Ok, so i over generalized, but most states do have some sort of sales tax. And i expect to see most of those starting to wake up about the 'taxless internet' and start demanding records.
There are always execptions..
Just like most dont have inventory tax, but we do..
If you use the software you agree, its pretty damned simple. If you dont agree with THEIR terms, you dont have a right to use it. Period. End of story. Any court would back THEM up, not you.
Also you only bought a license to use. Nothing in that box belongs to you.
No im not mistaken, the GPL effects how you can release and use YOUR code as well, once you license it or intermingle GPL code into your work.
Read between the lines and dont believe what all you hear.
RMS wants to restrict your rights and *force* you to keep the code ( and any derivatives once its infected/tainted ) 'open'.. Read his manifesto, understand his 'license'.. Its pretty clear.
The BSD people.. want no such thing.. all they want is a little bit of credit.. nothing more.
If you read the license agreements, you will find that there are varying degrees of restrictions.
Example is that you cant use Visual Studio to create a product that competes with Microsoft products.
They also restrict what you can run the software on.
You may not agree that a EULA is binding, but its there.
Other products have similar restrictions. Again we can debate the legality but you DID agree to the restrictions when you used the software. True, not *all* but they do exist.
Next time before you stick your foot in your mouth and look like a idiot, learn about what you are discussing..
That may or may not be true, but the whole purpose for Microsoft's' actions are to weed out pirated copies, and therefore 'proof of license' is part of the deal.
That you have a copy in your closet inst relevant to them. The fact you dont have it installed is..
I think you are taking this far beyond what it really means.. " define every aspect of your life ". All they are demanding is that you have a valid, verifiable install to get updates and 'free stuff' from them.. nothing more.. Dont verify, then keep what you got and get your updates elsewhere.. They are not taking anything away.. They arent telling you what kind of dog food you can feed your pet.. or colors of socks to wear.. Or even reporting you as a 'possible pirate'...
Dont get me wrong, im NOT a Microsoft fan, but this is well within their rights, and to be honest, it makes sense for them to do this..
You are incorrect on that. Apparently you dont fully understand how WINE works.
"Microsoft updates" provide updated libraries that various applications need to run properly. Having newer versions help with stability and helps more apps run in the first place.
Currently WINE does not offer all needed DLL's nor are they as bug free as the 'real' ones are.
While i suppose technically it doesnt help WINE, it helps what you want to do WITH it...
And if you read/understood the reason Microsoft instituted the entire process last month, you would figure out it IS about valid licenses.. And WINE users dont fall under 'valid'.
Geesh..
Dont call people Idiots until you actually have a clue what you are talking about..
Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.
Having wine installed inst a license to use their DLL's. And in some cases, even Microsoft applications you have *purchased*. Read your EULA's closely people.
Sure, its irritating as hell, and will make updating to run newer applicatinos a pain, but well within their legal rights.
Best solution is not to have to run wine if at all possible.
"I don't understand why people have to bash the GPL/BSD because it's "not correct/free enough". I also like how you bash the GPL, but then claim no one should bash BSD. For some things, one of them works, for others, the other. If it's your code, you get to choose. If it's not, shut up and GET OVER IT."
Troll my ass.
You dont understand? Perhaps its because being wrong is beyond your comprehension?
While you may accurate debate that the GPL is 'open enough' for many people, You cant rationally say that it does not add more use restrictions then the BSD license does. Therefore BSD license is more open in relative terms ( See i didnt say that the GPL isnt open at all, I used the word *more* as a qualifer ), and its the correct license to use in 'free' projects.
The GPL should be abondoned for all projects as its actually worse then a closed commercial license. You are agreeing to give up rights to your own work. Are you people stupid or what?
Once GPL infects your code, you are screwed. With the BSD license you still retain ALL rights to your work..
