Don't sell PCs in UK without an OS!
B Gruff
B Gruff
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Sorry - should have also included this:-
William Poaster
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
I hope they're told to get stuffed.
--
SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta9 (Agama Lizard)
All posts from googlegroups.com are killfiled.
"Internet Explorer; a collection of security holes
held together by browser code”- Novell.
Roy Culley
<49j1nmF...@individual.net>,
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Naked PCs: Free software supporters are angry that Microsoft is
putting pressure on PC vendors not to sell machines without an
operating system installed
Personally I think all PC's should be priced sans OS and any other SW.
Once people know just how much the bundled OS and SW is costing they
may decide that perhaps MS isn't such a great deal after all.
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49j2nrF...@individual.net...
version of linux on a bare bones machine, goat?
MSFT obviously thinks that the purchaser is most likely to install an
old OS from a prior computer or else an unlicensed copy of Windows.
They propose various solutions to that happening. You certainly would
support shipping the machines with a "free" linux, but why do the
manufacturers not see that? They seem reluctant to install linux even
to the point of doing something illegal to avoid it. That does not
speak very highly of the chances for linux to be adopted by the general
public through some groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
B Gruff
That's not one of your better ideas, is it Roy?
Have you thought this through?
Consider:-
- People would see what the OS costs. That's not good!
- Companies who had volume licences would not need to buy a PC with Windows
installed, and would thereby only pay for one licence instead of two.
Think of the wealth that wouldn't be created, and the job losses that would
ensue!
- It would make it cheaper to use a PC with another OS (Cheaper than paying
for a bundled Windows that you didn't want, that is). Again, where's the
wealth creation in that, and what about the job losses?
- All this might mean that MS would make less profit, and that would mean
that the UK would get less in corporation tax (which presumably it recoups
from Ireland?), and therefore the Brits would be worse off, wouldn't they?
See what I mean?
I guess you were just being stoopid, oh....?.......:-)
Bill
B Gruff
Sorry to repeat myself (see my response to Roy on this) but you and I are
obviously of accord in this matter, viz:-
Roy Culley
<49j48sF...@individual.net>,
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 00:47 Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <49j1nmF...@individual.net>,
>> B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>>
>> Naked PCs: Free software supporters are angry that Microsoft is
>> putting pressure on PC vendors not to sell machines without an
>> operating system installed
>>
>> Personally I think all PC's should be priced sans OS and any other SW.
>> Once people know just how much the bundled OS and SW is costing they
>> may decide that perhaps MS isn't such a great deal after all.
>
> That's not one of your better ideas, is it Roy?
> Have you thought this through?
> Consider:-
>
> - People would see what the OS costs. That's not good!
Hehe, I hadn't thought of that. :-)
> - Companies who had volume licences would not need to buy a PC with
> Windows installed, and would thereby only pay for one licence
> instead of two. Think of the wealth that wouldn't be created, and
> the job losses that would ensue!
If this was a joke it would be funny. I know your being flippant Bill
but many companies were stung by this. Buying PC's from OEM's with
Windows pre-installed only to find that to install the company's
standard installation required them to purchase another Windows
license.
Then there's XP on laptops. When XP first came out most OEM's bundled
XP and not XP Pro. This was useless for most businesses and they had
to 'upgrade' to XP Pro.
I ask myself, what other company offers crippled versions of their OS.
The answer is MS. Why? Sun don't do it. HP (HP-UX) don't do it. Apple
don't do it. Only MS. Why? We know the reason of course. The real
question is why they can get away with it. Vista, if it ever gets
released, will be even worse.
> [snip]
>
> See what I mean?
Sadly yes I do.
> I guess you were just being stoopid, oh....?.......:-)
I should thank the MS monopoly even though it has been proven they use
illegal means to protect it. To oppose MS is very 'stoopid'. :-)
Roy Culley
<49j4h3F...@individual.net>,
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> [snip]
Bill, killfile the arsehole. You will never win against the likes of
billwg. He just repeats his lies ad nauseum with total disregard of
what anyone says.
Rick
>
> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:49j2nrF...@individual.net...
>> On Thursday 06 April 2006 00:21 B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>>
>> Sorry - should have also included this:-
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/nw/sp/storygraphics/scan.jpg
>>
> So what is your theory on why a PC vendor would not put a freebie version
> of linux on a bare bones machine, goat?
They don't want to?
>
> MSFT obviously thinks that the purchaser is most likely to install an old
> OS from a prior computer or else an unlicensed copy of Windows. They
> propose various solutions to that happening. You certainly would support
> shipping the machines with a "free" linux, but why do the manufacturers
> not see that?
Why should they? How do they decide which version of Linux to install? Or
BSD...?
> They seem reluctant to install linux even to the point of
> doing something illegal to avoid it.
What would that 'illegal" thing be?
> That does not speak very highly of
> the chances for linux to be adopted by the general public through some
> groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
It says nothing about the chances for or against Linux adoption.
--
Rick
Brad
> They seem reluctant to install linux even
> to the point of doing something illegal to avoid it.
So by your twisted logic..... MSFT wants computer vendors to sell
PC's with an OS makes NOT doing so illegal? Since when did MSFT become the
law of the kingdom? I suppose that MS trying to lever PC vendors forcibly
into installing an OS lessens MSFT's stance as a monopoly? I suspect if
forced to do so, PC vendors will be more than happy to pre-install
Linux or at the least provide a copy of it with a new computer instead
of having to build the cost of WINDOWS into their price. Besides....Who
gives a fsck what MSFT wants? Obviously you. That makes you a MS shill
hanging out in a linux advocacy group......that in my book makes you a
troll. 'nuff of me feeding the troll.
Brad
Rick
> "Rick"posted the following on 2006-04-06:
> Actually, it says an awful lot : that Linux, despite it " being there", is
> not sufficiently accepted in the minds of the masses to warrant it being
> a "plus" for the people who have the dollars to purchase new machines.
> Sad, but true.
Uh, no. When was the last time you saw a television or mainstream print ad
for Linux related software? When did you see specials on Linux related
software in mainstream retail stores? When did you sees a row of computers
with Linux distros pre-installed in any mainstream store?
Linux is not 'accepted' in the minds of 'the masses' because they don't
know about it.
Personally, I plan to continue my 'guerrilla' tactics of installing OSS at
work. Hopefully, I'll be able to start slipping in some machines with
Linux based distros soon.
--
Rick
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 03:15:02 +0200,
Richard G. Riley <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Roy"posted the following on 2006-04-06:
>
>> Then there's XP on laptops. When XP first came out most OEM's bundled
>> XP and not XP Pro. This was useless for most businesses and they had
>> to 'upgrade' to XP Pro.
>
>
> Just to balance the books : that is total bollox.
>
> Only for servers was Xp insufficient : for the volume purchases (ie
> cubicle workstations
or for Laptops bought for business, which needed to authenticate to
an MS-Windows domain...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFENJdLd90bcYOAWPYRAnbGAJ9zU2DEGOV4T+ovfbCMFYeSbQAfUwCg1KXc
x740qPH8ayHw3SRPuSfDXn4=
=Uo5Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
This isn't hell. This is where you get sent when you've been bad in hell.
Jim
I sell new systems with Linux on as standard (usually Knoppix/Debian
'cos stuff just works with it with the absolute minimum of fuss)and
supply the CD as well. They can stick with that (which I sell the
Knoppix DVDs seperately at a tenner each and they shift like cupcakes)
or they can fork out the £130 for XP Pro or however much for whatever
else. I don't get paid to distribute software for Microsoft, at my own
expense, so why should I?
And I'll tell you what; nobody has as yet come to me and requested a
copy of Windows for their new box. OK, a couple have come and asked for
it because they wanted to upgrade a box they already had, but that's
about it. All my other stuff has been Linux powered.
High Plains Thumper
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Key is in this statement:
> Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and
> unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software.
See here __________________^^^^^^
> In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep
> IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would
> visit technology vendors suspected of installing
> counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.
"Keep IT Real" means keep it Microsoft. "Counterfeit
software" means Linux, BSD Free, etc.
--
HPT
Brad
> "Keep IT Real" means keep it Microsoft. "Counterfeit
> software" means Linux, BSD Free, etc.
I think more to the point is:
"Counterfeit software"= The threat of free software causing commercial
entities to lose control of information and content. If they can't control
it, they can't make money controlling it.(DRM).
This can be translated that MS is getting the hell scared out of them by a
little pengiun and they are grabbing at straws to combat the threat.
Brad
Roy Culley
<ml6eg3-...@fujitsu.mydomain.com>,
>> XP and not XP Pro. This was useless for most businesses and they had
>> to 'upgrade' to XP Pro.
>
>
> Only for servers was Xp insufficient : for the volume purchases (ie
> cubicle workstations
Sometimes it is better to say nothing than ...
Mark Kent
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 03:15:02 +0200,
> Richard G. Riley <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Roy"posted the following on 2006-04-06:
>>
>>> Then there's XP on laptops. When XP first came out most OEM's bundled
>>> XP and not XP Pro. This was useless for most businesses and they had
>>> to 'upgrade' to XP Pro.
>>
>>
>> Just to balance the books : that is total bollox.
>>
>> Only for servers was Xp insufficient : for the volume purchases (ie
>> cubicle workstations
>
> or for Laptops bought for business, which needed to authenticate to
> an MS-Windows domain...
