upyurbuttoo wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:0j0e34l9fc5dpmcesu2jfoo8jk9acoqbcf@4ax.com...
>[color=green]
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:40 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Not Me wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at
>>>>least not in moist states...
>>>
>>>You'll have to ask mr drunken pig about that seeing as how he's the one
>>>who has all of the pics and videos of animals and he is the one posting
>>>them to this ng.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>He seems to have quite a collection doesn't he?
>>>He seems to be proud of them!...LOL!
>>>You just gotta wonder what other pics he has in his "collection!
>>>Frank[/color]
>>
>>Memo to the moron known as Frank.
>>
>>All the photos you want:
>>
>>[url]http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=fools[/url]
>>
>>Just type in what you're looking for like I just did, fool, and guess
>>who popped up. You did.
>>[/color]
>
>
> yuk yuk yuk, you so funny
>
>[/color]
That drunken fool, mr pig, just doesn't get it...LOL!
Frank

On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:17:24 -0400, "upyurbuttoo"
<upyurbuttoo@upyurbuttoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> All the photos you want:
>>
>> [url]http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=fools[/url]
>>
>> Just type in what you're looking for like I just did, fool, and guess
>> who popped up. You did.
>>[/color]
>
>yuk yuk yuk, you so funny
>[/color]

Frank (on left) with Bill toasting their planned marriage:

[url]http://www.stylelookalikes.co.uk/images/characterImages/fools1.jpg[/url]

Frank wrote:[color=blue]
> upyurbuttoo wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:0j0e34l9fc5dpmcesu2jfoo8jk9acoqbcf@4ax.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:40 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not Me wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at
>>>>> least not in moist states...
>>>>
>>>> You'll have to ask mr drunken pig about that seeing as how he's the
>>>> one
>>>> who has all of the pics and videos of animals and he is the one
>>>> posting
>>>> them to this ng.
>>>
>>>> He seems to have quite a collection doesn't he?
>>>> He seems to be proud of them!...LOL!
>>>> You just gotta wonder what other pics he has in his "collection!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>> Memo to the moron known as Frank.
>>>
>>> All the photos you want:
>>>
>>> [url]http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=fools[/url]
>>>
>>> Just type in what you're looking for like I just did, fool, and guess
>>> who popped up. You did.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> yuk yuk yuk, you so funny
>>[/color]
> That drunken fool, mr pig, just doesn't get it...LOL!
> Frank[/color]
Hey shmuck. You are getting boring. Don;t you have anything new.

Alias wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies breed
> complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just another
> classic case.
>
> Alias[/color]


Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because Linux has just become
another product customers have breed disdain for.

- GorkusPuss

GorkusPuss wrote:[color=blue]
> Alias wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies
>> breed complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just
>> another classic case.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
>
> Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because
> Linux has just become another product customers have breed disdain for.
>
> - GorkusPuss[/color]

Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using it.

Alias

Alias wrote:[color=blue]
> GorkusPuss wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies
>>> breed complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming
>>> just another classic case.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because
>> Linux has just become another product customers have breed disdain for.
>>
>> - GorkusPuss[/color]
>
>
> Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using
> it.
>
> Alias[/color]
Liar!
Frank

Frank wrote:[color=blue]
> Alias wrote:[color=green]
>> GorkusPuss wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies
>>>> breed complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming
>>>> just another classic case.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because
>>> Linux has just become another product customers have breed disdain for.
>>>
>>> - GorkusPuss[/color]
>>
>>
>> Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily
>> using it.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
> _Liar!
> Frank _[/color]
We all know that.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:21:23 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>GorkusPuss wrote:[color=green]
>> Alias wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies
>>> breed complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just
>>> another classic case.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>>
>> Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because
>> Linux has just become another product customers have breed disdain for.
>>
>> - GorkusPuss[/color]
>
>Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using it.
>
>Alias[/color]

Friend, what I would like to know is: WHERE are all these "millions"
of users of Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro)?

