D&C Lug - Home Page
Devon & Cornwall Linux Users' Group

[ Date Index ][ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] Licences preventing the user from using other OSes?



Adrian Midgley wrote:

The status of OEM licencing of software, and what constitutes original
machines, or the items of hardware with which such OEM licences may be sold
has not AFAIK and IANAL been resolved, but it is at least possible that this
user could have installed his previous operating system on his new computer,
thus resolving the problems of program compatibility he found.

That of course depends on the media and delivery of OEM
software. My laptop comes with a "ghost" style image of Windows
98 - if I ever have to reinstall it needs a partition the same
size as the original disk - and guess what is using most of that
disk space...

Rhymes with Tux (5).

Microsoft won't support OEM OS software they insist you go
through the hardware provider, who won't support it on other
hardware, so effectively you are stuffed.

just like the pharmaceutical industry that pushes 28000 drugs thro Dr's.
90% of which have no proven curative benefit whatsoever.

That is perhaps why we use them to ameliorate symptoms and control disease
rather than to cure it.  Morphine doesn't cure disease, but it is a benefit
many people have reason to be thankful for.

Wow - 10% have a curative effect? I thought only antibiotics
cured anything, and a few things stimulate the body to cure
itself more effectively, mostly by suppressing inflammation.

Ned Ludd and his followers resisted the loss of their jobs, one of the viral
things about MS is that it creates jobs.  Which offers greater employment for
low-grade IT technicians, an operating system and applications where
everything is understandable, or one where the the details are hidden and
only accessible to the senior members of the Guild; programs that work
usually and evolve gradually under pressures from users, or programs that are
flaky and driven by marketing hype?

Nah in the old days real computers would have a team of a dozen
highly paid specialists or so supporting each one. Personal
computers have about one person to 50 or 60 computers, and
better organised enterprises claim one person to 200 desktops. I
suspect the figures include a lot of hidden employee time
maintaining their own PC's.

I don't think MS makes much difference, although Apples were
probably easier to run, most of the variation in support effort
is down to non-technical aspects (Except perhaps viruses and
security work, which is forming a disproportionately increasing
amount of Microsoft support effort).

One of the tasks for the OS/FS movement is to demonstrate an economic
environment where those working "in IT" can expect to continue to do so, and
to continue to benefit themselves, and since they have the same needs as the
rest of us even if their livelihood is MS, to benefit their fellow-citizens
and co-workers.

The chief benefit to other co-workers is to keep them working
whilst keeping costs low, so less support being needed is
generally a good thing.

Peru looks like a good start.

A national lobbying effort is just underway here. I think Europe
is slightly more clueful than New Labour. New Labour seems only
too happy to sit down with BG and friends despite the huge
fiascoes already experienced. But then big government projects
seem more designed to prop up the IT industry than actually
deliver better government services at a reasonable price,
otherwise they would be better run. Look at the CPS new system
for a real classic example of how not to deploy a new system.

http://www.affs.org.uk/

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.


Lynx friendly