I use linux every day all day on at least one of my machines. It is my primary machine. I have ubuntu and compiz installed. Have had beryl installed long before that. My viewpoint is that beryl was a better product, more stable, and better designed. This current iteration demonstrates that some of the programmers just went hog wild with their choices. For instance, the rules thing is going to be a bit hard for many people to grasp. Some may never. But, not only that, there are tons and I mean tons of bugs in this release that really need to be resolved and quickly. Some of the defaults are way out there and a lot of things just don't need to be a plugin. They went to a rule based system with plugins galore but wound up making it confusing and problematic. Most mom and pop won't even know what to do--and yes, Ubuntu is geared for the mom and pop.
He sounded quite reasonable even though I would not necessarily want to live in his shoes. But honestly he's trying to ensure that the idea of free software stays on track and isn't subjugated by larger organizations bent on destroying what has been created--choice for the users.
I don't care if the software is proprietary, closed, or otherwise. What I do care is that my privacy and rights are protected. Right now Linux is protecting my rights by ensuring that I do not get shit on. Windows Vista is a nasty DRM infected failure and will continue to be seen as a nasty OS that is created to be hostile toward the users.
If Microsoft lost all the spying, lost all the DRM and got rid of all of the lock-in I'd probably use Windows even though it costs money to buy. But I'm not willing to put up with the DRM, with the spying on my home through the use of 47 programs in Windows Vista, and I don't like the idea of lock-ins designed to limit user choice so that one criminal monopoly can continue to control markets.
I thing RMS is a puritan and he'll continue to be that way because he really has to be that way. He has to so that his movement will grow and flourish. There are zealots in every field. RMS just gets a lot of press for his views. He is, after-all, helping to change the world AGAIN.
An OEM copy is tied to the motherboard. If you replace the motherboard you must replace the copy of windows even if the version of windows is exactly the same as the one you would be purchasing. I consider that to be fraud. Most customers don't know this when they buy the computer. It's like saying you have to repurchase your property just because you decided to build a different house on it.
The retail version is not tied to the motherboard. It means that you can remove the software from your computer and install it on another one as many times as you like.
The consumer is not aware of the differences between OEM and RETAIL copies of the OS (and other software). This puts them at a disadvantage. One thing a systems integrator can do to keep customers is to sell them the retail versions that way they don't piss the customer off by telling them they need to re-purchase that same software (where the bits do exactly absolutely exactly the same thing as the one they currently have).
The OEM license is to Microsoft's benefit. The RETAIL copy is to the consumer's benefit. In the long run Microsoft makes more money off the OEM copy. In the long run the systems integrator makes more money off the RETAIL copy. The difference in price is about $20.00 (at least that was the average difference between retail and oem copies of XP).
So, it is worth $20.00 more to ensure that you don't have to pay Microsoft hundreds more in the future when that motherboard goes out. Many boards go out because of cheap capictors being used in the manufacturer of the board. And, capacitors can go at any time.
Microsoft has also gotten very aggressive in enforcing the OEM license. The consumer that purchases the copy from a royal OEM (Dell, Sony, Gateway, HP, etc) have no choice. They are essentially borked. If they had purchased from a quality systems integrator that builds custom units then they'd be much happier down the road due to more upgrade options, no vendor lock in with proprietary components and designs (such as the BTX motherboards), etc.
Just be fair to your customers and get them the real RETAIL copies and build them computers with quality motherboards so they don't feel punched in the stomach when they find out that they have to pay all this extra money to get their unit back up and running.
This draconian way of doing business is simply more reason to understand that products based on Linux are a safer bet. You can get a quality innovative and free product that does all, if not more, than Vista Ultimate does.
Just dump your desire for Vista and focus on getting something installed that protects your privacy, your rights, and has a bright future.
What Microsoft is doing is akin to having Walmart knock on your door one day asking to search your home. They want to search your home because you are regular shopper at Walmart and they want to ensure that all you have in your home was legitimately purchased. So, they search your home and find something that appears to NOT have been paid for. So they turn your power off until you are willing to fork over the money to compensate them for the item. Now, there's no proof that the item is stolen. There's no proof that any law was broken by you. There's been no warrant issued and they didn't get anyone's permission to turn off your power. But they did it all anyway.
Your computer is an extension of your home. You must remember this in all things. You would no more let Walmart into your home to search it than you would allow the Police authorities into your home to search it. The police don't come to your home to search it even if they believe you have stolen goods in there because they have to follow the process of law which usually means collecting evidence, filling out a warrant, and getting that signed by a judge. Then there are strict rules.
If you are using Vista you are allowing Microsoft to enter your home and to search it on a regular basis and at any time they can call you a thief and shut you down. Do the right thing and protect your rights and those of your family, children, and friends by dumping Vista and by ensuring that criminal monopolists such as this don't gain a foothold again on any industry.
The belief that Microsoft's products are superior is a false one lacking in supported evidence. It is simply marketing that creates a perception that you are getting something better. In reality, their products are full of stolen IP, of features ripped off from other products and the products they ripped them off from tossed into the dark mire and lost. We have seen this repeatedly through out their history. They've even stolen IP due to the belief they could do so because the IP rights holders don't have the ability to defend themselves. The company Z4 is one such company. Microsoft stolen their IP. When they were approached about it they ignored Z4. The IP they stole was the online activation mechanism used in XP and MS Office.
When the case went to court they buried the court in paperwork in hopes of hiding the evidence that they knew they had stolen the IP and had done so blatantly. They also participated in many other acts of misconduct.
After the trial after the jury found in favor of Z4 the judge ruled on the misconduct granting Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages. Further the judge ruled that there were many acts of misconduct not just those listed in the judgment.
Microsoft appealed the decision and the penalties for misconduct. The judge ruled against Microsoft and found that the $25 million in special damages was not out of order. To that end he also stated that there were many additional acts of misconduct that were not written up in the decision.
