flaws are found in our very best efforts sometimes decades later. If you're interested in it at all, may I recommend any of Bruce Schneier's writings. His book Applied Cryptography is the gold standard in the field, and he maintains a fascinating blog at www.schneier.com.
So, on 2 CPUs, you are running four copies of MS Server and two installationf of MS SQL sevrer. How many licenses must you buy? Four for Win2k3, 2 for MS SQL.
"Better virtualization value. Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition provides better value in server virtualization. Licensing policy changes now allow customers to run up to 4 virtual instances of Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition on one licensed physical server or hardware partition."
Microsoft clarified the System Builder rules in August 2005. From the System Builder site [passport registration or firstborn required]:
OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well.
Basically, you are free to buy Microsoft software labeled as "OEM" as long as you count yourself as the system builder (no hardware purchase required even!).
The price difference between OEM and retail software is due to two mitigating factors:
1) OEM software is forever married to the machine on which it is first installed. 2) Microsoft doesn't provide support for OEM products - they leave that up to the OEM.
As long as you don't want to call up Microsoft for support, OEM software is just fine. But considering support rates ($35 a pop, or $245 for a professional incident), retail software may be a deal for those who lack basic troubleshooting skills, internet search capabilities, or impressionable tech-savvy relatives.
"Also I use the $2.99 "expedite my order" feature to get them to ship the same day (of course i make sure i order early enough)"
Do you also check that box on your tax form that says "donate $3 to the presidential campaign fund"? The suggestion is that it somehow affects your taxes, but of course it doesn't. You just pay an extra $3.
Coincidentally, that's pretty much all that checkbox is at Newegg either. They may as well label it "Check here to pay $3 more for your order." Try not checking it some time - you'll be surprised that your order still arrives just as quickly.
If I could put a little flag on the text file that stores all my passwords for different services so that it was utterly useless on any computer other than mine, of course I'd do it.
What you're asking for is not DRM (an entire system where publishers define specific rights and limitations imposed on others), it's just encryption (protect this thing so only people with the secret can access it).
If you have XP Pro, use Help to search for "efs" or "encryption". Net of it is:
1) Right click file/folder, choose properties. 2) Click Advanced... 3) Check the box that says "Encrypt contents to secure data"
Since EFS is designed to be secure, you'll probably want to read about what you need to do to ensure you always have access to your data. On a standalone machine, it mostly involves backing up your user certificate.
I would recommend Sprint as they're the only carrier with an unlimited data plan.
I just bought a new phone and plan with Cingular. Their unlimited data plan is $20/month, but well worth it for me as I use it for email, light web browsing, and even as a bluetooth modem for the laptop when there's no WiFi. I get a pretty solid 115k connection.
You can send SMS via TCP/IP over GPRS. If you have internet but not SMS you can reconfigure your phone to do this, and save a bundle.
Can you explain a bit further? I have a new phone with an unlimited data plan, but they still charge me $.10 for each incoming/outgoing SMS message, and $.25 for each incoming/outgoing MMS message.
I've explored all the options on my phone, but perhaps my phone doesn't allow such a setting, or I'm missing something.
MSN is definitely my favorite of the three and would love it even more if it allowed a custom list of auto-replies and/or custom status messages.
What you're looking for is an MSN addon called MsgPlus. It's got all the power-user features from ICQ (including the ones you want) and tons more. Seriously, the thing is just jam-packed with goodies (floating contacts on desktop, boss key, custom names for people, better logging & archiving, transparency, plus a slew of features not exposed in the UI documented on the website).
