Perhaps in your world. In my world encryption has hundreds of legitimate uses. Signing binaries to prevent end users from running any software and/or content they please on the hardware they purchased is only one of the many uses of encryption/signing/keys and it isn't among the legitimate uses.
'So what happens if the distributor distributes the software to users and then, later, is found to have violated the license on this front?'
That is a great question and before I answer I better prefix with IANAL. That said, this is my understanding. The distributor would lose their right to distribute obviously. They would be guilty of copyright infringment and can be sued by whoever wrote the software they are distributing. Since it is implicit in this situation they would obviously be guilty of patent infringment. But I think you are really asking about what happens for the users they distributed to.
My understanding is that those users would not be able to utilize the GPL because they don't have patent rights and therefore can't pass them downstream. Anyone who utilized the derivative GPL software in a way that requires distribution would have to find another solution. For end users it wouldn't matter. End users had a reasonable belief the software was being distributed legally and no license is required for end users to utilize the software. The GPL only applies to distribution/modification.
'The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software.'
The GPLvANYTHING doesn't apply to users. You only need the permissions (and conditions required to get those permissions) of the GPL to modify and/or distribute the software. The GPLv3 is no more or less than an adjustment of the conditions required to get permission to modify and/or distribute software.
'The license doesn't place similar restrictions on systems built on other closed software (assuming that they are properly decoupled), which is an odd double standard.'
Yes it does. The new 'Installation Info' requirements would require the distributor to provide all the prerequisites including access to the closed software a modified open program would need to operate.
'The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone.'
True. That is the point.
'Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.'
You make it sound like the result would be users open to litigation. The distributor can't just distribute the software to users anyway, they lose their right to distribute under the GPLv3. There will be no unprotected users because the patent encumbered modified version is barred from distribution to users. Rather than some users being protected and downstream users being screwed, there will be no users unless the vendor removes patent encumbered code or negotiates a deal that DOES allow them to pass patent protections downstream.
'Secondly, does any know if this removes the provision that I have to give up my private encryption keys if I use GPLv3 software?'
If by 'my private encryption keys' you mean encyption keys used to restrict the software that can be run on an operating system or embedded device then I hope not. As far as I know those are the only keys that any draft of the GPLv3 ever required disclosed.
'Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to?'
No. Novell would still be able to work with GPLv2 stuff. Just not GPLv3 stuff.
'I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-'
Why? Nobody is really concerned about Novell borrowing patented Microsoft concepts to include into the Operating System. The areas of concern of Novell's contributions to projects like Samba, Wine, OpenOffice.org, etc. Basically anywhere that Novell contributes to something that interfaces with Microsoft protocols and formats. Normally Novell would carefully make sure that no functionality they add is patented by Microsoft. After the deal there is a good chance that Novell won't be so careful because they no longer have to fear legal action.
'even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?'
As far as I know Linus intends to continue to use the GPLv2 anyway.
'The GNU System has produced a Unix-like operating system that most commonly runs on the Linux kernel'
Lets not confuse terms. GNU produced a set of applications. Applications (ALL Applications) run beneath the operating system and the Linux Operating system consists of a single Macrokernel. That kernel provides a powerful general purpose environment for applications like the GNU programs. What you are referring to is an Operating system distribution. After all you don't rename a windows based computer used by a graphic artist to Photoshop/Windows and you don't rename windows to GNU/Windows if you load GNU applications on it.
The importance of Applications is beside the point. Obviously applications are important or operating systems wouldn't have been created to make developing them easier. That doesn't change that an Operating system provides an operating environment for applications, while applications provide an operating environment for users. It is no more appropriate to refer to an operating system (or distribution that has an operating system as its core) by the name of the application than it is to refer to an application by the name of its user.
Perhaps the copies of GNU applications given to H&R Block should be referred to as H&R/GNU? After all, the applications wouldn't provide a functional system without someone to use them.
'The GNU project has implemented an entire free operating system, except for one critical part, the kernel.'
Translation:
The GNU project has implemented a bunch of great userland applications that can be run on top of a unix replacement operating system. It would be a complete system if it only it weren't missing the actual operating system aka the kernel. It sounds like someone is using the phrase 'operating system' to refer to an operating system distribution again.
