http://law.about.com//sitesearch.htm...=Monopoly+Laws

I see. I wish I could say more, but sometimes I have trouble forming words. *starts to look embarrassed*

So a Monopoly is only illegal if it's used the way MS used theirs?

Guess the idea is that competition is good. As a monopoly you have the opportunity to kill competition. As a bible thumping bigot attorney general you have the opportunity that it's ok for said monopoly to get off. =)

I didn't say he didn't have a right to his opinions - I said I suspected trying to change them (via persuasion and reason) was futile. And I wasn't making fun of them - I very seriously find them weird. And I take them for granted only because they've displayed a pattern that seems calculated. Maybe I'm wrong, but it hits me as a variety of trolling.

Maybe it came off sounding too harsh, though. Absolutely moronic expression but I can't think of a better one: if people are trying to "get your goat", best not to let them. Sort of what I meant - if I'm wrong and he believes this stuff in all innocence and is committed to discussion and learning and is open to change, whether change occurs or not, then my mistake.

In the abstract, I agree with all you say.

Back on topic... Has anyone yet confirmed whether this XP "security update" is indeed hosing the EEPROM on some NICs?

READ THIS !

I'm working for a company which resells M$ products.

Each of us knows, I guess, that Win2000 Server was a quite nice product compared to all the amateur stuff they produced before.
No wonder that serious IT-managers do not give a shit for all the stupid XP stuff and they're right.

So, to make all of us blind, what did M$-The-Evil-Himself ?
They simply "produced" a "Windows 2003 Server" (which is a disguised XP bundled with all the M$ usual spyware) ... and guess what they dared to apply a few days ago ?

THE SIMPLY RISED THE PRICE OF A Win2000 Server BY 25% !!!!!

You read well ! They are using the brutal force to assure their future sales-out of this new toy that's Win2003.
Do someone remember that the sales-out figures weren't high enough to please Mister Bill-The-Bloatware-Manager ?

Well, here's their answer ... what a shame !

I have applied all Security updates to my XP installation, and the NIC still works in Linux.

It's either a) a rumor started by Linux Advocates or b) my NIC is not the particular NIC in question.

i was just thinking about it but truly many people on this site are really more fanatical about being anti-microsoft when they should be, yes there is a place for beign against monopolies and against bad business practice but i think many linux-enthusiasts take it too far adn takign things too far can be illegal, in fact i imagine that should microsoft ever care (which they never would) many people on this board could easily be sued for slander adn they would be charged rightfully, the microsoft business tequnique debate is very old and has been discussed many times, there are ways to find out if these updates will do somethign to yoru nic, call microsoft, has anyone done this here yet?? no they havent, maybe microsoft should have a say in this debate, im not trying to be a troll ro against anyone here but how can you consider a topic arguable when there is no other side to argue against? why not take it to someone who knows the ins and outs of microsoft software adn while your at it have an open mind, there mgiht be thigns you havent quite realized yet

Kurt,

You got WAY out of line. I don't understand how people will take so much time just to "pick on" someone else.

You both have your opinions. All Seph was saying is that Microsoft has WAY too much control over your box, and some of the updates should ONLY update the OS, not reprogram your hardware. That, in fact, would be illegal unless MS posted that they were going to change your hardware if you applied this update.

Besides, have you ever read, at length, one of their agreements to apply a pacth. I printed one once and it was close to 19 pages long. WTF?

That is just plain idiotic.

My $.02 cents.

I will not reply to anything beyond this post

Peace

Well we know that M$ has pulled some crazy stunts in the past- remember not too long ago when M$.com wouldn't work properly if viewed w/ Opera? That was real- that was intentional. What kind of kindergarten antic is that I ask? Really tho- do you think that M$ would honestly respond to a question about their ethics and programming? Of course in the open source world all anyone with any doubts would need to do is have a look at the code before they put it on their machine. I have no idea if what's posted in this forum could get anyone in trouble legally or not- hell there are frivolous lawsuits in the USA everyday. Me- I try to go beyond what some high paid lawyer w/ specialized training in semantics can twist the English language into and be morally right. Wouldn't it be something if we knew that we could count on all of our fellow Americans to do the same?

All M$ has to do is say "oops- it was a bug" and who would ever doubt THAT excuse?" Just because Bill cannot be nailed down in a court of law doesn't mean he isn't wrong.

Carly Fiorina, CEO of HP said it best, "Linux has managed to do to Microsoft what 10 years of litigation could not." And I heard that with my own two ears.

Fortunately I am one of the fortunate who has not one single M$ product on his machine-YEAH! Have you ever noticed that when people say things like "Linux is a toy operating system." or "Linux is only for geeks." they speak out of ignorance because coincidentally they have never actually USED Linux. On the other hand I have used M$- extensively (as have most others here) and I can make an honest informed decision based on many years of first hand experience, not secondhand gossip and frankly I can say with conviction and sincerity that M$ is completely morally bankrupt and without conscience of concern for anything other than bottom line profit. Their OS is terribly innefficient, unstable and easily broken. That's not someone I care to do business with nor do I care to use any of their products.

Every time M$ raids a public school, everytime they sock it to a small business owner for not having every copy of everything M$ properly licensed Linux edges a little closer to the front. Everytime a LUG gets kids involved w/ Linux through the YMCA or building a small network at the local high school Linux edges a little closer to victory.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Yes...the thing is, Seph's just happens to be wrong.

And all I'm saying is that if he doesn't like what it does, he doesn't have to use it.

What part of "Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be" do you not understand? As long as they don't make an outright false statement, why should you be able to seek legal recourse because you're unwilling to take responsibility for what you put on your computer?

It's their product, to distribute under whatever terms they choose.

There is no such thing as a wrong opinion since opinions aren't facts.

You are being too arrogent.

Everyone has the right to my opinion

*back on topic again* ms shouldn't be messing with your nic, they are in the software buisness, not the nic buisness therefore they have no buisness messing with NICs only the vendor of the NIC shoudl be creating patches that change their NIC parameters, so if MS did that, then that is a big wrong against their customers, they should at least tell you its going to happen, and give you an option to say no, otherwise it IS unethical

Here's an article that will make you SO glad you use open source(as if you weren't already) and not M$h*t