I originally installed it for the ad-blocker, but that functionality has since been removed I think for legal reasons. Now, you can block all the ads and other stupidness (what I call integrated spam) with A-Patch.
because I had the parts laying around those routers... cost a tad more than they do now I can add more NICs alter the distribution to add other extras to it
I'm not really counting the following reasons, because they do not present any advantage or difference over a wireless broadband router:
I am not limited in the number of ports I can use - just slap a larger switch on the inside NIC (you could plug that same switch into a LAN port on a home router) a wireless NIC could be set up as an AP (already included in most cases) if I got a different router/firewall, I would need to have my broadband provider (COX) reprovision my cable modem, since the MAC address would be different (all the routers I've seen offer the ability to set the WAN MAC address to whatever value you want, for just such scenarios where you need to "pretend" you're using a different NIC). They might even want to kick me in the nuts with the AUP (if you really are violating the AUP by networking machines, your choice of routing hardware is unlikely to mitigate that violation)
I'll conclude the answer is a little bit of geek factor and a lot of inertia. Thanks for replying!
I've stumbled across your website before and actually thought this book was the printed incarnation of such when reading the summary.
I hesitate to forward your website to my other friends, however, because it's not really objective; you seem to have a slant against Microsoft for whatever reason, and many of the anti-MS statements are just FUD. While there are some great open source apps out there, computer users are just not interested in making an idealogical change or joining a crusade. If functionality is king, offering "85%-as-good" alternatives isn't enough. Even 100% parity isn't enough. An app has to be 150% better than its Microsoft counterpart to overcome the inertia of an install base. You would gain more credence if you highlighted those particular areas where an open source offering has significant advantages over Microsoft's proprietary product (say, for example, Firefox) and admitted that Microsoft still dominates some areas (eg hardware compatibility in Windows or technical diagrams in Visio).
Slashdot Mirror
I also haven't seen this behavior; perhaps your rollover minutes from 12 months ago are expiring at a quicker rate than you are accumulating them now? My experience with Cingular has been that they will subtract from your Cingular-to-Cingular minutes first, then anytime and night/weekend minutes, and finally your rollover. But download your billing statement from their site, you can access a format that's easily imported into Excel (.csv I think) where you can use their rate codes to break down your charges pretty quickly and see where the minutes and charges are allotted.
Before I had Cingular I thought rollover minutes was a pretty good idea, but it turns out my cell usage is pretty consistent month to month. I think I've only ever dipped into rollover minutes once. Rollover really only helps if you have wildly differing usage month-to-month that averages out to be less than your monthly allotment (oh, and your low-usage months must preceed your high-usage months). Otherwise you may as well step up to the next plan, it's almost definitely going to be cheaper than paying overages.
*cries* This is quite possibly the best reply I've seen on Slashdot in 2006. If I didn't know better I'd almost accuse you of getting a friend to set up the first post just so you could go all Geico-ad on it. I'd argue it's more funny than insightful due to structure, but hell, you can have the Insightful karma boost.
You sir, have earned a spot on my friends list. May your comedic genius continue to grace the comments pages for years to come.
Sony has helped out the whole consortium by saying "we are serious eough about Blu-Ray to put players in every console and drive down costs faster for everyone".
Sooo... Sony is foisting a roughly $200 price increase on me as a consumer of their next gen console because they're interested in saving me money? I don't buy it. They have an idealogical agenda to push which includes Blu-Ray winning over HD-DVD. Your argument boils down to the fact that because the drives are expensive, those who do want them should be subsidized by those who don't until the drives are reasonably affordable. This will help out everyone, whereby "everyone" means "those who are willing to pay a premium for a larger capacity data storage format." It's only hindering those who want a PS3 but can't afford the ridiculous price point.
I was going to mod this up (or funny really), but I just have to comment instead. This is the point in the call I about fell off my chair laughing hysterically. It's best if you can listen to it, because you get the unbearably long pause right after George asks the 3rd question. I can almost see the gears in her brain chunking along, desperately attempting to understand how a dollar amount could possibly begin with a decimal point, but just... not... quite... getting... there.
.002 dollars and .002 cents? .002 dollars.
.002 dollars per KB is exactly the rate poor George is being charged by the billing system. I'm not sure I'll be able to make it through the rest of the call, I can't stop listening to that little snippet.
.002 dollars!
