"You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage."
There comes a time when you really have to move on. You know, a rolling stone gathers no moss and all.
Having said that, this is one area where FOSS outshines CSS. While new stuff is being released all the time older stuff is being supported by someone or at least support can be found for it (either for hire or other means). In either event, I see this as a good point to push for FOSS.
"There's a message here for anybody running an affiliate program; you need to monitor what the third parties are doing," she said. "If you are using a business model that recruits others, you are strictly liable for the practices of those third parties. It's not just the people who push the button. It's the business that provides the financial incentive. The law is clear and strict."
So how does this apply to the poor company that gets Joe-jobbed? I see this a boon to those that practice that form of spam.
"Easy. The RIAA can ask to subpoena your computer as evidence and look for any traces of downloaded music or filesharing programs (remember, civil courts require a much smaller burden of proof than criminal ones)."
And if your wifi was hacked and they didn't find anything you have one hell of a counter suit. Maybe that will stop the RIAA madness when they lose a couple million. Besides, if it goes to jury I highly doubt the RIAA will get the result they think they will get. Nothing like jury nullification. Most defendants would give up well before then (a fact the RIAA is counting on) but eventually they will latch onto someone that won't roll over. Only time will tell.
There is a difference between a GIS user and a map user. A GIS user can relate different data sources to display it is a way that shows things you won't get on a street map. You can't tell me where the power grid is weak on a street map but I can with GIS. Don't confuse the ability of making maps with the ability to read them.
Yes, I have used Grass and think it is fine as a project goes. It has a long uphill battle to go to meet the efficiency of ESRI or for that matter MapInfo. The problem with grass is it is CLI with a GUI kludge in tcltk no less. It is flexible though and tries to integrate the various data sources but falls well short on the usability front. Until a real GUI can be made for it I suspect grass will remain off the radar screens of most GIS users. Just my.02
"EVERYTHING should be released. I, for one, would like the rule to be if you want to come in and get it, it's TAXPAYER OWNED/FUNDED and you can do so. Short of plans for nuclear silos or locations of CIA monitoring stations, what compelling reason is there for not letting people know the location of water/gas services?"
Then exactly where do you draw the line? I work GIS for the state of WV and have worked it for FEMA. GIS data often has more data behind it then just points, polygons, and lines. As an example, I give you Teleregistration data. This is data collected every time you call the 1-800 number for FEMA assistance. That data is used in GIS for various things and contains things like how much you make a year, how much you owe and to whom, how much you received from insurance, how much you received in grants, how much damage you had, etc...Would you want that data released if it was your information? Just where do you draw the line?
"but when the RIAA et. al. get Congress to legislate what they cannot acheive in court they will win the war."
The RIAA has already tried (and continues to try) to get themselves "exempt" from antitrust laws. I find that a kick in the rubber parts! A Congressionally issued monopoly to a monopoly organization and they don't want to be called a monopoly....Go figure.
This is replying to a piece of your #2: "If it's really just a home workstation, dual-booting into Windows when you want to play a Windows-only game doesn't seem like such a huge deal?"
It is a big deal for me given that I don't want to add all the crap that a prudent Windows user has to add just to hook the damned thing up to the net. Today's games are increasingly requiring online access and the moment you hook a Windows box up you had better have antivirus, firewall, spyware checker, etc... It all adds up. Also you forgot one BIG reason why loads of folks have left Windows. I'll add it below:
#3. Some people actually disagree with the Microsoft EULA, their philosophy, and their business practices. This is the reason I left and won't ever go back.
As to Transgaming, I really do believe they are doing both good and bad for gaming in Linux. The good is they are making it possible to play those games. The bad is it is taking away a movement to push game developers to make NATIVE Linux ports of their games. This may change as more and more people make the switch. Who knows what the future holds.
"Again, you're incorrect. For example, when Disney bought Miramax, it did so, putting its money behind Harvey Weinstein et al., with certain profit expectations. Had those expectations been lower (for example, due to en estimated strong negative impact of piracy), Disney may have built a new theme park, or expanded its international investment in merchandising, or even paid a dividend so that investors could take their money to a more profitable venue than the entertainment industry. Miramax, without Disney's power behind it, would have had to stick to one or two movies a year rather than many."
