Ok. I went back and read the definitions.
I like this one:
The term often applies to groups of computer systems that have had malicious software installed by worms, Trojan horses or other malicious software.
"Often" is a very different word than "always", "solely" or "only".
It's clear that how the botnet came about is not critical to the definition. The clue is right there in the name that it's referring to a network of bots.
The key detail here is that it's a number of computers under surreptitious remote control.
And you like the one that fits your fiscal agenda. So I'm not the only one who selects their definitions, am I? You. Are. An. Astroturfer.
With people like you making Linux users look like raving madmen, I'm pretty sure all the MS astroturfers have been granted the day off.
Some places have the deposit, some don't, and as you can see, even *with* a five cent deposit, most people think so little of that that they still toss them. Without a deposit, they are mostly all tossed. Some get scavenged and recycled, some don't, and many of the people who scavenge and recycle don't even bother with the buhzillions of food cans now that have steel tops and the rest of the can is aluminum. Thye'd have to cut the tops off and rinse out the cans so they don't bother.
Now ME, I just see them as fun targets, especially if you fill them with water so you get a big splasharooni from a hit
Anyway, the point was I can't see us running out of aluminum soon, besides what is already here and could be recycled, the planet has plenty of bauxite.
Heck, out west in the desert, they have *thousands* of old junk airplanes made from aluminum sitting around. And the coming thing for new airplane construction is to go to carbon fiber and not use so much aluminum. I don't think goog will have any problems sourcing material for a big mirror project.
and hey, since when is 60 "old"!?! heheheh we call that "middle aged" now.
lawn, git, etc
This is true, however, the generally accepted definition of "vendor lock-in" is useless.
The Enterprise doesn't care about vendor lock-in, they care about the consequences of vendor lock-in. That is to say, they care about what vendor lock-in might cost them. The cost of vendor lock-in is what it will cost you to change from your current system and what costs you might be forced to bear if you want to avoid that. Often this can be an issue of a company basically gouging their customers because they can't afford to get out, but it can just as easily be the costs of maintaining a project if the original maintainers disappear, or any number of other things.
Lock-in doesn't occur because software is closed or for any reasons of legality. There is no law which you can use to force someone to continue to use your software. Lock-in occurs because every piece of software is a little bit different and relearning a new one, adapting your other software to work with a new one, changing your business processes to match a new one, all of that costs an awful lot of money.
In a certain sense, Windows actually has less lock-in than Linux. You can nearly always install windows software on multiple versions of Windows, and the each version of Windows is supported for quite a long time. You can, for the most part(and I've certainly seen this) write a piece of software and run it, without any updates for 15 years. Whereas you can't even guarantee that any given piece of software for Linux will install and run the same way on the next version of the Linux software you're running, let along another distribution.
In any event, none of the four freedoms frees you from costs incurred if the people providing your software change the terms under which they do so. Just because you can maintain it yourself doesn't mean that it is in any way practical or even desirable to do so.
You're the one buying bloatware.
It's your fault.
You can uninstall it with a few clicks, or you can bitch about it.
You've chosen to bitch.
"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan