If Microsoft looses the gov., it looses the war
on
Open Source in Government
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The simple fact is that the US Government is the single largest "company" in the World. It has millions of employees, hundreds of thousands computers, and it purchases things from thousands of other companies.
It is this purchasing power that affects everyone. In the business world you try to lower the barriers of communication and collaboration with your main customers as much as possible. Often this means switching to applications that the customer users. They use EDI, so you use EDI; they accept bids on a website that requires Intnernet Explorer, you run a Windows machine to use Internet Explorer; they will only accept Word documents in response to Request for Proposals, you don't dare risk having something misformatted because you used OpenOffice and loose a million dollar bid.
Get the picture? If the government switches to Linux, OpenOffice, Apache, etc, and sends messages back to vendors that say, "I'm sorry, I couldn't open your attachment it was in a format my software doesn't understand," guess what? That vendor will change to fit what the goverment wants.
Now, Microsoft will say this is bad. It is bad...for Microsoft. It is bad for them because they will loose customers. It is not bad for capatalism, as they would try to say. Sure, it means that software companies like MS will not be as big as they have been in the past, they will cut jobs, they will have lower shareholder value, yada yada yada. But, this does not mean capitalism is hurt. It just means the money that was going to MS will now be going to other things.
Those other things might be other software companies, like Redhat, or others yet to be founded, or it might be that the money is spent to improve roads, cleanup toxic dumps, or build a high speed commuter rail. This doesn't make MS happy, but it makes taxpayers happy.
In fact, the government might not spend the money at all, instead, they might lower taxes. And the companies that save money by not buying MS will spend the money on capital improvements that enchance their business, or on the employees.
And when employees have more money in their pockets because of lower taxes and higher paychecks, they will spend it on cars, clothes, books, computers (which cost less because they don't have Windows on them), and other things.
This is why Microsoft fights tooth and nail to stop a goverment from switching. They did it in Mexico, they are doing it now in Peru and China.
Remember, Microsoft is a very good and successful company, but they are also a rich kid that hordes it's money. They do not stimulate the economy the way companies that spend do.
But, the question becomes, why don't they build hardware that will run Windows? They could sell both OS X and Mac hardware, or they could sell x86 clones that look really good.
I use XP Pro my machines at home. It has features that I want - faster boot times (useful on the laptop), user switching and remote desktop built in. So for me it's useful. None of those features are required on a corporate desktop.
Umm, exactly who do you think the Remote Desktop is for? I'll tell you, it is for tech support purposes. It is so a user, with a problem, in another office-building-state-country, can contact the help desk with a problem, help desk can connect to the users machine and directly manipulate everything as if they were at the user's desk. Remote Desktop has the potential to be an incredibly useful feature for corporate environments everywhere.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Just fiddling around will not teach you what most everyday IT is really about. It will teach you a bit about your system and how to get it running Linux.
Everyday IT is about keeping systems running so people can get the real work done. It is about performance, availability, reliability, and suitability to task.
Most of my time is taken up with end-users saying, "I need X to get Y done. Can't you do something about that?" And then I spend hours to days researching the problem, finding software, learning how to install, setup, and customize it, sometimes programming, documenting what I did, then training the end-user on how to use it.
Setting up my personal Debian system to use at work improved my ability to do my real job by about 5%.
Music artists will work with freelance sound engineers and production people who have studio space and equipment, or who can rent such space. They will sell the content on the web, and in kiosks. Their cash outlay will be minimal, and they will be able to reach any size audience. These kiosks will burn CDs for the consumer, or the web based consumers will recieve files (and freesoftware) to burn the CD's themselves, or keep them in digital form.
This change in music will occur for many reasons. Two of which are:
1) Reduce costs, increase profits. With no brick and mortars, or large company overhead, sales people, marketing (you could freelance this too), costs are lower.
2) Reach even the smallest audience. I might be a musician of really uncommon music. My world-wde audience might be 20,000. A record company/label woudln't sign me because my economies of scale don't scale. But, in the freelance system I might sell my content for 5.00 each. That is 100,000 per year if I produce each year. Take out the fees for the sound engineers time and whomever else helped me, I might make between 40-70k. Hardly starving artist.
Buy it from O'Reilly directly. Trust me, they need the money and a book purchased directly from them leads to profits twice as high. Not that O'Reilly is making any profit these days.