George: Do you therefore recognize there is a difference between
(pregnant pause)
Andrea: No.... There's no
Of course,
There's no
The part they don't mention is that the activation server only hands out activations on networks with 25+ computers. The machine may be permanently activated, but after 180 days, if you don't have 25 unique machines (and no, virtual machines can be detected and don't count), the activation server will deny your request to reactivate.
That doesn't preclude from downloading another pre-activated KMS Server, but this isn't really a permanent solution.
What an odd coincidence. I just today bought an electronic accessory packaged in this stuff and had a terrible time opening it. A couple months ago, I had found a site that was lobbying against this type of packaging, and my first instinct was to locate them and give them a donation.
Given that I don't even know what it's called (Infuriatingly Difficult Plastic Packaging?), I can't locate the site again. Anyone seen this before?
For the record, providing people with sharper/better tools to open this packaging is not a solution. That's just a workaround to the real problem. The problem is the packaging, and the solution involves new packaging, not a slightly less dangerous or more efficient way of dealing with it.
Note: none of my sources were really authoritative.
Then they don't really matter much, do they?
It was from the websites of a couple of universities. Do a search for "general-purpose" and MSDN and you'll find what you're looking for.
Rather than a bunch of hand-wavy "Microsoft is bad because they restrict what you can do - just go search for it", how about providing actual evidence, with attributed sources? I don't even know where you pulled those license snippets from, since you didn't provide attribution. I linked you to the official master license for MSDN, which is both current and overrides any product-specific EULA's included in the overall MSDN subscription.
The section you quoted above "MSDN Library--Additional Rights and Restrictions" clearly applies only to "documentation identified in the Library as the file format specification for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and/or Microsoft PowerPoint". It certainly doesn't restrict the types of software you can create with your MSDN subscription to the extent you asserted in your original post.
The second section is even less relevant. It says you can't redistribute MSDE (Microsoft's database engine) with word processing/spreadsheet/database programs that you write. Fine. Write your own database engine and use it however you'd like. They're still not telling you what you can do with your MSDN subscription.
Furthermore, neither clause you mentioned is present in the current MSDN Eula, giving them no weight to current MSDN subscribers. I stand by my original claim: that your original statement is false. Microsoft does not restrict the type of software you can create with your MSDN subscription. I suggest you either qualify your statements to the extent they are true or retract them completely.
The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.
This statement is a complete and utter falsehood. MSDN is a program for software developers, but Microsoft doesn't limit the kinds of software you can produce when you purchase an MSDN subscription.
I'm willing to back up my statements though, so you don't have to take my word against anyone else's. The MSDN Master End-User License Agreement is freely available for download, or you can consult the MSDN Licensing FAQ online. I challenge you or anyone to quote the section of the license that restricts development of a "general purpose suite of office software."
On a smaller note, MSDN isn't really a program "used by subscription". You purchase MSDN licenses, which are perpetual licenses and can be used forever. Each MSDN purchase, however, also comes with a 12-month subscription whereby software updates are sent to you monthly for the next year. This helps keep you current with new releases of software. At the end of the 12 months, however, the software is still legitimately licensed to you for development and test purposes. You may continue developing software, or even sell the whole package to someone else. Of course, this is all laid out in the license linked above.
August 2005:November 2006:I really don't want to get rid of them, as they have otherwise spectacular service with ginormous amounts of web space and transfer limits for very very cheap. I think they allow me to use external DNS services, but who wants to go through that hassle for any significant number of domains and subdomains.
Anyone have suggestions for additional ways I can motivate my provider to provide support for SPF? Case studies/stories of other ISP's doing so would probably work best.
Barring that, I'd take suggestions for good free/cheap DNS services.
From the same FAQ page you linked to:And below, in the product activation section:Like I said before, the license doesn't prohibit you from installing on as many machines as you want/need. If you run out of activations, you're entitled to more, so just ring the customer service line and they'll help you out.
As for the MSDN Subscription, for a few hundred bucks, you don't receive _unlimited_ volume licensed editions of _desktop_ operating systems. You get a limited number of activations (about 10). I have such a subscription. Maybe if you spend more than a few hundred bucks, you do get them unlimited.