>
I don't know anyone who has a desktop now. People use laptops and dock
them, at least for the 'business user', ie., the Web/Email/Calendaring
folks.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
<StevenK> I can usually supress the feelings that tell me to crash
tackle a girl into the bushes
Mark Kent
High Plains Thumper <h...@singlecylinderbikes.com> espoused:
The whole thing is disingenuous. But from MS's perspective, /anything/
they can do to stop people getting a pc without Windows on it is a good
thing, particularly as so many organisations are moving to Linux at a
pace which is not yet overwhelming, but perhaps not so far off.
Linonut
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Wow, they're still pushing that "Naked PC" crap!
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/windows/story/0,10801,60253,00.html
Microsoft Takes On 'Naked' PC Orders
Prizes for PC makers who report requests
May 07, 2001
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/
MS: it's (nearly) illegal to buy PCs without Windows
Two Naked PC docs vaped from site, but here's another brace. Tell us
if the Chinese version's good...
5 or so years later, and still the same old shit from Crimosoft.
--
Kreegah! Bundolo Microsoft bolgani!
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
I think it's probably indicative of the level of desperation at FUD
Central.
B Gruff
I ask this from a perspective of (almost) total ignorance:-
The implication is that MS believes that any "naked" PC is going to be
loaded with pirated MS software.
Tell me, what does all that registration stuff achieve, and what is it meant
to achieve? It seems to me that either:-
a) The system works, and one can't pirate MS software, or use a single
purchase on more than one computer, or...
b) The system doesn't work, and customers are being inconvenienced by it.
Which is it?
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Tell me, what does all that registration stuff achieve, and what is it meant
> to achieve? It seems to me that either:-
>
> a) The system works, and one can't pirate MS software, or use a single
> purchase on more than one computer, or...
>
> b) The system doesn't work, and customers are being inconvenienced by it.
>
> Which is it?
>
B of course...
Up to the point where VALID customers have their registrations cancelled
because microsoft detects a block of registration keys being used on more
than one computer, so they block an entire batch.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Culley
<uM6dnbSPPdl...@comcast.com>,
5 years ago MS were probably right. People would be installing windows
on 'naked' PC's. Today, a lot of these PC's will probably get Linux
installed on them. I'm sure that scares MS much more.
chrisv
>I don't know anyone who has a desktop now. People use laptops and dock
>them, at least for the 'business user', ie., the Web/Email/Calendaring
>folks.
That's odd. I don't even like laptops. Don't need one, don't want
one.
Roy Culley
<893a32ljafufp6fb3...@4ax.com>,
For me its the opposite. At work I plug the laptop into the port
replicator and I've got 2x1600x1200 display and a Sun type 4 keyboard.
At home it just sits on the coffee table with a wireless network
connection. The 2 PC's I have at home are hardly used these days.
We are looking at getting new Core Duo laptops at work. We had an IBM
Core Duo prototype to play with a couple of weeks ago. The guy who
brought it showed us how strong it was by placing it on the floor
and standing on it. He also showed us the hole in the keyboard. If
you spill liquid on it it just flows through the hole. No need to
even power it off and wipe up.
Sadly it came with XP Pro and he wouldn't let us install Linux. It had
1.6GHz processors yet Windows seemed exceedingly sluggish. I tried a
couple of Live CD's but neither even detected the ethernet NIC far
less the wireless NIC!
We are looking at Dell and HP laptops as well. For me Dell is
preferred as they have Nvidia graphics but there is a bias towards HP
where I work.
Bobbie
exclaimed:
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Okay, that's it.
I can't hide it anymore and I need to come clear with you all.
Arghh me maties, I'm running a pirated verion of OpenSuSE 10.
It must be pirated right?
After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
right?
I guess that I'm guilty of crimes against Bill Gates.
Will Mr. Ballmer forgive me or will he throw a chair at me?
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
Sinister Midget
I have one. I need(ed) one. But I hate the things for anything more
than emergency use. It's difficult to use for anything regular without
having it attached to a monitor, keyboard and mouse.
--
I used to be all over Windows. Now I'm *really* over Windows!
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
> <893a32ljafufp6fb3...@4ax.com>,
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know anyone who has a desktop now. People use laptops and
>>> dock them, at least for the 'business user', ie., the
>>> Web/Email/Calendaring folks.
>>
>> That's odd. I don't even like laptops. Don't need one, don't want
>> one.
>
> For me its the opposite. At work I plug the laptop into the port
> replicator and I've got 2x1600x1200 display and a Sun type 4 keyboard.
> At home it just sits on the coffee table with a wireless network
> connection. The 2 PC's I have at home are hardly used these days.
In our space, we're mostly on the move, so a desktop is about as useful
as a coach and horses would be for travelling. The only issue I have is
that most laptops are big, heavy, have poor battery life and break
easily. I've been using my Nokia 770 as a means around this, and it's
been /extremely/ successful!
It's also got a good sketching package, so I can use it as electronic
paper, ie., write notes and draw piccies at the same time - this is
fantastic for meetings.
Give it a UMTS/EDGE/GPRS capability and it'll be a laptop killer.
>
> We are looking at getting new Core Duo laptops at work. We had an IBM
> Core Duo prototype to play with a couple of weeks ago. The guy who
> brought it showed us how strong it was by placing it on the floor
> and standing on it. He also showed us the hole in the keyboard. If
> you spill liquid on it it just flows through the hole. No need to
> even power it off and wipe up.
>
> Sadly it came with XP Pro and he wouldn't let us install Linux. It had
> 1.6GHz processors yet Windows seemed exceedingly sluggish. I tried a
> couple of Live CD's but neither even detected the ethernet NIC far
> less the wireless NIC!
>
> We are looking at Dell and HP laptops as well. For me Dell is
> preferred as they have Nvidia graphics but there is a bias towards HP
> where I work.
HP have a pretty good Linux story, though, don't they?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 02:04 PM, r...@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) said:
>5 years ago MS were probably right. People would be installing
>windows on 'naked' PC's.
Many of whcih were licensed, despite what m$ may have told you.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.06....@nomail.com...
>
> What would that 'illegal" thing be?
>
you read the article goat cited?
>> That does not speak very highly of
>> the chances for linux to be adopted by the general public through
>> some
>> groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
>
> It says nothing about the chances for or against Linux adoption.
>
I think it speaks volumes, rick! You don't want to listen, of course,
but the word is out.
billwg
"Brad" <br...@linux4life.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.06....@linux4life.net...
described vendors who were installing unlicensed copies of Windows on
computers offered for sale. I think that is illegal in the UK. It is
even illegal in the PRC. Certainly in the USofA.
As to posting in COLA, where else can you find such misguided souls as
yourself? A missionary should not preach in a church, but rather go
amongst the heathens.
BearItAll
> While performing an interpretive dance to Enya's Carribean Blue, B Gruff
> exclaimed:
>
>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>
>
> Okay, that's it.
> I can't hide it anymore and I need to come clear with you all.
>
> Arghh me maties, I'm running a pirated verion of OpenSuSE 10.
> It must be pirated right?
> After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
> right?
> I guess that I'm guilty of crimes against Bill Gates.
> Will Mr. Ballmer forgive me or will he throw a chair at me?
>
>
As you pleed guilty to your crime you only face a sentence of hung and
drawn, quartering is reserved for those who mention Ballmer's name in
derogoratory fashion. Oh, sorry, just read your last sentance. You get the
lot I'm afraid, but on special offer this month is unmarked burial where
wild horses are driven over to hide the place you are burried.
By the way there is an news flash for MS lovers, "Gate's pyramid is almost
complete and as the worshippers get burried with him they need to be
measured up to ensure they fit. They will be protected by the pyramids
security as they travel to the next world. No one can break through the 6
foot thick walls of the pyramid, we just hope that no grave robbers notice
the swing doors at the entrance. Would Linux users please stop applying for
the job of pulling Bill's brains out through his nose, the head of IBM has
already secured that job".
I am upgrading a machine next weekend, does one get a XP disc in the
motherboard cases these days then? It would be handy because I need a new
coaster for my coffee mug, oops I mean because I'll be wanting to load it
as soon as the machine is built.
B Gruff
> While performing an interpretive dance to Enya's Carribean Blue, B Gruff
> exclaimed:
>
>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>
>
> Okay, that's it.
> I can't hide it anymore and I need to come clear with you all.
Confession is good for the soul....
> Arghh me maties, I'm running a pirated verion of OpenSuSE 10.
> It must be pirated right?
That's right, shipmate. If you didn't buy it from MS, or an MS reseller,
it's pirated.
> After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
> right?
You get the message - almost! You fail to mention the words "communist",
"cancer" and "viral". Also, you fail to understand the effect that you
will have on good, god-fearing, philanthropic American corporations, whose
sole concern is the good and well-being of consumers throughout the world.
> I guess that I'm guilty of crimes against Bill Gates.
Oh yes.....
> Will Mr. Ballmer forgive me or will he throw a chair at me?
If he has any chairs left, he will throw one at you.
Also, he will likely take you to court, and sue you for umpteen million
bucks.
HOWEVER - there is good news!
We the people (the ones who reckon thse things to be self-evident) have a
cunning plan. We have been saving up all our Microsoft vouchers! Since
the American courts allow Microsoft to pay its fines in Microsoft vouchers,
there is obviously no reason that they should not be forced to accept
Microsoft vouchers themselves when they are awarded damages!
Take heart, me hearty!