If you purchased machines from an OEM and they came with an OEM version of Windows (9.x or NT) which you later purchased an upgrade to Windows 2000, then you CANNOT transfer the Windows 2000 license to new hardward unless it too came with a previous version of Windows.
If you upgraded using Upgrade Advantage, then you can't even transfer the upgrade.
IANAL, but, I've heard that people who have copyrights have to defend them if they want to hold onto them. Same thing for trademarks. Or maybe it was just trademarks. Basically, it amounts to the fact that if you do nothing to defend your rights, you don't have those rights.
Microsoft has done nothing meaningful in the past to prevent piracy of their software. They, along with everyone else dropped copy protection on the software. Fine, consumers wanted that. But, on the Macintosh side we see vendors all the time make their software AWARE of other copies of it running on the network. When I install Photoshop TWICE using the SAME registration code, it complains when that second copy is running at the same time. Since my users need to run it simultaneously, I need to purchase a second copy (or disconnect a user from the network...which isn't viable.)
Microsoft, if they really wanted to prevent piracy, would have done the SAME THING. They would have made their applications network aware and they would have checked to see if a second copy was running somewhere. If they had done this, there would not be piracy in the corporate, government, or academic environments to the extent there is today.
It is hard to keep track of every piece of software that an end-user might sneak into your company. Since Windows 9.x didn't have any security, you couldn't stop users from installing it. Because the applications weren't network aware, you wouldn't know when someone installed duplicate copies...not even when an administrator did it.
Because Microsoft did not take reasonable steps to prevent piracy, I think Microsoft should not have the right to force people to audit and payup. At least, not until such time as Microsoft plugs the holes that make piracy so easy.
Music artists will work with freelance sound engineers and production people who have studio space and equipment, or who can rent such space. They will sell the content on the web, and in kiosks. Their cash outlay will be minimal, and they will be able to reach any size audience. These kiosks will burn CDs for the consumer, or the web based consumers will recieve files (and freesoftware) to burn the CD's themselves, or keep them in digital form.
This change in music, and book publishing will occur for many reasons. Two of which are:
1) Reduce costs, increase profits. With no brick and mortars, or large company overhead, sales people, marketing (you could freelance this too), costs are lower.
2) Reach even the smallest audience. I might be a musician of really uncommon music. My world-wde audience might be 20,000. A record company/label woudln't sign me because my economies of scale don't scale. But, in the freelance system I might sell my content for 5.00 each. That is 100,000 per year if I produce each year. Take out the fees for the sound engineers time and whomever else helped me, I might make between 40-70k. Hardly starving artist.
I tell you what. Open up a savings account at www.ingdirect.com. Pay $6 a month into for 10 months. Then buy a membership in the Mandrake Club. It will still be there in 10 months.
Then, and this is important, continue to put $6 a month into that account. Every year, renew your membership.
Also, you will find out that ingdirect has a special promotion going on. If you get others to sign up (not like I'm trying to get you, people you know) you will get $10 put in your account and the person signing up will get $25. You can only do this for 25 people, but it is a chance to make $250.
Re:Not really a blue moon
on
Is MOXI Toast?
·
· Score: 1
Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it that is self-delusion and Luddism.
I see you are trying out a new definition of Luddism/Luddite.
Luddite Pronunciation Key (ldt)
n.
1.Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
Language is not technology. Being a Luddite is not fear of all sorts of change. Heck, even the definition above (from dictionary.com) shows an original meaning and one from latter day usage.
The original luddites did not oppose all technical or technological change. They did not destroy machines willy nilly. They were very specific. See: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/E.+P.+Thompson+on+Lu ddites
Also, the poster you were responding to was talking about the definition of word, not how it is pronounced.
Then they build away and avoide he import tarrifs (at least in part, if not all).
Right. Cost-effective. I did not say labor was cheaper than Mexico. I did not say quality was higher than Japan. I said cost-effective. That means the total cost of supplying the product to the end user.
Honda did it to avoid fees in the form of tariffs that would have made their cars more costly to produce outside of the US.
As for the rest of your comments about the few unluckly or lazy individuals who can't overcome/reeducate and succeed in the new economy, I ask...how callous are you? These people are more than a few. They have real lives, real problems, and a real need to earn a wage that allows them to live. I don't know what you do, or what your skills are, but imagine the day when you boss comes in and tells you that your skills are not needed by anyone in America.
Read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut and think about it.
When you take into account the scope and work that Peter Jackson did, I don't see how he could not be voted best director.
