Class action suit against Microsoft?
Zalek...@hotmail.com
was done by GRUB and had no problems. One day WinXP crushed and needed
to reinstalled it. Reinstallation of WinXP destroyd GRUB - so I had to
reinstall the GRUB.
I installed Linux many time on the same disk with Win and Linux NEVER
destroyed my dual boot properties. There no valid reason for
Microsoft destroy GRUB except of purposely destroying competing
software. I searched the Web and I am not only one who had this
problem. On the other side Microsoft will not destroy any other
Microsoft OS - special file boot.ini takes care of situation if
someone wants to have dual boot with WinXP and WinMe or other
Microsoft OS.
Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
Zalek
ray
Be sure and let us know how that works out for you. BTW - exactly what
law is it you're asserting that they broke?
Zalek...@hotmail.com
I am not a lawyer - but MS product purposely destroyed another
software installed on my PC - I think it was a criminal act, or at
least it acted as a virus. Viruses destroys the contends of your disk
- is it legal? MS product destroyed small content of my disk.
Zalek
richard
What you need now is documentation.
Buy several different machines. Videotape the process of installing Linux
and GRUB. With absolutely no other software installed on either machines,
do a reinstall of the windows OS.
If you can show that Windows did in fact destroy the Linux and Grub, then
you may have a case.
The next trick is, convincing the court that enough other people have had
the same experience to make it a class action. Usually that number is in
the thousands. But you might get a lenient judge too.
Javi
I think it would be difficult to win such a case. They can always allegue
that the particular structure of windows makes technically impossible to
avoid destroying previous OS. That argument is similar to the one they used
about IE being impossible to uninstall from windows.
And you should always take into account the money. They can afford a trial
as long as necessary, so the first thing you need is a HUGE amount of money.
Anyway, if you finally try it, good luck.
FoxyKnoxy
Microsoft will financially crush you.
Then of course there is your witness list, which if comprised of Linux
users is going to be a problem right from the start.
Just try finding a normal looking Linux geek who can explain the details of
the boot sector and yet at the same time has had a bath in the last month
and doesn't dress like Flounder from Animal House.
Good luck.
Remember what happened when they put Hans Reiser (a Linux geek) on the
stand. It was a disaster as he continued to mumble and scratch his hair and
crotch, when he wasn't picking his ears and nose.
Microsoft will win. They will.
Hadron
Or Melvin from Wargames
http://www.verysimple.com/personal/deezen/images/wargames_a.gif
Van Chocstraw
They deprived him the right to have dual operating systems by killing
his boot manager. I'm with him.
Van Chocstraw
I've had Ubuntu destroy my Opensuse boot when it reinstall grub but
failed to set up Opensuse. It was on the menu but did not boot.
Deadrat
He's not. The gov reserves the right (at least in the US) to go after law
breakers. It's a rare statute that allows private parties to collect from
a convict, although there are some. ZB will have to assert that he has a
tort or contract claim against Microsoft.
Deadrat
news:5h98i5phvjrm1dmhi...@4ax.com:
> On 12 Dec 2009 23:11:46 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:08:29 -0500, ZalekBloom wrote:
>>
>>> I think I found a case. On my disk I had Linux and WinXP, dual boot
>>> was done by GRUB and had no problems. One day WinXP crushed and
>>> needed to reinstalled it. Reinstallation of WinXP destroyd GRUB - so
>>> I had to reinstall the GRUB.
>>> I installed Linux many time on the same disk with Win and Linux
>>> NEVER destroyed my dual boot properties. There no valid reason for
>>> Microsoft destroy GRUB except of purposely destroying competing
>>> software. I searched the Web and I am not only one who had this
>>> problem. On the other side Microsoft will not destroy any other
>>> Microsoft OS - special file boot.ini takes care of situation if
>>> someone wants to have dual boot with WinXP and WinMe or other
>>> Microsoft OS. Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a
>>> glory?
>>>
>>> Zalek
>>
>>Be sure and let us know how that works out for you. BTW - exactly what
>>law is it you're asserting that they broke?
>
> I am not a lawyer -
and you're clueless to boot, not a very good start on your quixotic
venture.
> but MS product purposely destroyed another software installed on my PC
> -
So what? Even assuming that you could prove that they did so, what
makes you think that they have some duty to you to keep your boot loader
intact?
