I've had -very- little trouble with getting support a few times that I've had a genuinely difficult problem. On the other hand, I made sure of two things. I had made SURE to go look for the answer myself, and try any relevant solutions found by googling or searching the forum. In most cases, this -does- solve the problem, no further effort required. On the other hand, when such things didn't work, I did go ask for help. Each time, I made sure to mention "I found solutions x, y, and z on google/forum x, but when I tried it it (did nothing/caused a different problem/etc.) This not only saves the experts' time and yours (they're not suggesting things you already tried), but showing that you were willing to do your own homework before taking up someone else's time is always going to make someone more favorably inclined to help you.
On the other hand, I've seen as many people sent to the best self-help website on the net for asking about obvious Windows problems as well as obvious Linux ones. It's frustrating to answer an obvious question 500 times, when the answer is the first search result on google. That's true whether you're supporting Windows, Linux, or anything else. Especially when doing it for free.
As for the people who "don't want to learn anything about computers, dammit!" Fine. Don't. And don't use them. Or at least don't hook your soon-to-be zombie up to the public Internet. We don't let people who "don't want to learn a thing about operating a car!" drive one. This doesn't mean you do have to know how to rebuild the engine, but it DOES mean you ought to know how to change a flat and stay on the correct side of the road.
Well, given that both our user ID's are in the 700000 range, they're not by any means the highest here, and not everyone registers, I'd say that point is well proven. Show me anyone that hasn't wasted a bit of time here or there and I'll show you someone that was stillborn.
I'm not a spelling nazi, and don't normally care, and really don't even here, but the thought of an older version of Maynard spitting out that line at an up-and-comer crossed my mind, and I just had to post it. No offense was intended, although you'd not be the first not to like my humor. Still, seeing one of my favorite Tool songs posted here and actually being on topic caught my attention.
If he's only wanting to do a few basic things, the software that comes with the camera -is- going to be sufficient for many users. On the other hand, if you want professional grade results, you have to learn to use a professional grade tool at a professional level. And that takes time. This guy's asking for a miracle, not a program.
As to photographers-professional ones that make their living that way-I'd venture a guess that they can do those "45 things" in their sleep. Because they took the time to LEARN, just as you have to do with anything you wish to do well, whether it's playing a guitar or editing a photo.
Exactly correct-I notice my system performance -increasing- as it shows less free RAM and has been used for a while. This isn't a flaw, any more then CPU caching is. Now, of course, having too many programs open at once will eventually degrade performance, but the only way around that is to add RAM. Once you have enough RAM to accommodate the programs you normally run, however, it's not a Bad Thing for RAM to be utilized.
the dude from Tool also wrote
"i sold my sole to make a record"
"then you brought one"
"Young man, when I was a boy, we had to sell off the bottoms of our shoes to make records, goddammit! And now they're letting any old idiot do it for the price of their soul!"
Not specifically necessary, though. My wife has a 1999 Mercury Sable that gets about 19 mpg city/27 highway (and when I've tested gas mileage between fillups it actually averages about 25.) I also still have my old Toyota Corolla that gets 30/35 (and usually nearer the 35) which we'll generally use for commuting to work or any other time we're not taking the kids, and sometimes even for a short trip with them. Having a kid does not mean you need to run out and get the newest Ford Excess. Of course, part of the waste as well is in people feeling the obsessive need to buy a new car every couple years, and it takes a ton of resources just to build a car and get it to the dealership. Why? My 16-year-old Corolla still runs great with almost 180000 miles on it. I've taken care of it, but nothing special aside from routine maintenance. I'd really prefer not to have another car payment, thanks anyway.
Here's a big part of the problem, though (excerpted from fueleconomy.gov):
The Gas Guzzler Tax Exit EPA disclaimer is imposed on manufacturers on the sale of new model year cars (not minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks) whose fuel economy fails to meet required levels, to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The fuel economy figures used to determine the tax are different from the fuel economy values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service and paid by the manufacturer. The amount of the tax is displayed on the vehicle's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).
Apparently, the same idiots work at the EPA (and in Congress, but if you didn't know that...) as work at FEMA-THOSE ARE THE GAS GUZZLERS! Why are they exempt from this tax? I could see making certain exceptions based on need (pickups for farm and construction work, SUV's/minivans for youth organizations that routinely haul 7 kids somewhere, vans/pickups for delivery companies, etc.) but those that want them for "status" (and yes, some people do get pickups for status, there are as many wannabe "cowboys" as anything else out there) should be paying the same premium as the guy buying a Corvette or a Viper for the same reason.
