Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee - Linux

This is a discussion on Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee - Linux ; Just came across this: [quote] Recently my girlfriend bought a new computer. She was looking for a model that supported GNU/Linux, and opted for a Dell Inspiron 530, one of the models that can be purchased with Ubuntu in the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

  1. Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    Just came across this:

    [quote]

    Recently my girlfriend bought a new computer. She was looking for a
    model that supported GNU/Linux, and opted for a Dell Inspiron 530, one
    of the models that can be purchased with Ubuntu in the United States.
    Unfortunately, in The Netherlands no consumer models are available with
    Ubuntu or any other GNU/Linux distribution yet. So, with no other
    options available, she ordered the machine, which was very affordable
    and had good specs.

    Since she had planned installing GNU/Linux all along, and she is not
    particularly fond of the though of paying the Microsoft tax for software
    she will wipe out right away, we took care to read the EULA that is
    shown the first time the machine. The license said that if the EULA is
    declined, the customer should contact the manufacturer (or installer)
    about their refund policy. By the way, the EULA box seems to have been
    engineered to let people accept the EULA as quickly as possible: the box
    in which the EULA is shown is very small, making it an uncomfortable
    read. Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    appropriately used the power button as a reject button .

    Full story here:

    http://blog.danieldk.org/post/2008/0...ks-license-fee

    --
    |_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
    |_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
    |0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com

  2. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    [H]omer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >
    >> [quote]
    >>
    >> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .

    >
    > How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    > reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    > can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?


    I'm 99% sure they're lying. There is always a Back or Cancel button.




    > Dell are just as bad:
    >
    > .----
    >> After a few days she received a reaction from Dell that stated that
    >> a refund would not be possible without returning the complete
    >> machine, because the license is inseparable from the hardware. In
    >> her answer she referred to previous cases where Dell Germany and
    >> Dell UK provided a refund to customers.
    >>
    >> In the next reply a Dell representative answered that she was
    >> indeed eligible for a refund for both Windows Vista and Works.

    > `----
    >
    > So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at
    > Dell.


    Why pretend to be incensed? Lying about MS and Windows is standard practice
    for cola "advocates".




    > Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for deliberately
    > lying to customers?


    If so, the schmos at OpenOffice need to be put under the jail for [in the
    past] promising 100% compatibility with MS Office.




  3. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    DFS wrote:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> [quote]
    >>>
    >>> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >>> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .

    >>
    >> How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    >> reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    >> can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?

    >
    > I'm 99% sure they're lying. There is always a Back or Cancel button.


    But no reject button.

    BTW, are you sure there is a Back or Cancel button or can we be 99% sure
    that you are "lying"?

    >> So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at
    >> Dell.

    >
    > Why pretend to be incensed? Lying about MS and Windows is standard
    > practice for cola "advocates".


    I suppose liars always accuse others of the same.

    >> Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for deliberately
    >> lying to customers?

    >
    > If so, the schmos at OpenOffice need to be put under the jail for [in the
    > past] promising 100% compatibility with MS Office.


    Irrelevant. Stick to the topic.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  4. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    ml2mst wrote:



    > Since she had planned installing GNU/Linux all along, and she
    > is not particularly fond of the though of paying the Microsoft
    > tax for software she will wipe out right away, we took care to
    > read the EULA that is shown the first time the machine. The
    > license said that if the EULA is declined, the customer should
    > contact the manufacturer (or installer) about their refund
    > policy. By the way, the EULA box seems to have been engineered
    > to let people accept the EULA as quickly as possible:


    > http://blog.danieldk.org/post/2008/0...ks-license-fee


    I found this a good thing when she insisted on a refund:

    In the next reply a Dell representative answered that she
    was indeed eligible for a refund for both Windows Vista and
    Works. The combined refund is Euro 70 excluding tax.
    EUR 70 is USD 103 or GBP 52. That is a hefty tax even if OEM.
    Open Office is a much better product than Microsoft Works, so it
    is a big gain with no losses.

    --
    HPT

  5. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >
    >> [quote]
    >>
    >> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .

    >
    > How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    > reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    > can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?


    Seems logical to me. Microsoft does not care whether it's users agree or
    what they think in general. They assume their users are stupid and can't
    make a choice for them selves.

    > Dell are just as bad:
    >
    > .----
    > | After a few days she received a reaction from Dell that stated that
    > | a refund would not be possible without returning the complete
    > | machine, because the license is inseparable from the hardware. In
    > | her answer she referred to previous cases where Dell Germany and
    > | Dell UK provided a refund to customers.
    > |
    > | In the next reply a Dell representative answered that she was
    > | indeed eligible for a refund for both Windows Vista and Works.
    > `----
    >
    > So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at Dell.
    >
    > Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for deliberately
    > lying to customers?


    Very interesting point ;-)

    With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    Let's see where the discussion takes us (once it's out in the open). My
    guess is that it'll boost GNU/Linux adoption further more :-)

    Cheers

    --
    |_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
    |_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
    |0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com

  6. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    ml2mst writes:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> [quote]
    >>>
    >>> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >>> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .

    >>
    >> How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    >> reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    >> can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?

    >
    > Seems logical to me. Microsoft does not care whether it's users agree or
    > what they think in general. They assume their users are stupid and can't
    > make a choice for them selves.


    What a ridiculous thing to say, even for a vapid fan boy like
    yourself. MS got to where they were by listening to what people
    wanted. By working with HW vendors and end users.

    >
    >> Dell are just as bad:


    LOL. DELL ship Ubuntu and this is the thanks they get from COLA
    "advocates"!

  7. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    On 2008-01-27, ml2mst claimed:
    > [H]omer wrote:


    >> So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at Dell.
    >>
    >> Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for deliberately
    >> lying to customers?

    >
    > Very interesting point ;-)
    >
    > With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    > discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).
    >
    > Let's see where the discussion takes us (once it's out in the open). My
    > guess is that it'll boost GNU/Linux adoption further more :-)


    All Dell has to do (and probably will do) is claim the first person was
    in training, or they weren't aware of the policy change. Case closed.

    Unless one can prove they were both the same person, and that this
    person wasn't "enlightened" after the first encounter.

    It happens a lot. My boss had a Treo from AT&T. They told him when he
    got it that he couldn't insure that particular phone. He was someplace
    with his daughter and left his coat sitting at a table unattended. When
    he came back the Treo was gone. He called asking to get a discount on a
    new one since he'd only had that one for a couple of months. During the
    conversation the person he was talking to asked if he had it insured
    with them. *He* had to inform *her* that he couldn't insure it
    according to their people. She had to check things to find out he was
    right.

    It isn't always malevolence or dishonesty. Sometimes it's ignorance or
    stupidity.

    --
    One single fact can ruin a perfectly good argument.

  8. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    Hadron wrote:

    > ml2mst writes:
    >
    >> [H]omer wrote:
    >>
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>>
    >>>> [quote]
    >>>>
    >>>> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >>>> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .
    >>>
    >>> How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    >>> reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    >>> can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?

    >>
    >> Seems logical to me. Microsoft does not care whether it's users agree or
    >> what they think in general. They assume their users are stupid and can't
    >> make a choice for them selves.

    >
    > What a ridiculous thing to say, even for a vapid fan boy like
    > yourself. MS got to where they were by listening to what people
    > wanted. By working with HW vendors and end users.


    Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason why this activation and DRM
    nonsense exists in XP and Vista

    Do you *ever* have anything factual to say about MS and their partly idiotic
    decisions, which have absolutely nothing to do with what users want,
    "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator"
    and "email sage" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
    O'Leary?

    It is quite obvious that your only purpose here is defending MS, when you
    are not viciously attacking linux users or just plain troll
    --
    The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners.


  9. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> [H]omer wrote:
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>>
    >>>> [quote]
    >>>>
    >>>> Additionally, there is only a button to accept the EULA, so we
    >>>> appropriately used the power button as a reject button .
    >>>
    >>> How typically arrogant of Microsoft to assume that no one will ever
    >>> reject their Licence. Why bother even asking the question, if there
    >>> can only be one answer (in Microsoft's opinion)?

    >>
    >> I'm 99% sure they're lying. There is always a Back or Cancel button.

    >
    > But no reject button.
    >
    > BTW, are you sure there is a Back or Cancel button or can we be 99%
    > sure that you are "lying"?