So, the bottom line was that Microsoft stole the IP used to keep you from stealing their IP. When they were caught they treated the IP rights holders as if they were incapable of defending their rights. When the IP rights holder chose to pursue the case to court Microsoft participated in numerous acts of MISCONDUCT to hide the facts in the case. They were fined additional money for those acts of misconduct.
After that consider how they screwed thousands of users by putting in a DRM mechanism that disabled their computers for days. Then consider how they have falsely accused the Linux industry of ste
I would never purchase this product even if it had 12 songs for $6.00. There are many reasons.
1) Most of the song put on a CD are not to my liking. I hated buying a full CD just to get one or two songs I liked.
2) The music industry pays on average 4% of what it takes in to the artist. The artists pay for everything including the copier paper, the white-out, the pencils, erasures, absolutely everything. The CD, to most artists, are simply advertising for their concerts.
3) The music industry sues people. They are pushing a business model that is far outdated and unliked by most. They think we care about their losses, their business, etc. I could care less whether they and all they know turns to dust. It just isn't my concern. They are hated for their tactics and hated for their theft of the music created by artists.
4) They dumped a decade of crap on the industry because they knew that they could sign every musician to a record deal because the contracts were written to force the musicians to pay all costs (advertising, copier paper, white-out, pencils, erasures, everything). If the artists sales don't cover the costs they outright steal the music and then sue the artsist for the outstanding costs.
5) Their dumping for a decade of the crap meant that good quality artists could be lost. They were drowned out in the racket created by the musicians so the true artists never got to stand out.
6) The crap they've been pulling with DRM and how they manipulate the tech industry and how they manipulated the lawmakers to create a protected industry, and how they are lobbying to get our government to interfere in the laws of other countries.
What I liked about CD when I used to buy them.
1) I loved knowing I owned the CDs.
2) I loved the inserts with all the information about the artists.
3) I thought I was supporting the artists in their works in hope they would make more of the same music. Only I found out later that only 4% of the revenues coming from the sales of the CDs went to the artists.
4) There truly were an abundance of true artists instead of the musicians they were dumping onto us. So, they had quality music that has now been replaced by untalented copycat musicians instead of unique artists.
If you don't make the big companies pay big dollars for the IP violations then they will simply take advantage of all the smaller guys. Small money is all it takes to kill a small company so big companies stealing from a small company harms it not only in the reduced funds necessary to protect itself in court but harms to company's future potential. Small companies violating big companies patents hardly impact them in the same way. A big company stealing from a small company could kill the small company but a small company stealing from a big company generally has a much lighter impact on them.
This is just sad to see big companies trying to take advantage of the system this way. What needs to happen is that they need to focus on protecting the small guy and you don't do so by limiting what they can get in defense of their IP. This simply allows the big dog to tear up the little dogs in a fight.
We all don't have tribal chieftains that can overrule for us. Your accusations that the American system is somehow flawed as as flawed as my first sentence. Stop making accusations about the lameness of Americans. The system by which these things are managed are critical to keeping such behavior from reoccuring. Microsoft won't give up and they know that the long term nature of their efforts will win over.
Microsoft has proven they will break the law to get what they want. They proved that, were convicted of criminal predatory monopolistic practices. They were ordered to stop yet haven't. They continue to this day because they know they have the money to defeat just about any practice against them be they the rising of moral conscience or the legal bombardment. They just don't care about what's good for everyone. It is what's good for Microsoft or nothing else.
Microsoft has proven they will act criminally to get their way. They continue to act in this manner. What makes you think that some other form of pressure is going to change their behavior. They'll just act more deviously.
The issue is with the proprietary components that will make the standard a whole lot less than open and standard. What Microsoft is doing is like trying to get their own chess game standardized. They have agreed to the board and most of the rules but they also retain the right to insert their own game pieces and only they can manufacturer them and move them around the board. So you can't defend against it and you can't implement it fully on your side. That's what they are lobbying against.
Microsoft also tends to use their proprietary formats as a locking mechanism to keep you using their programs and hence their operating system. The end result is these mechanisms are used to establish and prop up their monopoly. Apple used DRM to lock you into the iPod. If you bought your music from iTunes you were locked into the iPod. It is that simple. Try to play that music on another player and you couldn't. You either gave up that content or stayed with Apple, even if you grew to despise them.
It isn't to say that Apple is a monopoly but it is to say that Microsoft has used that tactic for years. We all recognize it. What's happened recently is that a very viable alternative is out there now that has standards approval. Governments all over the world are insisting on standard file formats. If they just settled on Microsoft's proprietary formats then we'd have a tacit imposition of Microsoft's Monopoly on businesses and individuals. With open standards we don't have that. People are free to use any program and OS they want.
Microsoft doesn't like this idea since it is a ball buster to their lock-in mechanism. So, instead of just going with the standard they are trying to get their formats adopted as a standard. Since they are known to have proprietary components that still lock you into them as the vendor the only right minded individual voting on, or even examining such issues would/should vote no. And only through lobbying can that awareness be brought to people, countries, governments and their representatives.
The end result is a no vote until you rid your format of the proprietary vendor lock-in.
I can't figure out why there are any Yes votes. It is obvious that their specification is full of proprietary crap that will harm the open standards overall. They don't meet the minimum requirements so why did any of them vote yes? They knew the specif was not in compliance with the votes and even a yes with comments is still a yes vote. There should have been all no votes (some with and some without comments).
At least it worked out for now. Pretty sad though that Microsoft tried to stack the deck. If some serious revisions in their policy toward joining and voting isn't changed we'll see more abuse by Microsoft until they finally get it passed.