So, in a large sense, everything but "performance" type cars gets a free pass on their consumption.
...this guy knows how to pronounce the word "nuclear". Has it ever bothered anyone else, having a guy with a finger on the "nukyalur" button who's too stupid to even say it correctly?
As to GPL'd projects, copyright doesn't threaten them immensely-but patents do. And since there are so many of them it's impossible to look through even a small fraction of them, it's rather like walking through a minefield blindfolded, and hoping if you do step on a mine the trigger's broken (or no one cares enough to sue.) Besides that, sometimes software patents are granted so broadly that they cover damn near everything.
As to Wikipedia-consider this scenario. Look, I just found a picture that perfectly illustrates this point. It'll be perfect to upload to-oh, wait, never mind, it's copyrighted. By default. Even if the person who took it doesn't care, even if I can't locate or contact the person who took it to -see- if they care. If we'd go back to short (5-10 year) copyright terms, and mandatory registration (i.e., the default situation is NO copyright, unless you register and mark explicitly otherwise), that would be fine. The current situation is that even this post is considered "copyrighted"! If you wanted to post it somewhere, because you liked it, hated it, wanted to post your ridicule or critique of it, etc., you could get sued! Now, of course, I consider anything I post to be in the public domain, but unless I'd said that-you don't know. Automatic copyright combined with massively excessive length of restriction greatly diminishes the richness of the public domain by presuming that everything is -not- in it-and won't be for over 100 years. It should be the opposite-public domain unless you give a crap enough to register the copyright, and mark it specifically on the copyrighted piece. Current copyright is a threat to the richness and availability of useful information in the public domain altogether, and that's exactly what Wikipedia relies on.
Cool! Now where do I go to legally, freely download the various versions (an important capability in itself), get the source code (another issue of importance), and download a liveCD Windows NT distro to try out?
Well, it's not working as is (from the sound of it), so I certainly can't see that trying a different approach could -hurt-. And if the fact is, that the IRS has a flawed software development procedure, that may be leading to unfair audits (or unfair advantage for those who know how to game the system, and make no mistake, if it's possible, people are doing it, security through obscurity never works), then that needs to be public knowledge, so that something can be -done- about it. And that's some of the least of importance-if, for example, there are flaws in voting machine software (as there is good reason to suspect), the public has every right to know that as well.
You go ahead and keep laughing at the public's right to know. This is just one more example of why it should be enforced in all cases-99% of the time, the government is keeping a secret in order to cover up wrongdoing, malice, or negligence on the part of an official, not in the interests of "security". In this case, sounds like negligence-the procedure isn't working, so it needs to be changed. It is also partly the contractor at fault-if the contractor is telling the IRS "Sure, we'll be ready!", and the truth is they won't, and know they can't be, they are lying. Don't varnish it, that's all it is. Again, this is something the public has the right to know.
You're ignoring a couple centuries of imperialism, when Europe colonized Africa and stripped it of minerals and resources, as well as of self-governance.
From parent post:
That "mess" has always been there since the Romans lost control.
Typing "You're exactly right" would've been faster, actually. Or were you disagreeing, and simply unaware on which continent Rome is located?
Exactly my point. I can't. Neither, likely, could you. But a few thousand just might find it doable. Of course, if there are problems, bringing them to public attention might not be a bad idea either, tax code changes are passed throughout the year. Why not start writing next year's tax stuff on April 16?
I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US signing the ticket is a promise to appear in court (or pay the ticket by mail, or otherwise take care of it) and acts as a bond (in this case, since it's a minor infraction, your signed promise to appear is bond enough and no cash bond must be made.) Therefore, if you refuse to sign the ticket, you will be arrested.
So, the choice becomes in that case, sign the ticket, or be arrested and your car impounded. I think any contract made under those circumstances (other then the promise to appear) would likely been found to have been coerced by the authorities and thus invalidated.
However, this becomes moot in a DUI case, because you're going to be arrested -anyway-, and likely have to post cash bail. So in the relevant case here, there's no ticket -to- sign.
A. An important system has serious flaws, and
B. The designers of this system would rather that not come to light, because they can't or won't fix it.
And this is a good reason for leaving it closed? Seems to make the very case for opening it to me.
