Why would you bother with fiddling with your registry? Simply download DisAsm or even better IDA whcih is quite good and change the program. That's whats going to happen anyway.:) I wonder what the fuss is all about. I bet some cracker will have a menu integrated in no time, where you can select your "unique" MAC.
You don't really think that MS will withdraw the Xbox and leave the market to PS2, Nintendo, Gamecube or whatever there is?
I really doubt that. They might act like this if they are supreme leaders on consoles, but I doubt that even then they would do such a thing. The risk to loosing an entire country to the competitors is way to big. And the Xbox is in no position yet to have a big head.
This is a good example citing the gcc vs. VC++ case because it proves my point even better.
In my last company we had a problem with code where we implemented Windows NT Services. The software crashed the machines when a certain (very big brand) brand was involved. And only on their machines. The problem was in the driver of the manufacturer.
When our client reported the problem, we forwarded it to the manufacturer. He investigated it and even had a direct contact to NT Kernel developers. Something a "normal" user would practically never get. The manufacturer said MS is to blame. MS said we are to blame and we said the manufacturer or MS is to blame (because it was driver problem which should be handled by the driver or at least by the OS). We couldn't fix it and told the customer we are unable to because MS refused to fix it in the kernel. Guess what. The customer accepted this. Do you think he would have accepted it if we had told him that the problem is, i.e. in gcc? He would have said we should use another compiler or fix it or whatever. I seriously doubt that he would have accepted it like he had when we told him that MS couldn't/didn't want to fix it.
It has been often said, so this might be redundant and I also could verify this attitude at my work. Money is notwhat it is all about.
Companies don't choose an OS for the money the licence costs. This is a bit changing as the licence costs are increasing but this is not the major issue. If you have an OS that crashes frequently and will stop 20 expensive people from working on a regular basis, this is much more expensive to a copmpany. The problem here is that managers, who give the money to by the stuff, think it is a good thing to have a representive that you can ask for help, or in the worst case sue. Linux doesn't have this. You can not complain to the linux crowd when your business is halted because of a bug in the network code. You can complain to the MS hotline though. You can't sue the linux community for the same reason, but you can sue MS. At least in theory, but that is another story.
The only thing you can do with linux is, to try find a company that is willing to take that risk. Managers don't see this, though this is changing. When you can go to IBM and tell them you need a reliable server and IBM is willing to take the risk that involves than nobody cares if it is AIX or Linux you get installed as long as IBM stands for it.
And having a database is not having a reliable business. Sure you can easily install MySQL or Postgres or whatever database is open and/or free, but that is not the point.
Does it perform as well as i.e. Oracle? Is it reliable as i.e. Oracle? Who will stand up for it, if it doesn't meet the requirements that I have ben promised. That's what counts in a business decision.
Finnaly this makes an argument that can be used to show it to managment. I already forwarded that article tou my boss. Maybe it helps. At least it is good to know that Linux now gets support from groups like Gartner, that are considered more than a "hackers" view.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you bother with fiddling with your registry? Simply download DisAsm or even better IDA whcih is quite good and change the program. That's whats going to happen anyway. :) I wonder what the fuss is all about. I bet some cracker will have a menu integrated in no time, where you can select your "unique" MAC.
You don't really think that MS will withdraw the Xbox and leave the market to PS2, Nintendo, Gamecube or whatever there is? I really doubt that. They might act like this if they are supreme leaders on consoles, but I doubt that even then they would do such a thing. The risk to loosing an entire country to the competitors is way to big. And the Xbox is in no position yet to have a big head.
This is a good example citing the gcc vs. VC++ case because it proves my point even better. In my last company we had a problem with code where we implemented Windows NT Services. The software crashed the machines when a certain (very big brand) brand was involved. And only on their machines. The problem was in the driver of the manufacturer. When our client reported the problem, we forwarded it to the manufacturer. He investigated it and even had a direct contact to NT Kernel developers. Something a "normal" user would practically never get. The manufacturer said MS is to blame. MS said we are to blame and we said the manufacturer or MS is to blame (because it was driver problem which should be handled by the driver or at least by the OS). We couldn't fix it and told the customer we are unable to because MS refused to fix it in the kernel. Guess what. The customer accepted this. Do you think he would have accepted it if we had told him that the problem is, i.e. in gcc? He would have said we should use another compiler or fix it or whatever. I seriously doubt that he would have accepted it like he had when we told him that MS couldn't/didn't want to fix it.
It has been often said, so this might be redundant and I also could verify this attitude at my work. Money is notwhat it is all about. Companies don't choose an OS for the money the licence costs. This is a bit changing as the licence costs are increasing but this is not the major issue. If you have an OS that crashes frequently and will stop 20 expensive people from working on a regular basis, this is much more expensive to a copmpany. The problem here is that managers, who give the money to by the stuff, think it is a good thing to have a representive that you can ask for help, or in the worst case sue. Linux doesn't have this. You can not complain to the linux crowd when your business is halted because of a bug in the network code. You can complain to the MS hotline though. You can't sue the linux community for the same reason, but you can sue MS. At least in theory, but that is another story. The only thing you can do with linux is, to try find a company that is willing to take that risk. Managers don't see this, though this is changing. When you can go to IBM and tell them you need a reliable server and IBM is willing to take the risk that involves than nobody cares if it is AIX or Linux you get installed as long as IBM stands for it. And having a database is not having a reliable business. Sure you can easily install MySQL or Postgres or whatever database is open and/or free, but that is not the point. Does it perform as well as i.e. Oracle? Is it reliable as i.e. Oracle? Who will stand up for it, if it doesn't meet the requirements that I have ben promised. That's what counts in a business decision.
In Germany it's 2 years. I'm not sure but I think this is true for the European Community. Not entire Europe though.
Finnaly this makes an argument that can be used to show it to managment. I already forwarded that article tou my boss. Maybe it helps. At least it is good to know that Linux now gets support from groups like Gartner, that are considered more than a "hackers" view.