He shot three films at the same time. Never Been Done Before.
He directed scenes in remote locations. Remote meaning remote from him. While he was directing local scenes. Never Been Done Before.
He created a beautiful work on screen of a masterpiece of fiction that most directors wouldn't even have the gonads to try. I don't agree with all his choices, but I respect them (well, not the Arwen character.)
While Ron Howard is a good director, and A Beautiful Mind was a nice film. Peter did so MUCH MORE and did it well that he deserves Best Director.
Now, as for Best Film. That is still a matter of taste. My movie choice wasn't even nominated.
You've got it backwards. Manufacturing is a commodity industry, assembly line workers are paid hourly and
count as semi-skilled at best. The real jobs - rewarding for an individual and value-adding for a company and
a nation - are in designing the goods to be manufactured in the first place, and selling them along with
services and support.
Stop for a moment and think about the people in the US who are hourly semi-skilled people on manufacturing lines who lack the desire, ability, or education to become "designers" or other more "skilled" jobs. Tell them that it doesn't matter when they go on the unemployment line, and onto welfare, when their jobs get moved to a manufacturing facility in Mexico.
Honda built a manufacturing plant in Marysville, OH. Probably because it was the most cost-efficient thing to do over having the job done in Japan, Mexico, or Korea. Dell built a plant outside Nashville, TN. Same reason as Honda.
The simple fact is, jobs matter. Whether they are unskilled, semi-skilled, or highly skilled. Don't discount even the "lowest" of jobs, because that job probably means a lot to the people who work it.
You are correct, Microsoft makes a distinction in the licensing terms, the EULA, of many of its products. Office is the one we are debating, and the product that I have pulled the exact text from.
Your argument about a cordless mouse-keyboard-display works only if you use them in a certain way.
If all users use the same cordless mouse-keyboard-display to connect straight to the Office computer, no middleware or VNC involved. Then you are fine.
If you buy separate sets of this hardware and they all access the Office computer directly, then you are fine.
If users have their own sets of this hardware, they are accessing their own desktops, which is using VNC to display the Office computer, you are not fine.
I am talking about multiple MACHINES that are using Office running from a STORAGE DEVICE. Exactly what the original poster said he was doing. You are bringing up different situations that do not apply.
If by VNC box, you mean the machine with Office installed, then that is exactly the point. That machine is the "storage device" and you are running Office on it. You then must then pay for a dedicated license for each machine you are connecting to that "storage device" the RUNS OFFICE FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
Run on, run from. Similar but different. Office runs on the storage device, end-user machines run it from the storage device.
If, by VNC you mean each end-user workstation, then if you want to call that a storage device, you still have multiple machines that are running it.
Let's take what you said about a wireless mouse and display.
Microsoft is fine with a wireless mouse and display to use Office off a machine. However, only one wireless display and mouse can be used against that copy of Office. If a second user is running around doing the same thing in the hours you aren't, and they are using a different wireless mouse and display powered by a different computer then you are violating the EULA.
See, each of the displays, mice, keyboards, and VNC software are being run by a second, third, and fourth computer. That is all that matters.
Microsoft has stepped around current and future technical work arounds to using the resources of a particular computer by using a restrictive license. Instead of trying to say all the programs and means you can't use to run Office, they simply stated that each machine accessing the application has to pay.
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the original poster seemingly had a good idea, except that it won't work for companies that wish to be legal in the licensing of their software.
I understand that Word does not run on my computer when I access a second computer that has it via VNC. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter.
The EULA states that you must have a dedicated license for each machine that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or RUN FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
You people can argue all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
Read the EULA. It says RUN FROM the STORAGE DEVICE.
Microsoft doesn't care how you are displaying the information on remote machines, via VNC, Terminal Services, mental telepathy. What it cares about is you have a license for each machine that will be using Office that is RUN FROM the STORAGE DEVICE.
I know exactly what he is talking about. I understand that the application is not really being run on the end-users machine, just a the display is being shown there via VNC.
What I am saying, and the people me that am wrong don't get, is that it doesn't matter HOW you are doing this. The simple fact is that multiple machines are using a single copy of Office.
VNC is very similar to Windows Terminal Services client. This technology allows the main application, in this case Office, to run entirely on a server. Only the display is show to the end user. They are not running Office on their own machine, they are running it on the server. Microsoft is fine with that. That is allowed.