Closed-source systems, if left insecure, will be exploited. (See related entry under popular closed-source operating systems.) On the other hand, open-source systems which suck will have their flaws found and corrected by thousands of eyes-and for every person who finds and attempts to exploit a flaw, 5 will be working to fix it.
What if the Breathalyzer code -is- equally flawed? The code in the systems used to do DNA and ballistics testing? The code used in voting machines? Don't we have -every- right to see for ourselves, instead of accept "Trust us"?
Yeah, because it's a lot harder to get hold of a computer and a coder then, say, weapons-grade plutonium for a nuke, quieting technology for advanced submarines, or advanced fighter engines. And anyone who can get hold of engineers who can design such things would most certainly be incapable of finding a computer scientist.
And then if you find a problem (or potential problem), what good is it if the NDA prohibits you from bringing it up at your open trial? It'd be a pretty meaningless review if you're then prohibited from disclosing problems that are found.
At which point, some corps may decide to violate it anyway and bury the guy in lawyers.
Well, that's litigation reform, which is an entirely different (but equally necessary) topic. And yes, Edison ran a corporation, but I would venture a guess that most (there are exceptions) CEO's are not down in the lab doing R&D work, and many likely can only vaguely comprehend what's going on down there. Still, you raise some excellent points-I think we're roughly on the same side here, in that reforms are certainly needed, fine-tuning is certainly always a good idea. But the status quo of "a patent on a round object, placed under vehicles to ensure their smooth locomotion" is unsustainable.
You do make a good point, but quite realistically, say the rest of my proposed reforms went into place (real, tangible, stuff -only-, and only either totally novel inventions or revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, improvements in existing ones.) Even now, corporations hold the vast majority of patents, Thomas Edison the 15th in his basement lab does not. If that were put into place, sure, a few basement inventors still might come up with a great concept. Easy enough-we change "must produce or you lose it" to "must be producing or making a good-faith effort to begin or prepare for production or you lose it". That way, just -by- offering to license you my patent for manufacture, I'm making a good faith effort, and your refusal doesn't stop that. However, if a company holds the patent, and is simultaneously unwilling to license it at a reasonable rate or produce it themselves, and is just waiting for someone to step on the mine to get a legal settlement, they lose the patent.
In the meantime, someone who holds the "gateway" idea and is refusing to license also faces loss of their patent. So, in the end, the small inventor actually wins out, because no one's any longer -allowed- to hold out like that.
PRODUCE the thing you patented, or lose the patent. Period. And if you are producing it, be treated (and regulated) as a monopoly in that area, since patents by definition grant monopolies. Patents only on real, tangible, physical items-no business methods, no software, no genetics.
There is NO excuse for the way the patent system is currently. Just because you're the first to do something doesn't mean it's non-obvious. Incremental changes or "improvements" should not be patentable-the inventor of cell phone technology should get a patent, the guy that figures out a better way to use it should not. Nor, generally, should the guy that figures out how to extend range by 10%.
Hopefully, larger companies continually getting hit by these things will lead them to recognize that pretty soon you're not going to be able to move, breathe, or fart without infringing on something patented. I certainly hope that leads them to reconsider the path they're going down, and use their influence to do something worthwhile for once.
And if you're big enough to be doing these "thousands of purchases", you'll find vendors -very- happy to work with your needs, and work out exactly how it should be done. On the other hand, Uncle Joe's Bar that needs a couple systems for the office in the back room, will do just fine with a vanilla Fedora or Ubuntu and (Open|Star)Office preinstalled. Either way, it's entirely possible, and need not be tremendously complex in all cases.
This conversation hasn't been about crackers whatsoever, so I decline to debate on your offtopic strawman.
As to the analogy, it fails-humans have an inherent right to privacy, but I don't see that corporations really do. This is, of course, as it should be. Quite realistically, Microsoft should've been split, as the judge originally ordered, what penalty is a -fine- to a corporation which is clearing billions a year? They got the equivalent of a speeding ticket for significant antitrust violations. They are -known- to deliberately break interoperability in order to hurt their competitors. They are -known- to use underhanded bullying tactics with OEM's/retailers. They are -known- to raise prices on those who don't agree to their massively restrictive contracts. Again, what is wrong with the natural suspicion of wrongdoing from a known wrongdoer?