Even then, the few million using Linux out of the hundreds of millions
who use computers are statistically meaningless.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

On Fri, 23 May 2008 00:24:50 GMT, Canuck57
<dave8762@nospam-please.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:38:32 -0700, Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:36:39 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Nijmegen wrote:
>>>> The answer is: USERS (not manufacturers) should get the RETAIL
>>>> version, since you CAN'T reinstall the OEM version on another
>>>> motherboard![/color]
>>
>> This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Most of use know exactly the
>> opposite: one CAN reinstall the OEM version when a mother board has been
>> changed out.
>>
>> This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "can or can't", and EVERTHING to
>> do with "We won't let you".
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Does the EULA say that? I know that the XP OEM generic version's EULA
>>>does NOT say that.[/color]
>>
>> Of course, it doesn't. NOR does the Vista OEM EULA. This is STRICTLY a
>> lie meant to discourage users from doing it.
>>
>> Or it is a misunderstanding caused by nubies posting to these groups.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Snip MS employee's opinion, which, of course, is useless because he,
>>>like Carey, is told to sell Vista retail anyway he can.
>>>
>>>Alias[/color]
>>
>> You know, "Alias", we are usually at odds, but in this, I fully concurr.
>>
>> These "rules"have absolutely nothing to do with "support". They have
>> EVERYTHING to do with Microsoft's "Bottom Line". 60G-bucks in the bank
>> is not enough money for them. They want MORE, and MORE, and MORE.
>>
>> And they want MORE AND MORE AND MORE control over OUR machines. Like
>> they will ever get it...
>>
>> Not as long as I am alive.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
>> =================================================[/color]
>
>Depends.
>
>Microsoft needs our votes to continue. Votes we cast when we buy a PC
>with OEM, or buy a package. If people continue to buy MS, then we will
>get more DRM, HDMI and nasties.[/color]

Hmmm. perhaps we need MORE of this, not LESS. Anyway, DRM is part of
computing in a "Laize-Faire" economy.

Get used to it. Even Apple's "DRM-FREE" downloads are not really
"DRM-FREE", since they can be used to identify the one who downloads
them.
[color=blue]
>
>If we don't buy then MS becomes a paper tiger.[/color]

If we don't buy, we don't have a computer, do we?
[color=blue]
>And anyone who says Microsoft does not control their PC to some extent
>must be firewalled or disconnected off the Internet. Or of course,
>running a Linux, BSD or Solaris.[/color]

Does it really matter? I used Apples for a couple of years. Rather
than Microsoft controling my PC, Apple did. Now that I don't,
Microsoft does.

It's really "six of one, half-a-dozen of another."
[color=blue]
>FYI, you can control a PC with a simple one packet seemingly innocuous
>DNS call.[/color]

Been there, done that, got the Tee-Shirt and Poster.
[color=blue]
>While I personally do not vet my Linux code, I do know far more open eyes
>have vetted Linux for back doors and have more faith as a result.[/color]

But HOW MANY Of those who "vetted Linux for back doors" were doing so
in order to take CONTROL of those "back doors?"

NO thanks. "The devil I know is better than the demon I don't".


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:23:20 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Essentially there is no practical limit. The license specifies only that you
>can install a single installation to a device. The "device" itself is not
>specified as any particular piece of hardware, so if you swap out parts for
>newer ones on occasion you will be able to reactive (by phone generally,
>which can be time consuming) as long as you don't install with that license
>to a second system. There's a lot of leeway built into it when it comes to
>the definition of it being the same system.[/color]

Actually, Rick, it is up to the Activation "Technicians", since they
appear to have CONSIDERABLE leeway.

I've had more than a single copy of XP reactivated when it technically
shouldn't have been, if the techs were doing what they were supposed
to.
[color=blue]
>
>The intent of the OEM license is that it is tied to the original hardware it
>is installed and activated on, but in practice it doesn't hold up quite like
>that.[/color]

I fully agree. In fact, after 120 days from original Activation, the
Server wipes one's activation record, and for all intents and
purposes, that one license appears to have never been activated
before. So there really is no way for Microsoft to tell whether any
one license has been activated on a different machine, or the number
of times it has been activated.
[color=blue]
>More important is the support aspect, as it falls to the system
>builder and not Microsoft. In the case of someone purchasing and installing
>an OEM license copy, it means they are responsible for their own support.[/color]

Sorry, friend, but Activation of the OS is NOT done by the OEM, unless
one of their images are pre-activated in the factory. But the actual
activation is done through a Microsoft server, not the OEM.

