Discussions

According to this article Microsoft is standing by the 1 transfer/change policy. So was the Microsoft "spokesman" in the bit-tech article smoking weed or what?

Another question I have: does this activation limitation apply to just OEM licenses or to store bought copies as well?

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:

Can you paste some of the transcript of the thread here? Or summarize it? I don't feel like registering over at the Ubuntu forums...

You could try BugMeNot. There is even a Firefox extension that will automatically fill in password fields for you.

I read the OP's thread and I didn't see anything that justified getting the thread locked. Of course, there are plenty of people in the Linux crowd who take pride in screaming "TROLL!!!" whenever someone is critical of their favorite operating system.

Extensions
Tab Mix Plus
Web Developer
User Agent Switcher
Firebug
BugMeNot
Foxmarks Bookmarks Synchronizer
IE View

I'm using 1.5 still. I don't plan on upgrading to Firefox 2.0 until the new version of Tab Mix Plus is released.

I think the main reason /. needs the moderation system it has is because of the volume of posts. When a single topic can generate over 500 posts, it becomes impossible to read every response unless someone is paying you to do it full time. You have to have some system to help people decide what is worth reading.

The problem with their system is, as others have pointed out, that people end up modding down posts just because they disagree with what was said. When I used to read slashdot regularly, it was common for anyone who posted a comment critical of Linux or supportive of Microsoft to get modded down as a troll.  But if you were pro-open source, pro-Linux, anti-Windows, anti-Microsoft you could get away with making insulting , inflammatory posts. There was a huge double standard.  That was one of the things that made me stop reading Slashdot. Maybe things are better now. But I doubt it.

I would vote to stay away from Slashdot style moderation, unless your goal is to eliminate unpopular opinions.

10 times is obviously better than 1. But why are we supposed to be happy now? What is the justification for limiting the number of activations other than to guarantee that licenses will eventually "expire" and force the owner to upgrade? Software is not like a car or a piece of furniture. It doesn't wear out, rust, or spoil. There is no reason for it to not keep working forever if the user continues to find it useful.

This sounds like another attempt to push people into a cycle of continual upgrade fees. Since people balk at the idea of leasing software, change the limitation from a time period to number of activations. 10 is quite a few activations and it will only affect the most active tinkerers. But what kind of excuse is that? So it's ok to add this unnecesary limitation because it will only screw over a tiny minority of users?!

And when all the furor has died down and people forget about the details of Vista's new EULA, will the next Windows upgrade lower the bar further? 8 activations? Then 6? Then... ???

There are lot of frogs in this pot and I'm one of them. Unfortunately, since we live in a world dominated by Windows, I can't just jump out. Why should I "chill out" when Microsoft is slowly turning up the heat? Do I have to wait until the water starts boiling before I get upset?

There were some incremental improvements, but most web developers won't be affected by them. There is a list of changes at the Mozilla Developer Center.

I thought you Mac guys used Safari.

JasonOlson wrote:

I have no information to add either except to stay tuned to the official Vista team's blog. However, you can rest assured, if that's the way it's going to happen (as in, you can only re-install once if you upgrade your hardware (like your motherboard)), there are those of us internally that will also be very upset.

What I can tell you is that there is a LOT of activity and debate around this internally and the internal mailing lists are _very_ active today because of it. Part of the reason that the Vista blog came out, made this announcement, and posted the EULA is so that we can gather this feedback _now_ before it _is_ too late.

So, keep it up people . If there is anything else about the EULA that pisses you off, please let us know . It might be harder to change (since it _is_ a legal document after all), but you're complaints are not falling on deaf ears!

It is none of Microsoft's business what machine I run my copy of Windows on or how many times I upgrade my hardware. (I would say something similar about the VM restrictions, but it sounds as if that rumor was not accurate.)  These are the kinds of shenanigans that cause people like myself to have a very negative view of Microsoft. It is also a great example of why I am a Linux advocate. I'll never have to worry about open source developers trying to slip this kind of stuff into their licenses.

Hopefully these provisions will not make it into the final Vista licenses. But even if they don't, I have to ask: why are they being considered at all? It's as if Microsoft is continually pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with without inciting a revolt among their customers. Why should we have to scream and holler to prevent this kind of crap from being put into the EULA?

My barely awake cat, Phoebe. She woke up when I tried to sneak a pic with my phone.

jamie wrote:

 

No! No! No! What's with all this lovey dovey stuff? You'll never get anything that way Jamie. Let ol' uncle Oberon show you how to deal with these Softies.


"Now release your anger! Only your hatred can improve IE!"