"And no ability to upgrade from XP without wiping your entire machine."
You shouldn't be upgrading your OS anyway. The only system I've ever had great success on when doing that is OS X. With both Windows and Ubuntu, there's always something that goes awry when upgrading to a new release. Your best option is to backup and do a clean install.
The web is made of pages designed to be viewed on a computer screen and interacted with via a mouse. There's only so much you can do with that, and something truly new is not going to come via a browser. In fact, you probably won't see too much different until we figure out a new way of interfacing with computers that doesn't involve mice, keyboards, and monitors.
It doesn't that you "will" get anything. It simply says to contact the manufacturer to see what they want to do. "No returns" is a valid return policy, and so is a policy that says "Return the whole computer".
Also, it doesn't say that you "must return the software", it says "do not use the software". You can install a different OS or use the machine as a paper weight as long as you aren't using Windows. There's nothing in the agreement that says you must return it.
"They then inform you that if you don't like these terms, you can CHOOSE TO RETURN THE BACK SEATS FOR A REFUND."
That's not actually in the OEM Windows agreement. It says that you can see what the manufacturer's return policy is, but nothing says that you will get a refund. That's up to the manufacturer. Take a look.
"Windows is resold by the guys who sell you your laptop; but it requires you to agree to a EULA, between you and Microsoft"
That's actually not true at all. The license is NOT between you and Microsoft. Here's the relevant snippet from the Vista Home Premium OEM license:
"These license terms are an agreement between you andÂthe device manufacturer that distributes the software with the device, or the software installer that distributes the software with the device."
Next time actually read the agreement instead of assuming that you know what it says.
You (conveniently?) left out part of the agreement:
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not
use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their
return policy for a refund or credit."Link
It seems to me like the manufacturer could just say that their policy is no returns, like Lenovo is doing.
Except there's nothing in the Windows license that says that you will get a refund:
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit."
Seems to me like the manufacturer could tell you that it is not their policy to give refunds, and that would be just fine under the license.
"Are you really so totally uninformed about the world outside your own country? "
Because understanding every nuance of the court systems of other countries is obviously the indicator of how informed someone is. Keep the dickish outrage to yourself.
You're analogy is poor..NET is not installing a different program, it's installing a component of itself into a browser to ensure compatibility/functionality. By the way, Skype does this, NOD32 does this, and other apps do it. You're just flipping shit because this happens to be Microsoft.
"The problem comes when you start doing things like mail delivery, or any number of other applications, which expect nonexistent domains to be, well, nonexistent."
You should try this before making claims. My ISP has a redirect page for unresolvable dns. HOWEVER, if I put mail. or smtp. in front of that address, the resolution immediately fails, while it shows the the IP of the ISP's ad page if I leave those prefixes off the dns.
Wow, your arrogance is astounding. First off, it's not DNS "poisoning". It's their own DNS servers, and they can serve you any page they want when resolution fails.
Second, DNS resolution for an SMTP server would still fail, as there would be no response from a mail server at the redirected address (they're serving up a website, not a email server). You missed my point entirely. (BTW, I tried this. Anything beginning with mail. or smtp. fails to resolve, while the regular address--alsdhfasoidfhsidohasidjs.com--resolves to my ISP's redirect/ad page.)
So hey, before you start talking about how someone else doesn't know what they're talking about, TRY IT FIRST. Otherwise you come across as a condescending dick.
Who's collecting user data? The article says "usage data", which is entirely different. I collect it on my blog...so does every other website. Google happens to be the mechanism here.
What is the privacy concern? Did you even read the article? Google collects the data, and then Canonical gets to view it in aggregate. There is no privacy concern.
God damn...is this reddit or something? YOUR BROWSER ISN'T COLLECTING ANYTHING. You do a Google search through the Ubuntu Google page, and then Canonical can see some aggregate usage data with Google's tools. The browser isn't doing anything other than what it normally does. Don't be a fucking drama queen.
Save their brand from a handful of whiners who have nothing better to do in their lives then bitch about Canonical (who is behind the most popular Linux distro) making some money? Give me a break.
For fucks sake, quit being dense. YOU installed something that's based on.NET 3.5. The plugin is part of.NET 3.5. YOU INSTALLED IT. Aside from that, this was never the huge security hole that all the FUDtards were making it out to be.
That's stupid. Do you stop and check which files and registry entries that every program that YOU install/update places on your system? Oh, you don't? And you install them anyway? Oh, well then you ARE giving them permission to install all that stuff.
"Let content providers sue the heck out of Comcast for making a dime off of abusing their domain names." What? The point here is that Comcast is redirecting from invalid domain names, also known as domains that no one owns.
Slashdot Mirror
"And no ability to upgrade from XP without wiping your entire machine."
You shouldn't be upgrading your OS anyway. The only system I've ever had great success on when doing that is OS X. With both Windows and Ubuntu, there's always something that goes awry when upgrading to a new release. Your best option is to backup and do a clean install.