Again, that is pure smokescreen. Pirating is the least thing on investor's minds especially when multi-billion dollar movies are in the offing. Again, when the MPAA can point to a script and say HONESTLY, "We didn't make that movie because we were afraid it would be pirated" is the day I will back them completely. Until then, I will not support the MPAA contention that pirating puts people out of work. Hell, they can't even point to a case like you suggest and say, "we didn't get any investors because of pirates". If they could even do that then I might give it some thought.
"If you've already decided in your mind that the worst that can happen is xyz, and this about code written by others, then I don't think you should be responsible for security of any computer! Ever!"
The difference is that with Linux the code is there for you (or someone you pay) to inspect and build from there. Windows doesn't give that option. I'm not saying there won't be attempts. I am saying that when there are it is more likely to be fixed faster in an open source environment.
If you are in the computer security field which would you be more apt to trust; code you can see or code you can't?
"Production companies are ultimately ventures to make money for their investors. If making movies becomes unprofitable or significantly less profitable (due to actual or percieved theft) fewer movies will be produced."
This is flawed logic. The MPAA has never been able to point to a script and say, "This movie wasn't made because we were afraid it would be pirated." This is all a smokescreen generated to push the idea that the studios live hand-to-mount and that pirating really hurts them.
"The wealthly investors that are putting their money up will find some other less risky or higher ROI avenue to use their money and the stuntmen and painters will indeed be SOL."
You will always have some risk takers. The ROI is high even with pirating given that the movies that are pirated are usually high dollar hits. Again, this is a smokescreen and pure BS. When the MPAA can point to even one script and say, "we won't be making that movie because we are afraid it will be pirated" then I might give some credence to their spew...
"It doesn't matter how much ten people or a hundred bitch and moan about the injustice of new law, if a corporation is backing it with the promise of 200,000 dollars to a politicians election fund, who are they going to listen to.
Independent volunteers who can't profit or even be elected from their positions on a law review board might provide a system that has a less corporate bent."
Then why elect government officials if you are going to short circuit them with "Independant volenteers"? That is putting way too much power in the hands of a few. No, your solution is little more than a dictatorship.
"If a group of politicians or their financial supporters stands to profit from keeping an unreasonable law on the books, the chances of that law being amended to something reasonable are slim to none. Look at the number of people in prison in the US for possession of pot. Supposedly it's one million people. Now if someone possesses or uses a drug without infringing on the rights of others, then what business is it of the government. But the "War on Drugs" generates rather substantial incomes for some pretty big companies. Refer to the National Geographic article on the cocoa growers of Columbia. They're giving up growing any subsistence crops because Roundup gets dumped indiscriminately on the hillsides to destroy cocoa plantations. Despite the fact that the new cocoa strains are roundup resistant, and the farmers food crops are not. Companies like Monsanto get big contracts, little people get fucked."
Then it is up to the public to get informed and actually grow a backbone to vote those who supported those "unjust laws" out. Our system is far from perfect but the system you would propose would be worse. What is to stop one or more of those "volunteers" from being corrupted by the very same companies who you say are funding politicians of today?
It takes several factors to make a republic work porperly (and yes, we have a republic NOT a democracy). First, a free press that is unencumbered. Currently, our press is encmbered because of media consolodation. Second, it takes an active electorate willing to have an attention span longer than 15 seconds. Lastly, it takes a judicial system that is willing to uphold what is right and not be afraid to strike down unjust laws. That isn't happening today with the right saying they are going to get rid of "activist judges" and the left saying that the right is overloading the system with conservatives.
What really needs to happen is the earlier restrictions on media ownership need to be put back. Until the media is unshackled, you will never get a true picture of what is going on. Second, campaign finance reform needs enacted in a meaningful way. Set a dollar amount cap that a candidate can use on their election. And lastly, if you really want to see a shake up in congress impose term limits just like they are on presidents. That should make things a little harder to control.
"I'd like to see laws expire after a predetermined amount of time"
That's why Congress invented a little thing called an amendment. The amendment is used to not only add new lines but to remove obsolete lines of law. Let me give you a small example:
A favorite topic here on/. has been amended no less than 50 times since 1976... Copyright law. They added new parts (DMCA, term extensions) and deleted other parts (registration requirements). Another instance that goes one step further is to amend the constitution itself. Prohibition is an example of this.
"You currently have port 25 open and your outgoing data rate is 1.2 mbps on that port. Are you sure this is what you want?::user clicks ok, returns to browsing pr0n::"
Or more likely just hits as the default would be "ok"....
