Hacker News Reader

Comment by BobG | Hacker News Reader

Being nearly 50years old, what frightens me about MS is that they think they can sell an OS which they can remotely turn off without out a court warrant and then its up to you if your business hasn't gone bankrupt to sue them . This just shows complete and utter contempt for their customers.Which will do for them in the long run.My next box will be linux. Maybe the apple setup etc looks attractive to the younger generation but its only superficial. They have their own history of arrogant greed too. Bob G

View on HN

I recently acquired a Mac Book Pro. There was precisely one Windows program I wanted to run on it (SuperMemo) under Parallels, which received good reviews. Rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I used an OEM copy of Windows from a defenestrated a DELL box (I replaced Windows with Debian). After installing XP as a guest OS under Parallels, I activated XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program.

But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me in their emailed order acknowledgment that I was some kind of felon: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP."

The following week I received in the mail a Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional; it contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing and extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation."

Hateful monsters! Frightful miscreants! I suppose I deserve this for having anything to do with Windows.

Technically it isn't a legit copy of Windows. OEM versions are usually tied to the computer they are originally sold with.

Personally I don't think it is fair, but that's how licensing works under a monopoly.

Jonathan Allen

Tied how? Certainly not legally. When you buy the computer you buy a license... no court would uphold charging people for something and not letting them have it.

The "shrinkwrapped" license agreements are not really enforcable... at least not in a legitimate (eg: competant) court.

Actually yes legally. You never buy the software. You are always buying the right to use the software under a set of circumstances. OEM Licenses are licenses sold under the basis of being tied to a single physical piece of hardware.

The language makes it sound more like they are going after people who mass-produce illegal copies of windows.

That is how convicted felons think, everyone else is a felon, or is going to be one!

But, yep, you now deserve this for having anything to do with multiple convicted felon and pirate Microsoft.

Nobody of integrity openly deals with convicted felons, for the taint will corrupt our customer trust. We all switched a decade ago. Where were you?

Well, never too late!

You bring up a hilarious caveat to "No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore."

The people now afraid of MSFT are not their competitors but instead their customers.

I did a presentation a few months ago on Microsoft's DRM technology in Vista: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf

It was when I first read about that and researched it that I realized just how bad it was. It's like the customer isn't even #2 or 3 anymore. It goes something like:

1. Money

2. Killing competition (including open source)

3. Hollywood

4. Locking out hobbyists and increasing licensing restrictions

...I'm sure I'm missing some...

n. Serving the customer

More like this: 1. Fucking the customer then everything you mention

Don't be silly Bob. Apple is not arrogant nor greedy... unless you're a socialist who thinks that all companies that actually sell software are "arrogant and greedy".

The stallman cult thinks this and they have gone so far as to have protests against Apple when they sued microsoft! That's how twisted their socialist thinking is-- they support the monopolist against the underdog!

If you're 50 years old, get a mac, you'll find that its a hell of a lot easier to use than Linux.

To claim that its "superficial" is to not understand the real advantages of the Mac... alas, I suspect too many people like you reject microsoft and then reject Apple (because of FUD spread by MS or linux fans) and then go back to microsoft when they discover that Linux is a damn hard to administer desktop (for most people.)

I have been using unix for 20 years and I only run Linux in particular situaitons because generally the admin load is just not worth it. Why deal with it when Mac OS X is so much better? So, I use it on servers, but only when I am not able to use apple hardwware (They make great servers too....)

The thing about Apple is, its far better than people think... and most people have never tried it, and yet many of these peopel have a negative impression of it based on propaganda from MS proponents.

Its very difficult to be honest and altruistic when your sole reason for being is to make money. This is the motivation for these men that run businesses. Or do you suppose their motivation is to bring happiness to people? Morals and money dont really mix very well. When a companies board of directors sit down to discuss the bottom line, how often do you think moral issues are discussed? Ive never heard any in all my years in the IT industry.

That's a very sick and twisted view of the world-- and it is from Karl Marx.

The reality is, you make money when you bring happiness to people. You make people happy and they want to give you money they want to buy more of your products because they want to keep being made happy again, or made even more happy.

Thus, the happier you make your customers the more money you make.

Further, making people happy, and making money are intrinsically moral things. Trading with people is honest and moral.

Those who talk of altruism speak of violence. Altruism is the destruction of your self to benefit others. (Literally). Thus socialists throw around the word "altruism" (and "Sacrifice" and a lot of other code words) to try and make it seem moral-- but at the root of it, what they are doing or advocating is putting a gun to your head and taking your money (and your money is just a representation of the labor you put in to earn it.)

So, don't you talk to me about morals-- when its clear you are advocating an immoral ideology.

The bottom line is this: Free people trade with each other and profit by trades that make people happy. This trade is moral, it is honest, and it is right. It is intrinsically peaceful.

Socialists oppose free trade, they believe in forcing people at gun point to "trade" on terms that the socialist approve of. This is not peaceful, this is not moral, and obviously the people who are having their lives threatened are acting under duress--- duress is not compatible with happines.

So, the next time you hear "sacrifice" come out of the mouth of a politician -- realize its not him that will be sacrificing-- its you and he's putting a gun to your head to get richer.

That is the language of the thief and the looter, the socialist and the immoral.

This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to say it-- but its amazing how twisted people's minds get when they are subjected to socialist propaganda day in and day out.

To think you just said people doing things that make them happy, because they make them happy is immoral!

Wow, this is obviously the viewpoint of someone who is not at all familiar with gift societies, someone who seems to me to be desperately clinging to a dogmatism in order to convince him- or herself that his or her life has been lived in a moral manner. The truth is that it's not all black and white. Socialist != Evil, and Capitalist != Good.

You speak of corporations bringing happiness to people, but I would like to point out something that I heard a month or so ago. It used to be that people had necessities and very basic desires which were fulfilled by entrepreneurs (merchants and guildworkers) in a capitalist system. In the present-day US and several other countries, however, that is no longer the case. Companies used to be in the business of manufacturing goods to fulfill needs. Nowadays, they instead manufacture needs to sell goods. Why do you think advertising is such a huge industry?

It's all kind of funny when you consider the cycle. The current corporate structure relies on a large amount of drone workers doing the majority of the work for a small cut of the pay. The only way to make these workers do this work that no one in their right mind would do willingly is to pay them. Why do they need that money? To buy the very things that these corporations are telling them that they need to be buying. It's all a crazy, vicious cycle, and I'm afraid that it is the inevitable result of long-term capitalist societies. Do you see anything changing for the better in these regards?

In an Anthropology class a few years ago, we talked about studies that some researchers had done in comparing the lives of people in developed countries to hunter-gatherer tribes in South America and Africa. The people in these tribes typically spent 2-3 hours a day to provide their food and shelter, and the rest of the time was spent chatting, telling stories, singing, dancing, sporting, and other tribal activities. I would argue that that is happiness, not going to work 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week so that I can get a new car that gets me to work more comfortably.

To compare Open Source software to development at gunpoint is absurd. If I have an interesting idea for a piece of software that I would like to write, I am going to write the software and be very happy to share it with the open source community. This has nothing to do with violence; I have enjoyed the benefits of a completely free computing system with extensive functionality, and I am quite happy to return the favor. This is known as a gift society, not violent, immoral ideologies.

And this money-for-happiness equation that you are promoting looks a lot like pie in the sky. I worked for 2 years for a small grocer in a country gas station / food mart. The store had been in his family for something like 40 years, and he served a valuable need to the surrounding community in providing the only gas and groceries for 20 miles around. He and his wife worked long days and were by no means rich, but they made enough to live on. His regular customers knew him by name, and he was a regular bidder at the 4-H auctions every summer. Clearly, in this case, the exchange of money for goods is happy for everyone. Unfortunately, cutthroat companies like Wal-Mart move into town who have no concern for the well-being of the community, doing things like storing materials in parking lots which poison water supplies during rain, avoiding a golf cart security guard in their parking lot even though it has proven to reduce crime to 0%, relying on federal programs to cover worker health benefits, and driving all local businesses out and then moving out when the profit margins are no longer good. So the customers save money, yes, but they lose out in so many other ways. This is the problem with faceless corporations who do not see things at a human level.

In summary, my problem is not with capitalism, and I am not a socialist. I merely fear that the inevitable end of capitalism is the type of corporate society that has been steadily evolving in the U.S. and elsewhere, one in which paper and numbers are more important than people.