Microsoft created it therefore it is their problem. They choose to violate your privacy. They should be responsible for their actions. This is tantamount to simply calling everyone a thief. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a thief because Microsoft says you are.
This is an invasion of your privacy--the WGA/WGN tools. They are invading your home because your computer is an extension of your home.
You need to all realize this is your privacy you are giving up and you are giving up the privacy of your children and condoning the violation of the privacy of your parents and friends.
You need to stop supporting Microsoft products. The only real true protection of your privacy is from Linux. Not even the Mac can protect your privacy the way the Linux can.
Remember, your computer is an extension of your home. Allowing Microsoft to come in and search your computer is like allowing Walmart to enter your home some Sunday morning with a request to search your home to determine if those items you have in your home you paid for.
Both Picassa and Google Earth are wine implementations done by Google. This has always been an extremely bad idea. If you are going to commit to a platform you do it. You don't taunt the platform with the competitors executables. Not only that Google has taken so much from the Open Source community and given so little back. It is about time they take the time to redo these and ensure that they never again try to pull the wool over our eyes with these fake Linux programs.
Not to mention those wine programs operate poorly under Linux, especially Google earth. Picassa is pretty sad too. I'm not saying they don't work. They do. But it is like having DOS programs run on OSX. You just wouldn't want it.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is a huge violator of your privacy with the 47 spyware programs they put into Vista. Also the major WGN/WGA crap they put into Vista and XP. Bottom line is that they are not here to defend the rights of the people. Microsoft is doing this to defend their position alone so they don't get sued right and left. In fact, Microsoft years ago started buying up the rights to all sorts of digital works. They didn't do this to have them they did this to defend their rights. Nothing wrong with that except if you were to use those I'm sure they would be more than happy to bust your chops. For instance, the autopackager site they just shut down is a fair use site yet they have shit on everyone by closing it down. They did so because they know that such a site has little resources to defend themselves.
That is apples and oranges to what's at issue here. You are speaking about stopping a legal act and replacing it with an illegal act. We are talking about a modification to a license which is not illegal in any version.
Your analogy would have been better made if you stated that they changed albums (say that was created by a popular artist such as Bob Dylan). If you contracted to sell coupons for the first album that Bob Dylan recorded and then the distributor decided to honor the coupons for the 10the album he made (which may be much less popular) then one could ask that question. Would you be bound by the terms of the license governing the 10th album made by Bob Dylan?
In this case you would be obligated to give the customers their money back, or to notify them that they are entitled to their money back, or to inform them that they can accept the coupon and honor it for the 10th album (which may be less value), or that you would not be held liable for any redemption of anything other than a specific album. For those accepting the 10th album (instead of the first album) you are bound, unless...
You must have covered that in the contract covering the voucher and you must have covered it in the contract that covered the deal with the distributor. You can't escape the contract or the "tie in" by simply claiming you aren't bound by it. If it isn't covered then the customer isn't bound by your demand to give them their money back.
Clearly these issues were not covered either way because if they were then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Microsoft put no expiration date on the voucher and clearly it doesn't cover any specific release of the Linux distribution. If there had been terms covering this in the original contract we would be seeing clauses of those terms cropping up in this discussion thread. As well, if it had been covered in the original voucher we'd been seeing those clauses in this discussion as well.
Since they obviously weren't covered then we have an issue for the courts and thus we should expect some sort of lawsuit to address the issue. The FSF may realize that fighting Microsoft is like fighting the proverbial 1000 pound gorilla and that it will cost them a fortune. Microsoft must realize that a lawsuit (if they loose) simply means that they can't use FUD any more and that more than likely they'll have drained the FSF of funds and the will to fight future battles. What the FSF knows is that if they get a win they may successfully indemnify every user against Microsoft.
This is something we should not be fighting to begin with as Microsoft technically has no leg to stand on as far as IP goes--yes we are talking about indemnification against IP, not copyright, infringement--since Microsoft essentially won't disclose what is being violated, hence they are simply abandoning their rights to any protection as it is.
What's happening is that the FSF is fighting the wrong battle. The battle that needs to be fought is to force Microsoft to disclose which IP is in violation. It would probably be easier and less costly to just force Microsoft to disclose the IP in question and then to work with the FOSS community to ensure that any violation is addressed promptly.
After that they can go after Microsoft to ensure that the rights of the developers are being protected but we'd not have the battle over IP, because as it stands now the battle is on two fronts--IP violations and copyright violations.
Hopefully the IP violations are being taken care of currently in that some group of people are reviewing the patents that Microsoft owns that relate to anything that is being done in the Linux Kernel, X, and Open Office. Once those are identified then a review of the code to ensure that any violation is identified and removed and that a declaration of the removal is made publicly.
Once that's done we have no need to worry about whether anyone is indemnified.
As time goes by we'd see the Open Source IP portfolios rise dramatically.
These questions are the very reason I would expect the issue to make it to the courts. If it wasn't so unclear we'd not be discussing all the possibilities.
It is my opinion that by continuing to sell the vouchers and by continuing to honor the vouchers and by including GPL v3 products in the distro it binds anyone selling it regardless of whether it is a coupon or not. Selling the coupon is like selling on consignment.
One could argue (if you use the logic of some) that if Microsoft isn't bound by the GPL then neither is any one who simply distributes it. So, Novell would not be bound either because they aren't technically manufacturing it. Microsoft is technically becoming a re-distributor of something Novell distributes that Novell doesn't technically make since the code is written by many different parties to whom Novell has no relationship.
So, if Novell is bound by the GPL then so is Microsoft. Simply distributing one copy makes them a distributor. If one piece of GPL v3 code is redeemed then Microsoft is bound by the GPL v3. But Microsoft would simply ignore the GPL. And then it would be up to the FSF to sue Microsoft.