Ok, then consider it a trojan since it required human intervention. Though I would debate that a virus does require human intervention to spread, but no need to go down that road and loose the point im trying to make:
*Using any GPL code MODIFIES what you can do with YOUR code*
BSD licensing does not. Aside from giving credit you still control your code.
And i never said i had to live by what i preach only that you low-lives must.
GPL is bad when you actually take the time to think about what it does..
Slashdot Mirror
For ME on what I have, the performance of XP is dismal, while FBSd + KDE is quite useable...
If you noticed, i did mention that W2K was acceptable, so i dont think that would qualify me as a anti windows troll...
Oh, and just to make if fair, i also had debian installed at one point, and it was somewehre in the middle..
If what you have works at an acceptable point for you, more power to you.. It just doesnt work out for me here on my hardware..
Ive found that once it does finally get installed, its not bad at all.
But yes, *installation* is a pain.. I gave up on my first attempt to install W2K, thought it had died...
The normal QEMU is more then useable, so i would tend to believe his claims.
Its also limited to emulating a i386 on a i386, so again its quite plasuable. Ever run VMware? I bet they are using the same sort of tricks.
Too bad I cant test them, as its only for Linux, and im running BSD... Perhaps down the road...
Just reformat.. There its clean.
Sounds almost like a setup "well, you are infected with that damned spyware so you gotta upgrade"
Dont laugh, i have heard of several so called computer support guys getting extra cash and spare machines this way...
Though today users are getting a bit smarter..
Im saying this out of experience.
XP needs more resources, its pretty simple. It wasnt a 'troll' against XP in general, only that it takes more resources to be as responsive.
Of course if you get a brand new machine, its a wash as the machine has more then enough to do both with extra to spare.
So you can take your attitude, and your useless, incorrect observation and shove it.
No, ive tried to run XP on the SAME machine ( dual boot.. since Wine isnt worth a damn for BSD )
It was terrible... Had to go back to 2000.
The Bsd/kde side is still more responsive.
Im sure many wont agree.
I have an older PIII 700, 256MB ram.. Running BSD + kde 3.3
Works fine.. XP would be dismal on the same hardware.
Even if they cant build one, they can just go buy one on the black market.
Besides, dirty bombs are much more sinsiter.. more to their liking. Why kill entire towns at once, when you can watch them suffer?
Ok, so i over generalized, but most states do have some sort of sales tax. And i expect to see most of those starting to wake up about the 'taxless internet' and start demanding records.
There are always execptions..
Just like most dont have inventory tax, but we do..
Techincally, everything you buy ( as a consumer anyway ) has a local sales tax.
If you buy online and dont pay, its tax fraud.
Now that the states are in the red, dont be suprised if they start hitting up places like amazon and borders for records so they can send you a bill.
If you use the software you agree, its pretty damned simple. If you dont agree with THEIR terms, you dont have a right to use it. Period. End of story. Any court would back THEM up, not you.
Also you only bought a license to use. Nothing in that box belongs to you.
Nice little dream world you live in.
Explain your fantasies to the judge.
No im not mistaken, the GPL effects how you can release and use YOUR code as well, once you license it or intermingle GPL code into your work.
.. nothing more.
Read between the lines and dont believe what all you hear.
RMS wants to restrict your rights and *force* you to keep the code ( and any derivatives once its infected/tainted ) 'open'.. Read his manifesto, understand his 'license'.. Its pretty clear.
The BSD people.. want no such thing.. all they want is a little bit of credit
( ps,. im done with this thread )
Actualy, yes it does invalidate. If you read the complete agreement you will see it.
If you read the license agreements, you will find that there are varying degrees of restrictions.
Example is that you cant use Visual Studio to create a product that competes with Microsoft products.
They also restrict what you can run the software on.
You may not agree that a EULA is binding, but its there.
Other products have similar restrictions. Again we can debate the legality but you DID agree to the restrictions when you used the software. True, not *all* but they do exist.
Next time before you stick your foot in your mouth and look like a idiot, learn about what you are discussing..