Bill
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:53:46 GMT
<eMYYf.97807$_c.5...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> On Thursday 06 April 2006 00:21 B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>>
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/nw/sp/storygraphics/scan.jpg
>>
> So what is your theory on why a PC vendor would not put a freebie
> version of linux on a bare bones machine, goat?
If a PC vendor can put Linux on a PC, it can put Windows on
a PC.
>
> MSFT obviously thinks that the purchaser is most likely to install an
> old OS from a prior computer or else an unlicensed copy of Windows.
> They propose various solutions to that happening.
There's an extremely simple (simplistic, actually)
solution: key on the NIC. Every NIC has a unique MAC
address. (In theory.)
Apollo DOMAIN machines used a variant of that method for
licensing, for example. Of course, that was before X and
Windows became widespread (Apollo had its own graphics
API).
Pentium III had an option for a unique identification.
I don't know if that made it to later chips.
Once a unique identification is possible, an OS license
would be restricted to that NIC or microprocessor.
Upgrading that NIC or microprocessor will require upgrading
the OS as well. But hey, gotta enforce that anti-piracy.
And of course all PCs on the Internet will be mandated
to "come preinstalled ready-for-use with a commercially
available operating system with anti-piracy measures
recognized by the US government", or some such. It's a
bit like owning a street-legal vehicle and operating it on
public thoroughfares. Note that some of these anti-piracy
measures will include access points so that various
entities can check to ensure other things aren't being
pirated as well: applications, videos, song clips, games.
It's the American way. :-)
> You certainly would
> support shipping the machines with a "free" linux, but why do the
> manufacturers not see that?
The manufactures do not see the demand. (Yet.)
> They seem reluctant to install linux even
> to the point of doing something illegal to avoid it.
It is not illegal not to install a freeware OS that is not
the majority.
> That does not
> speak very highly of the chances for linux to be adopted by the general
> public through some groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
>
We need to ensure that that is always the case.
Obviously, once Bill Gates recognizes that he can become
the government, Linux will cease to be a problem. In fact,
Bill Gates will not have any competitors ever again; IBM,
Sun, and parts of HP/Compaq will fall by the wayside.
(HP has Apollo somewhere buried within it.) Microsoft
will commission wholesale replacements of all IBM sx90
and AS400 boxes with equivalent racks of IIs servers.
Sun Hydras running Oracle will be replaced with racks
running SQL Server Distributed Edition or some such.
HP midlevel machines will be replaced by HP PCs running
Microsoft Windows Vista.
And everyone will live happily ever after. (Including
the virus writers. You wouldn't want to put them out
of a job, now, would you? :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.
B Gruff
> I am upgrading a machine next weekend, does one get a XP disc in the
> motherboard cases these days then? It would be handy because I need a new
> coaster for my coffee mug, oops I mean because I'll be wanting to load it
> as soon as the machine is built.
I hadn't thought of that, but I think that you must get one with the
motherboard. After all, any pre-installed XP system relates to the
motherboard, and you can't use it on any other motherboard.....
...so...Yes, I reckon they must come bundled with new motherboards....
Roy Culley
The Ghost In The Machine
<r...@nodomain.none>
wrote
on Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:47:16 +0200
<4ppfg3-...@dog.did.it>:
And then there's the question of what the license costs. Or does that
disk come for free and the manufacturer eats the cost as it pays the
requisite Microsoft Tax(tm)?
(Is this a real stupid idea or what? :-) )
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.04.06....@nomail.com...
>>
>> What would that 'illegal" thing be?
>>
> Installing an unlicensed copy of Windows on the machine, Rick! Didn't you
> read the article goat cited?
How is a vendor NOT installing an OS, installing windows illegally?
>
>>> That does not speak very highly of
>>> the chances for linux to be adopted by the general public through some
>>> groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
>>
>> It says nothing about the chances for or against Linux adoption.
>>
> I think it speaks volumes, rick!
No, it doesn't.
> You don't want to listen, of course, but> the word is out.
Yu ae the one that doesn't lisen.
--
Rick
Bobbie
exclaimed:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:26:38 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.04.06....@nomail.com...
>>>
>>> What would that 'illegal" thing be?
>>>
>> Installing an unlicensed copy of Windows on the machine, Rick! Didn't you
>> read the article goat cited?
>
> How is a vendor NOT installing an OS, installing windows illegally?
>
Hey Rick, don't try to use logic wil billwg.
Bill seems to have the mental capacity of my cat.
Actually that's an insult to Tiger, I'm sorry Tiger.
I've got a worn out set of vise grips that can grasp things better than
billwg.
>>
>>>> That does not speak very highly of
>>>> the chances for linux to be adopted by the general public through some
>>>> groundswell of appreciation of its merits.
>>>
>>> It says nothing about the chances for or against Linux adoption.
>>>
>> I think it speaks volumes, rick!
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
shhh, Rick, if you listen carefully you can hear his words echoing
around inside his skull when he speaks.
>>You don't want to listen, of course, but> the word is out.
>
> Yu ae the one that doesn't lisen.
--
Edwin
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
I just hit on a brilliant idea that will stop piracy and still allow
competition from other operating systems.
Outlaw selling an operating system as part of a hardware/software
bundle, in which the price of the hardware and the software is not
clearly stated separately. Just like when IBM was forced to unbundle
its mainframes years ago.
OEMs can include Windows, but it has to be under the same terms as when
OEMs include trials of applications pre-installed. Let Windows come
with a trial period, after which the customer must pay for a key to
unlock Windows permanently. Payment will be made directly to
Microsoft, not to the computer maker. That way the customer will know
exactly what he's paying to have Windows, and it will be impossible for
MS to coerce OEMs with with special pricing deals, as OEMs will no
longer be Windows resellers.
OEMs can make dual boot systems of Linux and Windows, and let the
customer decide whether or not they'd like to pay to use Windows.
Edwin
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:26:38 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
> >
> > "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.04.06....@nomail.com...
> >>
> >> What would that 'illegal" thing be?
> >>
> > Installing an unlicensed copy of Windows on the machine, Rick! Didn't you
> > read the article goat cited?
>
> How is a vendor NOT installing an OS, installing windows illegally?
It gives the user an opportunity to install Windows illegally.
[snip]
B Gruff
Your concept is absolutely brilliant:-)
In fact, it's so brilliant that it's identical to my own proposal here
recently that they ought to ship Vista under exactly those conditions -
pre-install the "whole shebang(sp?)", then pay MS directly to liberate
exactly which of its umpteen variants you want!
It won't fly.
It won't fly because it doesn't suit MS, and it doesn't encourage (as in
"pour encourage les autres!") re-sellers to do what they are there for.....
...TO KEEP LINUX *OFF* PCs!
Seriously, what you suggest is dead right - and exactly the way that MS
doesn't want things to go.
Bill
Peter Köhlmann
Bollocks
--
Microsoft: which revised Eula do you want to accept today?
Nobody
> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
Do you realise that here in the UK we already have something like that: TVs.
If you purchase a TV, you have to supply your name and address to the TV
licencing people. If you don't have a valid broadcast reception licence
(aka TV licence) they immediately assume that you will be watching TV
without a licence; regardless of the fact that you may want the new 50"
plasma screen for your home cinema experience to only watch DVDs (along with
your surround sound system) - you WILL be using it to watch TV programmes
illegally.
Linonut
> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 18:11 +0000, Rick wrote:
>>
>> How is a vendor NOT installing an OS, installing windows illegally?
>
> It gives the user an opportunity to install Windows illegally.
Even with Windows on it, the user has that opportunity.
A user can buy a machine with OEM XP Home on it, and install a
number of other versions of Windows, thereby installing Windows
illegally.
Still, if you start with a blank machine, and could install an illicit copy
of Windows, what right does Microsoft have to stop you from selling that
machine, if you have no contractual obligation with Microsoft?
--
Kreegah! Bundolo Microsoft bolgani!
Linonut
> If you purchase a TV, you have to supply your name and address to the TV
> licencing people. If you don't have a valid broadcast reception licence
> (aka TV licence) they immediately assume that you will be watching TV
> without a licence; regardless of the fact that you may want the new 50"
> plasma screen for your home cinema experience to only watch DVDs (along with
> your surround sound system) - you WILL be using it to watch TV programmes
> illegally.
Whew, that sux! I guess you have a TV monopolist over there, eh?
The Ghost In The Machine
<thor...@juno.com>
wrote
on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:02:52 GMT
<1144363408.1...@localhost.localdomain>:
> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:21 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>
> I just hit on a brilliant idea that will stop piracy and still allow
> competition from other operating systems.
>
> Outlaw selling an operating system as part of a hardware/software
> bundle, in which the price of the hardware and the software is not
> clearly stated separately. Just like when IBM was forced to unbundle
> its mainframes years ago.
Errrrruuuhhhmmmm......how, exactly, does that forestall piracy??
>
> OEMs can include Windows, but it has to be under the same terms as when
> OEMs include trials of applications pre-installed. Let Windows come
> with a trial period, after which the customer must pay for a key to
> unlock Windows permanently. Payment will be made directly to
> Microsoft, not to the computer maker. That way the customer will know
> exactly what he's paying to have Windows, and it will be impossible for
> MS to coerce OEMs with with special pricing deals, as OEMs will no
> longer be Windows resellers.
Ah. Yes. That might work, provided the key is stored in a secure place
and not compromised or compromisable.