If Novell does not include any GPL v3 products in their SuSE and people then redeem them Microsoft is not bound. But if Novell does decide to include a GPL v3 product and someone redeems then the license applies to Microsoft (just as the GPL v2 would apply). Novell could refuse to accept the redeemed coupons in order to protect the agreement between themselves and Microsoft and then the redeemer could then go back to Microsoft and ask for a refund. This essentially freezes the SuSE product--and Linxpire and Xandros too. But to say that a product that is covered by the GPL v3 that becomes included in the SuSE products it does make at least Novell bound to the GPL v3. The question as to whether Microsoft knew the GPL could change (as it did from v1 to v2) and that Licenses often change (as their EULA states clearly that they are subject to change) would certainly play into whether Microsoft is really bound by the agreement even if it were not stated up front.
What some are trying to say is that Microsoft is not bound by the GPL v2 either. They are trying to say that only Novell is. What the FSF is saying is that Microsoft is as much bound by the GPL as anyone is. It would be completely wrong to allow for agreements between two parties for the purpose of allowing them the benefits of the software developed under the GPL without that company being bound by the terms of the GPL. That's what's wrong with the Novell-Microsfot agreement. That's why the GPL v3 was created. It was created to protect the developers to keep companies such as Microsoft from stealing their work.
If the agreement between Microsoft and Novell excluded any GPL V3 product as a possibility, well, that's one thing. But if they didn't include a clause or two regarding that in their agreement then certainly this is a matter for the courts. Either way, it would be a matter for the courts.
Certainly Microsoft has the right to cease selling the the vouchers (in the event that there is no clause (or two)).
Clearly it is an issue the courts could answer. I don't know the law in that regard but companies such as Microsoft have tried to enforce this sort of thing in their favor in the past. So, I think there are some pretty clear cases representing this position.
Really it is the responsibility of Microsoft to do more than declare they are not bound. They must, at least, attempt to recover the vouchers and then in turn get them back from Novell or work to ensure that Novell does not make them bound by the GPL v3 by intentionally including GPL v3 software in their distribution.
The GPL v3 is doing what it is supposed to do. It is keeping Microsoft from thwarting the purpose of the GPL to begin with, which is to protect the developers. To even attempt to thwart it is a knife in the back of anyone giving their resources to create a product they want others to enjoy for free.
I could personally care less about whether Microsoft's proprietary software becomes less popular (or any company's software for that matter). It isn't up to the people that are part of the FOSS to protect Microsoft's markets. If they choose to make something and give it away for free then that's their business. It is really sad when company owned by the "once richest man in the world" thwarts the intended purpose of a license to keep competition under their thumbs.
There is nothing in the world that says that free and open software is bad for anything, including the economy. I venture to say that in fact it is more beneficial to the economy because the money from the sale of the proprietary software generally go into small group of people's pockets and sits in bank accounts, etc. What happens when those that would have to pay for that software can use that money for something else (e.g., eduction, dental bills, clothes for their children, or repairs to their cars, etc), is certainly more beneficial to the economy.
In as much as there are slasdotards there are propritards (tards that use proprietary software) that use MS Software. Now, if you don't want to get into such a stupid ad homenen fight then stop trying to insult others. If you do not, then we can clearly take from your position that you do not have a clear idea of what FOSS is nor what it is trying to accomplish.
Microsoft implied they were not bound by the GPL v3 for anything and that it could not be enforced against them. That's what the FSF is talking about. They are saying that they are immune to anything having to do with the GPL simply by declaring it. The FSF is going to take issue because it means that any company can so declare if Microsoft isn't taken to task on the issue.
I have great doubt that Microsoft fixed the issues with OOXML in this short period of time so one must ask why is this format being addressed again so quickly?! One has to wonder if the ISO simply realizes that no matter what they do Microsoft will just keep pushing this until they finally get a yes vote. Are they simply caving?
If they agree to this it will simply be plain evidence that they are being influenced or the members are not competent. I'm of the opinion that they need to force a delay between considerations of at least 6 months. This gives the industry time to mull over any possible changes that have been made.
One must ask themselves how on earth one can claim an open standard for a format that is closed, misrepresented to those attempting to implement it, and can be changed by Microsoft at any time to shaft any open source groups thinking of implementation.
What Microsoft will get is simply a format that no one will use that no one will be willing to pay royalties on that closes their customers down so that they are locked into a single platform.
If the ISO members agree to this something is very wrong.
Enough said. Microsoft is just being silly. In the long term they cannot compete. I do find it quite amazing that Linux on the desktop doubled in the past year. I would expect even greater growth now that the nasty DRM nightmare called Vista is out and is showing its true colors. 47 programs that spy on you, WGA/WGN accusing you of stealing and then searching your home (your computer is an extension of your home after all). With performance issues relating to the implementation of the hardware requirements dictated to the hardware manufacturers, etc.
I think this is just a silly mess that Microsoft has created for itself. They forgot one important thing. Serve the customer. You don't go violating everyone privacy because you want a few extra billion dollars--billions more than the billions you already have. Just pathetic. They have markets greater than you can imagine in the world and they are violating our privacy, invading our homes, manipulating the police authorities into stupid raids on xbox modchip makers. Just pathetic.
Now they are saying they like open source but it must be Microsoft Windows only code? That's not open source. And then they have the gall to try to win a comparison war? I think FOSS wins, hands down.
Slashdot Mirror
He's clueless. Ubuntu is awesome.
I use linux every day all day on at least one of my machines. It is my primary machine. I have ubuntu and compiz installed. Have had beryl installed long before that. My viewpoint is that beryl was a better product, more stable, and better designed. This current iteration demonstrates that some of the programmers just went hog wild with their choices. For instance, the rules thing is going to be a bit hard for many people to grasp. Some may never. But, not only that, there are tons and I mean tons of bugs in this release that really need to be resolved and quickly. Some of the defaults are way out there and a lot of things just don't need to be a plugin. They went to a rule based system with plugins galore but wound up making it confusing and problematic. Most mom and pop won't even know what to do--and yes, Ubuntu is geared for the mom and pop.
in this case they turned patches off. so it isn't anywhere near what youare depicting.