"In summary, my problem is not with capitalism, and I am not a socialist. I merely fear that the inevitable end of capitalism is the type of corporate society that has been steadily evolving in the U.S. and elsewhere, one in which paper and numbers are more important than people."

You contradict yourself.

Obviously you have a problem with capitalism because you beleive people should be forced at gunpoint to live the way you prefer.

This is because you value "paper and numbers" more than people.

Your idolizing of hunter gatherer societies is the kind of pseudo-science that has always been used to sell socialism.

Feel free to quit your job and go find food yourself. In alaska you are free to hunt to feed your family-- subsistence is prtected there (and its a good thing... nothing worse for the environment than environmentalists anyway.)

You talk about "Seeing things at a human level" but your idea of the "human level" is sticking a gun in someones face.

I never equated open source software wiht development at gunpoint-- so of course you had to say I did to try and make me out as crazy. People who voluntarily open source their software are Capitalists -- they are profiting (exploiting in your parlance) the works of thousands who decide to contribute to their open source software.

No, the violence ocmes in when you insist that companies must be restrained and people must be restrained from freely trading for each toher.

becauss of your pretend care for their spirit "So the customers save money, yes, but they lose out in so many other ways."

When you force walmart to stay out of your town-- you are using a gun to deny poor people the ability to feed themselves.

You, my freind, are a socialist. The spew of your post is pure socialist drivel. Its nonsense... and as long as socialists like you continue to spout hateful anti-human nonsense like that, I'll be asking the questiosn you can't answer.

Like:

Why not let people live in peace? Why do you insist on using violence to force people to live according to your (ignorant) ideas?

Wow, I can clearly see that it was a mistake to reply to your comment. This is pointless...

Yeah, the matrix has you.

I'd like to say something that u don't have to answer. In fact, I wouldn't like u to answer for it's pointless to argue with you, as far as I can see. But I'm just wondering: Are you as afraid of communism as to act as someone like Hitler would do? Your way of refusing to friendly discuss arguments is as intolerant and shortsighted as Hitler or Stalin would do. So, as you call yourself an anti-communist you just let me one person to compare you with...

I'm not a philosopher nor a politician but the way you talk answers one of the unsolved questions I asked myself while reading some historical books: are there still people like that?????

And there you are.....

Thank you. I was afraid I was in the minority here in thinking that his posts were a little off...

im not a big IT guy like most of the people commenting in this forum, and i can't say that i would add anything to the conversation. I have just begun C++ education, so i'm getting a grasp on the universe of IT very slowly.

The one thing i can say though, is that I've taken plenty of courses on politics, and i know from your comments that you're just a tool who's so afraid of "socialist views" that you'll stamp down people who bring up valid points to your own. Oh, and before you start typing out a response, I'm not a socialist.

Capitalism is a great thing, it allows free enterprise and strengthens a society. people no longer have to work outside farming for 14 hours a day, they have the opportunity to work in a job and buy their food and other supplies; they have much more choice than our ancestors in the past (although one could argue from a philosophical point if this is truly makes them happy, but i'll save that for another rant). In short, people are not obligated to any one position or limit and can choose to do anything at all, since all jobs give money, or some equal form of payment.

But capitalism also gives people in a better position the ability to take advantage of others; since people are no longer self-sufficient and rely on money to accomodate their needs, it gives other people the ability to exploit these people (often with fear tactics or conformity) and make them think "they really need this new 2006 model with 8 cup holders and all-wheel drive," or that "the world is dangerous and a rapist could be just around the corner, so buy a gun to protect yourselves from those rap music-listening-hoodlums." this is present in our society, and you can see it in most advertising.

socialism attempts to protect people from themselves by making everyone equal, and instead of people providing for themselves, the government does. all in all the debate can continue in another discussion as to which one is superior.

i dont necessarily agree with brandon's comments about walmart being evil, because they don't MAKE you go there, and they don't try to convince you. you really don't have to go to walmart if you don't have to, its that simple.

at the same time, bitgeek, your incoherent babbling seems to point every problem with our society in the hands of socialists, and that people in a free society can't be evil, but provide a necessary service (which some do and some don't). its utterly stupid and ignorant, so please find a time machine and go to the 1950's where you belong

thats all. i know this has nothing to do with MS dieing or anything, just thought i'd stamp out another idiot's rambling today.