In fact, about the ONLY support major OEMs give is hardware-related,
not OS-related.
[color=blue]
>The price difference is due in part to this fact, as Microsoft does not have
>to incorporate potential support costs into it.[/color]

Actually they DO have to support OEM software, to an extent:
They do promise free phone support until the OS is activated, and any
other time it needs to be activated, as well as free security and
other updates such as Service Packs.

That small window is large enough to cost Microsoft beau-coup bucks.

Personally, I sometimes think that the price differential between a
Retail copy of their OS and an OEM copy is caused by the Market
itself, rather than support costs. Microsoft simply can't sell enough
"Retail Boxed" products to keep their bottom line attractive-enough
for its investors.

A "FULL OEM" copy of a Microsoft OS can do EVERYTHING a Retail copy
can do EXCEPT do an "Upgrade" installation.

Support? Who cares about support? Microsoft has only supported me
ONCE, when I bought a non-fuctional Desktop set from them, in which
case they replaced the set with a functioning (but lesser quality)
one.

I don't look to either Microsoft or the Computer Manufacturer to
support me. I support myself. Anyone else can do this, IF they are
willing to take the time to LEARN about Microsoft Windows and their
hardware.



Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

Donald L McDaniel wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:21:23 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> GorkusPuss wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies
>>>> breed complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just
>>>> another classic case.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> Actually no one has really been attracted to Linux, must be because
>>> Linux has just become another product customers have breed disdain for.
>>>
>>> - GorkusPuss[/color]
>> Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using it.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> Friend, what I would like to know is: WHERE are all these "millions"
> of users of Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro)?[/color]

Mostly in Europe. The USA is AOL/MS/Norton land.
[color=blue]
> Even then, the few million using Linux out of the hundreds of millions
> who use computers are statistically meaningless.[/color]

To whom? "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step".

Alias

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:22:02 -0600, "Not Me"
<cargodZeroOne********.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I use OEM software whenever I build a new computer for myself or someone
>else.
>If you are building your own, no problem.
>One drawback to OEM software is that MS provides no support.
>I don't need it, so I don't worry about it.
>The other thing with OEM software is that it is tied to the first machine it
>is installed on and you can not (legally) use it on another system.[/color]

Actually, the words to use here are "you cannot use it on another
system, according to the OEM EULA", since Microsoft's shrink-wrap
license has NOT been tested in a court of Law yet, as far as I know,
so its "legality" (or "illegality") has not yet been established.

[color=blue]
>If you are trying to upgrade your machine from another OS to Vista, you
>should get an upgrade version not an OEM version.[/color]

I disagree.

One DOESN'T "UPGRADE" from another OS to Vista using OEM software. He
simply "INSTALLS Vista rather than another OS." And he MUST do it
CLEANLY if the OS is not a Microsoft OS which is allowed to be
"UPGRADED".

The ONLY way to "UPGRADE" from a previous Microsoft OS to Vista is by
using either a "FULL RETAIL (i.e., "Boxed") copy. or using a "FULL
UPGRADE (i.e., "boxed" copy of Vista.)

And, the ONLY way to "upgrade" from say, Linux, to Vista is by
INSTALLING Vista rather than Linux. To do this, one must do a "clean
installation" (i.e., "wipe the LInux partitions, and create at least
ONE NTFS partition before finishing Vista installation.")
[color=blue]
>I do not believe an OEM disk will allow an upgrade, only a clean install or
>dual boot setup.[/color]

Your belief is certainly not misplaced. However, your language is
kind of confusing.

IN either case, the installation must be "clean" (i.e., "it must be
installed to a partition which has no other OS on it.")


