Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points.
Aruba Networks was selected to provide the networking equipment for what is considered to be one of the world's largest next-generation wireless LANs, serving more than 25,000 simultaneous users a day in some 60 countries. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.
What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.
Mark Robards, Aruba Network's Asia-Pacific vice president, said the company's mobility controller switches provide integrated security, including a firewall, VPN, and hardware encryption, and they are "all Linux-based".
Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...
What else would it use?
MS isn't gonna spend money developing a competor to the OS on network hardware. No point... much cheaper (and smarter) to just hire someone.
Nothing new here... MS has been buying rather than developping (Roxio cd writing engine in XP) for years.
Sounds to me like a good business decision.
Pretty sure most Cisco network hardware OS is based on Unix code.
GE-Raven
Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...
You and I went over that some time ago.
1/ Microsoft has used some BSD code and fulfilled the license requirements.
2/ Microsoft as part of fulfilling those license requirements has NOT passed the code off as their own and includes acknowledgements within Windows and on their publicly accessable web site.
You know that I am no Microsoft fanboy but I won't stand by when falsehoods are stated about them so unless you can back up these claims I suggest you stop making them. I hope that in the future you will be willing to back up your claims with sources and specifics. If not I will be forced to take actions that I would rather avoid. Please don't force me to act.
Just as I won't knowingly tolerate lies about Linux I won't tolerate them against other groups or companies, not even those I dislike.
Just as you wish... I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...
Just as you wish... I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...
The problem is not the opinion but stating it in a manner that makes it appear that it is an established fact. State it as a belief and acknowledge the lack of evidence to back it up and I won't have a problem with it as moderator. As a poster I may well challenge your beliefs.
If you actually find evidence to back it up that I would be interested in. But (my belief) is that it hasn't happened and therefore there is no such evidence. I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.
Microsoft has enough faults and guilt that has been documented and provable that allegeding things without facts actually makes them look the victim when they are far from the victim in the majority of cases. If you want proof of Microsoft pirating software look for a lawsuit in France where Microsoft is convicted of that, but its not Open Source and its not networking or OS code.
[url]http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.asp[/url]
It's pretty common knowledge that microsoft have allowed OS code to find it's way into Closed operating systems... While this is not illegal, it is not, IMO, really in the spirit of the GNU...
Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well."
Microsoft has also learned a lot about what is required for a software company to include an open-source technology component in its product, from ascertaining who has contributed that code to being able to make sure that all the licenses and permissions are in place, he said.
I wouldn't call it common knowledge but a common assumption among those who dislike Microsoft.
I dislike Microsoft, I make no secret of that... One thing that I can back up with undeniable fact is that in the EULA that ships with windows, Microsoft contend that if I buy ten PC's, I should purchase ten identical copies of windows, one for each system, despite the fact that one disk could do them all...
That, in my opinion is an absurd and inherently grossly inefficient way for anyone who does business using large numbers of PC's to work... I paid 80 quid ($150) for my copy of Windows XP, so if I owned ten computers, we are talking about $1,500.00. Now, if I ran a business using a couple of hundred PC's we are then into the realms of stupid amounts of money... $30,000.00. That's someone's salary, wasted on nothing but sheer greed!
If I were using PC's in this fashion, I would certainly not be using windows when there are many other proven networking solutions out there for business that are not subject to this kind of restriction...
Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals. There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes. There are also site licenses of businesses. Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.
Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals. There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes. There are also site licenses of businesses. Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.
I trust that anyone can see my point is not the actual sum of money that is involved, but the fact that large sums of money are being wasted for no good reason... Billions must be wasted every year across the Western World as businesses buy duplicate windows lisences that serve no obvious function...
One person / firm, one lisence would have given Bill Gates more money than he would ever have required to spend in a lifetime...
What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.
What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
Much like i get with a music CD i buy.then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.
I use a router to provide internet access to all 4 machines, but i dont have to pay my ISP 4x the monthly fee.
Thats the thing that p*sses me off about MS.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.
Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?
Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.
If i could swap all the computers to linux, and still have everyone be able to run all the programs they need/want to i would do it in less than a heart beat.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.
Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?
Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.
you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.
That sounds fair to me... One license for one person... You speak as if that is something wrong...
If you don't like Microsoft don't steal from them, use Linux or Mac. Using Linux or Mac actually hurts them more than piracy does so if you really dislike them and want to hurt them that is the better way to do it. It is not only being more effective, it is also morally, ethically and legally superiour.
