I never found osirusoft to be too reliable, or accurate in the past (it usually had sites listed as 'spammers' that weren't while all other services didn't list those sites, and there didn't seem to be any appeals process to their own list), so I'm tempted to say 'good riddence', but obviously putting it (and others) out of commission is not a good thing.
Mind you, it didn't totally hose the system (could still boot from the old kernel, if you had physical access), but their tool was definitively broken, and the hosting company's support personel probably didn't help matters....
I'll tell you one thing: I had a few choice words for RH;)
I keep reading that, and don't understand what it means (I admit I haven't looked into it though:).
Do they simply mean that they (still) won't release the source of 'their IP' even if you buy a licence, or that if you only have the source that you don't need their licence?
that all the other kernel developers can also get a share of every licence they sell, since, after all, they've each got their own IP in there too...:)
I've had a similar thing happen on a RH Linux update using their 'up2date' thing - but this was for a kernel update, on a production machine.
NOT fun.
Since the system was remote, we couldn't work on it directly; down for 2 days and a nice figure in support costs.
When we're due for a server change, I'll recommend an Xserve. At least those don't need constant updates (of course, they might not be 'bleeding-edge' secure either because of that), and I've never had/seen/heard of an update problem with them.
This site has a good reputation for good content and none of the biased crap that is found on other tech sites and *gulp* Slashdot, or Dvorak's arse talk.
And one thing I've always said: if it's not on Ars Technica, it's not worth reading.
How can it be hypocritical to exercise your right to a refund when the license says you can?
If MS or vendors don't want their customers to do this, then perhaps they should change the terms of the license. Whatever arrangements/pricing/agreements between MS and the OEMs/vendors is irrelevant here. What's relevant is what the license says you can and cannot do.
You can't say to someone they can do something, but then deny them the very same thing when that's what they choose to do. If anything, it's MS/OEMs that are the hypocrites here.
Perhaps penalizing the OEM is 'unfair' but it's pretty much the only way to get things changed (ie MS's practices).
Just like boycotting the RIAA; not buying records only gives fuel to the RIAA's arguments ("See? People aren't buying because they're pirating it").
If you buy, then return the DRM records, the distributers have to bear the costs (that's the 'unfair' part), they'll get pissed off and demand changes.
I don't think MS (or the RIAA) want their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.
How many start-ups couldn't get started, or how much money or jobs lost because of companies that abuse the patent laws for patents that shouldn't exist in the first place. I'll bet anything any one of those amount to more than that 1% you mentioned.
But then again, this is America, land of Corporate freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I could swear it was businesses moving to other states...
ok, ok, old joke, but I just couldn't resist how he's so proud of his 40+ releases.
Buy, then return the DRM CDs you buy. That'll put more cost to the retailer, which will piss them off and cause them to demand changes.
And I don't think the RIAA wants their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.
The post originally asserted "Challenger" accident.
:)
To bad, then we could've said that they already had flown before they had made the changes....
Oh well, what's a few weeks more?
Mind you, it didn't totally hose the system (could still boot from the old kernel, if you had physical access), but their tool was definitively broken, and the hosting company's support personel probably didn't help matters....
I'll tell you one thing: I had a few choice words for RH
Editors, please, get a little more accuracy!
Do they simply mean that they (still) won't release the source of 'their IP' even if you buy a licence, or that if you only have the source that you don't need their licence?
I've had a similar thing happen on a RH Linux update using their 'up2date' thing - but this was for a kernel update, on a production machine.
NOT fun.
Since the system was remote, we couldn't work on it directly; down for 2 days and a nice figure in support costs.
When we're due for a server change, I'll recommend an Xserve. At least those don't need constant updates (of course, they might not be 'bleeding-edge' secure either because of that), and I've never had/seen/heard of an update problem with them.
www.grisoft.com - free, definitions updated frequently, and I've been quite satisfied with it.
This site has a good reputation for good content and none of the biased crap that is found on other tech sites and *gulp* Slashdot, or Dvorak's arse talk.
And one thing I've always said: if it's not on Ars Technica, it's not worth reading.
If MS or vendors don't want their customers to do this, then perhaps they should change the terms of the license. Whatever arrangements/pricing/agreements between MS and the OEMs/vendors is irrelevant here. What's relevant is what the license says you can and cannot do.
You can't say to someone they can do something, but then deny them the very same thing when that's what they choose to do. If anything, it's MS/OEMs that are the hypocrites here.
In the end it depends how much you're willing to 'insure' you 'book, and how often you might need Applecare services;
Remember too that some credit card companies add extra coverage when you buy products through them. This might be a good alternative.
Perhaps penalizing the OEM is 'unfair' but it's pretty much the only way to get things changed (ie MS's practices).
Just like boycotting the RIAA; not buying records only gives fuel to the RIAA's arguments ("See? People aren't buying because they're pirating it").
If you buy, then return the DRM records, the distributers have to bear the costs (that's the 'unfair' part), they'll get pissed off and demand changes.
I don't think MS (or the RIAA) want their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.
So I see this as the only way to go.
Of course, to each his own.
MS would likely have to relax its licencing terms (like the ones given to the judge as an example) if they want to keep selling their sw.
Sure, just this one isn't much, but get enough people doing it and it'll start making a difference (though others here seem to believe otherwise)
So is yours.
How many start-ups couldn't get started, or how much money or jobs lost because of companies that abuse the patent laws for patents that shouldn't exist in the first place. I'll bet anything any one of those amount to more than that 1% you mentioned.
But then again, this is America, land of Corporate freedom.
Of course, the artist seemed to favor Mac sites, but I'm sure he posted this to slashdot himself too (as well as CNN and other 'big' sites I'm sure).