Ideally the key would be checked every bootup but there are several
problems:
[1] hardware key = dongle. RFIDs make for an interesting subvariant.
Privacy problems may ensue if the machine is readily identifiable.
There's also the issue of upgrades. Dare I mention that key duplicators
would be readily available in any scenario I can think of?
[2] software key = very annoyed user who will have to key it in every
bootup. While passwords are routinely done this way the key is probably
longer than a simple password, and is given out, not set by the user.
[3] decryption key = product in the clear and easily copied afterwards.
[4] remote key = oh dear, a power failure has blasted
most of the city but you have a generator (good planning,
that); how are you going to get your data, though, with
your uplink out? And for how long? (If one prefers, one
can stipulate termination of ISP service, NIC failure, or,
in my case, the phone company deciding to upgrade their
DSL lines and cutting off high-speed service temporarily.)
And then there's the issue of the user setting the clock back. Do all
products have to support NTP somehow? This could get rather weird.
>
> OEMs can make dual boot systems of Linux and Windows, and let the
> customer decide whether or not they'd like to pay to use Windows.
>
Microsoft might not like that. :-)
M
Yep it's called the BBC. Even if you don't own a TV you will receive a
threatening/abusive letter approximately every 6 months from the licencing
authority. Presumption being that you are guilty. Last I heard they where
going to change the law, so that if you owned a PC you had to have a
licence. Don't know if that ever came to pass.
And you think M$ is bad. At least it is possible to go to your local
computer supplier and buy a PC without windows pre-installed (as I have
done in the past).
Regards,
M
billwg
>
> It won't fly.
> It won't fly because it doesn't suit MS, and it doesn't encourage (as
> in
> "pour encourage les autres!") re-sellers to do what they are there
> for.....
>
it is a lame way for you wizards to try to compete. A company works
diligently to gain market leadership, you know, and Microsoft has been
no exception. The greater the lead, the better the win in terms of
ability to set the course and direction of the market. You all have
come to see that in action and are somehow dismayed that such a
psychological phenomenon could exist in the face of your claimed better
understanding of the technology involved. But that is only good for a
laugh!
The market leader is never going to be so foolish as to just cede
leadership to the unworthy trailers who were unable to make it on their
own! Who would want that to ever be the case, other than the obvious
losers? The consumers want the winner to take all and they want to know
that they have the winner.
The COLA tactic is to call the fans of the winner Windopes or the like,
but the winner's fans don't bother to listen to such trash. It is
coming from the losers and, so, what do you expect?
Mark Kent
billwg
"Bobbie" <bobbie4(remove-this)@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.06....@shaw.ca...
> After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
> right?
Some definitions, bobo. We all know that all OS platform software did
not come from MS, just almost all of it. Now if it comes in the usual
way, i.e. from the OEM on your new machine, it is certainly not pirated.
It is the OEM's gift to you in appreciation for your business or else it
is a bargain that you are not willing to let pass.
Some OEM's might ship Windows computers without having any
authorization. That is the piracy that is often spoken about. The rare
computer hobbyist has, on occasion, loaded multiple copies of Windows on
multiple machines using a single CD, often purchased particularly for
that purpose. That is piracy, as well, but rarely discovered or
punished.
Absent Windows, legally obtained or not, there is a range of OS
platforms that may be selected. There are the older, and obsolescent
ones, such as BeOS, and the dweebs delights such as linux. In the great
Other category, you can ven find OS/2.
These non-Windows OS platforms may be freely obtained today from
internet sources and work as clumsily as ever.
Rick
You're a liar.
--
Rick
Rick
That may be, but the act of selling the bare PC is NOT illegal. That is
how I bought this machine, and initially installed RH 9, and will buy the
next machine, probably installing Suse.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "Bobbie" <bobbie4(remove-this)@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.04.06....@shaw.ca...
>
>> After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
>> right?
>
> Some definitions, bobo. We all know that all OS platform software did not
> come from MS, just almost all of it. Now if it comes in the usual way,
> i.e. from the OEM on your new machine, it is certainly not pirated. It is
> the OEM's gift to you in appreciation for your business or else it is a
> bargain that you are not willing to let pass.
That is a lie. The cost of the machine includes the cost of windows.
>
> Some OEM's might ship Windows computers without having any authorization.
> That is the piracy that is often spoken about. The rare computer hobbyist
> has, on occasion, loaded multiple copies of Windows on multiple machines
> using a single CD, often purchased particularly for that purpose. That is
> piracy, as well, but rarely discovered or punished.
>
> Absent Windows, legally obtained or not, there is a range of OS platforms
> that may be selected. There are the older, and obsolescent ones, such as
> BeOS, and the dweebs delights such as linux. In the great Other category,
> you can ven find OS/2.
>
> These non-Windows OS platforms may be freely obtained today from internet
> sources and work as clumsily as ever.
.. as clumsily as ever.. another lie.
--
Rick
Robert Newson
> Linonut wrote:
>
>>After takin' a swig o' grog, Nobody belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>If you purchase a TV, you have to supply your name and address to the TV
>>>licencing people. If you don't have a valid broadcast reception licence
>>>(aka TV licence) they immediately assume that you will be watching TV
>>>without a licence; regardless of the fact that you may want the new 50"
>>>plasma screen for your home cinema experience to only watch DVDs (along
>>>with your surround sound system) - you WILL be using it to watch TV
>>>programmes illegally.
>>>
>>Whew, that sux! I guess you have a TV monopolist over there, eh?
>
> Yep it's called the BBC. Even if you don't own a TV you will receive a
> threatening/abusive letter approximately every 6 months from the licencing
> authority. Presumption being that you are guilty. Last I heard they where
> going to change the law, so that if you owned a PC you had to have a
> licence. Don't know if that ever came to pass.
It's a bit worrying the powers that the Communications Act 2003 give the BBC.
What's even more worrying is that MS wants such powers; and with Blair in
Bush's^H^H^H^H^H^HNumber 10...
> And you think M$ is bad. At least it is possible to go to your local
> computer supplier and buy a PC without windows pre-installed (as I have
> done in the past).
You can also go and buy a TV without the tuning circuits [pre-]installed;
it's called a monitor. ^_^
--
Outgoing mail certified virus free...
It has gone nowhere near a Windwos machine before my ISP.
B Gruff
No. We used to have - until about 50 years ago.
As I'm sure you are aware, the BBC provides a lot of quality stuff. I think
you have something similar over there - the public-something-or-other
channel(s)?
Note - no advertising.
This was a bit of a bummer in the Star-Trek days - a one hour programme only
ran for about 45 mins, so we didn't get our money's worth:-(
The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes from a
mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as well, but they
mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a year, and if you have a TV,
there's no escaping it.
imo, it really is time that we sorted this out. Trouble is, most of us
don't want to lose the BBC programmes:-)
Colin Day
And did vendors who sold PC's without BeOS give users an opportunity
to install BeOS illegally? (When BeOS was viable)
> [snip]
>
Colin Day
Sinister Midget
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 21:42 Linonut wrote:
>> Whew, that sux! I guess you have a TV monopolist over there, eh?
>
> No. We used to have - until about 50 years ago.
> As I'm sure you are aware, the BBC provides a lot of quality stuff. I think
> you have something similar over there - the public-something-or-other
> channel(s)?
PBS.
> Note - no advertising.
Supposedly the same with PBS. They run ads and call them something
else.
> This was a bit of a bummer in the Star-Trek days - a one hour programme only
> ran for about 45 mins, so we didn't get our money's worth:-(
>
> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes from a
> mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as well, but they
> mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a year, and if you have a TV,
> there's no escaping it.
> imo, it really is time that we sorted this out. Trouble is, most of us
> don't want to lose the BBC programmes:-)
PBS has little quality programming. They get a little, and some of it
comes from the BBC and other places, but they're addicted to showing
things that would never been seen if it wasn't funded by government
fiat.
PBS gets some money from actual users. Those numbers are small enough
that it couldn't swim without the largesse provided by people who enjoy
spending money earned by others.
We get BBC America, too. It's not broadcast over the airwaves. So PBS
can run whining to Congress any time somebody starts questioning the
"benefit" provided versus the money spent for programming that 3 or 4
people would watch if it was on broadcast or cable television.
Some people really love public radio and television. I'm not against
their existence. I listen to public radio for a short while on weekends
for the news. But I think they should have to compete commercially
instead of forcing innocent, non-using taxpayers into keeping it alive.
They advertise now. Let's just call it what it is, have them do more of
it in any fashion they like, then cut the umbilical in about 10 years.
I can't say what it's like now, but when I was in Korea in the early
80s a guy came around and looked at the roof. If you had an antenna,
you got a bill. (Reception was so poor where I lived that you had to
have an elevated antenna to get any of the stations broadcast from
Seoul. Which was all of them.)
--
Windows: When you haven't been abused enough by the IRS.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:58:09 +0100,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <893a32ljafufp6fb3...@4ax.com>,
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know anyone who has a desktop now. People use laptops and
>>>> dock them, at least for the 'business user', ie., the
>>>> Web/Email/Calendaring folks.
>>>
>>> That's odd. I don't even like laptops. Don't need one, don't want
>>> one.
>>
>> For me its the opposite. At work I plug the laptop into the port
>> replicator and I've got 2x1600x1200 display and a Sun type 4 keyboard.
>> At home it just sits on the coffee table with a wireless network
>> connection. The 2 PC's I have at home are hardly used these days.
>
> In our space, we're mostly on the move, so a desktop is about as useful
> as a coach and horses would be for travelling. The only issue I have is
> that most laptops are big, heavy, have poor battery life and break
> easily. I've been using my Nokia 770 as a means around this, and it's
> been /extremely/ successful!
>
What ssh client are you using? and do you have a bt keyboard for it?
>
> It's also got a good sketching package, so I can use it as electronic
> paper, ie., write notes and draw piccies at the same time - this is
> fantastic for meetings.
>
> Give it a UMTS/EDGE/GPRS capability and it'll be a laptop killer.
>
mine rocks, but I am not going to be dumping my laptop just yet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFENWmPd90bcYOAWPYRApfMAKDCSI1Ai/5K1JFb9oz6UikQdad5ZACg5c18
aMaRr8q4dPl6fuDFV9QHKfw=
=2bhs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
There are entirely too many dumbasses in this world who don't know they
are dumbasses. We have a duty to enlighten them.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Good programming over here is on channels like Discovery, or History,
rather than PBS, and note, that those channels, are most definately
commercial.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFENdLdd90bcYOAWPYRAviiAKDq8LeE2kUIkBo+d9oN4E+HUrrcBgCgxt/i
epd/kr5+0ZDM8Ba5jkOiLrA=
=aKBG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The real fun of living wisely is that you get to feel smug about it
-- Hobbes
Edwin
billwg wrote:
> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:49l7mmF...@individual.net...
> >
> > It won't fly.
> > It won't fly because it doesn't suit MS, and it doesn't encourage (as
> > in
> > "pour encourage les autres!") re-sellers to do what they are there
> > for.....
> >
> Well you are half right, goat, it won't fly. But it won't fly because
> it is a lame way for you wizards to try to compete. A company works
> diligently to gain market leadership, you know, and Microsoft has been
> no exception.
Microsoft has worked hard to get where they are. Nobody can deny
that. The problem is the way they went about it wasn't always above
board.
Eliminate their ability to make secret deals with OEMs and see how much
market share they keep.
> The greater the lead, the better the win in terms of
> ability to set the course and direction of the market.
No single entity is supposed to be able to control the market for its
own benefit.
> You all have
> come to see that in action and are somehow dismayed that such a
> psychological phenomenon could exist in the face of your claimed better
> understanding of the technology involved. But that is only good for a
> laugh!
The short-sightedness of MS competitors, as well as those who thought
to be MS "Allies," had as much to do with the rise of this
"psychological phenomenon" as did MS itself, and probably more.
> The market leader is never going to be so foolish as to just cede
> leadership to the unworthy trailers who were unable to make it on their
> own! Who would want that to ever be the case, other than the obvious
> losers? The consumers want the winner to take all and they want to know
> that they have the winner.
In that case, Microsoft should have no problem with collecting their OS
payments directly from the computer buyer instead of from the OEM that
built the machine. Then we'll see if they want to keep MS as the
"winner" when they can see what percentage of their purchase price goes
to MS.
> The COLA tactic is to call the fans of the winner Windopes or the like,
> but the winner's fans don't bother to listen to such trash. It is
> coming from the losers and, so, what do you expect?
Fans of Microsoft? I've never met any in real life. All the
Windows users I know accept Windows as inevitable, but they're not
"fans."
Edwin
Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Edwin belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 18:11 +0000, Rick wrote:
> >>
> >> How is a vendor NOT installing an OS, installing windows illegally?
> >
> > It gives the user an opportunity to install Windows illegally.
>
> Even with Windows on it, the user has that opportunity.
>
> A user can buy a machine with OEM XP Home on it, and install a
> number of other versions of Windows, thereby installing Windows
> illegally.
Most people don't install multiple copies of Windows. They install
one copy of Windows, and if that didn't come with their computer, the
temptation is there to "borrow" someone else's Windows Install CD.
> Still, if you start with a blank machine, and could install an illicit copy
> of Windows, what right does Microsoft have to stop you from selling that
> machine, if you have no contractual obligation with Microsoft?
You're going to say you're selling the computer, but not the software
installed on its HD? Don't get caught. I don't think the judge will
let you off with that kind of 'defence.'
Peter Köhlmann
What part of "blank machine" needs explanation for you, Edwin?
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
Ron House
> Edwin wrote:
>
>
>>Linonut wrote:
>>>Still, if you start with a blank machine, and could install an illicit
>>>copy of Windows, what right does Microsoft have to stop you from selling
>>>that machine, if you have no contractual obligation with Microsoft?
>>
>>You're going to say you're selling the computer, but not the software
>>installed on its HD? Don't get caught. I don't think the judge will
>>let you off with that kind of 'defence.'
>
>
> What part of "blank machine" needs explanation for you, Edwin?
Perhaps he's thinking of the part of "blank machine" that's magically
still a blank machine after it had a copy of Windows installed on it?
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
Ethics website: http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house/goodness
Mark Kent
matt <som...@microsoft.com> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> I don't know anyone who has a desktop now. People use laptops and dock
>> them, at least for the 'business user', ie., the Web/Email/Calendaring
>> folks.
>>
>
> here issue laptops only to real road warriors and managers, but have a
> couple of laptops sitting around that can be booked out someone needs one
> for a short term.
That's pretty much the user segment I was referring to.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The philosopher's treatment of a question is like the treatment of an illness.
-- Wittgenstein.
Mark Kent
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
I'm using the dropbear client at present - works well for me. I've not
tried with a BT keyboard, but plan to do so soon. There are some nice
very portable ones around...
>
>>
>> It's also got a good sketching package, so I can use it as electronic
>> paper, ie., write notes and draw piccies at the same time - this is
>> fantastic for meetings.
>>
>> Give it a UMTS/EDGE/GPRS capability and it'll be a laptop killer.
>>
>
> mine rocks, but I am not going to be dumping my laptop just yet.
>
I'm finding that for most purposes, it's enough. Saves carrying that
blasted laptop (huge monster) around...
William Poaster
Explain to him that it's like his brain, he might understand then.
--
Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag
you *down* to his level then beat you
with his experience.
-- Dilbert --
Richard Rasker
> begin In <hncfg3-...@dog.did.it>, on 04/06/2006
> at 02:04 PM, r...@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) said:
>
>>5 years ago MS were probably right. People would be installing
>>windows on 'naked' PC's.
>
> Many of whcih were licensed, despite what m$ may have told you.
Well, admittedly it's a very smart move:
- First: Collect multiple license fees for each Windows system - once when
sold, and then again when a (site?) license deal is struck for the
organization as a whole - which, incidentally not only makes you pay
Microsoft for *every* computer (including Macs and Linux boxes), but is
usually overbroad to prevent even the slightest hint of non-compliance -
with all those nasty side effects, should you be raided by the software
police.
- Second: Slow the adoption of Linux, as explained in the article already.
- Third: Collect license fees for every Linux box, should the buyer insist
on using Linux.
And, of course, the idea that some Microsoft "feet on the street" (or
should I say "foot between your door, then under your table"?) comes
around demanding to take a look at your business is just the extra
incentive to do as Bully Boy says ...
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Roy Culley
<4436...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
matt <som...@microsoft.com> writes:
> B Gruff wrote:
>
>> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes
>> from a mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as
>> well, but they mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a
>> year, and if you have a TV, there's no escaping it. imo, it really
>> is time that we sorted this out. Trouble is, most of us don't want
>> to lose the BBC programmes:-)
>
> - no need to bother with a license.
Can you please explain 'consolidated revenue' to an idiot like me
please?
Brits have always complained about the license fee yet they always say
they love the BBC's programmes. Many examples of exceelent BBC progs
have already been mentioned. I would like to give one more. The drama
series Pride & Prejudice was brilliant. The casting and acting suberb.
My daughter bought me the recent movie. It was so poor in comparison.
So, to all you brits that complain about the license fee but yet enjoy
what the BBC produce, how else would you fund it?
The Swiss use a combination of license fee and adverts. This works
quite well. They show a lot of recent movies and at most there will be
a single advert break which is normally very short. Less than a minute
on many occasions. They often broadcast the movie with the local
language on one audio channel and the original language on the
other. That's great for me.
> I don't pay for a BBC license, but I often listen to the BBC World
> Service on HF at your expense :)
The World Service is funded by the foreign office and not the license
fee. Still comes out of the tax payers pocket of course.
Robert Newson
...
> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes from a
> mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as well, but they
> mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a year, and if you have a TV,
> there's no escaping it.
Actually if you have only B&W TVs, you escape the colour licence (which that
is) and pay a lower costed licence. Alternatively, if you use your TV for
viewing DVDs or Videos only you do not need a TV licence, and so avoid the
cost altogether - the licence is needed to receive broadcast television
services; if you're not doing that you do NOT need a licence. (The only
hassle comes in proving it...funny that: this is one law where the
presumption seems to be guilty and YOU have to prove you're innocent as
opposed to them proving you're guilty!)
Roy Culley
<443641EF...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>,
Robert Newson <Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> writes:
> B Gruff wrote:
>
> ...
>> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes
>> from a mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as
>> well, but they mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a
>> year, and if you have a TV, there's no escaping it.
>
> Actually if you have only B&W TVs, you escape the colour licence
> (which that is) and pay a lower costed licence. Alternatively, if
> you use your TV for viewing DVDs or Videos only you do not need a TV
> licence, and so avoid the cost altogether - the licence is needed to
> receive broadcast television services; if you're not doing that you
> do NOT need a licence. (The only hassle comes in proving it...funny
> that: this is one law where the presumption seems to be guilty and
> YOU have to prove you're innocent as opposed to them proving you're
> guilty!)
As far as I remember, if the TV had the capability to tune in TV
channels then you had to pay the license. This was a fair number of
years ago of course so things might have changed since. In those days
the TV tuner was needed to view VHS / Betamax videos so you were
screwed.
Jim
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Nobody belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>>If you purchase a TV, you have to supply your name and address to the TV
>>licencing people. If you don't have a valid broadcast reception licence
>>(aka TV licence) they immediately assume that you will be watching TV
>>without a licence; regardless of the fact that you may want the new 50"
>>plasma screen for your home cinema experience to only watch DVDs (along with
>>your surround sound system) - you WILL be using it to watch TV programmes
>>illegally.
>
>
> Whew, that sux! I guess you have a TV monopolist over there, eh?
>
well, no, that's how the BBC have always been funded; they don't take a
penny of Government money, every penny comes from licensing revenues.
Jim
> Linonut wrote:
>
>
>>After takin' a swig o' grog, Nobody belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>If you purchase a TV, you have to supply your name and address to the TV
>>>licencing people. If you don't have a valid broadcast reception licence
>>>(aka TV licence) they immediately assume that you will be watching TV
>>>without a licence; regardless of the fact that you may want the new 50"
>>>plasma screen for your home cinema experience to only watch DVDs (along
>>>with your surround sound system) - you WILL be using it to watch TV
>>>programmes illegally.
>>
>>Whew, that sux! I guess you have a TV monopolist over there, eh?
>>
>
>
> threatening/abusive letter approximately every 6 months from the licencing
> authority. Presumption being that you are guilty. Last I heard they where
> going to change the law, so that if you owned a PC you had to have a
> licence. Don't know if that ever came to pass.
>
well, yes it did. A long time ago. Long before PCs, in fact. A PC is
capable (when so equipped) of receiving and rendering broadcast TV
signals, hence is liable for a licence. There was a big arguement about
this exact same thing in the 1980's when the PAL-modulated home computer
(read: Sinclair Spectrum and the Amstrads and the Commodores and the
Atari ST's) hit the shelves; people weren't sure, assumed not, then when
their kids(!) got letters from TVLA because they had their computers
connected to their TVs in their bedroom (which had a lock on the door),
they became liable for a /seperate/ licence (the same is true if you're
in a bedsit and you have a TV in your room; you're liable for a licence
even if there is a licence for a communal TV); the TVLA eventually
decided they weren't going to enforce this for the time being as they
were getting too many "fuck off" letters back from the parents, but now
with PCs becoming so prevalent in the home, they're coming back with a
vengeance saying that even if you're talking about a 7" TFT DVD player,
you're still talking licensing. Hell, I've got a 2.5" TFT pocket TV,
I've already written back to TVLA three times in the past year telling
them to fuck off about licensing it seperately, as it never leaves the
house and I only use it for testing video output from my laptop anyway!
> And you think M$ is bad. At least it is possible to go to your local
> computer supplier and buy a PC without windows pre-installed (as I have
> done in the past).
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
I build my own desktops. As for laptops, it's secondhand Dells all the
way for me. Spares are inexpensive (considering it's Dell), the machines
are VERY reliable, Linux support is way up there, and because I use the
same chassis' the modules are all interchangeable (8 batteries offering
between them three DAYS continuous uptime on a PIIIm can't be all bad,
right?). Microsoft gets sod all out of me, and the single license I've
kept on this particular machine stays on it until the next install
cycle, when it joins the rest of the labels from the other laptops -
that's right, I sell the bugger on. I didn't sign up for the Microsoft
Tax Club, I've no interest in the Microsoft Way, they can go fuck
themselves with their heavyhanded tactics, I will continue to sell naked
PCs (or even SHOCK HORROR PCs with LINUX preinstalled!!), and now I'm
gonna go have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up. Peace.
Jim
oh, I don't know, leave off activating it. Then the onus is back on the
buyer to obtain his own license. Not the OEM.
Jim
> B Gruff wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes from a
>> mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as well, but they
>> mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a year, and if you have
>> a TV,
>> there's no escaping it.
>
>
> Actually if you have only B&W TVs, you escape the colour licence (which
> that is) and pay a lower costed licence. Alternatively, if you use your
> TV for viewing DVDs or Videos only you do not need a TV licence, and so
> avoid the cost altogether - the licence is needed to receive broadcast
> television services; if you're not doing that you do NOT need a
> licence. (The only hassle comes in proving it...funny that: this is one
> law where the presumption seems to be guilty and YOU have to prove
> you're innocent as opposed to them proving you're guilty!)
Sorry Bob, you're quite wrong there. The only burden of proof is on the
TVLA to prove that the equipment is functional. A TV, computer monitor,
TFT panel, if it is plugged in, is potentially capable of displaying a
TV broadcast signal in the form of a moving picture with sound. Whether
or not it is actually used for that purpose is immaterial. Even if you
have only a DVD player plugged into it, you're still liable for the
licence fee because the /potential/ is there.
William Poaster
> begin risky.vbs
> <4436...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> matt <som...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that the BBC needs funding, and that funding comes from
>>> a mandatory TV licence (we used to have a radio licence as well, but
>>> they mopped that up into the TV). Cost is £131.50 a year, and if you
>>> have a TV, there's no escaping it. imo, it really is time that we
>>> sorted this out. Trouble is, most of us don't want to lose the BBC
>>> programmes:-)
>>
>> The ABC's (Australia's BBC) funding comes from consolidated revenue - no
>> need to bother with a license.
>
> Can you please explain 'consolidated revenue' to an idiot like me please?
>
> Brits have always complained about the license fee yet they always say
> they love the BBC's programmes. Many examples of exceelent BBC progs have
> already been mentioned. I would like to give one more. The drama series
> Pride & Prejudice was brilliant. The casting and acting suberb. My
> daughter bought me the recent movie. It was so poor in comparison.
Yes, they do make *some* good programs. The problem I have with the BBC is
that when they *do* make something like you describe above, something
*else* suffers. As I've said elsewhere, according to their Annual Report
BBC 2 (for example) has over 4,800 hours of *repeats*, over *1/2* a year?
Of course BBC1 has interminable repeats of "Fools & Horses" <YAWN>.
Frankly IMHO it just isn't good enough.
> So, to all you brits that complain about the license fee but yet enjoy
> what the BBC produce, how else would you fund it?
Subscription, (Market Forces) then we might see them get their collective
finger out when they start losing viewers wholesale. IMO they have got
*too* complacent, because they have a "captured" audience. Even if you
don't watch them, you *still* have to pay. If you don't have a TV but have
a *TV CARD* in your computer, you *still* have to pay.
I'd also chop a lot of management, especially the ones who've built
little 'empires' such as the "presentation" department. You switch on TV
or radio at the appointed time, & do you get the program? NO! They are
*so* busy telling you what's coming on *after* the program you want to
watch, or even what's coming on next bloody week, you wonder whether
you've go the right time? It's even pervaded the radio, like BBC7, "Coming
up in a minute Beyond Our Ken, & later blah, blah, followed by blah, blah.
At 10PM there's blah, blah, blah which is repeated tomorrow at 3AM... "
Yes but what about Bey... "That is followed by blather, blather, & so-&-so
finds.." Who gives a toss? I put it on to listen to a *specific* program
at a given time, & all I get for 2 -3 minutes is this waffle...<sigh>
Hmm....maybe I should join this team <grin>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/g/grumpyoldmen_999031010.shtml
I'd like to see someone doing a satirical sketch about that, a la Monty
Python, that by the time they've actually got to the program there's no
time left. <grin> " Hello. And now for something completely different.
Well that's all the time we've got, so Goodbye!"
> The Swiss use a combination of license fee and adverts. This works quite
> well. They show a lot of recent movies and at most there will be a single
> advert break which is normally very short. Less than a minute on many
> occasions. They often broadcast the movie with the local language on one
> audio channel and the original language on the other. That's great for me.
>
>> I don't pay for a BBC license, but I often listen to the BBC World
>> Service on HF at your expense :)
>
> The World Service is funded by the foreign office and not the license fee.
> Still comes out of the tax payers pocket of course.
--
SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta9 (Agama Lizard)
All posts from googlegroups.com are killfiled.
"Internet Explorer; a collection of security holes
held together by browser code”- Novell.
BearItAll
Anual Television costs in the UK.
BBC = (compulsory) £131
ITV = £0
Sky = (mid range package is £18 per month) = £216
Cable = (special offer of £30 a month) = £360
So lets go for the cheapest, BBC + Sky = £347
Now we have all of those 60 odd channels, the BBC are only going to be worth
it if they win over about 40% of our viewing time. Can you honestly say
that they do, whether you have sky or not?
Mid week nearly every program is a soap. So nothing for me there. Then many
police/detective programs (which are soaps too, but we'll gloss over that),
still nothing for me.
I don't expect all programs just for me, but those that are to my taste I
want done well.