The GNU applications are not needed for the Linux operating system to function. That precludes letting the GNU project rename the Linux operating system. I also have a windows workstation with all the GNU utilities running on it. Perhaps you would propose we rename that system GNU/Windows?
'Nothing is stopping you (yet) from dumping a Blu-Ray disc within Linux on the PS3 then playing it back.'
I admit I don't know about the PS3 but I have a hard time believing that the player isn't region coded and will play unencrypted discs.
'While I'm in the same boat as you, and I honestly believe that any media I purchase is mine and I should be allowed to make backups, unfortunately the industry as a whole does not agree.'
Fortunately copyright law still agrees with us. Just because the industry doesn't agree with us doesn't mean we have to spend money on devices and technologies that implement DRM schemes. That goes double for a device that phones home to ask for firmware updates in case the DRM scheme gets beaten.
'I hope you are being funny, but if you are not, I will explain. or even if you are, in case someone else wants to know.'
Actually I was joking and maybe playing troll Tuesday a bit. Plus this is one of my pet peeve issues for the reasons you already listed. Hopefully someone will be enlightened by your informative post.
'Furthermore since it's online, any time Sony finds a bug, they can sneak the fix in with the next firmware update.'
So what you are saying is that the moment someone finds out how to get around the anti-customer protections that prevent you from using the player to play backups Sony can slip in a 'fix' without your permission?
Thanks but no thanks. I have a rather extensive movie collection and I take care of them. Discs are just too fragile, especially children's movies. I have a backup of each of my hundreds of discs and I have needed those backups numerous times. I also have a number of movies that I digitized from VHS and encoded to DVD. I'll pass on any player that I can't safely hack on without having to worry about repercussions from an anti-consumer vendor. Especially one like Sony that doesn't merely cater to the vile music and movie industries but is actually a part of both.
'The only fault I can find is there is no "rip movie" button.'
You do realize that Sony Pictures and Sony Entertainment are part of the same company that made your PS3? You will never be able to rip or copy anything through that device if they can help it.
'It's not the customer's responsibility to ensure that HP or Sony complies with the law, it's the company's responsibility.'
What law? The warranty is an agreement between the customer and the company and it is up to the customer to hold the company accountable for those terms. You will also find that those procedures are in accordance with that agreement.
'25c worth of plastic to save hundreds of dollars worth of tech support time... seems like such a simple choice.'
Maybe, maybe not. The more of a hassle it is to get an RMA and go through the procedure the fewer customers will do it. There are no shortage of people with more time than money.
Once upon a time I worked for Sony and performed tech support for their PC's. Here is the way it works. The company has a policy, they only support the operating system the machine was shipped with. This means if the machine shipped with WinME then only ME would be supported on that machine. If the customer later upgraded to 2000 or XP it would void the warranty. All we could do, as a courtesy, is direct them to the appropriate drivers for that version of windows on the website. However, this only voids the software warranty.
Here is the problem. If you have a bad motherboard with a flaky usb port. As a Sony tech rep there is a troubleshooting routine I am required to go through before I can issue an RMA on that hardware. That routine involves a number of windows based steps. If you aren't running the shipped OS AND the same VERSION of the shipped OS then I am not allowed to go through a troubleshooting routine with you.
Unless it is a case of clear hardware failure, you would have to perform a complete system recovery before we could help you. If you didn't have the discs then I could refer you to where you could buy a replacement copy for $40. If you didn't want to lose your data then your SOL, the first thing the repair center does when you send in your PC is a complete system recovery anyway.
Technically your hardware warranty isn't voided by installing another operating system. But it may very well effectively be voided since I can't go through the troubleshooting procedures required to issue you an RMA.
'Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.'
That makes you both more wealthy and better insured than most of us. It isn't as if it is a choice between paying out of pocket and insurance. It is a choice between having insurance and some care and no care at all. Most of us can't afford and couldn't get a loan for the several thousand dollars worth of Dental work that we need.
'I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.'
It is certainly the fault of insurance companies and Congress. Most of those who need this care are working americans who don't make enough to pay for the insurance even if it were written off (although I also agree that it should be written off for individuals). These americans don't make enough to benefit from a tax break either. If you make enough to need a tax break then you are in the upper-middle class or better category.
