[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620
- From: Craig White <craigwhite azapple com>
- To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Problems installing FC4 on Dell Optiplex GX620
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:33:45 -0700
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 01:14 -0500, Myth User wrote:
> So first it was the EULA doesn't have transfer and now it's "try it"
> The fact that the US EULA I have in my hand was not found online doesn't
> make it less real. Nor does the fact that I found a similar one in New
> The facts are you stated it was limited in time and could not be transfered.
> "which is neither transferable nor durable"
> You were wrong on both and will not admit it.
The EULA that exists on my Windows XP system...the one that I assented
to when I installed it and was replaced by the new eula when I installed
SP2, which is the one from which I quoted was the one I have been
referring to has no mention of transfer whatsoever. For my purposes, it
is the only one relevant since it is the one that I agreed to and all
the other EULA's that you point to are probably more indicative of the
problem than indicative of a solution...there is a massive amount of
confusion. Perhaps the confusion is intentional, perhaps it is
unintentional, but it's quite clear from an end users standpoint, the
EULA - that Microsoft insists you agree to is marginally comprehensible
Of course there is a separate EULA for other Microsoft Softwares and
then there is the issue that the Windows licenses are permanently
affixed to the computer they were shipped with and as I said, it is now
official Microsoft policy to end the license agreement when the
motherboard dies so transferability means different things to different
people for different purposes.
Other softwares by Microsoft have other restrictions on transfer such as
Microsoft Office which permits the original licensee only to make a
one-time transfer. http://www.microsoft.com/office/eula/en.mspx
These are really muddy waters here.
If you think there's a point to win here...keep trying.
> > are you implying that Windows has a Warranty? There's no crying in
> > baseball.
> The Warranty is in the EULA but I don't think you have access to one.
I suppose I find your endless baiting objectionable. I would be happy to
upload my eula.txt (described below) to a web server for your inspection
but I don't think I need to prove anything to you or anyone else and in
fact, as you will see described below...I am telling you where you can
find your own copy on your own hard drive. I believe in empowerment of
> > > "why they bother endlessly purchasing and repurchasing the same
> > > Are you talking about buying the exact same title over and over again
> > > were you trying to say that because you once bought DOS 6 that you
> > > be
> > > entitled to use Windows 2003 Data Center?
> > >
> > > No response?
> > ----
> > why do you want to force a debate on an absurd example? Is that this
> > works? Proffer absurd examples for debate?
> It is an absurd notion that there are people out there buying the same
> software over and over again. I haven't seen it. You will not support it.
sure - want to go from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, buy the upgrade. Want
to go from Office 2000 or Office 2002 to Office 2003, buy the upgrade.
Seems like repurchasing to me. You might want to change the terminology
though - suit yourself. Upgrading sounds much more attractive than
re-purchasing. When someone wants to fix me up with a woman that's got a
good personality, I know what that means. When Apple/Microsoft/Adobe is
offering an 'upgrade', I know what that means, open wallet...pony up
credit card. Most of those companies are so shameful that they have been
known to not fix known bugs in existing releases and save the bug fixes
for the 'updates'. At least Red Hat back ports. Let's face it...the
easiest customer to sell is the one you've already sold. Let's add some
more features (possibly useless bloat) and put a price tag on it - and
while we're at it, we can fix some of those bugs. I love the whole
mentality of software sales. Jane, get me off of this crazy thing.
That there is a Linux option is a blessing.
> > actually, if you have been following the news you would know that your
> > license expires when the motherboard craps out as Microsoft has
> > determined that the motherboard represents enough of a hardware change
> > to end license rights.
> Check the EULA it clearly says that I can transfer it to another system.
> I've done it. I've done it for others and once I had to call in. The call
> took less than five minutes and I never even spoke to a human.
I've done it too...had a bitch of a time transferring an Office 2000
license from one Windows XP machine to another - even though Office 2000
didn't have any restrictions on transferring and had to have a prolonged
discussion on the telephone with a Microsoft agent before I could get an
activation code. This of course was for one of my clients. I have long
since abandoned the Microsoft Office suite on my Windows machine in
favor of something else.
