OT: Re: windows SUCKS!!!

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 17:12 -0700, Jason Spatafore wrote:
> > honestly, after reading your earlier diatribe, I couldn't help but
> > wonder what it has to do with Linux - after all, this is a Linux list.
> > 
> > Yes, Microsoft, like other companies is heavily invested in technologies
> > that seek to tie usage to a valid sale and they engage in this because
> > they believe it to be a worthwhile strategy. I fail to see how/why this
> > is of interest to a Linux mail list though.
> > 
> > I find some of their other tactics such as their restrictive EULA, their
> > active efforts into DRM at the expense of access to devices and
> > documents are far more egregious than the activation scheme that you are
> > railing about. Personally, I found it easy enough to just enter the
> > installation codes after a sysprep install (in fact, you can automate
> > the installation code process of sysprep).
> 
> Because, as I stated earlier, Red Hat and Novell are heading down the
> same path. HOWEVER, RHEL and SLED/S are not crippling the system from
> activation like MS did. (which is a plus in my book.) 
> 
> Keep in mind the "Windows Sucks" email came first. I added the "OT" to
> the subject line to accommodate the mail filters that are set up to
> remove off topic discussions. Is this some type of etiquette violation
> that you're speaking of here? I don't see the reason to address this
> post as being of no interest to the Linux community.....etiquette
> guidelines were followed...you have me quite perplexed on why such a
> post is being singled out as of no interest to the Linux mail list. I
> have seen several postings to the list that have been off-topic with no
> declaration of being off-topic. 
----
I'm not list mom and I've certainly posted enough OT stuff myself so I'm
sorry that I chastised you. I did ignore the first one. Feel free to
post away and I'll shut up.

Clearly Microsoft is not the only company using 'activation' - as you
pointed out there are Linux distributions doing 'activation' as well as
many proprietary companies doing it. It's virtually a standard practice.

I guess I just found the whole diatribe about activation mis-targeted
because your issue seemed more targeted towards sysprep or just the
process of system cloning in general (wrt Windows). The process of
'activation' itself is pretty much automatic for virtually every
software package I've seen (notwithstanding the initial release of Quark
Express 6.0 which I had a pile of installations to do at an ad agency
and Internet activation failed 100% which required a call to Quark's
800, which routed to India and which fell on an Indian holiday which
meant that they were 100% SOL). That day, I hated 'activations' -
normally...it's no big deal.

Craig