What we need is for the existing insurance programs that are applied to government workers be extended to all americans. That way there would be none of the normal government red tape added by those who oppose tax funded programs and add tape to try to minimize the payouts. That way everyone can go to their choice of quality private doctors and can be prescribed the most effective medication even it just came out yesterday. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and those with wealth have that wealth because of the sweat of the workers they exploit.
You could even do it without a tax hike if we brought all the troops we have stationed across the globe home and cut the defense budget to the minimum needed to keep our armed forces strong domestically instead of what we need to be successful in an offensive capacity.
'a few selfish, lazy ignorant cunts who put recyclables (which could be sold to earn good money) into landfill (which costs money) just because they can't be fucked to put it in the right bin'
Those selfish, lazy, ignorant cunts and these selfish, lazy, ignorant cunts:
'If you don't have the space, the time or the inclination, then the council will do this for you -- for a fee, of course.'
What if I don't have the space, the time or the inclination to separate into one bin either? What if the separate recyclable issue is so far down on my priority list that I simply don't care? I pay my taxes and I pay my garbage pickup bills from the commercial service that picks up garbage here. Nobody is subsidizing me and I don't care about your environmental political agenda you pompous, selfish, arrogant cunt.
'This means anyone putting recyclables in their rubbish bin is effectively stealing 9 pence per kilo from your local council; and therefore from the police, local schools and old people's homes.'
Last I checked that means if I put recyclables in the recycle bin the community is effectively stealing 9 pence (or whatever that is in real money) from me. It isn't like they have a right to any of it. They ought to be crediting my bill.
Yet another miraculous health technology for the wealthy. I'm sure that top dental institutes will use the vast wealth of the US to hire some Jap dentists with this technique and keep us at the top of the health care ladder. For the wealthy that is; most of the population can't afford even basic dental work or health care nor insurance. For us, there is only the game of waiting for the tooth infection that kills.
'Too damn bad then. They offer some of their product line without Windows. If that's not to your liking take your business elsewhere. Yes, it really is that simple!'
I do take my business elsewhere and for that very reason. I also choose to actively let Dell and others know about my displeasure whenever the subject arises. Forgive me if I don't choose to be put in my place and silenced by a few words from a coward. Especially when they do nothing but state the obvious.
The RIAA sues 7-10yr old girls. Due to the extraordinary debt they owe for the rest of their lives these girls can't get loans for educations or achieve any success of their own in life. What does all this mean?
Simple my friend. It means in 10 years there will be a blanket lowering of the bar for how much cash you must have to get a quality piece of ass. I used to be against the RIAA because the laws like the DMCA they push for affect technology and software development and since that impacts every industry and form of production used in industrialized nations those laws literally set mankind back by decades.
Now? Who gives a fsck how soon we colonize the moon; cure aids; develop a way to join a global mental collective, bring on that easy and quality next generation ass!
'Or, if you don't want Windows, buy an N-series desktop or laptop. People keep complaining that you can't buy a naked PC from Dell, but there it is.'
Yes, but people don't want to have to buy an N-series. They want to be able to pick ANY computer from the Dell site and buy it with that $40 taken off. Most of the refunds I have heard about are $40ish so I assume that is what Dell pays for the license. Whatever time they save preparing a windows image and imaging the drive that goes into the system is probably offset by adding another configuration option into the assembly line.
Right now Dell forces you to buy a premium system, usually with some extra markup and the title 'workstation' or 'server' to get Linux or No OS. We want to be able to buy Grandma the same $299 special, minus $40 because we don't want Vista and load Ubuntu on it.
If you are running a burn in suite that runs on top of windows it is useless anyway. For instance, how could you test RAM with something like Vista loaded and preventing access to a couple gigs?
Good burn in suites are run from trimmed linux boots or DOS/DR-DOS/custom os/etc. As a rule they are loaded from a boot disk and never installed onto the hard drive.
The biggest assumption in your post is that Dell runs a burn-in diagnostic. This is probably not likely.
I'm not sure how Dell does things on their assembly line. But I imagine they image drives in bulk and then just plug in a preimaged drive into the system. Providing an option for drives without operating systems is as easy as giving the assembly line grunt two stacks of drives. They already have facilities for providing customization so they must be tracking options for given pcs.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps in your world. In my world encryption has hundreds of legitimate uses. Signing binaries to prevent end users from running any software and/or content they please on the hardware they purchased is only one of the many uses of encryption/signing/keys and it isn't among the legitimate uses.