I would at one time have said that bbc sport coverage was the best of the
lot. But it isn't even close now. Sky sports covers events from start to
finish. I like wrestling (real wrestling I mean) and other contact sports
(jujitsu, judo, boxing, ping pong etc), when they is an event on sky I know
I will see the whole thing. Because they basically point a camera at an
event and just leave it there, you get what might be the dull bits too,
like mat changes, or the wait while contestants are called up, but if its a
sport you like then even the dull bits have value. Events such as the
Olympics, Sky's coverage was brilliant, true they had to do some juggling
to fit them in so not everything was Live, but they covered just about
every sport in detail.
What do the BBC do? They show you endless track events, to them that is the
whole of the Olympics. Then they switch to the beam and pretend that they
have covered the gymnastics. They don't even touch the surface of what is
going on in major events such as these.
Of cause now and then they will be a program, play whatever that you
particularly like on bbc. The same is true of ITV. The difference is that
at least ITV are willing to take a risk, covering things that might not be
popular. BBC is glued to soaps because they know they are popular, but that
isn't what the BBC is meant to be doing. They are the ones who are meant to
be free to experiment.
There is also another side, our license is spread very thinly because of
endless radio stations and other TV stations available on free view that
are only there to repeat the repeats.
If we must pay a license for TV, I want it to be Only TV, no more than two
channels, so that they have enough money to put on better programs. By
better I don't mean programs that I like, I also mean better of the
programs that they put on currently. I am much more a radio person than a
TV person, but with the digital I can select the radio stations that suit
me better, but have another option too, I can create my own on Yahoo.
Personally, I would dump the BBC, put that money onto the Sky bill and I bet
your socks we all get more of the programs that we like.
Bobbie
exclaimed:
>
> "Bobbie" <bobbie4(remove-this)@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.04.06....@shaw.ca...
>
>> After all if I didn't buy it from Microsoft it must be a priated OS,
>> right?
>
> Some definitions, bobo. We all know that all OS platform software did
> not come from MS, just almost all of it.
Could you please redo your previous sentence. It doesn't make a lot of
sense.
> Now if it comes in the usual
> way, i.e. from the OEM on your new machine, it is certainly not pirated.
The usual way I get my OSes are to download them free of charge.
> It is the OEM's gift to you in appreciation for your business or else it
> is a bargain that you are not willing to let pass.
>
> Some OEM's might ship Windows computers without having any
> authorization. That is the piracy that is often spoken about.
That is not what is being spoken about in the article. Microsoft is saying
that the only reason people would buy a naked PC is to install a pirated
copy of Windows. And even if they aren't installing Windows but are
instead installing another OS then the machine will be stricken with
viruses, trojans and untold amounts of malware.
>The rare
> computer hobbyist has, on occasion, loaded multiple copies of Windows on
> multiple machines using a single CD, often purchased particularly for
> that purpose. That is piracy, as well, but rarely discovered or
> punished.
You meant to say 'the common windows zealot has quite often installed
multiple copies of Windows, cause Windows rocks Dude!! Ain't no other OS
out there that plays Solitaire as great as Windows so I may as well pirate
junk.'
>
> Absent Windows, legally obtained or not, there is a range of OS
> platforms that may be selected.
Not according to Wintrolls such as yourself.
>There are the older, and obsolescent
> ones, such as BeOS, and the dweebs delights such as linux.
> In the great
> Other category, you can ven find OS/2.
It's funny how Windows users seem to always compare Windows to OS/2. I
wonder why? Oh yeah, another one of Billy's scams.
>
> These non-Windows OS platforms may be freely obtained today from
> internet sources and work as clumsily as ever.
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
B Gruff
> I build my own desktops. As for laptops, it's secondhand Dells all the
> way for me. Spares are inexpensive (considering it's Dell), the machines
> are VERY reliable, Linux support is way up there, and because I use the
> same chassis' the modules are all interchangeable (8 batteries offering
> between them three DAYS continuous uptime on a PIIIm can't be all bad,
> right?). Microsoft gets sod all out of me, and the single license I've
> kept on this particular machine stays on it until the next install
> cycle, when it joins the rest of the labels from the other laptops -
> that's right, I sell the bugger on. I didn't sign up for the Microsoft
> Tax Club, I've no interest in the Microsoft Way, they can go fuck
> themselves with their heavyhanded tactics, I will continue to sell naked
> PCs (or even SHOCK HORROR PCs with LINUX preinstalled!!), and now I'm
> gonna go have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up. Peace.
That's very interesting Jim - about how much do you expect to pay for what
from where? Any tips ("linux friendly"/"linux hostile") or is one Dell
laptop as good as another in that respect?
(- may I also add that perhaps you might like to change your writing style?
You are among friends here - if you don't like MS, just come right out and
say so - no need to pussyfoot around!)
Bill
B Gruff
> " Hello. And now for something completely different.
> Well that's all the time we've got, so Goodbye!"
Never mind all that. Just seen your sig. How are you getting on
with "SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta9 (Agama Lizard)"?:-)
Bill
William Poaster
> begin oe_protect.scr
> High Plains Thumper <h...@singlecylinderbikes.com> espoused:
>> B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:49j1nmF...@individual.net:
>>
>>> Just helping us to avoid the risk of piracy, of course:-
>>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm
>>
>> Key is in this statement:
>>
>>> Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed
>>> versions of Microsoft's software.
>>
>> See here __________________^^^^^^
>>
>>> In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in
>>> which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors
>>> suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling
>>> them.
>>
>> "Keep IT Real" means keep it Microsoft. "Counterfeit software" means
>> Linux, BSD Free, etc.
>>
>>
> The whole thing is disingenuous. But from MS's perspective, /anything/
> they can do to stop people getting a pc without Windows on it is a good
> thing, particularly as so many organisations are moving to Linux at a pace
> which is not yet overwhelming, but perhaps not so far off.
IF they manage to get this implemented, I wonder how long it will be
before they start targetting those of us building our *own* boxes? "You
bought a case, mobo, hard drives etc, from 'PC Components & Bits' in the
High Sreet. We suspect you of putting pirated M$haft Crapware on it.
Here's our bill" Uh, no I don't use Gatesware... "No excuse, laddie,
PAY UP"
--
SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta9 (Agama Lizard)
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.06....@nomail.com...
>
> That is a lie. The cost of the machine includes the cost of windows.
>
You keep saying that, rick, and I most often ignore it since you are not
a reliable source of information, but I wonder if you really do not
understand product marketing. For a Wintel product manufacturer, such
as Dell, the price for Windows is a necessary part of being in business.
Without Windows it would not be a Windows computer. Then the product
would not be in the Windows computer market and would be in some other
market. Whether or not that other market had better or worse initial
product margins than the Windows market can be argued all day long, but
it is not the same. Windows comes pre-installed because that is a
requirement of the product market.
>>
>> Some OEM's might ship Windows computers without having any
>> authorization.
>> That is the piracy that is often spoken about. The rare computer
>> hobbyist
>> has, on occasion, loaded multiple copies of Windows on multiple
>> machines
>> using a single CD, often purchased particularly for that purpose.
>> That is
>> piracy, as well, but rarely discovered or punished.
>>
>> Absent Windows, legally obtained or not, there is a range of OS
>> platforms
>> that may be selected. There are the older, and obsolescent ones,
>> such as
>> BeOS, and the dweebs delights such as linux. In the great Other
>> category,
>> you can ven find OS/2.
>>
>> These non-Windows OS platforms may be freely obtained today from
>> internet
>> sources and work as clumsily as ever.
>
> .. as clumsily as ever.. another lie.
>
Would you prefer "as functional as ever"? Same thing, silly! LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> Supposedly the same with PBS. They run ads and call them something
> else.
Like pledge drives. One going on now for the local NPR station.
> PBS gets some money from actual users. Those numbers are small enough
> that it couldn't swim without the largesse provided by people who enjoy
> spending money earned by others.
Actually, PBS only gets about 15% of its budget from the government.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Simplicity made complex.
billwg
"matt" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4436...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Having spent high school working for a small to medium sized OEM
> moving
> about 60 machines a day out the door, I will attest to that. Customers
> did
> not get Windows for free - it was clearly listed on the invoice
It is listed on a Dell invoice as well, matt, under "features"!
chrisv
>>What part of "blank machine" needs explanation for you, Edwin?
>
>Explain to him that it's like his brain, he might understand then.
No, that would be a "corrupt" machine.
Mark Kent
William Poaster <w...@suse10.1oss.eu> espoused:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:10:25 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> High Plains Thumper <h...@singlecylinderbikes.com> espoused:
>>> B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:49j1nmF...@individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Key is in this statement:
>>>
>>>> Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed
>>>> versions of Microsoft's software.
>>>
>>> See here __________________^^^^^^
>>>
>>>> In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in
>>>> which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors
>>>> suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> "Keep IT Real" means keep it Microsoft. "Counterfeit software" means
>>> Linux, BSD Free, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> The whole thing is disingenuous. But from MS's perspective, /anything/
>> they can do to stop people getting a pc without Windows on it is a good
>> thing, particularly as so many organisations are moving to Linux at a pace
>> which is not yet overwhelming, but perhaps not so far off.
>
> IF they manage to get this implemented, I wonder how long it will be
> before they start targetting those of us building our *own* boxes? "You
> bought a case, mobo, hard drives etc, from 'PC Components & Bits' in the
> High Sreet. We suspect you of putting pirated M$haft Crapware on it.