Slashdot Mirror
I've had -very- little trouble with getting support a few times that I've had a genuinely difficult problem. On the other hand, I made sure of two things. I had made SURE to go look for the answer myself, and try any relevant solutions found by googling or searching the forum. In most cases, this -does- solve the problem, no further effort required. On the other hand, when such things didn't work, I did go ask for help. Each time, I made sure to mention "I found solutions x, y, and z on google/forum x, but when I tried it it (did nothing/caused a different problem/etc.) This not only saves the experts' time and yours (they're not suggesting things you already tried), but showing that you were willing to do your own homework before taking up someone else's time is always going to make someone more favorably inclined to help you.
On the other hand, I've seen as many people sent to the best self-help website on the net for asking about obvious Windows problems as well as obvious Linux ones. It's frustrating to answer an obvious question 500 times, when the answer is the first search result on google. That's true whether you're supporting Windows, Linux, or anything else. Especially when doing it for free.
As for the people who "don't want to learn anything about computers, dammit!" Fine. Don't. And don't use them. Or at least don't hook your soon-to-be zombie up to the public Internet. We don't let people who "don't want to learn a thing about operating a car!" drive one. This doesn't mean you do have to know how to rebuild the engine, but it DOES mean you ought to know how to change a flat and stay on the correct side of the road.
"Wasting time is an important part of living."
Well, given that both our user ID's are in the 700000 range, they're not by any means the highest here, and not everyone registers, I'd say that point is well proven. Show me anyone that hasn't wasted a bit of time here or there and I'll show you someone that was stillborn.
I'm not a spelling nazi, and don't normally care, and really don't even here, but the thought of an older version of Maynard spitting out that line at an up-and-comer crossed my mind, and I just had to post it. No offense was intended, although you'd not be the first not to like my humor. Still, seeing one of my favorite Tool songs posted here and actually being on topic caught my attention.
If he's only wanting to do a few basic things, the software that comes with the camera -is- going to be sufficient for many users. On the other hand, if you want professional grade results, you have to learn to use a professional grade tool at a professional level. And that takes time. This guy's asking for a miracle, not a program.
As to photographers-professional ones that make their living that way-I'd venture a guess that they can do those "45 things" in their sleep. Because they took the time to LEARN, just as you have to do with anything you wish to do well, whether it's playing a guitar or editing a photo.
Exactly correct-I notice my system performance -increasing- as it shows less free RAM and has been used for a while. This isn't a flaw, any more then CPU caching is. Now, of course, having too many programs open at once will eventually degrade performance, but the only way around that is to add RAM. Once you have enough RAM to accommodate the programs you normally run, however, it's not a Bad Thing for RAM to be utilized.
the dude from Tool also wrote "i sold my sole to make a record" "then you brought one"
"Young man, when I was a boy, we had to sell off the bottoms of our shoes to make records, goddammit! And now they're letting any old idiot do it for the price of their soul!"
Not specifically necessary, though. My wife has a 1999 Mercury Sable that gets about 19 mpg city/27 highway (and when I've tested gas mileage between fillups it actually averages about 25.) I also still have my old Toyota Corolla that gets 30/35 (and usually nearer the 35) which we'll generally use for commuting to work or any other time we're not taking the kids, and sometimes even for a short trip with them. Having a kid does not mean you need to run out and get the newest Ford Excess. Of course, part of the waste as well is in people feeling the obsessive need to buy a new car every couple years, and it takes a ton of resources just to build a car and get it to the dealership. Why? My 16-year-old Corolla still runs great with almost 180000 miles on it. I've taken care of it, but nothing special aside from routine maintenance. I'd really prefer not to have another car payment, thanks anyway.
Here's a big part of the problem, though (excerpted from fueleconomy.gov):
The Gas Guzzler Tax Exit EPA disclaimer is imposed on manufacturers on the sale of new model year cars (not minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks) whose fuel economy fails to meet required levels, to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The fuel economy figures used to determine the tax are different from the fuel economy values provided in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service and paid by the manufacturer. The amount of the tax is displayed on the vehicle's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).
Apparently, the same idiots work at the EPA (and in Congress, but if you didn't know that...) as work at FEMA-THOSE ARE THE GAS GUZZLERS! Why are they exempt from this tax? I could see making certain exceptions based on need (pickups for farm and construction work, SUV's/minivans for youth organizations that routinely haul 7 kids somewhere, vans/pickups for delivery companies, etc.) but those that want them for "status" (and yes, some people do get pickups for status, there are as many wannabe "cowboys" as anything else out there) should be paying the same premium as the guy buying a Corvette or a Viper for the same reason.
So, in a large sense, everything but "performance" type cars gets a free pass on their consumption.