"Uh, why would I give my daughter's email out to anyone when i'm signing up for things, if I wanted her email private?"
You wouldn't but anybody else who had it (i.e. her friends who were signing up) just may.It isn't just your info they want but the info on your friends & family. Have you ever clicked one of those and seen what is required?
"Also, why would the 'evil corporations' post emails that they paid for to alt.sex.milf?"
The 'evil corporations' aren't going to be the ones who could post it (or worse) but the people they are selling it to are. Not everyone who buys those lists are right in the head....
"By the way, I could sell the iPod and use the money from it to buy McAfee Spamkiller AND come out with a profit. It's a win-win situation."
And you completely ignored the second half of my post. You don't get the iPod *FIRST* but only *AFTER* you have jumped through whatever hoops they feel you need to jump through to get it. This includes having to buy loads of crap that would far exceed the cost of the iPod.
"I don't think most people care their information is being sold away. It's really not that big of a deal."
It is a big deal. How would you like your 10 year old daughter's email winding up on every porn list known to man? Or maybe your mother's home address, phone #, email posted to alt.sex.milf?
"You can spam me all you please, if you'll give me a free iPod first."
But that's just the point. They don't give it to you *FIRST* but only after you have pimped your friend's and family's information out *AND* they have spent $$$$ on the cheap baubles offered.
"Yeah, I agree that our government is screwed up. And I completely despise our two-party system. But the important thing to understand is that our government is screwed up because a majority of people are VOTING for it to be screwed up."
Not when thousands of votes are thrown out, not counted for one reason or another, or invalidated by a court. Just ask Washington State about it.
"If you want to fix our government, you have to enlighten the people voting for it. You won't solve anything by teaching people how to blow shit up."
A very difficult proposition when corporations own both the politicians as well as the media that put them in. Add to that the media concentration (over 90% of US media is owned by 7 companies) and it leads to disasters like Iraq.
As to violent revolution, I think you are correct in that it serves no purpose to "blow shit up". To quote Isaac Asimov's character Salvor Hardin in Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent!"
"Even if he can't be charged under CAN-SPAM, doesn't this fit under existing laws?"
Yes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the proper law covering unauthorized access. I suspect AOL wanted to use CAN-SPAM because it is the legislation it helped to ram-rod through Congress. Gotta justify those lobbyists somehow...
"Apparently, the prosecutors didn't believe they could prove those crimes, since the claim doesn't include charges of those crimes. The judge isn't allowed to create charges: the judge can only determine the validity of charges made by the prosecutors."
It should have been filed under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act instead of the CAN-SPAM act. The battle they found going in was it wasn't a violation of the CAN-SPAM act since he didn't send spam. He did however violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (a felony in the US) by illegally accessing AOL's network. I'm not sure if they can refile or not but they should use the Fraud / Abuse act instead.
"I call you on your straw-man argument. I never mentioned "average Windows user". Last I looked, Windows users don't have access to commands like "dd" or the ability to mount devices as "/dev/hda1", etc."
It's not my strawman argument when it was you who brought Linux into a windows topic...
"Also, it only takes a "friend of a friend" to do it, and make a batch file available for anyone to be able to copy the relevant files from an installed copy to a new install directory, and another batch file to copy those files from the install directory to the appropriate directories on another machine, and run regsrv32 on any ocx, etc."
But that does nothing for registry entries (the topic in this thread)...
"Then it's a simple matter to post the 2 batch files on the net. The batch files themselves are perfectly legal (especially since they have a legit use as being able to make working bakups of legitimately obtained software)."
Again, how does this change the registry entries required for a given program? It is more likely that Windows will crash with this method.
Most windows programs add huge modifications to the registry and some even add checksums (autodesk anyone) that verifies the copy running is the one installed. The checksum is generated during install and is different for every install (even from the same install disk). Remember, we are dealing here with proprietary companies that see pirates behind every corner.
"If at your college all macs have anti-virus and anti-spyware programs running that only means a realy good salesman sold them or the guy that ordered them got a free iPod with it."
Or the IT dept. are all MSCE and feel naked without them...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
"You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage."
There comes a time when you really have to move on. You know, a rolling stone gathers no moss and all.