But, Microsoft cleverly worded their EULA in such a way that it says you must buy a license for each machine that will be using the application. They did this knowing that Terminal Services existed, and they did it knowing that in the future some clever people will create methods and middleware layers that will totally separte where the program runs from where it is being used.
They anticipated just such a use of Office as the original poster mentions. They countered it with legalese.
You emphasized your use of the SERIALLY. That shows that you just don't get it. It is not about using it one at a time. The problem is that different machines are using it. If each user wanted to walk up to the machine and use Office, then walk away and let the next user user Office, then you are okay. Because Office is only being used at one machine. Regardless of the technical distinction that VNC doesn't run it on a second machine, the fact that it displays it, accepts mouse and keyboard inputs, is sufficient.
The book, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" has a couple of pages about networking. It mentions that a study was done to determine the connectedness of random people. It determined that random people can be connected within 6 links. Thus, 6 degress of separation.
The Kevin Bacon stuff is just a game based upon the same principle. I don't remember his score exactly, but in Hollywood circles Kevin is like 665th on the list of connectors. He can be connected to other people in Hollywood within 4.x people. The most connected person is Rod Steiger, who can be connected in 2.1x.
The point is, a user is accessing Office from a second machine. A third user from a third machine. A fourth, from a fourth machine. It doesn't matter that they can't all run it at the same time. Microsoft doesn't care.
I do not know what you are speaking of when you say "virtualize" the screen. The method of access is irrelevant. VNC on Windows to a Windows machine is exactly like running a single user session of Metaframe or Terminal Services. I only mentioned concurrent because the original poster might be thinking he is within his rights as a user because the copy of Office is only being used by one person at a time. That is not what the EULA for Office is about.
The EULA reads:
Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sahred or used concurrently on different computers.
See, Microsoft doesn't care how you do it, what you are virtualizing, or whatever clever tricks you have created. The simple fact is that different machines are all running the same copy of Office.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple fact is that the US Government is the single largest "company" in the World. It has millions of employees, hundreds of thousands computers, and it purchases things from thousands of other companies.
It is this purchasing power that affects everyone. In the business world you try to lower the barriers of communication and collaboration with your main customers as much as possible. Often this means switching to applications that the customer users. They use EDI, so you use EDI; they accept bids on a website that requires Intnernet Explorer, you run a Windows machine to use Internet Explorer; they will only accept Word documents in response to Request for Proposals, you don't dare risk having something misformatted because you used OpenOffice and loose a million dollar bid.
Get the picture? If the government switches to Linux, OpenOffice, Apache, etc, and sends messages back to vendors that say, "I'm sorry, I couldn't open your attachment it was in a format my software doesn't understand," guess what? That vendor will change to fit what the goverment wants.
Now, Microsoft will say this is bad. It is bad...for Microsoft. It is bad for them because they will loose customers. It is not bad for capatalism, as they would try to say. Sure, it means that software companies like MS will not be as big as they have been in the past, they will cut jobs, they will have lower shareholder value, yada yada yada. But, this does not mean capitalism is hurt. It just means the money that was going to MS will now be going to other things.
Those other things might be other software companies, like Redhat, or others yet to be founded, or it might be that the money is spent to improve roads, cleanup toxic dumps, or build a high speed commuter rail. This doesn't make MS happy, but it makes taxpayers happy.
In fact, the government might not spend the money at all, instead, they might lower taxes. And the companies that save money by not buying MS will spend the money on capital improvements that enchance their business, or on the employees.
And when employees have more money in their pockets because of lower taxes and higher paychecks, they will spend it on cars, clothes, books, computers (which cost less because they don't have Windows on them), and other things.
This is why Microsoft fights tooth and nail to stop a goverment from switching. They did it in Mexico, they are doing it now in Peru and China.
Remember, Microsoft is a very good and successful company, but they are also a rich kid that hordes it's money. They do not stimulate the economy the way companies that spend do.
I agree that apple is a hardware company.
But, the question becomes, why don't they build hardware that will run Windows? They could sell both OS X and Mac hardware, or they could sell x86 clones that look really good.
I use XP Pro my machines at home. It has features that I want - faster boot times (useful on the laptop), user switching and remote desktop built in. So for me it's useful. None of those features are required on a corporate desktop.