> I think it was a criminal act,
Please cite the law you think was broken.
> or at least it acted as a virus. Viruses destroys the contends of your
> disk - is it legal?
I'll interpret that as "Viruses destroy the contents of your disk." But
of course that's not true. Viruses propagate themselves. Sometimes they
do destructive things as well.
> MS product destroyed small content of my disk.
Please estimate your damages. That should tell you how much your suit is
worth.
>
> Zalek
Deadrat
40tude.net:
Bad news, ZB. Richard thinks you have a case. You're doomed.
But by all means start videotaping your installations.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
have had linux(ubuntu) destroy Microsofts boot also. [Thankfully it
wasn't that big of a deal I just did XP recovery disk + fixmbr]
Bob CP
Just be aware that when a Linux distribution installs Grub over the MS
bootloader, you might just be violating MS's EULA too. Do you want to
have MS sue all dual-boot Linux users?
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
Microsoft's extortion agreement.
>
> Do you want to have MS sue all dual-boot Linux users?
one more(especially one that big).
But to answer your question...Yes I do want them to sue em'. Maybe it
will get people pissed enough to force the government to deal with
Microsofts bs. [No more government contracts, no more government
funded research, no more government welfare period]
It's not made in America...So why do we treat it like it is? Fuck em.
Chris Ahlstrom
Nope. That's what you get when you opt for a technically inferior
solution (Windows).
--
Everything will be just tickety-boo today.
Don Zeigler
> Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
Hadron thought you said "glory hole" and came running.
RonB
> Just be aware that when a Linux distribution installs Grub over the MS
> bootloader, you might just be violating MS's EULA too. Do you want to
> have MS sue all dual-boot Linux users?
Not worried about Microsoft suing "dual-booters" -- but I also don't think
there is much of a class-action suit against Microsoft here. This is why,
if you're going to dual-boot, you're always told to install Windows first.
Easiest solution is to either rid yourself of Windows altogether -- or run
it in a virtual machine.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
talking head wrote:
> On Dec 13, 4:24 am, Bob CP <ctcboa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
>> Just be aware that when a Linux distribution installs Grub over the MS
>> bootloader, you might just be violating MS's EULA too.
> Hell, there are a thousand things people do daily that violate
> Microsoft's extortion agreement.
Exactly. If anyone actually fulfilled the requirements of EULAs they
wouldn't have time to do anything else.
I still think Borland had the best (commercial) one ever. Their "like a
book" license agreement made the most sense of any. One person used the
software at a time. It didn't matter what one person or on what computer
-- so long as it was only one person using it at any one time (like
passing around a book).
Bob CP
I assure you that MS has scads (scabs?) of lawyers under contract
looking for ways to earn their salaries. My company was sued (harassed)
by a much larger company and it cost us a quarter Mil in lawyer's fees
to have the suit dismissed. The suit was not to right a wrong - it was
to bankrupt a competing company. And they almost did. It's not a pretty
sight.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Zalek...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
>
> Hadron thought you said "glory hole" and came running.
Nah, "Hadron"'s now shilling the "One Shot" troll.
--
Wrinkles should merely indicate where smiles have been.
-- Mark Twain
High Plains Thumper
> Microsoft will financially crush you.
>
> Then of course there is your witness list, which if comprised of
> Linux users is going to be a problem right from the start.
>
> Just try finding a normal looking Linux geek who can explain the
> details of the boot sector and yet at the same time has had a bath in
> the last month and doesn't dress like Flounder from Animal House.
> Good luck.
> Remember what happened when they put Hans Reiser (a Linux geek) on
> the stand. It was a disaster as he continued to mumble and scratch
> his hair and crotch, when he wasn't picking his ears and nose.
> Microsoft will win. They will.
Hello, Flatfish!
--
HPT
chrisv
>Don Zeigler pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Zalek...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
>>
>> Hadron thought you said "glory hole" and came running.
>
>Nah, "Hadron"'s now shilling the "One Shot" troll.
As long as someone is anti-Linux, "Hadron" will support them...