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
I'm still working on step 1 as I still have to rely on Windows for some things, but I've gotten all of the other steps down pretty well.
That sounds fair to me... One license for one person... You speak as if that is something wrong...
My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it? Is it one license per person? Per family? (Define family for this case). Or 1 / computer? Where exactly is the line?
That sounds fair to me... One license for one person... You speak as if that is something wrong...
My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it? Is it one license per person? Per family? (Define family for this case). Or 1 / computer? Where exactly is the line?
I think a bit of common sense would tell you that is not what I meant... If I have licensed a copy of XP, it stands to reason that I should have the right to let whom I want have the use of my computer(s)...
That sounds fair to me... One license for one person... You speak as if that is something wrong...
My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it? Is it one license per person? Per family? (Define family for this case). Or 1 / computer? Where exactly is the line?
I think a bit of common sense would tell you that is not what I meant... If I have licensed a copy of XP, it stands to reason that I should have the right to let whom I want have the use of my computer(s)...
Then define your terms. You said one license per person now your saying thats not what you meant. So what do you actually mean?
One per household perhaps? What do you do when the household splits? Child goes to college/university or sets up own home? Divorce perhaps? Who gets custody of the license and how do you ensure that it is followed?
What about support? Those with multiple computers cost Microsoft more in support than those with 1 computer.
Eh, each computer is getting the use of an operating system. So you should pay for each use
Yup pretty much. Look, for 100 bucks or so you're getting the complete and total use of a computer operating system for as long as you like.
My opinion also is that if you pay TO BUY something, you should own it. Otherwise, they'd better ask me to SIGN a contract!
Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling.
EU regulators also warned Microsoft it could face new fines of 3m euros a day.
EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said she had "no alternative but to levy penalty payments" against Microsoft, adding that "no company is above the law".
"I regret that, more than two years after the decision... Microsoft has still not put an end to its illegal conduct," Ms Kroes said.
Brussels had warned Microsoft in December that it would face fines of 2m euros a day if the firm failed to meet the commission's demands.
It seems that when Microsoft was looking to build its new ODF plugin, it took a short cut. It seems to have grabbed some code from the OpenDocument Fellowship's program that converts ODF to HTML, written by J. David Eisenberg. His code is released under a dual license, the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft has put it into its ODF plugin, which is licensed under the BSD license.
Link to full article ([url]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060709143240795[/url])QuoteIt seems that when Microsoft was looking to build its new ODF plugin, it took a short cut. It seems to have grabbed some code from the OpenDocument Fellowship's program that converts ODF to HTML, written by J. David Eisenberg. His code is released under a dual license, the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft has put it into its ODF plugin, which is licensed under the BSD license.
There seems to be some doubt as to whether Microsoft operated within the law on this one. This may be a case of copyright violation as I am fairly sure that LGPL code cannot be moved to BSD license without the prior permission of the author, the Apache license I don't know about but they don't mention it as being allowable on their site.
There is a big difference between a computer operating system and music.
What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license, then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.
Microsoft needs to clarify that you're not actually -purchasing- anything but the 10-cent piece of plastic. The stuff on the plastic is what you're -leasing- from Microsoft, and it needs to be advertized as such. I think they'd get around much of the complaints from people who wish to do what they plase with stuff they bought and paid for when in turn they're only leasing a bit of software that they have very little actual rights to.
What's the difference between computer OS's, computer software, and music under copyright law?
Not much that I can see.
I play by the rulesthat MS has set out
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I would like to see the arbitary re-writing of laws by EULAs deemed illegal.
Why should a software company be allowed to change the laws (applying to it) at a whim, when real laws can take years to be passed as legal.
The problem is that no one would buy their stuff since who wants to buy a machine but lease the software to run it? It would be like owning your car but leasing the engine and transmission.
The problem is that no one would buy their stuff since who wants to buy a machine but lease the software to run it? It would be like owning your car but leasing the engine and transmission.
Actually I think it would be a closer thing to say you own your car but you have to "lease" your insurance in order for it to be useful. Oh wait that is what we do.
Or better yet... you own your car, but lease your licesnsing for the legal operation of that car on public roadways....
hmmm ... sounds like what we have there too...
Hey I have no problem with as many people that want to never us Microsoft again... however I always laugh at people the vilify the company that pretty much single-handedly accelerated the PC development by a factor of 10. Bill convinced the average "joe public" they needed a computer. Without that there is no internet... without that there is no computer market...