Umm, exactly who do you think the Remote Desktop is for? I'll tell you, it is for tech support purposes. It is so a user, with a problem, in another office-building-state-country, can contact the help desk with a problem, help desk can connect to the users machine and directly manipulate everything as if they were at the user's desk. Remote Desktop has the potential to be an incredibly useful feature for corporate environments everywhere.
Other than that, I agree with your post.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Just fiddling around will not teach you what most everyday IT is really about. It will teach you a bit about your system and how to get it running Linux.
Everyday IT is about keeping systems running so people can get the real work done. It is about performance, availability, reliability, and suitability to task.
Most of my time is taken up with end-users saying, "I need X to get Y done. Can't you do something about that?" And then I spend hours to days researching the problem, finding software, learning how to install, setup, and customize it, sometimes programming, documenting what I did, then training the end-user on how to use it.
Setting up my personal Debian system to use at work improved my ability to do my real job by about 5%.
Music artists will work with freelance sound engineers and production people who have studio space and equipment, or who can rent such space. They will sell the content on the web, and in kiosks. Their cash outlay will be minimal, and they will be able to reach any size audience. These kiosks will burn CDs for the consumer, or the web based consumers will recieve files (and freesoftware) to burn the CD's themselves, or keep them in digital form.
This change in music will occur for many reasons. Two of which are:
1) Reduce costs, increase profits. With no brick and mortars, or large company overhead, sales people, marketing (you could freelance this too), costs are lower.
2) Reach even the smallest audience. I might be a musician of really uncommon music. My world-wde audience might be 20,000. A record company/label woudln't sign me because my economies of scale don't scale. But, in the freelance system I might sell my content for 5.00 each. That is 100,000 per year if I produce each year. Take out the fees for the sound engineers time and whomever else helped me, I might make between 40-70k. Hardly starving artist.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609607995/ ref=ed_cp_le_9_3/103-8522967-1139822
Buy it from O'Reilly directly. Trust me, they need the money and a book purchased directly from them leads to profits twice as high. Not that O'Reilly is making any profit these days.
I agree.
If you purchased machines from an OEM and they came with an OEM version of Windows (9.x or NT) which you later purchased an upgrade to Windows 2000, then you CANNOT transfer the Windows 2000 license to new hardward unless it too came with a previous version of Windows.
If you upgraded using Upgrade Advantage, then you can't even transfer the upgrade.
Special rules apply to OEM licensing.
IANAL, but, I've heard that people who have copyrights have to defend them if they want to hold onto them. Same thing for trademarks. Or maybe it was just trademarks. Basically, it amounts to the fact that if you do nothing to defend your rights, you don't have those rights.
Microsoft has done nothing meaningful in the past to prevent piracy of their software. They, along with everyone else dropped copy protection on the software. Fine, consumers wanted that. But, on the Macintosh side we see vendors all the time make their software AWARE of other copies of it running on the network. When I install Photoshop TWICE using the SAME registration code, it complains when that second copy is running at the same time. Since my users need to run it simultaneously, I need to purchase a second copy (or disconnect a user from the network...which isn't viable.)
Microsoft, if they really wanted to prevent piracy, would have done the SAME THING. They would have made their applications network aware and they would have checked to see if a second copy was running somewhere. If they had done this, there would not be piracy in the corporate, government, or academic environments to the extent there is today.
It is hard to keep track of every piece of software that an end-user might sneak into your company. Since Windows 9.x didn't have any security, you couldn't stop users from installing it. Because the applications weren't network aware, you wouldn't know when someone installed duplicate copies...not even when an administrator did it.
Because Microsoft did not take reasonable steps to prevent piracy, I think Microsoft should not have the right to force people to audit and payup. At least, not until such time as Microsoft plugs the holes that make piracy so easy.
Music artists will work with freelance sound engineers and production people who have studio space and equipment, or who can rent such space. They will sell the content on the web, and in kiosks. Their cash outlay will be minimal, and they will be able to reach any size audience. These kiosks will burn CDs for the consumer, or the web based consumers will recieve files (and freesoftware) to burn the CD's themselves, or keep them in digital form.
This change in music, and book publishing will occur for many reasons. Two of which are:
1) Reduce costs, increase profits. With no brick and mortars, or large company overhead, sales people, marketing (you could freelance this too), costs are lower.
2) Reach even the smallest audience. I might be a musician of really uncommon music. My world-wde audience might be 20,000. A record company/label woudln't sign me because my economies of scale don't scale. But, in the freelance system I might sell my content for 5.00 each. That is 100,000 per year if I produce each year. Take out the fees for the sound engineers time and whomever else helped me, I might make between 40-70k. Hardly starving artist.
