Check the WHOIS info on isux.com, and it will all fall into place....
But how do you explain the link from the ASUS UK web-site to www.itsbetterwithwindows.com? (given in this comment)
I agree that it's dubious.... but that one link from the ASUS web-site really kind of gives it way more legitimacy than I'd expect of a hoax
... and then all of a sudden, the PNG format experienced a massive surge in popularity and usage. Let's hope that something analogous happens in this situation.
I see your point, but there's a big difference between me choosing to install the flash plug-in in my firefox installation vs having Microsoft choose to install their own plug-in in my installation of firefox.
If the benefits afforded to me by this plug-in were clear and made sense, I would have installed it myself with out much hesitation. My understanding is though that this plug-in is of no direct benefit to the owner of the firefox installation, only to those who want to know what versions of
I see it kind of like a local council sending someone to sit in my driveway, and report what kind of car I drive, and when I drive it, without asking me before hand... it's of no direct inconvenience to me, but I certainly feel as if I'm being put under needless scrutiny. On the other hand, if the local council informed me of their wish to send someone to sit in my drive way and record these details, and gave me the reasons why they were doing it, I'd probably have much less issue with it.
This is a violation of trust more than anything else, and Microsoft thinking that because they technically (as per EULA) own the software on your computer, that by extension, they own everything on it.
Under their definitions of "use" and distribute
Their definition - where 'their' is the person licensing the code. Just because they are words which can be used in contexts different from those implied by the licenser, doesn't mean that they are incorrect definitions. In the context of the GPL, they are the correct definitions.
The GPL says that the same terms must also infect any code that links to it. Hence the immoral aspect of it and why I advocate against it.
It's not immoral, because no one is forcing you into that position. You have to willingly submit to the terms in order to be bound by them... i.e. no one is forcing you to distribute code under the GPL, unless you take their GPL'd code and willingly incorporate it into your own.
By your logic, any consensual act you don't like the ramifications of is immoral...
It attempts to force ideological conformity.
Only in the sense that you're being forced to incorporate GPL code into your project.
Saying "but you can use it, you just can't distribute it" is NOT disingenuity.
It's the objective truth.
Use = executing the code. In this respect, there are no restrictions imposed by the GPL.
Distribution = making copies and giving them out. The GPL simply states that if you take advantage of code licensed under the terms of the GPL, you must pass those same terms along to anyone who receives a copy from you. You are restricted from imposing further arbitrary restrictions... that's all.
You're the one who's splitting hairs by trying to claim that distribution _is_ use. No, it's not I'm sorry. Use is what occurs after distribution.
OK, so wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be usable on netbooks? If it's got the same requirements as Vista, then how the hell is that going to work exactly?
Sounds like I'll not be changing my habits much: Windows for Games, Linux for everything else.
Of course there's something wrong with that... he shouldn't have to "not be hassled". If he didn't want the software, but was put into a position where not buying it was more inconvenient than just buying it, there's only one entity that benefits from the transaction - the one who made it inconvenient to not buy their software; he essentially paid money to "not be hassled". That wreaks of a protection racket, and is pretty fucked up IMO.