Quote from: NikoB on April 07, 2024, 13:46:34https://www.notebookchat.com/index.php?topic=101291.msg365371#msg365371Quote from: A on April 07, 2024, 01:00:25notebookchat dot com / index . php ? topic=101291 . msg365371There is no such topic.
Quote from: A on April 07, 2024, 01:00:25notebookchat dot com / index . php ? topic=101291 . msg365371There is no such topic. And why spoil the link? Just remove the "http : //" header.
Quote from: NikoB on April 06, 2024, 14:20:53Considering that you are a lying troll hiding behind the short and non-unique name A, you will have to work hard and find at least one long enough chain of reasoning in the past to confirm your characteristic way of thinking, to prove that it was not another forum visitor who put such a short nickname. In the meantime, you are just a talker and a liar, and this has been proven many times.
Quote from: NikoB on April 05, 2024, 13:06:10Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years agoOnce again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years agoOnce again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45Nope, you never cared about society. You just always had a bad habit thinking your voice is the representation of society even when it clearly wasn't. You also have a bad habit of declaring yourself the winner in everything even when you are not.Pathetic troll, you can't prove it because you're just lying. It's your word against mine. The trouble for you is that mine is more significant, taking into account everything I have written even here over the years. You are simply insignificant compared to me.
Even in your response your bad habit of trying to speak for everyone leaks out.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45And what is the right direction? Who decides that? You not liking it does not making it immoral. And just because there is corruption doesn't mean this specific issue is it. If they didn't give free upgrades or locked down devices, sure, but they don't. But even then your statement about government paying for licenses for extended support should mean it is handed out is ridicilousI decide. As an adequate and decent person. And people like me. It is my personal right to make such a judgment and give reasons for it. Which I proved with arguments. After which you troll shamefully disappeared into the ditch, without providing a single argument why this is not immoral.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45The consequences you ask for would bring up costs for everyone. Because you are demanding that if government buys licenses, than it must be given free to everyone. Which means that MS would have to raise prices to government 100X fold, which then would be paid by us the tax payersStupid lies and a priori false statements, like all the above, not supported by anything. Proving that you are an arrogant and deceitful troll.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue.Again a lie, not confirmed by anything. Deceitful troll.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45They gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023Lie.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45So end of the day you say you would sacrifice your morals for winning?No vile troll, it's you above who proved, with the question of student loans and in a bunch of other comments up to this point, that you are two-faced, just like the criminal mafia Biden administration, which flouts the law because it can with the connivance of the stupid crowd. So I just pinned you against the wall and you disgraced yourself and you know about it, like all the readers of this forum. It's not I who meanly change nicknames, but you who are the troll.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45I don't get why you have a hard time understanding the difference between being paid by the year for support contracts per pc, and being paid for patches. I kind of wonder what your job is to have such an awkward take on realityAgain, creating the appearance of misunderstanding where the i's are dotted and the lying troll is already backed up against the wall.
Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45What part of my post is slippery and 2 faced?You are two-faced in that in one case you cannot answer on the merits, but in fact you justify these immoral forgiveness of student loans (and with stupid and completely inadequate arguments) at the expense of the money of all US taxpayers by the criminal Biden administration, which is flouting the law and the decision of the US Supreme Court on prohibition of such payments, i.e. who recognized that this is a direct violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, i.e. those same, so you, supposedly beloved RULES for everyone, and in another case, when the patches are already paid for and made with the money of ALL US taxpayers, you duplicitously pretend that you do not notice the immorality of such behavior of private companies and criminal US officials who enter into They are similar immoral contracts.
Quote from: NikoB on April 03, 2024, 14:28:11Poorly written scripts for the forum ruined everything. But here is a clean answer without errors from the scripts of this forum.Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the governmentAs usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implicationsI understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.
QuoteYou can see how little they care about it by the fact that they promote Linux on Azure and how they worked to standardize hardware drivers which helped linux a lot. We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue. Of course they did this so they could shrink windows bloat, but there is no way they wouldn't realize the side effectsQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their servicesBS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.
QuoteThey gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023 which was when the extended support for windows 7 ended. W10 to 11 is still freeQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.
QuoteBefore you had to cracks or workarounds to get windows working, while MS officially claims they are paid they make the unactivated windows usable without going out of your wayQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrongI never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.
But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home editionWell, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudstersAhahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)
QuoteMicrosoft should be thrilled about the prospect of being able to fix safety defects at distribute those fixes electronically at low cost to themselves. Instead they've chosen to monetize their own failures and incompetence by charging people for the privilege of having the vendor correct their own safety defects. This practice is disgusting and (should be) illegal.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the governmentAs usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implicationsI understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their servicesBS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrongI never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home editionWell, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudstersAhahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
QuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.
QuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.
It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.
QuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.
Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?
QuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.
QuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implicationsI understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their servicesBS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.Complete lie. It was free many years ago.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Officially no.Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.
I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.QuoteQuote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.
That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implicationsQuoteYou can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuitsWhat are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their servicesQuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.
W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)
You can go around the TPM2 requirementQuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.
It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.
You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract forQuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.
Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?
Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrongQuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.
It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer
Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions areQuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?
No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the governmentAs usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrongI never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home editionWell, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows fixes are made with the money of all US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.
Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.
I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.QuoteQuote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.
That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implicationsQuoteYou can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuitsWhat are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services
Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.
QuoteQuote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.
QuoteYou can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuitsWhat are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.
QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services
QuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.
QuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.
It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.
QuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.
Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?
QuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.
QuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?
Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.
Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58But your argument is fundamentally wrongAgain pointless nonsense, without arguments. Your point of view versus mine is nothing more. Only I have much more arguments and they are rational.
Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.
Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuitsWhat are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar