In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
<peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:03:26 +0200
<eers6a$3kl$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1593857.DAdyh3QZD8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Peter's point w.r.t. DRM was an excellent illustration of how
>>> self-serving and vain Microsoft has become. Why? Because it can. It's
>>> about what /Microsoft/ can gain, rather than the customer, let alone
>>> other residents on
>>> the Web who are not Microsoft customer.
>>
>> To be honest, I'm not sure I understood Peter's point about DRM
>> (seemed
>> to be non-sequitur at the time). Is he basically saying "If Microsoft can
>> add DRM to XP, they can add anything to XP"?
>>
>> - Oliver
>
> No. I am saying they had plenty of time to add a (not-wanted) DRM module
Who says it's not wanted? The consumer may loathe it and
the OEM technicians rail at it while repairing systems
where it has malfunctioned...but Microsoft probably
implemented it because of the same factors that corrupted
the DAT drive: big moneyed media interests.
It's desired, certainly. The question is by whom.
> (and even make it an "important" update) while at the same time unpatched
> (and *still* unpatched) holes *with* exploits are known
>
> These nimwits have time for such sillyness, instead of making XP better
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