Having said that, this is one area where FOSS outshines CSS. While new stuff is being released all the time older stuff is being supported by someone or at least support can be found for it (either for hire or other means). In either event, I see this as a good point to push for FOSS.
B.
So how does this apply to the poor company that gets Joe-jobbed?
I see this a boon to those that practice that form of spam.
B.
I know I'm late on this but still...
"Easy. The RIAA can ask to subpoena your computer as evidence and look for any traces of downloaded music or filesharing programs (remember, civil courts require a much smaller burden of proof than criminal ones)."
And if your wifi was hacked and they didn't find anything you have one hell of a counter suit. Maybe that will stop the RIAA madness when they lose a couple million. Besides, if it goes to jury I highly doubt the RIAA will get the result they think they will get. Nothing like jury nullification. Most defendants would give up well before then (a fact the RIAA is counting on) but eventually they will latch onto someone that won't roll over. Only time will tell.
B.
There is a trademark on it as well as some more restrictive uses. For more info see:
hereB.
There is a difference between a GIS user and a map user. A GIS user can relate different data sources to display it is a way that shows things you won't get on a street map. You can't tell me where the power grid is weak on a street map but I can with GIS. Don't confuse the ability of making maps with the ability to read them.
B.
"It aint just cheap, it's free (as in beer)."
.02
Yes, I have used Grass and think it is fine as a project goes. It has a long uphill battle to go to meet the efficiency of ESRI or for that matter MapInfo. The problem with grass is it is CLI with a GUI kludge in tcltk no less. It is flexible though and tries to integrate the various data sources but falls well short on the usability front. Until a real GUI can be made for it I suspect grass will remain off the radar screens of most GIS users. Just my
B.
"EVERYTHING should be released. I, for one, would like the rule to be if you want to come in and get it, it's TAXPAYER OWNED/FUNDED and you can do so. Short of plans for nuclear silos or locations of CIA monitoring stations, what compelling reason is there for not letting people know the location of water/gas services?"
Then exactly where do you draw the line? I work GIS for the state of WV and have worked it for FEMA. GIS data often has more data behind it then just points, polygons, and lines. As an example, I give you Teleregistration data. This is data collected every time you call the 1-800 number for FEMA assistance. That data is used in GIS for various things and contains things like how much you make a year, how much you owe and to whom, how much you received from insurance, how much you received in grants, how much damage you had, etc...Would you want that data released if it was your information? Just where do you draw the line?
B.
"but when the RIAA et. al. get Congress to legislate what they cannot acheive in court they will win the war."
The RIAA has already tried (and continues to try) to get themselves "exempt" from antitrust laws. I find that a kick in the rubber parts! A Congressionally issued monopoly to a monopoly organization and they don't want to be called a monopoly....Go figure.
B.
"Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (wtf?)"
I guess they wanted to stop baseball card trading...
B.
Given the numbers I don't think so.
B.
This is replying to a piece of your #2:
"If it's really just a home workstation, dual-booting into Windows when you want to play a Windows-only game doesn't seem like such a huge deal?"
It is a big deal for me given that I don't want to add all the crap that a prudent Windows user has to add just to hook the damned thing up to the net. Today's games are increasingly requiring online access and the moment you hook a Windows box up you had better have antivirus, firewall, spyware checker, etc... It all adds up. Also you forgot one BIG reason why loads of folks have left Windows. I'll add it below:
#3. Some people actually disagree with the Microsoft EULA, their philosophy, and their business practices. This is the reason I left and won't ever go back.
As to Transgaming, I really do believe they are doing both good and bad for gaming in Linux. The good is they are making it possible to play those games. The bad is it is taking away a movement to push game developers to make NATIVE Linux ports of their games. This may change as more and more people make the switch. Who knows what the future holds.
B.
"Again, you're incorrect. For example, when Disney bought Miramax, it did so, putting its money behind Harvey Weinstein et al., with certain profit expectations. Had those expectations been lower (for example, due to en estimated strong negative impact of piracy), Disney may have built a new theme park, or expanded its international investment in merchandising, or even paid a dividend so that investors could take their money to a more profitable venue than the entertainment industry. Miramax, without Disney's power behind it, would have had to stick to one or two movies a year rather than many."
