[H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
>> appropriately used the power button as a reject button ;).
>
> How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
> reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
> can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?
Seems logical to me. Microsoft does not care whether it's users agree or
what they think in general. They assume their users are stupid and can't
make a choice for them selves.
> Dell are just as bad:
>
> .----
> | After a few days she received a reaction from Dell that stated that
> | a refund would not be possible without returning the complete
> | machine, because the license is inseparable from the hardware. In
> | her answer she referred to previous cases where Dell Germany and
> | Dell UK provided a refund to customers.
> |
> | In the next reply a Dell representative answered that she was
> | indeed eligible for a refund for both Windows Vista and Works.
> `----
>
> So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at Dell.
>
> Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for deliberately
> lying to customers?
Very interesting point ;-)
With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).
Let's see where the discussion takes us (once it's out in the open). My
guess is that it'll boost GNU/Linux adoption further more :-)
Cheers
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
|
|