Microsoft operates these days just like the malware people. Microsoft is untrustworthy.
He sounded quite reasonable even though I would not necessarily want to live in his shoes. But honestly he's trying to ensure that the idea of free software stays on track and isn't subjugated by larger organizations bent on destroying what has been created--choice for the users.
I don't care if the software is proprietary, closed, or otherwise. What I do care is that my privacy and rights are protected. Right now Linux is protecting my rights by ensuring that I do not get shit on. Windows Vista is a nasty DRM infected failure and will continue to be seen as a nasty OS that is created to be hostile toward the users.
If Microsoft lost all the spying, lost all the DRM and got rid of all of the lock-in I'd probably use Windows even though it costs money to buy. But I'm not willing to put up with the DRM, with the spying on my home through the use of 47 programs in Windows Vista, and I don't like the idea of lock-ins designed to limit user choice so that one criminal monopoly can continue to control markets.
I thing RMS is a puritan and he'll continue to be that way because he really has to be that way. He has to so that his movement will grow and flourish. There are zealots in every field. RMS just gets a lot of press for his views. He is, after-all, helping to change the world AGAIN.
An OEM copy is tied to the motherboard. If you replace the motherboard you must replace the copy of windows even if the version of windows is exactly the same as the one you would be purchasing. I consider that to be fraud. Most customers don't know this when they buy the computer. It's like saying you have to repurchase your property just because you decided to build a different house on it.
The retail version is not tied to the motherboard. It means that you can remove the software from your computer and install it on another one as many times as you like.
The consumer is not aware of the differences between OEM and RETAIL copies of the OS (and other software). This puts them at a disadvantage. One thing a systems integrator can do to keep customers is to sell them the retail versions that way they don't piss the customer off by telling them they need to re-purchase that same software (where the bits do exactly absolutely exactly the same thing as the one they currently have).
The OEM license is to Microsoft's benefit. The RETAIL copy is to the consumer's benefit. In the long run Microsoft makes more money off the OEM copy. In the long run the systems integrator makes more money off the RETAIL copy. The difference in price is about $20.00 (at least that was the average difference between retail and oem copies of XP).
So, it is worth $20.00 more to ensure that you don't have to pay Microsoft hundreds more in the future when that motherboard goes out. Many boards go out because of cheap capictors being used in the manufacturer of the board. And, capacitors can go at any time.
Microsoft has also gotten very aggressive in enforcing the OEM license. The consumer that purchases the copy from a royal OEM (Dell, Sony, Gateway, HP, etc) have no choice. They are essentially borked. If they had purchased from a quality systems integrator that builds custom units then they'd be much happier down the road due to more upgrade options, no vendor lock in with proprietary components and designs (such as the BTX motherboards), etc.
Just be fair to your customers and get them the real RETAIL copies and build them computers with quality motherboards so they don't feel punched in the stomach when they find out that they have to pay all this extra money to get their unit back up and running.
This draconian way of doing business is simply more reason to understand that products based on Linux are a safer bet. You can get a quality innovative and free product that does all, if not more, than Vista Ultimate does.
Just dump your desire for Vista and focus on getting something installed that protects your privacy, your rights, and has a bright future.
What Microsoft is doing is akin to having Walmart knock on your door one day asking to search your home. They want to search your home because you are regular shopper at Walmart and they want to ensure that all you have in your home was legitimately purchased. So, they search your home and find something that appears to NOT have been paid for. So they turn your power off until you are willing to fork over the money to compensate them for the item. Now, there's no proof that the item is stolen. There's no proof that any law was broken by you. There's been no warrant issued and they didn't get anyone's permission to turn off your power. But they did it all anyway.
Your computer is an extension of your home. You must remember this in all things. You would no more let Walmart into your home to search it than you would allow the Police authorities into your home to search it. The police don't come to your home to search it even if they believe you have stolen goods in there because they have to follow the process of law which usually means collecting evidence, filling out a warrant, and getting that signed by a judge. Then there are strict rules.
If you are using Vista you are allowing Microsoft to enter your home and to search it on a regular basis and at any time they can call you a thief and shut you down. Do the right thing and protect your rights and those of your family, children, and friends by dumping Vista and by ensuring that criminal monopolists such as this don't gain a foothold again on any industry.
The belief that Microsoft's products are superior is a false one lacking in supported evidence. It is simply marketing that creates a perception that you are getting something better. In reality, their products are full of stolen IP, of features ripped off from other products and the products they ripped them off from tossed into the dark mire and lost. We have seen this repeatedly through out their history. They've even stolen IP due to the belief they could do so because the IP rights holders don't have the ability to defend themselves. The company Z4 is one such company. Microsoft stolen their IP. When they were approached about it they ignored Z4. The IP they stole was the online activation mechanism used in XP and MS Office.
When the case went to court they buried the court in paperwork in hopes of hiding the evidence that they knew they had stolen the IP and had done so blatantly. They also participated in many other acts of misconduct.
After the trial after the jury found in favor of Z4 the judge ruled on the misconduct granting Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages. Further the judge ruled that there were many acts of misconduct not just those listed in the judgment.
Microsoft appealed the decision and the penalties for misconduct. The judge ruled against Microsoft and found that the $25 million in special damages was not out of order. To that end he also stated that there were many additional acts of misconduct that were not written up in the decision.
So, the bottom line was that Microsoft stole the IP used to keep you from stealing their IP. When they were caught they treated the IP rights holders as if they were incapable of defending their rights. When the IP rights holder chose to pursue the case to court Microsoft participated in numerous acts of MISCONDUCT to hide the facts in the case. They were fined additional money for those acts of misconduct.