The web is made of pages designed to be viewed on a computer screen and interacted with via a mouse. There's only so much you can do with that, and something truly new is not going to come via a browser. In fact, you probably won't see too much different until we figure out a new way of interfacing with computers that doesn't involve mice, keyboards, and monitors.
It doesn't that you "will" get anything. It simply says to contact the manufacturer to see what they want to do. "No returns" is a valid return policy, and so is a policy that says "Return the whole computer".
Also, it doesn't say that you "must return the software", it says "do not use the software". You can install a different OS or use the machine as a paper weight as long as you aren't using Windows. There's nothing in the agreement that says you must return it.
You know where case precedent in France is good for? France. This wasn't in France.
"They then inform you that if you don't like these terms, you can CHOOSE TO RETURN THE BACK SEATS FOR A REFUND."
That's not actually in the OEM Windows agreement. It says that you can see what the manufacturer's return policy is, but nothing says that you will get a refund. That's up to the manufacturer. Take a look.
"Windows is resold by the guys who sell you your laptop; but it requires you to agree to a EULA, between you and Microsoft"
That's actually not true at all. The license is NOT between you and Microsoft. Here's the relevant snippet from the Vista Home Premium OEM license:
"These license terms are an agreement between you andÂthe device manufacturer that distributes the software with the device, or the software installer that distributes the software with the device."
Next time actually read the agreement instead of assuming that you know what it says.
You (conveniently?) left out part of the agreement:
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not
use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their
return policy for a refund or credit."Link
It seems to me like the manufacturer could just say that their policy is no returns, like Lenovo is doing.
Except there's nothing in the Windows license that says that you will get a refund:
"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit."
Seems to me like the manufacturer could tell you that it is not their policy to give refunds, and that would be just fine under the license.
"Are you really so totally uninformed about the world outside your own country? "
Because understanding every nuance of the court systems of other countries is obviously the indicator of how informed someone is. Keep the dickish outrage to yourself.
A common defensive technique. X isn't the REAL X, so it doesn't count!
You're analogy is poor. .NET is not installing a different program, it's installing a component of itself into a browser to ensure compatibility/functionality. By the way, Skype does this, NOD32 does this, and other apps do it. You're just flipping shit because this happens to be Microsoft.
It's not an assumption, I tested it just before I posted.
Smtp, mail, mx subdomains all cause immediate DNS resolution failures, while other suffixes resolve to my ISP's redirect.
"The problem comes when you start doing things like mail delivery, or any number of other applications, which expect nonexistent domains to be, well, nonexistent."
You should try this before making claims. My ISP has a redirect page for unresolvable dns. HOWEVER, if I put mail. or smtp. in front of that address, the resolution immediately fails, while it shows the the IP of the ISP's ad page if I leave those prefixes off the dns.
Wow, your arrogance is astounding. First off, it's not DNS "poisoning". It's their own DNS servers, and they can serve you any page they want when resolution fails.
Second, DNS resolution for an SMTP server would still fail, as there would be no response from a mail server at the redirected address (they're serving up a website, not a email server). You missed my point entirely. (BTW, I tried this. Anything beginning with mail. or smtp. fails to resolve, while the regular address--alsdhfasoidfhsidohasidjs.com--resolves to my ISP's redirect/ad page.)
So hey, before you start talking about how someone else doesn't know what they're talking about, TRY IT FIRST. Otherwise you come across as a condescending dick.
Honestly, why would you even care that it uses a branded Google search?
Who's collecting user data? The article says "usage data", which is entirely different. I collect it on my blog...so does every other website. Google happens to be the mechanism here.
What is the privacy concern? Did you even read the article? Google collects the data, and then Canonical gets to view it in aggregate. There is no privacy concern.
God damn...is this reddit or something? YOUR BROWSER ISN'T COLLECTING ANYTHING. You do a Google search through the Ubuntu Google page, and then Canonical can see some aggregate usage data with Google's tools. The browser isn't doing anything other than what it normally does. Don't be a fucking drama queen.
What are they going to warn you about? "WARNING! Google pays Canonical every time you use this search page!!!"
Save their brand from a handful of whiners who have nothing better to do in their lives then bitch about Canonical (who is behind the most popular Linux distro) making some money? Give me a break.
For fucks sake, quit being dense. YOU installed something that's based on .NET 3.5. The plugin is part of .NET 3.5. YOU INSTALLED IT. Aside from that, this was never the huge security hole that all the FUDtards were making it out to be.
That's stupid. Do you stop and check which files and registry entries that every program that YOU install/update places on your system? Oh, you don't? And you install them anyway? Oh, well then you ARE giving them permission to install all that stuff.
95% of users don't install Windows, much less a second OS. The other 5% should know enough to pull it off successfully.
"So, what does one do when one has to reinstall Windows?" Reinstall GRUB noob.
"Let content providers sue the heck out of Comcast for making a dime off of abusing their domain names." What? The point here is that Comcast is redirecting from invalid domain names, also known as domains that no one owns.