'So what happens if the distributor distributes the software to users and then, later, is found to have violated the license on this front?'
That is a great question and before I answer I better prefix with IANAL. That said, this is my understanding. The distributor would lose their right to distribute obviously. They would be guilty of copyright infringment and can be sued by whoever wrote the software they are distributing. Since it is implicit in this situation they would obviously be guilty of patent infringment. But I think you are really asking about what happens for the users they distributed to.
My understanding is that those users would not be able to utilize the GPL because they don't have patent rights and therefore can't pass them downstream. Anyone who utilized the derivative GPL software in a way that requires distribution would have to find another solution. For end users it wouldn't matter. End users had a reasonable belief the software was being distributed legally and no license is required for end users to utilize the software. The GPL only applies to distribution/modification.
'The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software.'
The GPLvANYTHING doesn't apply to users. You only need the permissions (and conditions required to get those permissions) of the GPL to modify and/or distribute the software. The GPLv3 is no more or less than an adjustment of the conditions required to get permission to modify and/or distribute software.
'The license doesn't place similar restrictions on systems built on other closed software (assuming that they are properly decoupled), which is an odd double standard.'
Yes it does. The new 'Installation Info' requirements would require the distributor to provide all the prerequisites including access to the closed software a modified open program would need to operate.
'The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone.'
True. That is the point.
'Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.'
You make it sound like the result would be users open to litigation. The distributor can't just distribute the software to users anyway, they lose their right to distribute under the GPLv3. There will be no unprotected users because the patent encumbered modified version is barred from distribution to users. Rather than some users being protected and downstream users being screwed, there will be no users unless the vendor removes patent encumbered code or negotiates a deal that DOES allow them to pass patent protections downstream.
'Secondly, does any know if this removes the provision that I have to give up my private encryption keys if I use GPLv3 software?'
If by 'my private encryption keys' you mean encyption keys used to restrict the software that can be run on an operating system or embedded device then I hope not. As far as I know those are the only keys that any draft of the GPLv3 ever required disclosed.
'Is that really an option?'
Yes
'Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to?'
No. Novell would still be able to work with GPLv2 stuff. Just not GPLv3 stuff.
'I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-'
Why? Nobody is really concerned about Novell borrowing patented Microsoft concepts to include into the Operating System. The areas of concern of Novell's contributions to projects like Samba, Wine, OpenOffice.org, etc. Basically anywhere that Novell contributes to something that interfaces with Microsoft protocols and formats. Normally Novell would carefully make sure that no functionality they add is patented by Microsoft. After the deal there is a good chance that Novell won't be so careful because they no longer have to fear legal action.
'even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?'
As far as I know Linus intends to continue to use the GPLv2 anyway.
'The GNU System has produced a Unix-like operating system that most commonly runs on the Linux kernel'
Lets not confuse terms. GNU produced a set of applications. Applications (ALL Applications) run beneath the operating system and the Linux Operating system consists of a single Macrokernel. That kernel provides a powerful general purpose environment for applications like the GNU programs. What you are referring to is an Operating system distribution. After all you don't rename a windows based computer used by a graphic artist to Photoshop/Windows and you don't rename windows to GNU/Windows if you load GNU applications on it.
The importance of Applications is beside the point. Obviously applications are important or operating systems wouldn't have been created to make developing them easier. That doesn't change that an Operating system provides an operating environment for applications, while applications provide an operating environment for users. It is no more appropriate to refer to an operating system (or distribution that has an operating system as its core) by the name of the application than it is to refer to an application by the name of its user.
Perhaps the copies of GNU applications given to H&R Block should be referred to as H&R/GNU? After all, the applications wouldn't provide a functional system without someone to use them.
'The GNU project has implemented an entire free operating system, except for one critical part, the kernel.'
Translation:
The GNU project has implemented a bunch of great userland applications that can be run on top of a unix replacement operating system. It would be a complete system if it only it weren't missing the actual operating system aka the kernel. It sounds like someone is using the phrase 'operating system' to refer to an operating system distribution again.
The GNU applications are not needed for the Linux operating system to function. That precludes letting the GNU project rename the Linux operating system. I also have a windows workstation with all the GNU utilities running on it. Perhaps you would propose we rename that system GNU/Windows?
