Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:51 pm, Terry Porter <linu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Doctor Smith wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:45:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> The difference between Linux and Windows
>
>> > People are willing to pay money for Windows rather than use free Linux.
>> > That says it all.
>
>> That's a joke, considering you didn't pay for Windows yourself, instead
>> insisting that as a 'subcontractor' you're entitled to a copy stolen from
>> your previous employer 8 years ago!
>
> I never cease to be amazed at how many "Windows Advocates" have not
> only never actually paid for Windows, using either the OEM copy or an
> employer copy, but how many have actually PIRATED Windows.
>
>> Even Bill Gates has said that the worst Windows pirates are small
>> business and home users.
>
> The latter is probably very true. Home users don't usually get or
> install Windows themselves, they buy a PC that comes with Windows
> preinstalled. However, they often install pirated versions of MS-
> Office and even MS-Project and Visio.
>
> If Dr Smith did what Terry describes, then Dr Smith would be guilty of
> violating federal copyright law and could face up to 5 years in
> federal prison if convicted.
>
> Corporate Microsoft license agreements permit full-time permanent
> employees to use Windows on laptops, and permit contractors to use
> fixed PCs or company owned laptops for the duration of their contract
> with the employer, and only for company related purposes.
>
> The minute you terminate the contract, even if it's because you
> successfully completed the engagement, the contractor has to turn over
> the laptop and all related software. Under NO circumstances is the
> license transferred to the contractor.
>
> Many corporations purchase extra licenses, to cover employees who
> might have a second machine at home, or a second laptop.
I wouldn't. I'd pay for essential licenses and tell everyone else
with non-essential laptops and PCs to install Linux and Open Office
to save a lot of money.
I'd take it to the next level and tell the IT admins to install Linux on a
couple of spare machines and learn Linux and open office
instead of whining blue about support.
I'd also order up an inventory of what licenses are being paid
for and eliminate all the waste by not renewing.
Anything thats been bought on bundle deals that cost more money
with wasted idling licenses will be the first to go.
For a company of 30 people, you could easily burn 20,000 pounds
on waste if you don't scrutinize your IT deparment.
Think how that would translate if you had 1000 staff!!!
> Even then
> they are supposed to let other family members use the corporate
> Windows license. If the employee has a family PC, the family should
> use the OEM license, and purchase MS-Office from the OEM or from a
> retailer. The family should NOT use the Corporate MS-Office licensed
> machine for things like homework, the church newsletter, or other
> personal uses or for their home businesses.
>
> Normally, the only penalty that is likely, is that Microsoft will
> disable the PC until the pirate purchases properly licensed software.
> Using ANY Pirated software on the PC is a violation of the Windows End
> User License Agreement. The End User License Agreement gives
> Microsoft the right to check the computer using any means necessary,
> to examine ANY files on the PC, and to use it for ANY purpose,
> including some of the examples listed in the license, but not limited
> to those uses listed.
>
> If you pirate Microsoft's intellectual property, then Microsoft has
> the right to make any use of any intellectual property they find on
> your PC. If they want to sell that information to one of your
> competitors, you have given them the right to do so.
>
>> No one pays for Windows, it's force fed to them by OEMS, like fluoride in
>> the water supply.
>
> And the OEMs have it force-fed to them in "point of a gun" contracts.
> Microsoft doesn't need to actually point a gun at the CEO's head, but
> the CEO knows that if he doesn't accept Microsoft's terms, he gets NO
> Licenses, and this makes it much harder to sell computers.
>
> The exceptions are companies like ASUS and Apple, who were willing to
> offer an entire line of PCs that would NOT have Windows. When sales
> were succesful, and cutting into Microsoft's revenue, Microsoft
> offered these companies Windows on more flexible terms.
>
>
>> When it comes to Windows, people have little free choice.
>
> It's extremely hard for them to make an INFORMED choice. It's quite
> easy to order a PC preconfigured with Linux, but it's nearly
> impossible to see such a machine on the retail sales floor of any
> retail space where there is high traffic.
>
> Microsoft even tries to intimidate small shops in off-highway strip
> malls, and uses their control of trademark licenses to limit their
> ability to promote Linux and Windows in the same advertizing or even
> the same Window display.
|
|