You seem to labor under a few misconceptions.

Sure, you CAN make money while bringing happiness to the people. As long as it doesn't touch you bottom line, that is. There is a landmark legal case from 1916 (Dodge vs Ford), that's now codified in most countries, that's illustrative of corporations priorities.

Ford (the man) wanted to use some of his company's huge profits to do good and make the customers happy. He paid his workers more than the going rate and reduced the price on the company's cars. He figured his company wouldn't have been where it was if it hadn't been for his customers. So this was a way for him to say "thank you" and be a responsible community citizen.

He got sued by some of Ford's (the company) stock holders, who argued that Ford (the man) had no business giving away their money, however good his intentions, and however happy the customers (in this case) would be. The stock holders won handily, and Ford (the man) was severely rebuked by the judge. So the law nowadays expressly forbids companies to do anything that may jeopardize the bottom line and the stock owners dividends.

Of course, companies can make people happy _as long as that's the best way to make more money_. But given the choice of making a lot of money while making customers happy and making more money by screwing them the corporations have no (legal) choice but to screw the customers.

As to your definition of altruism, that will have to stand for you. It's not a definition shared by very many. If you continue to use words with a definition you invent yourself, it's going to be difficult to communicate meaningfully with your peers. Not that I believe true altruism actually exist. But self interest can frequently masquerade as altruism quite effectively, and be virtually indistinguishable from it.

Your implied idea that capitalism has some monopoly on "free" trade is also so patently ridiculous that I can't even be bothered to comment on it.

And as to "free choice" in the capitalist countries of today, what choice do I have, for example, if I want to watch my movies, or TV shows, or sports events, or news without commercials? None. Other than that Alaskan cave you mention. And even if I take the draconian step of not watching TV at all, because I dislike the commercials so much, I STILL have to pay for those commercials every time I go shopping. Some choice, huh? I can give you more examples like this if you're interested.

And returning to trade. You're not , even in the US, allowed to trade in everything you like. You're for example forbidden to trade in heroin, where you actually face that gun you were speaking about if you don't comply (or his brother, the chair). But maybe that's socialism, what do I know?

As a concluding remark, I find it interesting that everytime any of the serious organizations (american mostly) compile reports on the happiest countries in the world, the US are beaten by this or that "socialist" country. But I guess these organizations must be socialist themselves. An no, I'm not paranoid. I swear! They're REALLY out to get me!!!

Oh noes! I have to watch commercials! The pain, the pain.

They're are easy target and i had this discussion over drinks with some friend last night. I actually think their software in the last few years and what is coming through is getting great respect from hackers.

Also, a few things to remember.

1. Search in only 10% done.

2. Pervasive devices are taking over as the key interface to systems.

3. Collaboration is the big wave on the web.

4. Privacy/Trust - things like google apps work for some data (and are a great addition) but add in trust and privacy in business and they're screwed. Open ID is thinking about identity, but there's a long way to go.

For these reasons there is a long way to go before anyone can be considered alive or dead. I for one think Google will be overtaken by someone in the not too distant future as well. It may be a resurgent Microsoft - remember Netscape.

Oh, the have an ace in their cards. Ray Ozzie is Chief Software Architect (a position Gates himself used to hold) and created probably the more powerful collaboration software in its time at Groove. He's been very quiet recently and his emergence may be their resurgence.

Not everyone is going to want to create 5 minute web 2.0 software to get bought by Google - a big change will emerge as happened with Netscape and AltaVista. Stay tuned.

important post with some meat to follow up.

Next Gen Search is exciting to think about. Pervasive - I personally want to degadgetize and surround myself with inexpensive, pervasive technology. (Why isn't bluetooth inexpensive?) Collaboration - If you listen to MS talk, they are significantly ahead in collaborative technologies. I can't speak to that, but would personally like a movement toward open document formats. OpenID - why are they important? I should do more reading, I might not understand the scope of that project. web 2.0 is bubblific. good luck to those hoping to make a quick buck. I wish better luck to those that aspire to create value, change computing and create sustainable business models.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com