Your idea would be great if it really worked as "one person, one vote". Unfortunately, the way it really works is "one dollar, one vote".
Until we outlaw bribe^Wcampaign contributions in their current form, we'll never see that improve.
...this guy knows how to pronounce the word "nuclear". Has it ever bothered anyone else, having a guy with a finger on the "nukyalur" button who's too stupid to even say it correctly?
Oh, alright. Just wondering.
As to GPL'd projects, copyright doesn't threaten them immensely-but patents do. And since there are so many of them it's impossible to look through even a small fraction of them, it's rather like walking through a minefield blindfolded, and hoping if you do step on a mine the trigger's broken (or no one cares enough to sue.) Besides that, sometimes software patents are granted so broadly that they cover damn near everything.
As to Wikipedia-consider this scenario. Look, I just found a picture that perfectly illustrates this point. It'll be perfect to upload to-oh, wait, never mind, it's copyrighted. By default. Even if the person who took it doesn't care, even if I can't locate or contact the person who took it to -see- if they care. If we'd go back to short (5-10 year) copyright terms, and mandatory registration (i.e., the default situation is NO copyright, unless you register and mark explicitly otherwise), that would be fine. The current situation is that even this post is considered "copyrighted"! If you wanted to post it somewhere, because you liked it, hated it, wanted to post your ridicule or critique of it, etc., you could get sued! Now, of course, I consider anything I post to be in the public domain, but unless I'd said that-you don't know. Automatic copyright combined with massively excessive length of restriction greatly diminishes the richness of the public domain by presuming that everything is -not- in it-and won't be for over 100 years. It should be the opposite-public domain unless you give a crap enough to register the copyright, and mark it specifically on the copyrighted piece. Current copyright is a threat to the richness and availability of useful information in the public domain altogether, and that's exactly what Wikipedia relies on.
Cool! Now where do I go to legally, freely download the various versions (an important capability in itself), get the source code (another issue of importance), and download a liveCD Windows NT distro to try out?
Well, it's not working as is (from the sound of it), so I certainly can't see that trying a different approach could -hurt-. And if the fact is, that the IRS has a flawed software development procedure, that may be leading to unfair audits (or unfair advantage for those who know how to game the system, and make no mistake, if it's possible, people are doing it, security through obscurity never works), then that needs to be public knowledge, so that something can be -done- about it. And that's some of the least of importance-if, for example, there are flaws in voting machine software (as there is good reason to suspect), the public has every right to know that as well.
You go ahead and keep laughing at the public's right to know. This is just one more example of why it should be enforced in all cases-99% of the time, the government is keeping a secret in order to cover up wrongdoing, malice, or negligence on the part of an official, not in the interests of "security". In this case, sounds like negligence-the procedure isn't working, so it needs to be changed. It is also partly the contractor at fault-if the contractor is telling the IRS "Sure, we'll be ready!", and the truth is they won't, and know they can't be, they are lying. Don't varnish it, that's all it is. Again, this is something the public has the right to know.
From GP post:
You're ignoring a couple centuries of imperialism, when Europe colonized Africa and stripped it of minerals and resources, as well as of self-governance.
From parent post:
That "mess" has always been there since the Romans lost control.
Typing "You're exactly right" would've been faster, actually. Or were you disagreeing, and simply unaware on which continent Rome is located?
Any corporation in the world?
Exactly my point. I can't. Neither, likely, could you. But a few thousand just might find it doable. Of course, if there are problems, bringing them to public attention might not be a bad idea either, tax code changes are passed throughout the year. Why not start writing next year's tax stuff on April 16?
I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US signing the ticket is a promise to appear in court (or pay the ticket by mail, or otherwise take care of it) and acts as a bond (in this case, since it's a minor infraction, your signed promise to appear is bond enough and no cash bond must be made.) Therefore, if you refuse to sign the ticket, you will be arrested.
So, the choice becomes in that case, sign the ticket, or be arrested and your car impounded. I think any contract made under those circumstances (other then the promise to appear) would likely been found to have been coerced by the authorities and thus invalidated.
However, this becomes moot in a DUI case, because you're going to be arrested -anyway-, and likely have to post cash bail. So in the relevant case here, there's no ticket -to- sign.
So, let's sum up this long block of text:
A. An important system has serious flaws, and
B. The designers of this system would rather that not come to light, because they can't or won't fix it.
And this is a good reason for leaving it closed? Seems to make the very case for opening it to me.
