____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 05 September 2007 10:58 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ John Locke on Wednesday 29 August 2007 07:23 : \____
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:01:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 29 August 2007 01:07 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft Responds to Re-discovery of Vista Network Slowdowns
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Responds_to_Rediscovery_of_Vista_Network_Slowdowns/1188244273
>>>>>
>>>>> Another flaw that was exposed by SysInternals (also took credit for
>>>>> exposing the Sony Rootkit). Some time later, by shear coincidence,
>>>>> Microsoft buys SysInternals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, that's not at all suspicious, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft is certainly very good at "tying up loose ends", if nothing
>>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>>I'm telling you, mate, it is a criminal organisation and its actions *must*
>>>>be exposed, preserved, and their effects explained (to be further
>>>>disseminated).
>>>
>>> ..and then hopefully people will stop feeding the monster.
>>
>> Yes, exactly, or at least pressure their politicians, who are obviously
>> lured in by the "Microsoft money", as Peter Quinn called it. Remember that
>> under certain circumstances people are forced to 'obey' and use Windows at
>> home or at work (e.g. to watch BBC content or to run some proprietary
>> application). In many cases, these things are being imposed from up above.
>
> I think that the difference between companies and public bodies here
> really does need to be highlighted. If companies wish to restrict their
> listenership and viewership to those people who happen to use devices
> which happen to run Microsoft operating systems - ie., a very small
> proportion of the mobile device market, then that is very much up to
> them.
>
> On the other hand, where public bodies are concerned, such as
> governments, police, healthcare, primary and secondary schools, tertiary
> colleges and universities, libraries, research facilities, standards
> bodies and so on, then there is every reason to expect those bodies to
> spend their money in such a way as to be as inclusive and inexpensive as
> possible. Public money *must* be handled in a way which is visibly
> proper and right - handing over of £130 Millions of licence-fee cash to
> Microsoft does *not* constitute proper handling of public money.
> Assuming a licence fee of around £100 per household, with, say, £20
> million householders out there, then income would be 20 * 100 x 10^6
> which is 2 x 10^9, and 130 Millions is 7% of that.
>
> That's 7% of an annual income in order to own *nothing at all*. There
> is no BBC ownership of anything here - it's all paying Microsoft to
> develop what they were doing anyway.
For a license for people to use it. Same with Windows. Nobody ever /buys/
Windows (unless Microsoft is acquired). People rent licences to use some
software and, well... if the WGA servers go down, then they are out of luck.
Microsoft talks about rent/pay-as-you-go computing, but it's already doing
exactly that. It just wished to make it worse, namely by introducing /more/
restrictions. Why? It's a monopoly. It can do anything to the innocent
consumer.
>> It's encouraging to see nations like South Africa. They realise what is
>> going on (Mark Shuttleworth lobbies as well) and they have begun bringing
>> major change and transition.
>>
>
>
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Web 2.0 is everything that can be spammed" --Unknown
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.26 0.56 0.52 2/147 18053
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