--
"There is more truth in one of them than you and your COLA gang." -
Hadron Quark, defending the group of "DFS, billwg, ErikF, flatfish,
etc."
chrisv
>Zalek...@hotmail.com wrote: in
>
>> I think it was a criminal act,
>
>Please cite the law you think was broken.
Indeed. If every incompetent or immoral act of the Microshaft Corp
was illegal, they'd have all been behind bards years ago.
Chris Ahlstrom
============
Keep on shakin' that spear!
--
Q: Why did Menachem Begin invade Lebanon?
A: To impress Jodie Foster.
Rex Ballard
> I think I found a case. On my disk I had Linux and WinXP, dual boot
> was done by GRUB and had no problems. One day WinXP crushed and needed
> to reinstalled it. Reinstallation of WinXP destroyd GRUB - so I had to
> reinstall the GRUB.
> I installed Linux many time on the same disk with Win and Linux NEVER
> destroyed my dual boot properties. There no valid reason for
> Microsoft destroy GRUB except of purposely destroying competing
> software.
Correct. This SHOULD be a violation of the antitrust settlment signed
in 2001, but the Bush Administration appointed technical committee
reviewed the issue and found the complaint "without merit", along with
nearly 5,000 other similar complaints, including complaints from OEMs
such as HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Gateway, who went virtually bankrupt as
a result of their inability to support anyone other than Microsoft due
to the most restrictive contracts and deep losses one the sale of
nearly every laptop.
> I searched the Web and I am not only one who had this
> problem. On the other side Microsoft will not destroy any other
> Microsoft OS - special file boot.ini takes care of situation if
> someone wants to have dual boot with WinXP and WinMe or other
> Microsoft OS.
You can also boot Linux from boot.ini, but you will have already
filled memory with the Windows code before you transfer control to
Linux. The Windows code is "dead code" and can't be called by Linux
or even virtualized Windows. It just takes up memory.
> Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
Microsoft made huge contributions to both the Bush and Obama campaigns
at critical moments in the primaries. In addition, MSNBC, which is
partially owned by Microsoft openly supported these candidates during
their initial primaries. Even today Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow, and
"The Ed Show" all rabidly promote pro-Obama rhetoric.
It's safe to say that most Attorney's general won't be stupid enough
to let themselves be thumb-cuffed into accepting another nationalized
anti-trust lawsuit any time in the near future. The only people who
made any real money in these lawsuits were the lawyers for the defense
and the private lawyers for the prosecution. Several of the AGs were
defeated in subsequent elections or left because of term limits. The
states got coupons allowing them to put Windows and MS-Office on
computers that had been previously running Linux and Open Office. The
settlement was valued (and legal fees based on) the full retail value
of the Windows software, rather than the "student license" price - a
difference of about $200 for Windows and $300 for Office.
Microsoft certainly didn't want Hillary to finish the job Bill tried
to start. They were appearantly a bit concerned that McCain might
also be a bit difficult to manipulate. For Microsoft, Obama was the
least undesirable of all the candidates running in 2008. It looks
like the DOJ settlement will expire with little more than a whimper
next year. The DOJ has recently stated that they are "substantially
satisfied" with Microsoft's "incomplete" documentation and has
reccomended that licenses that forced Microsoft to give the
information out royalty free, should now permit Microsoft to enforce
tighter anti-competitive restrictions and to collect substantial
royalties, if they choose to do so.
Ironically, it is now Microsoft who is trying to get the Obama
administration to go after Google in an attempt to prevent Google from
releasing a version of Linux, Office software, and other collaboration
tools - that could be attractive to OEMs who are pretty much fed up
with selling PCs at 20% below cost. Vista led to losses, and Windows
7 has not helped prices much either. In fact, PC prices have dropped
even lower. Tiger Direct is now selling brand-name Laptop PCs for
$399 each. Surplus equipment that didn't do well at retailers.
The likelihood is that Google will file an antitrust and collusion
lawsuit naming both Microsoft and the OEMs if they refuse to pre-
install the new OS, which can run concurrently with Windows 7 under a
hypervisor.
> Zalek
David Kerber
chr...@nospam.invalid says...
What do Shakespeare and his ilk have to do with it?
Van Chocstraw
> I think I found a case. On my disk I had Linux and WinXP, dual boot
> was done by GRUB and had no problems. One day WinXP crushed and needed
> to reinstalled it. Reinstallation of WinXP destroyd GRUB - so I had to
> reinstall the GRUB.
> I installed Linux many time on the same disk with Win and Linux NEVER
> destroyed my dual boot properties. There no valid reason for
> Microsoft destroy GRUB except of purposely destroying competing
> problem. On the other side Microsoft will not destroy any other
> Microsoft OS - special file boot.ini takes care of situation if
> someone wants to have dual boot with WinXP and WinMe or other
> Microsoft OS.
>
You have a case because they do it intentionally and knowingly.
Deadrat
news:eq2dncrhWbGYxbvW...@giganews.com:
Wow! Intentionally *and* knowingly.
You have no case unless you can find a breach of contract or a violation of
a tort.
Start lookin'.
Erik Funkenbusch
> I think I found a case. On my disk I had Linux and WinXP, dual boot
> was done by GRUB and had no problems. One day WinXP crushed and needed
> to reinstalled it. Reinstallation of WinXP destroyd GRUB - so I had to
> reinstall the GRUB.
> I installed Linux many time on the same disk with Win and Linux NEVER
> destroyed my dual boot properties. There no valid reason for
> Microsoft destroy GRUB except of purposely destroying competing
> software. I searched the Web and I am not only one who had this
> problem. On the other side Microsoft will not destroy any other
> Microsoft OS - special file boot.ini takes care of situation if
> someone wants to have dual boot with WinXP and WinMe or other
> Microsoft OS.
> Are there any lawyers who want to make a buck and a glory?
>
> Zalek
That's hilarious. For starters, you don't apparently understand how the
microsoft loader or grub work. Here's a hint, both of them destroy the
other, because only one can exist in the boot sector. Yes, Grub is capable
of booting Windows, and many (not all) Linux distro's setup grub to do
that, but the Windows loader can boot Linux as well.
What's even more hilarious is that you don't understand that both OS's
provide facilities to restore the boot sector if it gets corrupted or
overwritten, meaning you have lost nothing. You just boot from a CD and
rerun the mbr installer.
So, given the triviality of restoring the OS to it's previous condition
with zero lost data, what damages do you think you are entitled to collect
even if you could prove your case?
Zalek Bloom
Thanks for interested remarks.
Yes - to fix the damage done by MS it took me 10 minutes only - I booted
CD Knoppix Linux and reinstalled GRUB, but it still pisses me off. If
you give a car for repairs and you will receive a dirty car - it could
be argued that to clean the car takes only 10 minutes and no real damage
was done - but while we have thousands of repair shops - it is difficult
to switch to other OS if you invested in many program which run only
under Win.
I don't plan to go after MS - I have not enough money, will or time - it
was an just an idea.
Right now I don't plan to extend my "contract" with MS, I already have
one Mac and Linux machines and don't plan to go with Win7 - I am
sticking with WinXP.
Zalek
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> microsoft loader or grub work. Here's a hint, both of them destroy the
> other, because only one can exist in the boot sector.
up with it. [They sure as hell aren't going to fix it]
unruh
On 2009-12-17, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> That's hilarious. ?For starters, you don't apparently understand how the
>> microsoft loader or grub work. ?Here's a hint, both of them destroy the
>> other, because only one can exist in the boot sector.
> Really poor design I would say...I wonder if it was Microsoft who came
> up with it. [They sure as hell aren't going to fix it]
Why is it poor design? You do know that when you edit a file, you
destroy the original and replace it with the new one don't you?
>
>
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> >> microsoft loader or grub work. ?Here's a hint, both of them destroy the
> >> other, because only one can exist in the boot sector.
> > Really poor design I would say...I wonder if it was Microsoft who came
> > up with it. [They sure as hell aren't going to fix it]
>
> Why is it poor design?
A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
allowed to be installed. [Allow user to uninstall the ones they didn't
want]
>
<snip lame analogy>
Norman Peelman
You don't understand. M$ 'can' do it the right way... they just
won't. Linux is about choice, M$ is not.
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
DenverD
> The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
> A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
> they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
> allowed to be installed.
already available--here is a way to have 300 choices to boot, that
even includes a way even MS can't screw it up past being repairable:
http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=147959
--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (20090817),
KDE 3.5.7 "release 72-11", openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.4-default
#1 SMP i686 athlon
Chris Ahlstrom
DenverD pulled this Usenet boner:
> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
>> The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
>> A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
>> they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
>> allowed to be installed.
