On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 00:05 -0500, Myth User wrote: > The EULA on Microsoft's site has transfer on section 14 here is the link > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx ---- try it - report back ;-) Seems to me it entails some amount of begging on the phone with an agent to obtain an activation code. ---- > > The EULA I was reading is on paper but I did find the same one online here > at this link and you will notice transfer is in section 4 > > http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/windowsxpprofessional-eula.htm ---- OK - cool, New Zealand has another EULA ---- > > "incredibly limited set of rights " Exactly what is the warranty on Linux? ---- are you implying that Windows has a Warranty? There's no crying in baseball. ---- > > No response? > > "why they bother endlessly purchasing and repurchasing the same software" > Are you talking about buying the exact same title over and over again or > were you trying to say that because you once bought DOS 6 that you should > be > entitled to use Windows 2003 Data Center? > > No response? ---- why do you want to force a debate on an absurd example? Is that this works? Proffer absurd examples for debate? ---- > > "privilege fee which is neither transferable nor durable." Exactly when > does > my license for XP Pro expire? Where in the EULA does it say I cannot sell > the software to some other entity? > > No response? ---- actually, if you have been following the news you would know that your license expires when the motherboard craps out as Microsoft has determined that the motherboard represents enough of a hardware change to end license rights. ---- > > > there have been suggestions that 'some' of these TCO studies that favor > > Microsoft were paid for by Microsoft and the criteria used was slanted > > in their favor but there of course are always - it depends...curiously > > though, the issue of TCO wasn't on the table at all and I'm not sure why > > you want to move the discussion to tangential issues. > > You Sir, introduced cost into this discussion and because I did not let you > get away with it you now accuse me of making a tangential issue. ---- I used the word purchase because that is the means with which Windows is acquired - as opposed to download which is the means to which Fedora is acquired - the notion of cost or total cost of ownership was purely yours. ---- > > There are dozens done by universities and independant large companies which > clearly show MS as the winner. ---- To quote Harry Nilsson (the rock man), you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. The suggestion that TCO stuff without a complete dissection of the criteria is absurd and not relevant to a discussion about SATA and a red herring to the discussion at hand. ---- > > > You must be referring to some other eula. > > See above ---- when I move to New Zealand ---- > > > to be Windows as long as they are selling 90% + > > of the desktop market. That apparently is shifting too if you haven't > > noticed and you obviously are aware that the server market has entirely > > different OS ratios. > > That's good for everyone as competition normally benefits the consumer. I > hope this ends all this anti-trust nonsense. ---- nonsense? you mean like price fixing, rewarding assemblers based upon not permitting other software on the desktop, leveraging their monopoly to squeeze out competitors by giving software away or vastly undercutting competitive hardware and software companies by selling at a loss. ---- > > X or anywhere. With Linux...it is your software - you own it. You can > > view it, change it, inspect it, copy it, transfer it...do what you > > please. If it isn't what you want it to be, you can either curse the > > darkness or light a candle. With Windows or Mac OS X, you have no chance > > of lighting a candle and all you can do is curse the darkness. > > Nice shift to poetry. I wont follow you into a discussion of OS's in poetic > terms but I will point out that Windows is modified every day by people > outside Microsoft. > > When I worked for digital, we released our own version of NT 3.51 and SQL > Server with Active passive clustering. > > Every version of Microsoft Data Center is customized by the hardware vendor. > > There are hundreds of custom HAL's out there for NT based systems. > > I do not follow your poetic line about darkness and candles unless you are > saying that Windows is immutable and then you are simply wrong. ---- perhaps some are privileged enough to have use/access to Windows source code without stealing it. I wasn't trying to be poetic but trying to make a point by using an allegory. The point of the allegory is if someone is knowledgeable enough to understand the intricacies of SATA and storage in general, that it would make more sense to pitch in and help than spout off about lack of support but hey, that's me. I certainly have my whining moments too. Craig