> Here's our bill" Uh, no I don't use Gatesware... "No excuse, laddie,
> PAY UP"
>
>
I'm sure that if MS could get away with a tax on mobos, they'd go for
it. It's probably not unreasonable to consider, bearing in mind the
number of countries that tax blank media on behalf of the music/film
suppliers.
Mark Kent
You need to consider that for the vast majority of the audience out
there, Only Fools & Horses is the height of entertainment, indeed,
they'd probably be quite upset if it were taken away. Personally, I'm
not a fan of it, but there we go...
Also, consider that there really is only so much programming ever made,
on the whole planet, and much of that is trashy. Why do you think that
there are /so many/ soaps on commercial channels, for example?
As I mentioned before, you could try BBC4 (tv), BBC7 (radio) for
something with a little more bite?
>
>> So, to all you brits that complain about the license fee but yet enjoy
>> what the BBC produce, how else would you fund it?
>
> Subscription, (Market Forces) then we might see them get their collective
> finger out when they start losing viewers wholesale. IMO they have got
> *too* complacent, because they have a "captured" audience. Even if you
> don't watch them, you *still* have to pay. If you don't have a TV but have
> a *TV CARD* in your computer, you *still* have to pay.
So the best comparison would be Sky, as a subscription service. If you
look at what's actually on Sky, there's virtually nothing besides the
sport which is worthwhile or that you cannot get less expensively
elsewhere. Sky costs many times what the BBC costs, and yet delivers so
much less.
>
> I'd also chop a lot of management, especially the ones who've built
> little 'empires' such as the "presentation" department. You switch on TV
> or radio at the appointed time, & do you get the program? NO! They are
> *so* busy telling you what's coming on *after* the program you want to
> watch, or even what's coming on next bloody week, you wonder whether
> you've go the right time? It's even pervaded the radio, like BBC7, "Coming
> up in a minute Beyond Our Ken, & later blah, blah, followed by blah, blah.
So you want a market force driven service, but you /don't/ want
advertising? Pleeaaassse decide!
> At 10PM there's blah, blah, blah which is repeated tomorrow at 3AM... "
> Yes but what about Bey... "That is followed by blather, blather, & so-&-so
> finds.." Who gives a toss? I put it on to listen to a *specific* program
> at a given time, & all I get for 2 -3 minutes is this waffle...<sigh>
> Hmm....maybe I should join this team <grin>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/g/grumpyoldmen_999031010.shtml
Much of the programming which is bought in is designed for commercial
television, so that you lose 1 minute in 4 to advertising. What should
the BBC fill that time up with? They do not have enough funding to
compete on sports with the likes of Sky, because they're so much less
expensive than Sky; they do not have the resources to commission a
continuous round of drama, thriller or whatever else you might actually
like, so they have to buy quite a lot of it in; indeed, the government
/forced/ them to do so, in order to answer some of the criticism much
like you're making now.
>
> I'd like to see someone doing a satirical sketch about that, a la Monty
> Python, that by the time they've actually got to the program there's no
> time left. <grin> " Hello. And now for something completely different.
> Well that's all the time we've got, so Goodbye!"
There is plenty of top quality satire around right now - look at Little
Britain. I doubt any other station would've even dared to run it, as
the advertisers would've run a mile.
>
>> The Swiss use a combination of license fee and adverts. This works quite
>> well. They show a lot of recent movies and at most there will be a single
>> advert break which is normally very short. Less than a minute on many
>> occasions. They often broadcast the movie with the local language on one
>> audio channel and the original language on the other. That's great for me.
>>
>>> I don't pay for a BBC license, but I often listen to the BBC World
>>> Service on HF at your expense :)
>>
>> The World Service is funded by the foreign office and not the license fee.
>> Still comes out of the tax payers pocket of course.
>
The world service provides a useful alternative to US programming around
the world, and probably the only low-bias news feed available more or
less everywhere.
Roy Culley
<1o4ig3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
This would fall flat on its face. All the mobo maker need do is supply
an OS CD with their mobo's. Totally different to the blank media tax
situation.
I'm forgetting of course the utter corruption of politicians the world
over. The US being the worst in the so called 1st world.
billwg
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1144380238....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> billwg wrote:
>> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:49l7mmF...@individual.net...
>> >
>> > It won't fly.
>> > It won't fly because it doesn't suit MS, and it doesn't encourage
>> > (as
>> > in
>> > "pour encourage les autres!") re-sellers to do what they are there
>> > for.....
>> >
>> Well you are half right, goat, it won't fly. But it won't fly
>> because
>> it is a lame way for you wizards to try to compete. A company works
>> diligently to gain market leadership, you know, and Microsoft has
>> been
>> no exception.
>
> Microsoft has worked hard to get where they are. Nobody can deny
> that. The problem is the way they went about it wasn't always above
> board.
>
Cry me a river, ed! They made deals with other, much larger, companies
that worked in their favor. That is being clever and is as above board
as anything in business.
> Eliminate their ability to make secret deals with OEMs and see how
> much
> market share they keep.
>
All of it apparently! Perhaps you haven't read the papers yet, but the
settlement with the DOJ and states and the court ordered judgement with
the remaining states established oversight committees reporting to the
court 4 years ago. There are no such deals now and only confidential
terms and conditions since 1994. You have to find something else to
blame for losing, ed.
>> The greater the lead, the better the win in terms of
>> ability to set the course and direction of the market.
>
> No single entity is supposed to be able to control the market for its
> own benefit.
>
Not technically true, ed. There are additional rules that come into
effect if you have monopoly market power in some business. MS has a
whole herd of reviewers now, making sure they toe the line.
>> You all have
>> come to see that in action and are somehow dismayed that such a
>> psychological phenomenon could exist in the face of your claimed
>> better
>> understanding of the technology involved. But that is only good for
>> a
>> laugh!
>
> The short-sightedness of MS competitors, as well as those who thought
> to be MS "Allies," had as much to do with the rise of this
> "psychological phenomenon" as did MS itself, and probably more.
>
And Giacomo won the Kentucky Derby because the other horses decided to
run slower, eh?
>> The market leader is never going to be so foolish as to just cede
>> leadership to the unworthy trailers who were unable to make it on
>> their
>> own! Who would want that to ever be the case, other than the obvious
>> losers? The consumers want the winner to take all and they want to
>> know
>> that they have the winner.
>
> In that case, Microsoft should have no problem with collecting their
> OS
> payments directly from the computer buyer instead of from the OEM that
> built the machine. Then we'll see if they want to keep MS as the
> "winner" when they can see what percentage of their purchase price
> goes
> to MS.
>
You want to grossly change the rules to see if your horse can win after
all? Lame. I'm reminded of Hoyt Axton's lyrics - "Some you win and
some you lose and the winners grin and the losers cry 'Deal the cards
again!'". Well, as Augie said, you only go around once, ed, and the
scoreboard says you lost.
>> The COLA tactic is to call the fans of the winner Windopes or the
>> like,
>> but the winner's fans don't bother to listen to such trash. It is
>> coming from the losers and, so, what do you expect?
>
> Fans of Microsoft? I've never met any in real life. All the
> Windows users I know accept Windows as inevitable, but they're not
> "fans."
>
Well, I'm sure a fan. And the guy in the next office to me is also.
That makes 2 of us and we think there are a lot more out there.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Sorry Bob, you're quite wrong there. The only burden of proof is on the
> TVLA to prove that the equipment is functional. A TV, computer monitor,
> TFT panel, if it is plugged in, is potentially capable of displaying a
> TV broadcast signal in the form of a moving picture with sound. Whether
> or not it is actually used for that purpose is immaterial. Even if you
> have only a DVD player plugged into it, you're still liable for the
> licence fee because the /potential/ is there.
Nope.
If you have no TV tuning circuitry in your house, you're safe
They can't charge you TV licensing fees if you only have monitors/dvd
players etc...
They can also charge you for TV licensing if you don't own ANY display
equipment but do own a video recorder. It's the tuner they charge for, the
capability of receiving the TV signals.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Culley
<3b5ig3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Having been a WS listener for over 30 years it is, sadly, nothing like
it used to be. Recent changes have made it really boring. It is now
little more than a news outlet (excellent as always) and repeats of
programs that are clearly mere time fillers. No more comedy. Little to
no drama. To make matters worse, as you mentioned in a previous post,
a large cutback in their HF broadcasts.
The complaints they receive on 'writeon' (has a new name now I think)
from listeners the world over is just ignored.
I want the Navy Lark, Hancocks Half Hour, ... back. The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy. I want the good drama they used to broadcast. I
want I want ...
Listening to the WS used to provide many hours per day of varied
listening. Today it is little more than a, better than most, unbiased
news source. :-(
billwg
>
>> Now if it comes in the usual
>> way, i.e. from the OEM on your new machine, it is certainly not
>> pirated.
>
> The usual way I get my OSes are to download them free of charge.
>
>> It is the OEM's gift to you in appreciation for your business or else
>> it
>> is a bargain that you are not willing to let pass.
>>
>> Some OEM's might ship Windows computers without having any
>> authorization. That is the piracy that is often spoken about.
>
> That is not what is being spoken about in the article. Microsoft is
> saying
> that the only reason people would buy a naked PC is to install a
> pirated
> copy of Windows. And even if they aren't installing Windows but are
> instead installing another OS then the machine will be stricken with
> viruses, trojans and untold amounts of malware.
>
It didn't say that at all, bobo. You are either making things up or
have horrible reading comprehension. You will never get into anything
other than some state school that way.