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

On Sat, 24 May 2008 11:08:08 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
<orthocross******.com> wrote:

[color=blue][color=green]
>>Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using it.
>>
>>Alias[/color]
>
>Friend, what I would like to know is: WHERE are all these "millions"
>of users of Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro)?[/color]

I'd like to know where all these millions of happy satisfied Vista
users are. Nearly everyone I know that's installed Vista doesn't like
it. Especially dumb "features" like UAC. As far as businesses,
Microsoft's own figures show after a year 84% HAVE NOT upgraded. As
far as reviews Vista received from the press and industry insiders at
best it is weak with many finding a laundry list of faults, half-ass
features and eye candy changes simply to make changes with many
confirming how slow and sluggish it is compared to XP.

The only place Vista is liked is right here. Of course you have to
excuse the fanboy crowd, especially when the biggest nut cases like
the idiot Frank, don't know any better.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:29:52 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Not Me" <cargodZeroOne********.com> wrote in message
>news:3EAF3E8E-8F6D-4A5E-B81F-D3D382125922@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> The other thing with OEM software is that it is tied to the first machine
>> it is installed on and you can not (legally) use it on another system.[/color]
>
>I keep reading this but I'm wondering just how far you have to go before
>it's "another system."
>
>I had a computer I'd built a couple of years back and installed Vista
>Ultimate OEM on it around the beginning of 2007.
>
>During the summer of '07, I replace the motherboard, video and DVD drive.
>Fired up and let Vista figure out the changes. Afterwards it said I needed
>to activate, which I'd expected. I called them up, told them what I'd done.
>They asked if I had another copy of Vista from this DVD running on another
>computer, and I said "no." They phrased the question a different way, and I
>still said "no." Next thing I know, he's giving me a new activation (or
>whatever it is) number.
>
>In the sense that it's the same powers supply, case, and hard drive, I
>suppose it's the same computer.
>
>What I wonder is, just how far could I have gone with replacing things
>before they'd have given me a hard time about it? Or if they would? The
>only thing he seemed concerned about was whether there was another instance
>of Vista FROM THAT DVD running on another computer anywhere.
>
>So, as a practical matter, how far can you go before they tell you you've
>got to get a new license?
>
> - Bill[/color]

Microsoft has YET to clearly define just WHAT a "new machine" is IN
ITS OEM EULA. Yet they make licensing decisions based on their
INTERNAL definition of what constitutes a "new machine", rather than
the OEM EULA language.

Since the User has no way of knowing just what Microsoft's INTERNAL
definition is when he reads the OEM EULA, how is he to know?

IF it's not defined by the EULA, then the User has every right to
create his OWN definition.

If one follows the SPIRIT of the EULA, upgrading one's MB is
definitely not contrary to the terms of the License, since it does
allow "upgrades" (but fails to DEFINE WHICH upgrades are allowed).

Letting Microsoft make this decision ARBITRARILY in each case is
CONTRARY to the SPIRIT Of the License.

Microsoft doesn't keep the terms of the EULA itself. How can they
expect and demand that WE keep them?


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

Adam Albright wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 11:08:08 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
> <orthocross******.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Your premise is false. Millions are downloading Ubuntu and happily using it.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>> Friend, what I would like to know is: WHERE are all these "millions"
>> of users of Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro)?[/color]
>
> I'd like to know where all these millions of happy satisfied Vista
> users are. Nearly everyone I know that's installed Vista doesn't like
> it. Especially dumb "features" like UAC. As far as businesses,
> Microsoft's own figures show after a year 84% HAVE NOT upgraded. As
> far as reviews Vista received from the press and industry insiders at
> best it is weak with many finding a laundry list of faults, half-ass
> features and eye candy changes simply to make changes with many
> confirming how slow and sluggish it is compared to XP.
>
> The only place Vista is liked is right here. Of course you have to
> excuse the fanboy crowd, especially when the biggest nut cases like
> the idiot Frank, don't know any better.
>[/color]

You do know that there is more than just Vista don't you in the MS O/S
platform? And the man was referring to distros or don't you get that?
And stupid home users like you don't control Information Technology.