I didn't say you received volume licensed editions, just that you could install unlimited times. Read the license. You have the right to install an unlimited number of times on an unlimited number of computers, subject to the development and test restriction. They give you retail media and keys to curb piracy, not as a means of limiting your licensed rights. If you happen to run out of activations, just call up the MSDN help line. They'll gladly issue you more keys. In reality, I've only had to do this a few times as activation isn't required until after 30 days. I reimage so often that I only very rarely hit 30 days on a test machine.
Everyone has been massively mis-interpreting the license agreement, starting with the author of the original document. Instead of believing an incendiary article, let's hit each point with evidence:
Article says: "allows you to only move it to another device once"
Vista EULA says: "The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device.""
XP EULA says: "TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer."
Conclusion: iffy at best; more restrictive at worst. I believe the "internal" designation in the XP EULA was meant for corporations, who retain this right with volume licensed editions of Vista.
Article says: "Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine."
Vista EULA: "Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device." A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device."
XP EULA: "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer")."
Conclusion so far: Microsoft hasn't forbidden me from installing in a virtual machine. Note that the Vista EULA says I only must "assign" my license to a device, I don't necessarily have to "install" to that physical hardware device. But let's examine the clause that gets everyone all confused:
Vista Home Basic/Home Premium EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Conclusion: All it's saying here is that I can't use the same copy of the software for the physical machine AND in a virtualized environment. Notice that it very clearly restricts ONLY "the software installed on the licensed device". ie, if you install Home Basic on your physical PC, you can't install the same copy in a VM. This is fair and in line with the XP EULA.
Vista Ultimate EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device."
Conclusion: This is an ADDITIONAL grant of a license. If you pay the price for Ultimate, Microsoft is granting to you an additional right to run ANOTHER copy in a virtualized environment. Note again that it allows you to use "the software installed on the licensed device" in a VM.
Get over it people. The VM thing was a claim from someone who has the reading comprehension of a 5th-grader. If you want to know what your rights are, read the EULA yourself. I'm not a lawyer, I don't enjoy EULA's, and I didn't spend more than 5 minutes reading the published EULA, but I can still understand English.
As far as testing goes, if you really care about testing, get an MSDN subscription. A few hundred bucks gets you perpetual (forever) licenses to every OS Microsoft has ever made for dev & test purposes. These can be used in virtual machines, physical machines, across a network, wherever. Oh, and did I mention you can install on an unlimited number of machines an unlimited number of times? (subject to the same dev & test restrictions of course). It's a worthwhile investment if you're a software developer.
Note that the product lifecycle for business products is 10 years, so you still have another 5 years of activation before Microsoft releases the official "activation crack" patch.
If an application needs to access any critical areas of the OS, the running threads, the registry, or anything else deemed critical or potentially harmful, it should prompt for password.
Ask, and it shall be granted.
However, the password-prompting behavior isn't the panacea you describe it to be. It works well for people who understand the underlying system including permissions and concepts like user vs. administrator. It doesn't work well for people who just want to get their work done, or download the latest music video. I believe it was Bruce Schneier who said "Given the choice between dancing pigs and security, users will choose dancing pigs every time."
Imagine this scenario:
ITAdmin: "OK, here's your new Vista machine. It has this great new thing that will prompt you for your password for anything potentially affecting the system. When you see the password prompt, make an informed decision about whether you trust the application before typing your password. That way, you'll stay safe against viruses and spyware."
LUser: "Uhh, OK"
(1 month goes by)
LUser: "My machine is running slow and it's got a lot of popups."
ITAdmin: (Examines machine, discovers massive spyware infestation) "Have you been typing your password in the dialogs that come up?"
LUser: "Maybe once or twice, I needed to when I was downloading stuff."
ITAdmin: "@*$%!"
