[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: OpenSource articles glore...

[Wayne Dahl]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 10:08, Robert Citek wrote:

> Anyone have any idea what percentage of machines or how many machines 
> are still running Win98?  I would imagine that anyone that has a 
> machine powerful enough for Win2K probably bought it with Win2K.  Or is 
> it common to buy a Win2K machine and then install Win98 for whatever 
> reason?

I once saw a statistic about that...it was a huge bunch of machines. 
Maybe it was because a lot of people have older computers...dunno.  I
know a lot of people myself who were put off by the crap that WinME was
and went back to Win98 for self-preservation...preserving their
computers and their sanity. 

The box I'm writing this on is a dual boot RH 9/Win98 box.  It IS an
older computer (Intel PII Celeron, 433Mhz, 256Mg RAM with an original 6G
hard drive- I've installed a 40G drive the bios doesn't even
recognize...it's too old...but Linux loves it).  However, that's not why
I haven't "upgraded" to Win2K or WinXP.  I have a major problem with an
OS...ANY OS...that phones home from time to time so the originating
company can make sure you're legit.  Don't misunderstand me...I'm not
advocating pirating software here.  I'm saying that any company that
builds in the ability to remove functionality in its software, whether
it be an OS or an app, if that software can't phone home, doesn't
deserve the right to be on my computer...that I PAID for.  If I've paid
for the software, then I should have the right to have ALL the
functionality of that software, commensurate with the level of service
I've paid for.  I'm also not talking about shareware with a timeout
period.  I believe that if you like a piece of software and continue to
use it, you should pay for it unless it's totally free (and even then I
would advocate making a donation to the author).

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  I once read an article by
an author of, I believe, ZDNet.com.  He was writing an article for the
magazine and was on a plane.  He fired up his laptop, which was running
Win2K, and then attempted to start M$ Office.  He then got a dialog box
that popped up saying that either Office or Win2K, I can't remember
which, but I believe it was Win2K, couldn't "phone home" to verify that
the Office was registered (and this part I *really* can't remember) and
would either not start Office at all or would start it with greatly
reduced capabilities.  It wanted the Office install disc with the
registration number which was 36,000 feet below and somewhere in the
range of 600 miles behind him. Needless to say, that author was
EXTREMELY put off by that because, #1- he had PAID for that software
and, #2- it prevented him from being able to do his work while away from
an Internet connection.  The article was exploring the benefits of Linux
and OOo.

Now, one of my compatriots at work has told me you can turn off that
"feature" of wanting to phone home in WinXP.  I have no experience with
that.  We use WinXP at work, but they so much of it disabled for us (IT
locks them down and only gives us so many rights to access
whatever...CONTROL BABY!!!) that I can't confirm or deny his claim.  He
does use WinXP at home and, except for installing SP2 which he removed
shortly after installing it, says WinXP is MUCH more stable than Win98
ever thought about being.  I'm reluctant though...so can anyone confirm
or deny his claim about being able to turn on and off the capability to
phone home?  The ONLY reason I would consider using any M$ product is
that I still haven't been able to convince my wife to use anything else
(although her recent experience with spy/adware has started her
thinking).  I use Linux exclusively at home.


-- 
Wayne Dahl
Registered Linux User # 347549
No electrons were abused in any way by any Micro$oft 
product in the composition of this e-mail.