After that consider how they screwed thousands of users by putting in a DRM mechanism that disabled their computers for days. Then consider how they have falsely accused the Linux industry of ste
I would never purchase this product even if it had 12 songs for $6.00. There are many reasons.
1) Most of the song put on a CD are not to my liking. I hated buying a full CD just to get one or two songs I liked.
2) The music industry pays on average 4% of what it takes in to the artist. The artists pay for everything including the copier paper, the white-out, the pencils, erasures, absolutely everything. The CD, to most artists, are simply advertising for their concerts.
3) The music industry sues people. They are pushing a business model that is far outdated and unliked by most. They think we care about their losses, their business, etc. I could care less whether they and all they know turns to dust. It just isn't my concern. They are hated for their tactics and hated for their theft of the music created by artists.
4) They dumped a decade of crap on the industry because they knew that they could sign every musician to a record deal because the contracts were written to force the musicians to pay all costs (advertising, copier paper, white-out, pencils, erasures, everything). If the artists sales don't cover the costs they outright steal the music and then sue the artsist for the outstanding costs.
5) Their dumping for a decade of the crap meant that good quality artists could be lost. They were drowned out in the racket created by the musicians so the true artists never got to stand out.
6) The crap they've been pulling with DRM and how they manipulate the tech industry and how they manipulated the lawmakers to create a protected industry, and how they are lobbying to get our government to interfere in the laws of other countries.
What I liked about CD when I used to buy them.
1) I loved knowing I owned the CDs.
2) I loved the inserts with all the information about the artists.
3) I thought I was supporting the artists in their works in hope they would make more of the same music. Only I found out later that only 4% of the revenues coming from the sales of the CDs went to the artists.
4) There truly were an abundance of true artists instead of the musicians they were dumping onto us. So, they had quality music that has now been replaced by untalented copycat musicians instead of unique artists.
If you don't make the big companies pay big dollars for the IP violations then they will simply take advantage of all the smaller guys. Small money is all it takes to kill a small company so big companies stealing from a small company harms it not only in the reduced funds necessary to protect itself in court but harms to company's future potential. Small companies violating big companies patents hardly impact them in the same way. A big company stealing from a small company could kill the small company but a small company stealing from a big company generally has a much lighter impact on them.
This is just sad to see big companies trying to take advantage of the system this way. What needs to happen is that they need to focus on protecting the small guy and you don't do so by limiting what they can get in defense of their IP. This simply allows the big dog to tear up the little dogs in a fight.
This is bad news, not good news.
We all don't have tribal chieftains that can overrule for us. Your accusations that the American system is somehow flawed as as flawed as my first sentence. Stop making accusations about the lameness of Americans. The system by which these things are managed are critical to keeping such behavior from reoccuring. Microsoft won't give up and they know that the long term nature of their efforts will win over.
Microsoft has proven they will break the law to get what they want. They proved that, were convicted of criminal predatory monopolistic practices. They were ordered to stop yet haven't. They continue to this day because they know they have the money to defeat just about any practice against them be they the rising of moral conscience or the legal bombardment. They just don't care about what's good for everyone. It is what's good for Microsoft or nothing else.
Microsoft has proven they will act criminally to get their way. They continue to act in this manner. What makes you think that some other form of pressure is going to change their behavior. They'll just act more deviously.
The issue is with the proprietary components that will make the standard a whole lot less than open and standard. What Microsoft is doing is like trying to get their own chess game standardized. They have agreed to the board and most of the rules but they also retain the right to insert their own game pieces and only they can manufacturer them and move them around the board. So you can't defend against it and you can't implement it fully on your side. That's what they are lobbying against.
Microsoft also tends to use their proprietary formats as a locking mechanism to keep you using their programs and hence their operating system. The end result is these mechanisms are used to establish and prop up their monopoly. Apple used DRM to lock you into the iPod. If you bought your music from iTunes you were locked into the iPod. It is that simple. Try to play that music on another player and you couldn't. You either gave up that content or stayed with Apple, even if you grew to despise them.
It isn't to say that Apple is a monopoly but it is to say that Microsoft has used that tactic for years. We all recognize it. What's happened recently is that a very viable alternative is out there now that has standards approval. Governments all over the world are insisting on standard file formats. If they just settled on Microsoft's proprietary formats then we'd have a tacit imposition of Microsoft's Monopoly on businesses and individuals. With open standards we don't have that. People are free to use any program and OS they want.
Microsoft doesn't like this idea since it is a ball buster to their lock-in mechanism. So, instead of just going with the standard they are trying to get their formats adopted as a standard. Since they are known to have proprietary components that still lock you into them as the vendor the only right minded individual voting on, or even examining such issues would/should vote no. And only through lobbying can that awareness be brought to people, countries, governments and their representatives.
The end result is a no vote until you rid your format of the proprietary vendor lock-in.
I can't figure out why there are any Yes votes. It is obvious that their specification is full of proprietary crap that will harm the open standards overall. They don't meet the minimum requirements so why did any of them vote yes? They knew the specif was not in compliance with the votes and even a yes with comments is still a yes vote. There should have been all no votes (some with and some without comments).
At least it worked out for now. Pretty sad though that Microsoft tried to stack the deck. If some serious revisions in their policy toward joining and voting isn't changed we'll see more abuse by Microsoft until they finally get it passed.
Microsoft created it therefore it is their problem. They choose to violate your privacy. They should be responsible for their actions. This is tantamount to simply calling everyone a thief. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a thief because Microsoft says you are.
This is an invasion of your privacy--the WGA/WGN tools. They are invading your home because your computer is an extension of your home.
You need to all realize this is your privacy you are giving up and you are giving up the privacy of your children and condoning the violation of the privacy of your parents and friends.
You need to stop supporting Microsoft products. The only real true protection of your privacy is from Linux. Not even the Mac can protect your privacy the way the Linux can.
Remember, your computer is an extension of your home. Allowing Microsoft to come in and search your computer is like allowing Walmart to enter your home some Sunday morning with a request to search your home to determine if those items you have in your home you paid for.
Both Picassa and Google Earth are wine implementations done by Google. This has always been an extremely bad idea. If you are going to commit to a platform you do it. You don't taunt the platform with the competitors executables. Not only that Google has taken so much from the Open Source community and given so little back. It is about time they take the time to redo these and ensure that they never again try to pull the wool over our eyes with these fake Linux programs.
Not to mention those wine programs operate poorly under Linux, especially Google earth. Picassa is pretty sad too. I'm not saying they don't work. They do. But it is like having DOS programs run on OSX. You just wouldn't want it.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is a huge violator of your privacy with the 47 spyware programs they put into Vista. Also the major WGN/WGA crap they put into Vista and XP. Bottom line is that they are not here to defend the rights of the people. Microsoft is doing this to defend their position alone so they don't get sued right and left. In fact, Microsoft years ago started buying up the rights to all sorts of digital works. They didn't do this to have them they did this to defend their rights. Nothing wrong with that except if you were to use those I'm sure they would be more than happy to bust your chops. For instance, the autopackager site they just shut down is a fair use site yet they have shit on everyone by closing it down. They did so because they know that such a site has little resources to defend themselves.
Never ever trust Microsoft.
I don't believe it was one person voting two times. I believe it was that one entity had multiple representation and that is not allowed.
As far as Microsoft is concerned an abstention is as good as a yes vote. Abstaining is like not having a no vote. Yeah, I know the double negative.
Because Microsoft violated the rules this should count as a NO vote instead of an abstention.
Yes, Microsoft tried to break the rules and did so by voting more than once.
I can only imagine the IBM member's gut feelings when he left the vote early. One has to have felt so incredibly violated by such an act.
Had Microsoft not been caught or been held to task they would have blithely gone on with it. Such a sad state of affairs.
This should be a NO vote.
The following link is to groklaw.net and has info about the secret memo sent to Swedish partners of Microsoft. This is damning evidence.
0 70630660
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070829
That is apples and oranges to what's at issue here. You are speaking about stopping a legal act and replacing it with an illegal act. We are talking about a modification to a license which is not illegal in any version.
Your analogy would have been better made if you stated that they changed albums (say that was created by a popular artist such as Bob Dylan). If you contracted to sell coupons for the first album that Bob Dylan recorded and then the distributor decided to honor the coupons for the 10the album he made (which may be much less popular) then one could ask that question. Would you be bound by the terms of the license governing the 10th album made by Bob Dylan?
In this case you would be obligated to give the customers their money back, or to notify them that they are entitled to their money back, or to inform them that they can accept the coupon and honor it for the 10th album (which may be less value), or that you would not be held liable for any redemption of anything other than a specific album. For those accepting the 10th album (instead of the first album) you are bound, unless...
You must have covered that in the contract covering the voucher and you must have covered it in the contract that covered the deal with the distributor. You can't escape the contract or the "tie in" by simply claiming you aren't bound by it. If it isn't covered then the customer isn't bound by your demand to give them their money back.
Clearly these issues were not covered either way because if they were then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Microsoft put no expiration date on the voucher and clearly it doesn't cover any specific release of the Linux distribution. If there had been terms covering this in the original contract we would be seeing clauses of those terms cropping up in this discussion thread. As well, if it had been covered in the original voucher we'd been seeing those clauses in this discussion as well.
Since they obviously weren't covered then we have an issue for the courts and thus we should expect some sort of lawsuit to address the issue. The FSF may realize that fighting Microsoft is like fighting the proverbial 1000 pound gorilla and that it will cost them a fortune. Microsoft must realize that a lawsuit (if they loose) simply means that they can't use FUD any more and that more than likely they'll have drained the FSF of funds and the will to fight future battles. What the FSF knows is that if they get a win they may successfully indemnify every user against Microsoft.
This is something we should not be fighting to begin with as Microsoft technically has no leg to stand on as far as IP goes--yes we are talking about indemnification against IP, not copyright, infringement--since Microsoft essentially won't disclose what is being violated, hence they are simply abandoning their rights to any protection as it is.
What's happening is that the FSF is fighting the wrong battle. The battle that needs to be fought is to force Microsoft to disclose which IP is in violation. It would probably be easier and less costly to just force Microsoft to disclose the IP in question and then to work with the FOSS community to ensure that any violation is addressed promptly.
After that they can go after Microsoft to ensure that the rights of the developers are being protected but we'd not have the battle over IP, because as it stands now the battle is on two fronts--IP violations and copyright violations.
Hopefully the IP violations are being taken care of currently in that some group of people are reviewing the patents that Microsoft owns that relate to anything that is being done in the Linux Kernel, X, and Open Office. Once those are identified then a review of the code to ensure that any violation is identified and removed and that a declaration of the removal is made publicly.
Once that's done we have no need to worry about whether anyone is indemnified.
As time goes by we'd see the Open Source IP portfolios rise dramatically.
These questions are the very reason I would expect the issue to make it to the courts. If it wasn't so unclear we'd not be discussing all the possibilities.
It is my opinion that by continuing to sell the vouchers and by continuing to honor the vouchers and by including GPL v3 products in the distro it binds anyone selling it regardless of whether it is a coupon or not. Selling the coupon is like selling on consignment.
One could argue (if you use the logic of some) that if Microsoft isn't bound by the GPL then neither is any one who simply distributes it. So, Novell would not be bound either because they aren't technically manufacturing it. Microsoft is technically becoming a re-distributor of something Novell distributes that Novell doesn't technically make since the code is written by many different parties to whom Novell has no relationship.
