In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Robert Newson
<ReapNewsB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:07:31 GMT
<4489D526.1090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 7 wrote:
>
> ...
>> Secondly the windope installer is viral and deletes multi-boot
>> information in order to illegally retain market share - unlike SuSE
>> and Ubuntu and many other distros which do not delete multi-boot
>> information. This is illegal as Linux machines makes up more than 7% of
>> the world's PCs and deleting a Linux multi-boot boot record amounts
>> tampering with a PC like a virus, to bring harm to a user's PC
>> which then requires the PC to be processed in a similar
>> process as a virus infected PC
>> in order to recover that deleted information. EU regulators must rule
>> this practice as illegal and allow its victims to sue micoshaft
>> for vending of viral software and police should raid micoshaft offices
>> and arrest all staff involved in writing, manufacturing, warehousing
>> and distributing viral software as they do with existing virus writers.
>
> In the UK, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 already makes it illegal to make
> unauthorised changes to a computer system that impair the operation of any
> computer, or prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any
> computer, or impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of
> any such data.
>
> The questions that then arise are:
>
> Are the changes to the mbr that disables the boot loader for linux
> authorised (and by whom) or not?
They are authorized by Microsoft, presumably. Is the law
(or the software!) carefully enough written to distinguish:
- authorization by the user
- authorization by the owner (who could be the user, the parent of the
user, a library, or even Microsoft itself)
- authorization by the hardware vendor under instructions from the
owner
- authorization by the repair shop under instructions from the owner
- authorization by a software vendor (related to that particular piece
of software)
- authorization by the OS vendor under instructions from the owner
- authorization by the OS vendor, period
- authorization by the government (e.g., a warrant to search for child
pornography, stolen music, or sensitive codes to remotely launch
nuclear missiles)
?
> And is it clear that they are being
> authorised (when you click "OK", or "I agree", to install
> Windwos/Windwos boot)?
An interesting thought, that. I for one wish I knew who was responsible
for blasting GRUB or LILO out during the Windows installation process.
(It could be as moronic as FDISK/MBR or SYS.)
>
> And if found guilty, how does a corporation get sentenced to imprisonment
> for a term not exceeding five years? (Or would that be the programmer
> responsible, or the programmer's manager who gave him/her the specs, etc?)
Another interesting thought.
> Or would a fine be the only recourse for each and every [[past and] future]
> breach?
>
A fine is sublime but imprisonment suits the temperament. Or something
like that. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