I tell you what. Open up a savings account at www.ingdirect.com. Pay $6 a month into for 10 months. Then buy a membership in the Mandrake Club. It will still be there in 10 months.
Then, and this is important, continue to put $6 a month into that account. Every year, renew your membership.
Also, you will find out that ingdirect has a special promotion going on. If you get others to sign up (not like I'm trying to get you, people you know) you will get $10 put in your account and the person signing up will get $25. You can only do this for 25 people, but it is a chance to make $250.
Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it that is self-delusion and Luddism.
u ddites
I see you are trying out a new definition of Luddism/Luddite.
Luddite Pronunciation Key (ldt)
n.
1.Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
Language is not technology. Being a Luddite is not fear of all sorts of change. Heck, even the definition above (from dictionary.com) shows an original meaning and one from latter day usage.
The original luddites did not oppose all technical or technological change. They did not destroy machines willy nilly. They were very specific. See: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/E.+P.+Thompson+on+L
Also, the poster you were responding to was talking about the definition of word, not how it is pronounced.
Then they build away and avoide he import tarrifs (at least in part, if not all).
Right. Cost-effective. I did not say labor was cheaper than Mexico. I did not say quality was higher than Japan. I said cost-effective. That means the total cost of supplying the product to the end user.
Honda did it to avoid fees in the form of tariffs that would have made their cars more costly to produce outside of the US.
As for the rest of your comments about the few unluckly or lazy individuals who can't overcome/reeducate and succeed in the new economy, I ask...how callous are you? These people are more than a few. They have real lives, real problems, and a real need to earn a wage that allows them to live. I don't know what you do, or what your skills are, but imagine the day when you boss comes in and tells you that your skills are not needed by anyone in America.
Read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut and think about it.
When you take into account the scope and work that Peter Jackson did, I don't see how he could not be voted best director.
He shot three films at the same time. Never Been Done Before.
He directed scenes in remote locations. Remote meaning remote from him. While he was directing local scenes. Never Been Done Before.
He created a beautiful work on screen of a masterpiece of fiction that most directors wouldn't even have the gonads to try. I don't agree with all his choices, but I respect them (well, not the Arwen character.)
While Ron Howard is a good director, and A Beautiful Mind was a nice film. Peter did so MUCH MORE and did it well that he deserves Best Director.
Now, as for Best Film. That is still a matter of taste. My movie choice wasn't even nominated.
You've got it backwards. Manufacturing is a commodity industry, assembly line workers are paid hourly and
count as semi-skilled at best. The real jobs - rewarding for an individual and value-adding for a company and
a nation - are in designing the goods to be manufactured in the first place, and selling them along with
services and support.
Stop for a moment and think about the people in the US who are hourly semi-skilled people on manufacturing lines who lack the desire, ability, or education to become "designers" or other more "skilled" jobs. Tell them that it doesn't matter when they go on the unemployment line, and onto welfare, when their jobs get moved to a manufacturing facility in Mexico.
Honda built a manufacturing plant in Marysville, OH. Probably because it was the most cost-efficient thing to do over having the job done in Japan, Mexico, or Korea. Dell built a plant outside Nashville, TN. Same reason as Honda.
The simple fact is, jobs matter. Whether they are unskilled, semi-skilled, or highly skilled. Don't discount even the "lowest" of jobs, because that job probably means a lot to the people who work it.
You are correct, Microsoft makes a distinction in the licensing terms, the EULA, of many of its products. Office is the one we are debating, and the product that I have pulled the exact text from.
Your argument about a cordless mouse-keyboard-display works only if you use them in a certain way.
If all users use the same cordless mouse-keyboard-display to connect straight to the Office computer, no middleware or VNC involved. Then you are fine.
If you buy separate sets of this hardware and they all access the Office computer directly, then you are fine.
If users have their own sets of this hardware, they are accessing their own desktops, which is using VNC to display the Office computer, you are not fine.
I am talking about multiple MACHINES that are using Office running from a STORAGE DEVICE. Exactly what the original poster said he was doing. You are bringing up different situations that do not apply.
If by VNC box, you mean the machine with Office installed, then that is exactly the point. That machine is the "storage device" and you are running Office on it. You then must then pay for a dedicated license for each machine you are connecting to that "storage device" the RUNS OFFICE FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
Run on, run from. Similar but different. Office runs on the storage device, end-user machines run it from the storage device.
