[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[keith smith]

I followed the dr-dos suit.  It was a vapor ware suit.  I don't think it was as you say it was.  

MS kept saying they were going to release a more feature rich version to keep Dr-Dos from being purchased.

The other issue was MS said that DOS was incorporated inside win-95.  Dr-Dos was able to show that MS made it look this way. So they would not have the same setup as win 3.1 running ontop of DOS.

Dr-Dos showed that win-95 was two products shipped together and made to look like one product - effectively killing Dr-Dos.

Dr-Dos was able to separate the DOS layer from the Windows layer and put the Windows layer on top of Dr-Dos to prove his point. 

That is why he was successful in his suit.

I think you can use any Vista you want however just because you own a license to Vista does not allow for a copy of XP to be put into it's place.  I know it is not right.


------------------------
Keith Smith


--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Jim March <1.jim.march at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jim March <1.jim.march at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)
> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 2:11 PM
> > Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> I'm just curious at this point.
> 
> How many wrongs are you guys counting?
> 
> Microsoft has paid over $200 million dollars TWICE now in
> court
> settlements over practices that caused their monopoly
> position.  Each
> time they still made out like bandits because they gained
> far more
> from each contract law violation than they paid out in
> fines.
> (They've done a lot more than that but those are just the
> two biggest
> court losses.)
> 
> Y'all know what I'm talking about, right?  First court
> loss in this
> class was the destruction of DR-DOS back in the Win3.0/3.1
> era.  They
> sabotaged their own Windows code to prevent it running on
> top of a
> multitasking DOS clone (and in doing so, killed off what
> was left of
> Digital Research).  Then they tried to sabotage Java
> and delayed it's
> advance for years.
> 
> In the DR-DOS case, a precedent was finally set: Microsoft
> has no
> right to control what software or hardware environment you
> run their
> code in so long as it's a single-user system.  You buy
> a license to
> their code, you do have some rights.
> 
> Rights Microsoft still violates.
> 
> Example: my lappy I'm typing this on came with Vista - but
> a copy of
> Vista code-locked to the Dell motherboard it shipped
> with.  Which
> means I couldn't virtualize it and run it under Linux...it
> would no
> longer see the Dell metal underneath and therefore refuse
> to run.
> 
> So can somebody explain to me why it's illegal for Win3.0
> to ensure
> that it's running on MS/PC-DOS underneath, yet it's legal
> for Vista to
> block any attempt to run it underneath Linux to give it
> some measure
> of serious malware protection?  I can't see how one
> could be found
> illegal (leading to a $200mil payday for DR-DOS's owners)
> yet my
> damned similar case be legal on Microsoft's part.
> 
> Microsoft's motive for this violation of existing precedent
> is
> obvious: hurt Linux.  They do NOT like the idea of
> machines running
> around that boot Linux, use the 'net on Linux to avoid
> malware and
> then run Windows as a VM for software compatibility. 
> That's their
> worst nightmare.
> 
> Again: I'm arguing based on what a US court of law already
> found.
> 
> So yeah, I'm booting Ubuntu, running Virtualbox and running
> a Pirate
> Bay special XP under that.  On a box that HAS a valid
> Windows (Vista)
> license sticker underneath that Microsoft has illegally
> blocked my
> access to.
> 
> You think MS would want to take me to court over THAT, on
> an issue
> they already lost over a decade ago?
> 
> THAT'S why, in my particular case, an "eyepatch edition" XP
> is both
> legally and morally justifiable.
> 
> Jim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>