'Nothing is stopping you (yet) from dumping a Blu-Ray disc within Linux on the PS3 then playing it back.'
I admit I don't know about the PS3 but I have a hard time believing that the player isn't region coded and will play unencrypted discs.
'While I'm in the same boat as you, and I honestly believe that any media I purchase is mine and I should be allowed to make backups, unfortunately the industry as a whole does not agree.'
Fortunately copyright law still agrees with us. Just because the industry doesn't agree with us doesn't mean we have to spend money on devices and technologies that implement DRM schemes. That goes double for a device that phones home to ask for firmware updates in case the DRM scheme gets beaten.
'I hope you are being funny, but if you are not, I will explain. or even if you are, in case someone else wants to know.'
Actually I was joking and maybe playing troll Tuesday a bit. Plus this is one of my pet peeve issues for the reasons you already listed. Hopefully someone will be enlightened by your informative post.
'Furthermore since it's online, any time Sony finds a bug, they can sneak the fix in with the next firmware update.'
So what you are saying is that the moment someone finds out how to get around the anti-customer protections that prevent you from using the player to play backups Sony can slip in a 'fix' without your permission?
Thanks but no thanks. I have a rather extensive movie collection and I take care of them. Discs are just too fragile, especially children's movies. I have a backup of each of my hundreds of discs and I have needed those backups numerous times. I also have a number of movies that I digitized from VHS and encoded to DVD. I'll pass on any player that I can't safely hack on without having to worry about repercussions from an anti-consumer vendor. Especially one like Sony that doesn't merely cater to the vile music and movie industries but is actually a part of both.
'You may fault Sony'
'The only fault I can find is there is no "rip movie" button.'
You do realize that Sony Pictures and Sony Entertainment are part of the same company that made your PS3? You will never be able to rip or copy anything through that device if they can help it.
People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?
'It's not the customer's responsibility to ensure that HP or Sony complies with the law, it's the company's responsibility.'
What law? The warranty is an agreement between the customer and the company and it is up to the customer to hold the company accountable for those terms. You will also find that those procedures are in accordance with that agreement.
'25c worth of plastic to save hundreds of dollars worth of tech support time... seems like such a simple choice.'
Maybe, maybe not. The more of a hassle it is to get an RMA and go through the procedure the fewer customers will do it. There are no shortage of people with more time than money.
And here I thought they were just pissed because gave guns to violent dictators and stole their holy land and gave it to a bunch of Jews.
Once upon a time I worked for Sony and performed tech support for their PC's. Here is the way it works. The company has a policy, they only support the operating system the machine was shipped with. This means if the machine shipped with WinME then only ME would be supported on that machine. If the customer later upgraded to 2000 or XP it would void the warranty. All we could do, as a courtesy, is direct them to the appropriate drivers for that version of windows on the website. However, this only voids the software warranty.
Here is the problem. If you have a bad motherboard with a flaky usb port. As a Sony tech rep there is a troubleshooting routine I am required to go through before I can issue an RMA on that hardware. That routine involves a number of windows based steps. If you aren't running the shipped OS AND the same VERSION of the shipped OS then I am not allowed to go through a troubleshooting routine with you.
Unless it is a case of clear hardware failure, you would have to perform a complete system recovery before we could help you. If you didn't have the discs then I could refer you to where you could buy a replacement copy for $40. If you didn't want to lose your data then your SOL, the first thing the repair center does when you send in your PC is a complete system recovery anyway.
Technically your hardware warranty isn't voided by installing another operating system. But it may very well effectively be voided since I can't go through the troubleshooting procedures required to issue you an RMA.
'Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.'
That makes you both more wealthy and better insured than most of us. It isn't as if it is a choice between paying out of pocket and insurance. It is a choice between having insurance and some care and no care at all. Most of us can't afford and couldn't get a loan for the several thousand dollars worth of Dental work that we need.
'I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.'
It is certainly the fault of insurance companies and Congress. Most of those who need this care are working americans who don't make enough to pay for the insurance even if it were written off (although I also agree that it should be written off for individuals). These americans don't make enough to benefit from a tax break either. If you make enough to need a tax break then you are in the upper-middle class or better category.
