48 best free apps from Microsoft
in [Freeware]
|
From: Anonymous Remailer (austria) on 3 Feb 2010 13:50 Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster(a)remailer.privacy.at> wrote in > news:9326f0ca739a5381e59e91b386de63e4(a)remailer.privacy.at: > > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster(a)remailer.privacy.at> wrote >>> in news:f320fdbd7c84eb33338a3491db1dbea0(a)remailer.privacy.at: >>> >>>> Now read an EULA from almost anyone not Micro$oft. No other >>>> "freeware" vendor, be they Mac/Win/Lin/Whatever, demands that you buy >>>> a copy of Windows from them. They really don't give a flying >>>> fornicate whether you bought your copy of Window$ at all in fact, and >>>> most normal EULA's actually have indemnifying clauses which relieve >>>> them if you're running a bootleg copy. Hell for that matter most >>>> freeware authors don't legally care if you're running straight >>>> emulation either, they just won't officially support it (but many >>>> will address issues as a matter of PR). >>>> >>>> >>> This only matters to people not running Windows. To people running >>> Windows the programs are free of any additional cost no matter what. >>> If >> >> Wrong. >> >> If I demand a fee for the transfer of some property or license, it >> matters not one nit whether I collect that bounty the day you receive >> said property or a decade prior. The "status" of said property is >> defined by the actual demand, not by your clock. >> >> Care to try another ill thought straw grab? >> >> > That is just a stupid analogy. You don't get more property. Do you even have the IQ to know what an analogy is, because that wasn't one. And nobody said anything at all about "more property". You're flailing about desperately.
From: George Orwell on 3 Feb 2010 14:58 Bear Bottoms wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100202215933.61902a9d(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > >> In <news:hlsgm5hdu2d9r068fevplg6k7qrfbauddh(a)4ax.com>, M.L. >> <me(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >>> Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. >>> >> >>> >> If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download >>> >> and run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license >>> >> for it first. >>> >>> Freeware is not required to be available for all OS platforms. >> >> For *anyone* to get a license for the alleged freeware, the person >> would have to buy that license. >> >>> >> (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running their software on >>> >> anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if you've paid for it.) >>> > >>> >We ran across this issue when we were required by a couple of (large) >>> >customers to run Internet Explorer so as to access their supplier >>> >databases. There are ways to run IE6 in WINE but, apart from the >>> >kludge-factor, the MS EULA requires a valid MSOS license & that it be >>> >run on MSOS. >>> >>> >IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ >>> >due to the licensing. >>> >>> EULAs are not legal documents in the USA. More like a preference of >>> the distributor. >> >> They *are* legal documents in the USA, though a lot of them contain >> provisions that wouldn't be enforceable. >> >> > I have no problem with software being OS dependant. I have no problem > with people who designed an OS and that design freeware to run on it, > requiring that it be used on their system. It is called capitalism. Actually, it's called illegally building a monopoly, and Micro$oft knows that all too well via their numerous losses in court. *snicker* Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
From: »Q« on 3 Feb 2010 17:07 In <news:Xns9D1432C199B46bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: [about running MSIE] > So you are illegally using Windows software in Linux...tsk tsk. Violating a Microsoft EULA isn't necessarily illegal -- AFAIK most of the restrictions they attempt to place on usage have never been tested in court. > I actually like the idea that if you go to a different OS, you can't > legally use MS software. There are plenty of good reasons why. Write your senators, see if you can get one of them to introduce a bill against it. > A price you pay for moving to an inferior OS. If there were a superior > OS, you wouldn't need to cop another OS's software GNU/Linux has Opera, Firefox, and that Chromium thing from Google, but I'm sure most GNU/Linux users install MSIE and browse with that instead. > This whole argument is an assault on capitalism. Calling what Microsoft sells commercial software instead of calling it "MS freeware" isn't an assault on capitalism, silly.
From: Anonymous on 3 Feb 2010 17:14 Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in > news:hkaodq$fr0$3(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On 02/02/2010 06:09 PM, John Corliss wrote: >>> Craig wrote: >>>> »Q« wrote: >>>>> KristleBawl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>> Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. >>>>> >>>>> If it's freeware, that's fine. For a GNU/Linux user to download and >>>>> run Microsoft alleged "freeware", s/he'd need to buy a license for >>>>> it first. (And even then, MS EULAs generally forbid running their >>>>> software on anything other than a licensed MS OS, even if you've >>>>> paid for it.) >>>> >>>> We ran across this issue when we were required by a couple of (large) >>>> customers to run Internet Explorer so as to access their supplier >>>> databases. There are ways to run IE6 in WINE but, apart from the >>>> kludge-factor, the MS EULA requires a valid MSOS license & that it be >>>> run on MSOS. >>>> >>>> IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ >>>> due to the licensing. >>> >>> Excellent point, Craig. One that's eluded me until now. Thanks for >>> that example. >> >> <curtsy> >> >> That was y.a. rubber-hits-the-road moment for me. And, again, as long >> as most of us are in a windows-only environment, I fully understand how >> this can sound... esoteric. >> >> > All software has non-monetary costs. Good thing we're talking about MONETARY costs then, eh dimbulb?
From: »Q« on 3 Feb 2010 17:17
In <news:Xns9D14341894F55bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100202214459.6e36dcd6(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > > > In <news:Xns9D13B15E65DF9bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, > > Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > > > >> To people running Windows the programs are free of any additional > >> cost no matter what. > > > > Purchasing a license to run the programs doesn't make them free, it > > just makes them already paid for. > > Hogwash. If you think purchasing a license to run a program makes that program free for you, and you think it's "hogwash" to say otherwise, it seems unlikely. > Your words are all inclusive to all freeware designed to run on > Windows. As long as you continue to think that, you don't have any hope of understanding the argument, let alone rebutting it. > Your argument is wrong. Feel free to try to post a counterargument, then. |