>
> already available--here is a way to have 300 choices to boot, that
> even includes a way even MS can't screw it up past being repairable:
>
> http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=147959
Updated 8 Apr 09, Good news! kernel 2.6.28 and newer have finally decided
to support large partitions. A report is here. I have managed to run a
Ubuntu from sda130! Currently I am trying a 1.5 TB hard disk with 60
partitions and will report the progress later.
. . .
The 145 systems are:-
3 Dos
5 Windows
137 Linux
Cool! (Too bad he didn't work other UNIXen into it).
--
But, for my own part, it was Greek to me.
-- William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
Java Jive
claims, as even my cursory glance amply convinced. Even if, as he
does, you put all your boot kit in your own dedicated small partition,
there's nothing to stop MS or anyone else overwriting the MBR that
loads it. The only way you could do that is by setting it read-only
before installing such an OS, and IIRC that's only possible if
supported by the motherboard BIOS.
So the OP does have a point in that MS or any other OS only needs to
install its own proprietary PBR. It does NOT need to, and therefore
should not by default, overwrite an existing perfectly serviceable MBR
over which it has no 'ownership'. At very worst it should examine it
to see if there's already a boot-loader in it, and if there is offer
either to leave it alone, restore it once the rebooting phase of
Windows Setup is done, or overwrite it only if the user actually wants
it done.
I have a similar issue with Ghost, which writes its own data to an
'unused' disk sector, IIRC #62. As the main purpose of this seems to
be anti-piratical rather than required functionality, in some ways
that is even worse.
There really is no justification for silently and unseen crapping over
areas of your customers' hard disks to which you are not intended to
have write access.
BTW, if anyone here is unclear about how Linux, Windows, or any other
disk-based OS boots off the hard disk, or unfamiliar with acronyms
such as MBR and PBR, I have a page on my web-site explaining the
process, which should also help understand what the guy in the other
linked thread is doing.
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/PCHardware/PCBootProcess/PCBootProcess.html
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:47:58 +0100, DenverD <spam...@SOMEwhere.dk>
wrote:
> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
> > The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
> > A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
> > they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
> > allowed to be installed.
>
> already available--here is a way to have 300 choices to boot, that
> even includes a way even MS can't screw it up past being repairable:
>
> http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=147959
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> (alt.politics removed from groups)
>
> DenverD pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
>>> The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
>>> A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
>>> they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
>>> allowed to be installed.
>>
>> already available--here is a way to have 300 choices to boot, that
>> even includes a way even MS can't screw it up past being repairable:
>>
>> http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=147959
>
> Updated 8 Apr 09, Good news! kernel 2.6.28 and newer have finally decided
> to support large partitions. A report is here. I have managed to run a
??? How large is "large". I have been using large partitions since
before kernel version 2.6.28.
[deletia]
--
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
unruh
> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
>> The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
>> A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
>> they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
>> allowed to be installed.
There are only 500 or 1K bytes at the beginning of the disk which are
the bootloader. You cannot fit "multiple bootloaders" in there. Now, you
can have those bytes load stuff from elsewhere in the disk (using
absolute addressing) and have that then use a bunch of bootloaders. But
the issue is that those 500 bytes is all you got. And any bootloader has
to put something in there. Windows puts a little pointer to its bootup
area on the disk, Linux to a list of its possible areas. They cannot fit
multiple stuff there. MS claims its users would be terminally confused
if they were offered an option during the installation process ( since
Windows has to reboot multiple times during the installation process)
and so just put in a booter to their own system.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.comp.os.linux.]
>
> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:
> >> The fact that it causes bootloaders to be overwriting each other(duh).
> >> A better system would be to allow the user to pick which bootloader
> >> they wanted to use, at any given time, with multiple bootloaders
> >> allowed to be installed.