> Tangents began with "entirely proprietary"
you could have ended them there if you felt that way and really wanted
> You made false statements and refuse to back away from them when presented
> with the facts. And I am just as bad maybe worse since I am sticking to
> points of order which I should simply let pass.
but they aren't false from my perspective - I will admit that you don't
agree with me. I am not all that keen on familiarizing myself with all
the various EULA's that Microsoft and others want to force upon me and
the import of which is so completely clear...
That I get to pay for very restrictive rights - clearly I get no
ownership rights, be they transfering, usage, that my usage rights may
terminate due to circumstances for which I cannot control and the best
one of all...that Section 4 that I quoted for you earlier in this
thread, which has been the topic of many debates - has me abrogating my
rights to digital property on my computer whose ownership is claimed by
others. What kind of a EULA legitimately would have me consent to that?
Certainly it is not by my free will. The entire subject of EULA where it
relates to my rights as a Microsoft customer is a one-sided affair where
I have the least amount of rights that they feel I can accept...and of
course, it all depends upon which EULA we are speaking about.
> > > > You must be referring to some other eula.
> > >
> > > See above
> > ----
> > when I move to New Zealand
> Again the EULA clearly shows transfer I can't read it to you. Why are you
> not reading it correctly? I blame government schools. And you know very
> well that I pointed you to the US EULA which is on Microsoft's own website
> and it clearly proves that you were wrong about transfer. You only bring up
> New Zealand here to confuse the issue and to deflect the discussion from
> your falicious claim that XP will expire and it can not be sold or moved to
> another computer.
actually, you pointed me to 2 different EULA's - one on Microsoft's site
and one from a site in New Zealand...I just wanted to make the point of
how absurd the whole issue of EULA is when we are talking about
Microsoft. Of course, neither EULA is one that I have agreed to...the
one I agreed to when I clicked consent is on my hard drive...
C:\Windows\System32\eula.txt and I am quite sure that the one you agreed
to is located in the same place on your computer but if you want to keep
tossing around references to various other EULA's that Microsoft
publishes because it's obvious, there are many different Microsoft
EULA's around...you are confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.
by the way... the word I think you are seeking is fallacious and my
claim wasn't fallacious...
there are a million of these stories...this was the first one I found.
Restrictive EULA? Transferable? We obviously live in different
realities. I recognize Ed's reality...he had a small problem with
transferability of license. You really need to show him your alternate
reality. Maybe you should send him your copy of the EULA.
And to further emphasize my point sir...
(I hope that link holds together)
This discusses the new Microsoft policy of requiring a 're-purchase' of
a Windows XP license when your mother board dies - which proves both
re-purchase and non-transferability claims that I made.
But to make it absolutely clear...you have accused me of being wrong on
the issue of transferability and fallacious on the issue as well and I
have now provided proof of the accuracy of my statement.
Will you admit that you are wrong and fallacious?
It is not I that is posting under the pseudonym of Myth User.
> > ----
> > nonsense? you mean like price fixing, rewarding assemblers based upon
> > not permitting other software on the desktop, leveraging their monopoly
> > to squeeze out competitors by giving software away or vastly
> > undercutting competitive hardware and software companies by selling at a
> > loss.
> Competitors do not exist when there is a monoploy.
> A monopoly is an economic condition wherein one producer controls all
> production of a product.
> Saying Microsoft is a monopoly because they produce windows is like saying
> Honda is a monopoly because they produce the civic.
> Just tell me when it was in human history that Microsoft produced the only
> operating system or the only application software?
I guess as long as you ignore the fact that they were convicted of
unduly using their monopoly status by the justice department, then your
characterization might be reasonable.
As long as you ignore their settlements with the 50 states for their
conviction and with school districts and large users through the US
based upon their conviction, then your characterization might be
With that, it's been fun but I'm going to bed now.
Good night Microsoft employee.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]