The problem will never be solved by asking users to put in a password (or click an extra confirmation) to run something potentially dangerous, because they'll ALWAYS say yes (dancing pigs every time...). By giving users administrative rights to their own machines, you are saying "I trust you as an all-powerful administrator of this machine. Please make an informed security decision about every piece of software you download before you run it." This is a fundamentally flawed principle, because end users are NOT security professionals, and we shouldn't expect them to be. That is the job of the ITAdmin: he should be taking away administrative rights from end users so that they can't make system-wide changes.
For home users, the problem is much harder. Imagine the conversation above, but replace "ITAdmin" with "SalesGuy". Oh, and by the way, SalesGuy doesn't have a vested interest in the machine once you've handed over your money, so your spyware infection results in just another profit opportunity (replace the last line with "$$$$!").
My brother developed a 2-document crypto version: you use one document to encode or decode the other.
Sounds suspicously like a one-time pad, which was developed long before your brother came up with it. It's also horribly insecure (your brother's implementation, that is). Read any basic cryptography text to understand why. Real one-time pads are 100% secure if implemented properly, with the caveat that the key has to be at least as large as the message. Poorly-implemented one-time pads can actually be worse than no cryptography at all, because they present the illusion of security that's not really there. In reality they're not so very different than the simple substitution described in the article - they're targeted at keeping your kid sister out, not a dedicated professional.
he says that in terms of increasing effectiveness, crypto should:
Rather than relying on someone related to you who clearly doesn't have a grasp of simple cryptographic theory, why don't you read a little from a recognized expert?
(1) Make it difficult to read (writing in mirror images).
If my little brother can decipher your message by holding it up to a mirror, that's not cryptography, that's a cereal-box game.
(2) Make it difficult to break (cryptoquotes on up to PGP)
Ahh, the single relevant point of the bunch. This is the SOLE point of cryptographic techniques - to encipher a message such that only the intended recipient can recover said message. Well, one out of four's not bad.
(3) Make it difficult to detect that communication is even going on (watermarking a photo with encrypted text, or photocopiers printing copy information in very light yellow ink)
Well, see, now we've stepped out of the realm of cryptography and into another discipline: steganography. This is the art of hiding the very existence of a message - not a method of securing that message from other potentially interested parties. Though the two are related (and, clearly, easily confused), they serve different purposes. Repeat after me: Security through obscurity is no security at all.
(4) Convert the decryption agents to your own side.
Wow, that one really came out of left field. Not sure I've ever heard that one described as a design point of cryptography, much less the most effective one. If you want people to read your manifesto, surely publishing it outright would be more effective than obscuring it and hoping the enemy has smart cryptographers. (Unless, I suppose, your alternate universe values cryptographer's souls some order of magnitude more than regular folk, but in that case I'm willing to bet that there are still several more effective techniques one would employ first.)
Cryptography is one of those areas where (unlike, say, brain surgery) it's quite easy to convince yourself you have developed some new expert technique. Even the crypto experts are cautious about making such statements - flaws are found in our very best efforts sometimes decades later. If you're interested in it at all, may I recommend any of Bruce Schneier's writings. His book Applied Cryptography is the gold standard in the field, and he maintains a fascinating blog at www.schneier.com.
So, on 2 CPUs, you are running four copies of MS Server and two installationf of MS SQL sevrer. How many licenses must you buy? Four for Win2k3, 2 for MS SQL.
They're giving away the OS licenses too...
"Better virtualization value. Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition provides better value in server virtualization. Licensing policy changes now allow customers to run up to 4 virtual instances of Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition on one licensed physical server or hardware partition."
The price difference between OEM and retail software is due to two mitigating factors:
1) OEM software is forever married to the machine on which it is first installed.
2) Microsoft doesn't provide support for OEM products - they leave that up to the OEM.
As long as you don't want to call up Microsoft for support, OEM software is just fine. But considering support rates ($35 a pop, or $245 for a professional incident), retail software may be a deal for those who lack basic troubleshooting skills, internet search capabilities, or impressionable tech-savvy relatives.