If, by VNC you mean each end-user workstation, then if you want to call that a storage device, you still have multiple machines that are running it.
Thanks for the link.
Let's take what you said about a wireless mouse and display.
Microsoft is fine with a wireless mouse and display to use Office off a machine. However, only one wireless display and mouse can be used against that copy of Office. If a second user is running around doing the same thing in the hours you aren't, and they are using a different wireless mouse and display powered by a different computer then you are violating the EULA.
See, each of the displays, mice, keyboards, and VNC software are being run by a second, third, and fourth computer. That is all that matters.
Microsoft has stepped around current and future technical work arounds to using the resources of a particular computer by using a restrictive license. Instead of trying to say all the programs and means you can't use to run Office, they simply stated that each machine accessing the application has to pay.
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the original poster seemingly had a good idea, except that it won't work for companies that wish to be legal in the licensing of their software.
I understand that Word does not run on my computer when I access a second computer that has it via VNC. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter.
The EULA states that you must have a dedicated license for each machine that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or RUN FROM THE STORAGE DEVICE.
You people can argue all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
Read the EULA. It says RUN FROM the STORAGE DEVICE.
Microsoft doesn't care how you are displaying the information on remote machines, via VNC, Terminal Services, mental telepathy. What it cares about is you have a license for each machine that will be using Office that is RUN FROM the STORAGE DEVICE.
I wish this wasn't true, but it is.
In my post I mention that a study was done.
Congrats, you probably found that study. I didn't remember it off the top of my head.
I know Malcolm Gladwel did not introduce the concept.
I know exactly what he is talking about. I understand that the application is not really being run on the end-users machine, just a the display is being shown there via VNC.
What I am saying, and the people me that am wrong don't get, is that it doesn't matter HOW you are doing this. The simple fact is that multiple machines are using a single copy of Office.
VNC is very similar to Windows Terminal Services client. This technology allows the main application, in this case Office, to run entirely on a server. Only the display is show to the end user. They are not running Office on their own machine, they are running it on the server. Microsoft is fine with that. That is allowed.
But, Microsoft cleverly worded their EULA in such a way that it says you must buy a license for each machine that will be using the application. They did this knowing that Terminal Services existed, and they did it knowing that in the future some clever people will create methods and middleware layers that will totally separte where the program runs from where it is being used.
They anticipated just such a use of Office as the original poster mentions. They countered it with legalese.
You emphasized your use of the SERIALLY. That shows that you just don't get it. It is not about using it one at a time. The problem is that different machines are using it. If each user wanted to walk up to the machine and use Office, then walk away and let the next user user Office, then you are okay. Because Office is only being used at one machine. Regardless of the technical distinction that VNC doesn't run it on a second machine, the fact that it displays it, accepts mouse and keyboard inputs, is sufficient.
Trust me. I'm correct.
I love feeding trolls.
.doc files to be converted to .rtf files.
Read his post and mine again. You will see I am talking about his use of VNC to display Office on different user machines.
I am not referring to his use of a script and email, nor his use of a folder to drop
You are the poster who needs to read more carefully.
The book, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" has a couple of pages about networking. It mentions that a study was done to determine the connectedness of random people. It determined that random people can be connected within 6 links. Thus, 6 degress of separation.
The Kevin Bacon stuff is just a game based upon the same principle. I don't remember his score exactly, but in Hollywood circles Kevin is like 665th on the list of connectors. He can be connected to other people in Hollywood within 4.x people. The most connected person is Rod Steiger, who can be connected in 2.1x.
The point is, a user is accessing Office from a second machine. A third user from a third machine. A fourth, from a fourth machine. It doesn't matter that they can't all run it at the same time. Microsoft doesn't care.
I do not know what you are speaking of when you say "virtualize" the screen. The method of access is irrelevant. VNC on Windows to a Windows machine is exactly like running a single user session of Metaframe or Terminal Services. I only mentioned concurrent because the original poster might be thinking he is within his rights as a user because the copy of Office is only being used by one person at a time. That is not what the EULA for Office is about.
The EULA reads:
Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sahred or used concurrently on different computers.
See, Microsoft doesn't care how you do it, what you are virtualizing, or whatever clever tricks you have created. The simple fact is that different machines are all running the same copy of Office.