This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Wed, 23 Aug 2006
02:51:21 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 22 Aug 2006
>> 23:18:21 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:44:53 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> __/ [ miroco ] on Tuesday 22 August 2006 18:15 \__
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:39:41 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | Vista will continue to
>>>>>>>> | wipe your master boot record on install. And so begins "The case
>>>>>>>> | against installing Windows Vista (volume 658, 943)".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are they such assholes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the mantra. They will make it look like it's an innocent
>>>>>> mistake. Just as they have been doing with Web standards for so many
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an innocent mistake, it's very deliberate. And there's a
>>>>> damn good reason for it too. Microsoft has no responsibility to
>>>>> maintain the proper boot sector for other OS's. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would not be *that* sure about it, Erik In other countries it could
>>>> be seen as deliberate computer sabotage
>>>
>>> It most certainly is - this is monopoly abuse in a particularly clear
>>> and open way. This would be an interesting one for IBM, Red Hat and
>>> others to consider taking up with the EU, I think.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That windows does not even ask about it but just silently overwrites
>>>> data it has absolutely no business to do so should certainly be seen
>>>> as a reason to go to the courts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Definitely - with every chance of an relatively easy win, I think. The
>>> fact that the linux distros can install /without/ destroying Windows
>>> does rather demonstrate that it can be done if you want to. Abuse of
>>> monopoly is a nasty crime, and should be punished appropriately.
>>
>> It would also be interesting, IMHO, to know if Fista would *still*
>> insist on being written to the first drive, or drive partition, (as do
>> other windows installations) thus overwriting what ever other OS was
>> installed on there.
>
> "Recent" windows versions (like XP) do not insist being installed on the
> first drive. They just insist on having some boot code on that drive (more
> than a little Grub, though). The majority of the OS can reside on some
> other partition/drive, though
>
>> In other words, if you had a linux distro installed on the first drive,
>> would Fista *insist* on being installed on that drive & overwrite the
>> linux installation?
>> If it does, then that makes the situation even *worse* because not only
>> would it overwrite the mbr, but the linux installation too.
>>
>>
> MS simply was not /that/ stupid. If it did that, they would have to answer
> some decidedly harsh questions from judges by now
Ok, thanks for the info. :)
--
I used to like a good joke.
What happened?
I thought there was a better way, so I
stopped using Windows & switched to linux.
|
|