Not saying the parents arent contributing in many ways, but any kid that doesnt know its wrong to blow away cops has other, much larger issues.
That may or may not be true, but the whole purpose for Microsoft's' actions are to weed out pirated copies, and therefore 'proof of license' is part of the deal.
That you have a copy in your closet inst relevant to them. The fact you dont have it installed is..
I think you are taking this far beyond what it really means.. " define every aspect of your life ". All they are demanding is that you have a valid, verifiable install to get updates and 'free stuff' from them.. nothing more.. Dont verify, then keep what you got and get your updates elsewhere.. They are not taking anything away.. They arent telling you what kind of dog food you can feed your pet.. or colors of socks to wear.. Or even reporting you as a 'possible pirate'...
Dont get me wrong, im NOT a Microsoft fan, but this is well within their rights, and to be honest, it makes sense for them to do this..
You are incorrect on that. Apparently you dont fully understand how WINE works.
"Microsoft updates" provide updated libraries that various applications need to run properly. Having newer versions help with stability and helps more apps run in the first place.
Currently WINE does not offer all needed DLL's nor are they as bug free as the 'real' ones are.
While i suppose technically it doesnt help WINE, it helps what you want to do WITH it...
And if you read/understood the reason Microsoft instituted the entire process last month, you would figure out it IS about valid licenses.. And WINE users dont fall under 'valid'.
Geesh..
Dont call people Idiots until you actually have a clue what you are talking about..
They went underground. Now they just service large businesses.
A lot of off-site corporate IT shops do the same thing, just in a captive environment.
Once Broadband saturates the country, you will see microsoft shift to an ASP/Lease model into the homes, then slowly migrate to small business.
Enterprise level, will still have local IT control for the forseeable future..
Dont forget it took decades to move away from that model ( mainframe ). It will take longer to get back.
Circumventing the check might fall under the DMCA, and get Codeweavers in a legal bind.
Even if it doesnt, expect a crushing lawsuit that will put them out of business.
So what does this mean for holders of a real windows license.
Do we now have to install their spyware just do download updates, 'free' tooks, and such from them?
Should have got a recovery disk with that box of yours..
If not id be bitching at the OEM..
Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.
Having wine installed inst a license to use their DLL's. And in some
cases, even Microsoft applications you have *purchased*. Read your EULA's closely people.
Sure, its irritating as hell, and will make updating to run newer applicatinos a pain, but well within their legal rights.
Best solution is not to have to run wine if at all possible.
Any high profile DRM will be attacked on sight.
Its just the way of the world now.
"I don't understand why people have to bash the GPL/BSD because it's "not correct/free enough". I also like how you bash the GPL, but then claim no one should bash BSD. For some things, one of them works, for others, the other. If it's your code, you get to choose. If it's not, shut up and GET OVER IT."
Troll my ass.
You dont understand? Perhaps its because being wrong is beyond your comprehension?
While you may accurate debate that the GPL is 'open enough' for many people, You cant rationally say that it does not add more use restrictions then the BSD license does. Therefore BSD license is more open in relative terms ( See i didnt say that the GPL isnt open at all, I used the word *more* as a qualifer ), and its the correct license to use in 'free' projects.
The GPL should be abondoned for all projects as its actually worse then a closed commercial license. You are agreeing to give up rights to your own work. Are you people stupid or what?
Once GPL infects your code, you are screwed. With the BSD license you still retain ALL rights to your work..
Pretty simple concept..
Ok, then consider it a trojan since it required human intervention. Though I would debate that a virus does require human intervention to spread, but no need to go down that road and loose the point im trying to make:
*Using any GPL code MODIFIES what you can do with YOUR code*
BSD licensing does not. Aside from giving credit you still control your code.
And i never said i had to live by what i preach only that you low-lives must.
GPL is bad when you actually take the time to think about what it does..
Its really as simple as that.