To be honest... I understand people not wanting to use microsoft... more power to them. However as I work in the world of computers... I have yet to meet a person in IT that honestly doesn't believe that microsoft is a pretty fine company, and supports their users (business in this case) well. I have met a few "Open source only" types... and in every case their users are suffering a great deal and productivity from computer work is probably about 1/2 of what it should be.
Why? because they saved the money on the licensing... but forgot to respend it on training. So you get cheap software that no one (but the support people) can use.
Just my own personal observations.... but hey what do I know...
GE-Raven
I am the one who could be perfectly happy with Win98. It's the kids that clamor for the latest tech (games and all that rot). ;) ::) :P :lol:
Granted, in comparison to office suites operating systems are cheap, but then let me drop the use of WinXP (I'm NOT going to upgrade to Vista unless'n'Igottadoitorelse) as an example and say MS Office or one other more expensive software.
I can happily go back to my old DOS WordStar (still got a copy somewhere... ) under DOS 6.22, 5.0, 4.0, whatever (well, not 5.0; it was gutted of several useful commands). I DON'T need a GUI. I can function without a mouse; I love keyboard shortcuts. Why, doing so would allow me to use again the original GOOD versions of Norton Utilities :).
It's really the kids that drive this stuff in my house (glad that they're not exactly old enough to be hip to the CPU scene and know the latest and greatest; they're happy as clams with their Athlon XP Barton core 2500+'s; though, they do have some inkling about hot vid cards... not good. :P). They wanted WinXP over 98. They are still using Office 97. Mine got upgraded only because after a HD crash, my reinstalled XP didn't work well with my older CDROM and DVD drives and couldn't execute any files on the Office 97 CD. (Must be all the updates to XP!) Otherwise, I'd still be happily using it, too.
Yow. Multiply everything by some factor greater than 2. One does *begin* (who'm I kidding?! I felt it on day one!) the hit.
MS DOESN'T have to have variable license sizes; it can set a number, and I personally think at least two or three or maybe up to four or five is decent, and if you have a Brady Bunch, then you buy two or three copies. For a large family, that IS fair, as you'd have to buy more food, clothing, fuel, etc. But to make EVERY SINGLE member, preschoolers or elementary school kids or parents alike, pay for a copy on EVERY machine is a bit steep.
Nemesis- I had no problem in the old days with command line UNIX. I have never tried LINUX.
Haven't been in business long eh?
I found that removing Windows from most of the computers and installing a internet datalink which ONLY allows them to peruse products whilst selling, OR for those who do use a Computer for more than that to only have limited access, that it SAVED a lot. Why...those dang stupid Window games and people installing spyware, gonzo buddy or whatever it's called, and everything else under the sun and using OUR computers to play instead of work with. Amazingly, limiting access also suddenly cut down on how much wear and tear our tech department was doing and how much they had to do "repairs" on computers.
However, I didn't touch certain areas of the company such as the money management...and a few other areas in the company. But certain areas WERE having problems when I first started there, in the area I was working for the time I was there.
I suspect Windows actually leads to a LOT of wasted time in some instances.
My father on the otherhand was MUCH worse. He of course banned all playing of games (though enforcing it is another thing), however where he works and when he visited for a while he had ALL stations facing a door or open area so the person could be observed whatever they were doing, AND unless they were REALLY doing a good job, if he caught them abusing company property (such as computers) and were disposable...they were fired.
I don't think I quite agree with his philosophy, but then they were always rather tyranical when I was at home with them about computer usage there as well (I don't know how many of you remember when I was a youngster and visits to their place and how they acted towards internet usage).
As far as MS goes, I can actually understand their desire to have only one OS per machine. What GALLS me is that they have you authenticate or they lock you out of your own system. What happens when their support for XP ends. Some idiots say that MS will give a universal unlock code...I think they are just that...idiots. I expect instead it will be a forced upgrade instead. If your XP goes belly up (and I've HAD THAT HAPPEN), you can't reinstall, even if it's on the same computer at that point...and you are SOL. Instead you'll have to pay 99 - 199 for that "upgrade" to Vista instead.
That's why I've ALWAYS been against the authentication process, because it really can work against the customer. In a BAD way.
I have met a few "Open source only" types... and in every case their users are suffering a great deal and productivity from computer work is probably about 1/2 of what it should be.