What we need is for the existing insurance programs that are applied to government workers be extended to all americans. That way there would be none of the normal government red tape added by those who oppose tax funded programs and add tape to try to minimize the payouts. That way everyone can go to their choice of quality private doctors and can be prescribed the most effective medication even it just came out yesterday. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and those with wealth have that wealth because of the sweat of the workers they exploit.
You could even do it without a tax hike if we brought all the troops we have stationed across the globe home and cut the defense budget to the minimum needed to keep our armed forces strong domestically instead of what we need to be successful in an offensive capacity.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between:
'a few selfish, lazy ignorant cunts who put recyclables (which could be sold to earn good money) into landfill (which costs money) just because they can't be fucked to put it in the right bin'
Those selfish, lazy, ignorant cunts and these selfish, lazy, ignorant cunts:
'If you don't have the space, the time or the inclination, then the council will do this for you -- for a fee, of course.'
What if I don't have the space, the time or the inclination to separate into one bin either? What if the separate recyclable issue is so far down on my priority list that I simply don't care? I pay my taxes and I pay my garbage pickup bills from the commercial service that picks up garbage here. Nobody is subsidizing me and I don't care about your environmental political agenda you pompous, selfish, arrogant cunt.
'This means anyone putting recyclables in their rubbish bin is effectively stealing 9 pence per kilo from your local council; and therefore from the police, local schools and old people's homes.'
Last I checked that means if I put recyclables in the recycle bin the community is effectively stealing 9 pence (or whatever that is in real money) from me. It isn't like they have a right to any of it. They ought to be crediting my bill.
Yet another miraculous health technology for the wealthy. I'm sure that top dental institutes will use the vast wealth of the US to hire some Jap dentists with this technique and keep us at the top of the health care ladder. For the wealthy that is; most of the population can't afford even basic dental work or health care nor insurance. For us, there is only the game of waiting for the tooth infection that kills.
'Too damn bad then. They offer some of their product line without Windows. If that's not to your liking take your business elsewhere. Yes, it really is that simple!'
I do take my business elsewhere and for that very reason. I also choose to actively let Dell and others know about my displeasure whenever the subject arises. Forgive me if I don't choose to be put in my place and silenced by a few words from a coward. Especially when they do nothing but state the obvious.
The RIAA sues 7-10yr old girls. Due to the extraordinary debt they owe for the rest of their lives these girls can't get loans for educations or achieve any success of their own in life. What does all this mean?
Simple my friend. It means in 10 years there will be a blanket lowering of the bar for how much cash you must have to get a quality piece of ass. I used to be against the RIAA because the laws like the DMCA they push for affect technology and software development and since that impacts every industry and form of production used in industrialized nations those laws literally set mankind back by decades.
Now? Who gives a fsck how soon we colonize the moon; cure aids; develop a way to join a global mental collective, bring on that easy and quality next generation ass!
'Or, if you don't want Windows, buy an N-series desktop or laptop. People keep complaining that you can't buy a naked PC from Dell, but there it is.'
Yes, but people don't want to have to buy an N-series. They want to be able to pick ANY computer from the Dell site and buy it with that $40 taken off. Most of the refunds I have heard about are $40ish so I assume that is what Dell pays for the license. Whatever time they save preparing a windows image and imaging the drive that goes into the system is probably offset by adding another configuration option into the assembly line.
Right now Dell forces you to buy a premium system, usually with some extra markup and the title 'workstation' or 'server' to get Linux or No OS. We want to be able to buy Grandma the same $299 special, minus $40 because we don't want Vista and load Ubuntu on it.
If you are running a burn in suite that runs on top of windows it is useless anyway. For instance, how could you test RAM with something like Vista loaded and preventing access to a couple gigs?
Good burn in suites are run from trimmed linux boots or DOS/DR-DOS/custom os/etc. As a rule they are loaded from a boot disk and never installed onto the hard drive.
The biggest assumption in your post is that Dell runs a burn-in diagnostic. This is probably not likely.
I'm not sure how Dell does things on their assembly line. But I imagine they image drives in bulk and then just plug in a preimaged drive into the system. Providing an option for drives without operating systems is as easy as giving the assembly line grunt two stacks of drives. They already have facilities for providing customization so they must be tracking options for given pcs.