So, if Novell is bound by the GPL then so is Microsoft. Simply distributing one copy makes them a distributor. If one piece of GPL v3 code is redeemed then Microsoft is bound by the GPL v3. But Microsoft would simply ignore the GPL. And then it would be up to the FSF to sue Microsoft.
If Novell does not include any GPL v3 products in their SuSE and people then redeem them Microsoft is not bound. But if Novell does decide to include a GPL v3 product and someone redeems then the license applies to Microsoft (just as the GPL v2 would apply). Novell could refuse to accept the redeemed coupons in order to protect the agreement between themselves and Microsoft and then the redeemer could then go back to Microsoft and ask for a refund. This essentially freezes the SuSE product--and Linxpire and Xandros too. But to say that a product that is covered by the GPL v3 that becomes included in the SuSE products it does make at least Novell bound to the GPL v3. The question as to whether Microsoft knew the GPL could change (as it did from v1 to v2) and that Licenses often change (as their EULA states clearly that they are subject to change) would certainly play into whether Microsoft is really bound by the agreement even if it were not stated up front.
What some are trying to say is that Microsoft is not bound by the GPL v2 either. They are trying to say that only Novell is. What the FSF is saying is that Microsoft is as much bound by the GPL as anyone is. It would be completely wrong to allow for agreements between two parties for the purpose of allowing them the benefits of the software developed under the GPL without that company being bound by the terms of the GPL. That's what's wrong with the Novell-Microsfot agreement. That's why the GPL v3 was created. It was created to protect the developers to keep companies such as Microsoft from stealing their work.
If the agreement between Microsoft and Novell excluded any GPL V3 product as a possibility, well, that's one thing. But if they didn't include a clause or two regarding that in their agreement then certainly this is a matter for the courts. Either way, it would be a matter for the courts.
Certainly Microsoft has the right to cease selling the the vouchers (in the event that there is no clause (or two)).
Clearly it is an issue the courts could answer. I don't know the law in that regard but companies such as Microsoft have tried to enforce this sort of thing in their favor in the past. So, I think there are some pretty clear cases representing this position.
Really it is the responsibility of Microsoft to do more than declare they are not bound. They must, at least, attempt to recover the vouchers and then in turn get them back from Novell or work to ensure that Novell does not make them bound by the GPL v3 by intentionally including GPL v3 software in their distribution.
The GPL v3 is doing what it is supposed to do. It is keeping Microsoft from thwarting the purpose of the GPL to begin with, which is to protect the developers. To even attempt to thwart it is a knife in the back of anyone giving their resources to create a product they want others to enjoy for free.
I could personally care less about whether Microsoft's proprietary software becomes less popular (or any company's software for that matter). It isn't up to the people that are part of the FOSS to protect Microsoft's markets. If they choose to make something and give it away for free then that's their business. It is really sad when company owned by the "once richest man in the world" thwarts the intended purpose of a license to keep competition under their thumbs.
There is nothing in the world that says that free and open software is bad for anything, including the economy. I venture to say that in fact it is more beneficial to the economy because the money from the sale of the proprietary software generally go into small group of people's pockets and sits in bank accounts, etc. What happens when those that would have to pay for that software can use that money for something else (e.g., eduction, dental bills, clothes for their children, or repairs to their cars, etc), is certainly more beneficial to the economy.
In as much as there are slasdotards there are propritards (tards that use proprietary software) that use MS Software. Now, if you don't want to get into such a stupid ad homenen fight then stop trying to insult others. If you do not, then we can clearly take from your position that you do not have a clear idea of what FOSS is nor what it is trying to accomplish.
Microsoft implied they were not bound by the GPL v3 for anything and that it could not be enforced against them. That's what the FSF is talking about. They are saying that they are immune to anything having to do with the GPL simply by declaring it. The FSF is going to take issue because it means that any company can so declare if Microsoft isn't taken to task on the issue.
I have great doubt that Microsoft fixed the issues with OOXML in this short period of time so one must ask why is this format being addressed again so quickly?! One has to wonder if the ISO simply realizes that no matter what they do Microsoft will just keep pushing this until they finally get a yes vote. Are they simply caving?
If they agree to this it will simply be plain evidence that they are being influenced or the members are not competent. I'm of the opinion that they need to force a delay between considerations of at least 6 months. This gives the industry time to mull over any possible changes that have been made.
One must ask themselves how on earth one can claim an open standard for a format that is closed, misrepresented to those attempting to implement it, and can be changed by Microsoft at any time to shaft any open source groups thinking of implementation.
What Microsoft will get is simply a format that no one will use that no one will be willing to pay royalties on that closes their customers down so that they are locked into a single platform.
If the ISO members agree to this something is very wrong.
Enough said. Microsoft is just being silly. In the long term they cannot compete. I do find it quite amazing that Linux on the desktop doubled in the past year. I would expect even greater growth now that the nasty DRM nightmare called Vista is out and is showing its true colors. 47 programs that spy on you, WGA/WGN accusing you of stealing and then searching your home (your computer is an extension of your home after all). With performance issues relating to the implementation of the hardware requirements dictated to the hardware manufacturers, etc.
I think this is just a silly mess that Microsoft has created for itself. They forgot one important thing. Serve the customer. You don't go violating everyone privacy because you want a few extra billion dollars--billions more than the billions you already have. Just pathetic. They have markets greater than you can imagine in the world and they are violating our privacy, invading our homes, manipulating the police authorities into stupid raids on xbox modchip makers. Just pathetic.
Now they are saying they like open source but it must be Microsoft Windows only code? That's not open source. And then they have the gall to try to win a comparison war? I think FOSS wins, hands down.