>
> There are only 500 or 1K bytes at the beginning of the disk which are
> the bootloader. You cannot fit "multiple bootloaders" in there. Now, you
> can have those bytes load stuff from elsewhere in the disk (using
> absolute addressing) and have that then use a bunch of bootloaders. But
> the issue is that those 500 bytes is all you got. And any bootloader has
> to put something in there. Windows puts a little pointer to its bootup
> area on the disk, Linux to a list of its possible areas. They cannot fit
> multiple stuff there. MS claims its users would be terminally confused
> if they were offered an option during the installation process ( since
> Windows has to reboot multiple times during the installation process)
> and so just put in a booter to their own system.
Linux. [It sounds to me like someone would have a case in a European
court]
mechanic
> So the OP does have a point in that MS or any other OS only needs to
> install its own proprietary PBR. It does NOT need to, and therefore
> should not by default, overwrite an existing perfectly serviceable MBR
> over which it has no 'ownership'. At very worst it should examine it
> to see if there's already a boot-loader in it, and if there is offer
> either to leave it alone, restore it once the rebooting phase of
> Windows Setup is done, or overwrite it only if the user actually wants
> it done.
How on earth are you going to explain that to the average user during
installation? Sorting the Grub options is bad enough with a multi-boot
system.
--
mechanic
Norman Peelman
> mechanic wrote:
>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> So the OP does have a point in that MS or any other OS only needs to
>>> install its own proprietary PBR. It does NOT need to, and therefore
>>> should not by default, overwrite an existing perfectly serviceable MBR
>>> over which it has no 'ownership'. At very worst it should examine it
>>> to see if there's already a boot-loader in it, and if there is offer
>>> either to leave it alone, restore it once the rebooting phase of
>>> Windows Setup is done, or overwrite it only if the user actually wants
>>> it done.
>>
>> How on earth are you going to explain that to the average user during
>> installation?
>
>
>> Sorting the Grub options is bad enough with a multi-boot
>> system.
>>
>
The M$ way is to ignore alien OS's and assume that all you want need
is M$.
Erik Funkenbusch
anti-political talking head wrote:
> They overwrite a bootloader that loads Windows with one that wont load
> Linux. [It sounds to me like someone would have a case in a European
> court]
That's not true. The Windows bootloader can load Linux. It just doesn't
configure it to do so if Linux is already on the system.
VWWall
Not unless you disguise GRUB stage1 as a file Windows can execute. (And
put it in "C:", which is the only partition it can use!)
--
Virg Wall
DFS
> I assure you that MS has scads (scabs?) of lawyers under contract
> looking for ways to earn their salaries. My company was sued
> (harassed) by a much larger company and it cost us a quarter Mil in
> lawyer's fees to have the suit dismissed. The suit was not to right
> a wrong - it was to bankrupt a competing company. And they almost
> did. It's not a pretty sight.
Why is it Linux idiots always have persecution complexes?
DFS
> You don't understand. M$ 'can' do it the right way... they just
> won't. Linux is about choice, M$ is not.
And it turns out the "choice" for some 50% of them is Ubuntu. LMFAO!
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
In reality, Linux is about crap software produced by hobbyists and amateurs
and given
away because it won't sell.
MS is not.
DFS
You can always count on Tattoo DamnLiar to make a remark worthy of a tween.
Rick
> Norman Peelman wrote:
>
>> You don't understand. M$ 'can' do it the right way... they just
>> won't. Linux is about choice, M$ is not.
>
> And it turns out the "choice" for some 50% of them is Ubuntu. LMFAO!
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/
SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
>
>
>
> In reality, Linux is about crap software produced by hobbyists and
> amateurs
Hobbyists and amateurs like...
IBM, Red Hat, HP, Sun, Oracle, Nokia, Google, Sony, Motorola, Intel,
Mircrosoft ...
... those hobbyists and amateurs?
It is interesting that you, the greatest of the Microsoft apologists
considers Microsoft developers hobbyists and amateurs.
> and given away because it won't sell.
>
> MS is not.
Microsoft is a company that has been to have found to have illegally
wielded monopoly power on multiple continents.
--
Rick
unruh
Grub is a bootloader that sits in the MBR. It reads ( using raw disk
reads using sectors, cyl, etc-- no filesystem) the next stage from the
hard drive. It can be anywhere.
The Windows bootloader is a different animal. It again uses the bios to
read the first sector of partition C: I have no idea what the more
recent versions do or can do, but all use the bios to read absolute
sectors from the disk.
>