Closed-source systems, if left insecure, will be exploited. (See related entry under popular closed-source operating systems.) On the other hand, open-source systems which suck will have their flaws found and corrected by thousands of eyes-and for every person who finds and attempts to exploit a flaw, 5 will be working to fix it.
What if the Breathalyzer code -is- equally flawed? The code in the systems used to do DNA and ballistics testing? The code used in voting machines? Don't we have -every- right to see for ourselves, instead of accept "Trust us"?
Yeah, because it's a lot harder to get hold of a computer and a coder then, say, weapons-grade plutonium for a nuke, quieting technology for advanced submarines, or advanced fighter engines. And anyone who can get hold of engineers who can design such things would most certainly be incapable of finding a computer scientist.
And then if you find a problem (or potential problem), what good is it if the NDA prohibits you from bringing it up at your open trial? It'd be a pretty meaningless review if you're then prohibited from disclosing problems that are found.
At which point, some corps may decide to violate it anyway and bury the guy in lawyers.
Well, that's litigation reform, which is an entirely different (but equally necessary) topic. And yes, Edison ran a corporation, but I would venture a guess that most (there are exceptions) CEO's are not down in the lab doing R&D work, and many likely can only vaguely comprehend what's going on down there. Still, you raise some excellent points-I think we're roughly on the same side here, in that reforms are certainly needed, fine-tuning is certainly always a good idea. But the status quo of "a patent on a round object, placed under vehicles to ensure their smooth locomotion" is unsustainable.
You do make a good point, but quite realistically, say the rest of my proposed reforms went into place (real, tangible, stuff -only-, and only either totally novel inventions or revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, improvements in existing ones.) Even now, corporations hold the vast majority of patents, Thomas Edison the 15th in his basement lab does not. If that were put into place, sure, a few basement inventors still might come up with a great concept. Easy enough-we change "must produce or you lose it" to "must be producing or making a good-faith effort to begin or prepare for production or you lose it". That way, just -by- offering to license you my patent for manufacture, I'm making a good faith effort, and your refusal doesn't stop that. However, if a company holds the patent, and is simultaneously unwilling to license it at a reasonable rate or produce it themselves, and is just waiting for someone to step on the mine to get a legal settlement, they lose the patent.
In the meantime, someone who holds the "gateway" idea and is refusing to license also faces loss of their patent. So, in the end, the small inventor actually wins out, because no one's any longer -allowed- to hold out like that.
Unfortunately, that remaining .1%, should they so choose, can really make things hell. Why give them yet another way?
PRODUCE the thing you patented, or lose the patent. Period. And if you are producing it, be treated (and regulated) as a monopoly in that area, since patents by definition grant monopolies. Patents only on real, tangible, physical items-no business methods, no software, no genetics.
There is NO excuse for the way the patent system is currently. Just because you're the first to do something doesn't mean it's non-obvious. Incremental changes or "improvements" should not be patentable-the inventor of cell phone technology should get a patent, the guy that figures out a better way to use it should not. Nor, generally, should the guy that figures out how to extend range by 10%.
Hopefully, larger companies continually getting hit by these things will lead them to recognize that pretty soon you're not going to be able to move, breathe, or fart without infringing on something patented. I certainly hope that leads them to reconsider the path they're going down, and use their influence to do something worthwhile for once.
And if you're big enough to be doing these "thousands of purchases", you'll find vendors -very- happy to work with your needs, and work out exactly how it should be done. On the other hand, Uncle Joe's Bar that needs a couple systems for the office in the back room, will do just fine with a vanilla Fedora or Ubuntu and (Open|Star)Office preinstalled. Either way, it's entirely possible, and need not be tremendously complex in all cases.
This conversation hasn't been about crackers whatsoever, so I decline to debate on your offtopic strawman.
As to the analogy, it fails-humans have an inherent right to privacy, but I don't see that corporations really do. This is, of course, as it should be. Quite realistically, Microsoft should've been split, as the judge originally ordered, what penalty is a -fine- to a corporation which is clearing billions a year? They got the equivalent of a speeding ticket for significant antitrust violations. They are -known- to deliberately break interoperability in order to hurt their competitors. They are -known- to use underhanded bullying tactics with OEM's/retailers. They are -known- to raise prices on those who don't agree to their massively restrictive contracts. Again, what is wrong with the natural suspicion of wrongdoing from a known wrongdoer?
Believe I addressed that, when I said that if large-scale adoption was to take off, decent preinstallation would be required...