Again, that is pure smokescreen. Pirating is the least thing on investor's minds especially when multi-billion dollar movies are in the offing. Again, when the MPAA can point to a script and say HONESTLY, "We didn't make that movie because we were afraid it would be pirated" is the day I will back them completely. Until then, I will not support the MPAA contention that pirating puts people out of work. Hell, they can't even point to a case like you suggest and say, "we didn't get any investors because of pirates". If they could even do that then I might give it some thought.
B.
"If you've already decided in your mind that the worst that can happen is xyz, and this about code written by others, then I don't think you should be responsible for security of any computer! Ever!"
The difference is that with Linux the code is there for you (or someone you pay) to inspect and build from there. Windows doesn't give that option. I'm not saying there won't be attempts. I am saying that when there are it is more likely to be fixed faster in an open source environment.
If you are in the computer security field which would you be more apt to trust; code you can see or code you can't?
B.
"Production companies are ultimately ventures to make money for their investors. If making movies becomes unprofitable or significantly less profitable (due to actual or percieved theft) fewer movies will be produced."
This is flawed logic. The MPAA has never been able to point to a script and say, "This movie wasn't made because we were afraid it would be pirated." This is all a smokescreen generated to push the idea that the studios live hand-to-mount and that pirating really hurts them.
"The wealthly investors that are putting their money up will find some other less risky or higher ROI avenue to use their money and the stuntmen and painters will indeed be SOL."
You will always have some risk takers. The ROI is high even with pirating given that the movies that are pirated are usually high dollar hits. Again, this is a smokescreen and pure BS. When the MPAA can point to even one script and say, "we won't be making that movie because we are afraid it will be pirated" then I might give some credence to their spew...
B.
"It doesn't matter how much ten people or a hundred bitch and moan about the injustice of new law, if a corporation is backing it with the promise of 200,000 dollars to a politicians election fund, who are they going to listen to.
Independent volunteers who can't profit or even be elected from their positions on a law review board might provide a system that has a less corporate bent."
Then why elect government officials if you are going to short circuit them with "Independant volenteers"? That is putting way too much power in the hands of a few. No, your solution is little more than a dictatorship.
"If a group of politicians or their financial supporters stands to profit from keeping an unreasonable law on the books, the chances of that law being amended to something reasonable are slim to none. Look at the number of people in prison in the US for possession of pot. Supposedly it's one million people. Now if someone possesses or uses a drug without infringing on the rights of others, then what business is it of the government. But the "War on Drugs" generates rather substantial incomes for some pretty big companies. Refer to the National Geographic article on the cocoa growers of Columbia. They're giving up growing any subsistence crops because Roundup gets dumped indiscriminately on the hillsides to destroy cocoa plantations. Despite the fact that the new cocoa strains are roundup resistant, and the farmers food crops are not. Companies like Monsanto get big contracts, little people get fucked."
Then it is up to the public to get informed and actually grow a backbone to vote those who supported those "unjust laws" out. Our system is far from perfect but the system you would propose would be worse. What is to stop one or more of those "volunteers" from being corrupted by the very same companies who you say are funding politicians of today?
It takes several factors to make a republic work porperly (and yes, we have a republic NOT a democracy). First, a free press that is unencumbered. Currently, our press is encmbered because of media consolodation. Second, it takes an active electorate willing to have an attention span longer than 15 seconds. Lastly, it takes a judicial system that is willing to uphold what is right and not be afraid to strike down unjust laws. That isn't happening today with the right saying they are going to get rid of "activist judges" and the left saying that the right is overloading the system with conservatives.
What really needs to happen is the earlier restrictions on media ownership need to be put back. Until the media is unshackled, you will never get a true picture of what is going on. Second, campaign finance reform needs enacted in a meaningful way. Set a dollar amount cap that a candidate can use on their election. And lastly, if you really want to see a shake up in congress impose term limits just like they are on presidents. That should make things a little harder to control.
B.
"I'd like to see laws expire after a predetermined amount of time"
/. has been amended no less than 50 times since 1976... Copyright law. They added new parts (DMCA, term extensions) and deleted other parts (registration requirements). Another instance that goes one step further is to amend the constitution itself. Prohibition is an example of this.
That's why Congress invented a little thing called an amendment. The amendment is used to not only add new lines but to remove obsolete lines of law. Let me give you a small example:
A favorite topic here on
B.
"ALERT!
::user clicks ok, returns to browsing pr0n::"
"You currently have port 25 open and your outgoing data rate is 1.2 mbps on that port. Are you sure this is what you want?