"Also I use the $2.99 "expedite my order" feature to get them to ship the same day (of course i make sure i order early enough)"
Do you also check that box on your tax form that says "donate $3 to the presidential campaign fund"? The suggestion is that it somehow affects your taxes, but of course it doesn't. You just pay an extra $3.
Coincidentally, that's pretty much all that checkbox is at Newegg either. They may as well label it "Check here to pay $3 more for your order." Try not checking it some time - you'll be surprised that your order still arrives just as quickly.
If I could put a little flag on the text file that stores all my passwords for different services so that it was utterly useless on any computer other than mine, of course I'd do it.
What you're asking for is not DRM (an entire system where publishers define specific rights and limitations imposed on others), it's just encryption (protect this thing so only people with the secret can access it).
If you have XP Pro, use Help to search for "efs" or "encryption". Net of it is:
1) Right click file/folder, choose properties.
2) Click Advanced...
3) Check the box that says "Encrypt contents to secure data"
Since EFS is designed to be secure, you'll probably want to read about what you need to do to ensure you always have access to your data. On a standalone machine, it mostly involves backing up your user certificate.
I would recommend Sprint as they're the only carrier with an unlimited data plan.
I just bought a new phone and plan with Cingular. Their unlimited data plan is $20/month, but well worth it for me as I use it for email, light web browsing, and even as a bluetooth modem for the laptop when there's no WiFi. I get a pretty solid 115k connection.
You can send SMS via TCP/IP over GPRS. If you have internet but not SMS you can reconfigure your phone to do this, and save a bundle.
Can you explain a bit further? I have a new phone with an unlimited data plan, but they still charge me $.10 for each incoming/outgoing SMS message, and $.25 for each incoming/outgoing MMS message.
I've explored all the options on my phone, but perhaps my phone doesn't allow such a setting, or I'm missing something.
MSN is definitely my favorite of the three and would love it even more if it allowed a custom list of auto-replies and/or custom status messages.
What you're looking for is an MSN addon called MsgPlus. It's got all the power-user features from ICQ (including the ones you want) and tons more. Seriously, the thing is just jam-packed with goodies (floating contacts on desktop, boss key, custom names for people, better logging & archiving, transparency, plus a slew of features not exposed in the UI documented on the website).
I originally installed it for the ad-blocker, but that functionality has since been removed I think for legal reasons. Now, you can block all the ads and other stupidness (what I call integrated spam) with A-Patch.
So, it comes down to a mixture:
... cost a tad more than they do now
because I had the parts laying around
those routers
I can add more NICs
alter the distribution to add other extras to it
I'm not really counting the following reasons, because they do not present any advantage or difference over a wireless broadband router:
I am not limited in the number of ports I can use - just slap a larger switch on the inside NIC (you could plug that same switch into a LAN port on a home router)
a wireless NIC could be set up as an AP (already included in most cases)
if I got a different router/firewall, I would need to have my broadband provider (COX) reprovision my cable modem, since the MAC address would be different (all the routers I've seen offer the ability to set the WAN MAC address to whatever value you want, for just such scenarios where you need to "pretend" you're using a different NIC).
They might even want to kick me in the nuts with the AUP (if you really are violating the AUP by networking machines, your choice of routing hardware is unlikely to mitigate that violation)
I'll conclude the answer is a little bit of geek factor and a lot of inertia. Thanks for replying!
I've stumbled across your website before and actually thought this book was the printed incarnation of such when reading the summary.
I hesitate to forward your website to my other friends, however, because it's not really objective; you seem to have a slant against Microsoft for whatever reason, and many of the anti-MS statements are just FUD. While there are some great open source apps out there, computer users are just not interested in making an idealogical change or joining a crusade. If functionality is king, offering "85%-as-good" alternatives isn't enough. Even 100% parity isn't enough. An app has to be 150% better than its Microsoft counterpart to overcome the inertia of an install base. You would gain more credence if you highlighted those particular areas where an open source offering has significant advantages over Microsoft's proprietary product (say, for example, Firefox) and admitted that Microsoft still dominates some areas (eg hardware compatibility in Windows or technical diagrams in Visio).