Or more likely just hits as the default would be "ok"....
B.
"Uh, why would I give my daughter's email out to anyone when i'm signing up for things, if I wanted her email private?"
You wouldn't but anybody else who had it (i.e. her friends who were signing up) just may.It isn't just your info they want but the info on your friends & family. Have you ever clicked one of those and seen what is required?
"Also, why would the 'evil corporations' post emails that they paid for to alt.sex.milf?"
The 'evil corporations' aren't going to be the ones who could post it (or worse) but the people they are selling it to are. Not everyone who buys those lists are right in the head....
"By the way, I could sell the iPod and use the money from it to buy McAfee Spamkiller AND come out with a profit. It's a win-win situation."
And you completely ignored the second half of my post. You don't get the iPod *FIRST* but only *AFTER* you have jumped through whatever hoops they feel you need to jump through to get it. This includes having to buy loads of crap that would far exceed the cost of the iPod.
B.
"I don't think most people care their information is being sold away. It's really not that big of a deal."
It is a big deal. How would you like your 10 year old daughter's email winding up on every porn list known to man? Or maybe your mother's home address, phone #, email posted to alt.sex.milf?
"You can spam me all you please, if you'll give me a free iPod first."
But that's just the point. They don't give it to you *FIRST* but only after you have pimped your friend's and family's information out *AND* they have spent $$$$ on the cheap baubles offered.
B.
"Yeah, I agree that our government is screwed up. And I completely despise our two-party system. But the important thing to understand is that our government is screwed up because a majority of people are VOTING for it to be screwed up."
Not when thousands of votes are thrown out, not counted for one reason or another, or invalidated by a court. Just ask Washington State about it.
"If you want to fix our government, you have to enlighten the people voting for it. You won't solve anything by teaching people how to blow shit up."
A very difficult proposition when corporations own both the politicians as well as the media that put them in. Add to that the media concentration (over 90% of US media is owned by 7 companies) and it leads to disasters like Iraq.
As to violent revolution, I think you are correct in that it serves no purpose to "blow shit up". To quote Isaac Asimov's character Salvor Hardin in Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent!"
B.
"Even if he can't be charged under CAN-SPAM, doesn't this fit under existing laws?"
Yes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the proper law covering unauthorized access. I suspect AOL wanted to use CAN-SPAM because it is the legislation it helped to ram-rod through Congress. Gotta justify those lobbyists somehow...
B.
"Apparently, the prosecutors didn't believe they could prove those crimes, since the claim doesn't include charges of those crimes. The judge isn't allowed to create charges: the judge can only determine the validity of charges made by the prosecutors."
It should have been filed under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act instead of the CAN-SPAM act. The battle they found going in was it wasn't a violation of the CAN-SPAM act since he didn't send spam. He did however violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (a felony in the US) by illegally accessing AOL's network. I'm not sure if they can refile or not but they should use the Fraud / Abuse act instead.
B.
"I call you on your straw-man argument.
I never mentioned "average Windows user". Last I looked, Windows users don't have access to commands like "dd" or the ability to mount devices as "/dev/hda1", etc."
It's not my strawman argument when it was you who brought Linux into a windows topic...
"Also, it only takes a "friend of a friend" to do it, and make a batch file available for anyone to be able to copy the relevant files from an installed copy to a new install directory, and another batch file to copy those files from the install directory to the appropriate directories on another machine, and run regsrv32 on any ocx, etc."
But that does nothing for registry entries (the topic in this thread)...
"Then it's a simple matter to post the 2 batch files on the net. The batch files themselves are perfectly legal (especially since they have a legit use as being able to make working bakups of legitimately obtained software)."
Again, how does this change the registry entries required for a given program? It is more likely that Windows will crash with this method.
Most windows programs add huge modifications to the registry and some even add checksums (autodesk anyone) that verifies the copy running is the one installed. The checksum is generated during install and is different for every install (even from the same install disk). Remember, we are dealing here with proprietary companies that see pirates behind every corner.
B.
"If at your college all macs have anti-virus and anti-spyware programs running that only means a realy good salesman sold them or the guy that ordered them got a free iPod with it."
Or the IT dept. are all MSCE and feel naked without them...;-)
B.
And you honestly think the average windows user is going to do all that?!?!?
RRRRIIIIGGGGTTTT!
B.