    I've installed hundreds of commercial apps, and I don't remember a single
    one that didn't give you an out when reading license terms. Either they
    gave a 'Don't accept' option, or a Back or a Cancel or an Exit button. Not
    one time was I forced to "power off the machine" to reject the license.
    What a bunch of hooey you anti-MS maniacs come up with.

    You be sure to get a screenshot next time you come across one, Mr. Linux Is
    Perfect.



    >>> So apparently bare-faced lying is acceptable business practise, at
    >>> Dell.

    >>
    >> Why pretend to be incensed? Lying about MS and Windows is standard
    >> practice for cola "advocates".

    >
    > I suppose liars always accuse others of the same.


    What are you trying to say?



    >>> Isn't there some law they could be prosecuted under, for
    >>> deliberately lying to customers?

    >>
    >> If so, the schmos at OpenOffice need to be put under the jail for
    >> [in the past] promising 100% compatibility with MS Office.

    >
    > Irrelevant. Stick to the topic.


    cola liars and slimy accusations by cola hypocrites are always relevant.
    [H]omer the [H]ypocrite accused Dell of intentionally lying, when it may
    have been an uninformed clerk that didn't know the customer was eligible for
    a Windows refund. On the other hand, OpenOffice.org knew full well it
    wasn't 100% compatible with MS Office when they stated it on their website
    (in the past - it's since been removed, proving they knew they were
    fibbing).





  10. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:36:09 +0000, [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >
    >> With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    >> discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    >
    > Go ahead. I may even join in.


    So where's the gangbang?

  11. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    [H]omer wrote:

    > It's my gut feeling that this is no mistake, but is institutionalised
    > behaviour, specifically encouraged as a matter of corporate policy,
    > and motivated by clandestine agreements with Microsoft ...


    You're such a freakin' idiot it's not funny. Michael Dell has publicly
    stated MS didn't talk to Dell about Dell's decision to sell Linux in
    1999-2001.

    Dell is doing customers a favor by refunding amounts for Windows. The
    customer should have bought the system w/ no OS. If it wasn't available,
    the anti-Windows weenie should have gone elsewhere.



    > the
    > specifics of which are, of course, deliberately kept secret, so that
    > no one can ever prove the corruption. Microsoft have done this
    > before, and been
    > prosecuted for it under the Sherman Act, so it's not like this is
    > merely wild speculation. It is a very probable fact, certainly worthy
    > of a full investigation.


    It's most definitely your wild-ass speculation, and that's all it is and
    that's all it ever will be. There will never be an investigation (except a
    mock one staged in your bedroom).



    > Meanwhile, Dell have no doubt concluded that it is easier (and
    > cheaper)
    > to deal with the occasional lawsuit or claim, on a case by case basis,
    > rather than forgo their aforementioned clandestine deal with
    > Microsoft,


    No doubt that because a paranoid, outsider, OSS luser like yourself believes
    something stupid, it's true.



    > and risk losing whatever "benefits" they receive in exchange for their
    > complicity in Microsoft's corruption.


    Oh how I wish Linux lusers like you and Rex Ballard could be forced into
    court to provide legal proof of your ridiculous claims of MS corruption -
    every single time you utter them. The price of you failing to support your
    idiocy would be steep: large fines for frivolous claims and wasting the
    court's time.

    Talk's cheap - and so are Linux loons.




  12. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:43:33 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> It's my gut feeling that this is no mistake, but is institutionalised
    >> behaviour, specifically encouraged as a matter of corporate policy,
    >> and motivated by clandestine agreements with Microsoft ...

    >
    > You're such a freakin' idiot it's not funny. Michael Dell has publicly
    > stated MS didn't talk to Dell about Dell's decision to sell Linux in
    > 1999-2001.
    >
    > Dell is doing customers a favor by refunding amounts for Windows. The
    > customer should have bought the system w/ no OS. If it wasn't available,
    > the anti-Windows weenie should have gone elsewhere.


    One thing these Linux wackos forget about is technical support.
    Tech support, warranty etc is built into these machines, like Dell etc and
    Dell loads certain utilities on the system in order to help the tech
    support person diagnose failures with customer systems.
    Needless to say, these programs will not work with Linux.

    Some companies will not work with you if you don't run these programs and
    give them the output.
    I had this happen with a dead IBM drive I had. IBM would not deal with me
    until I ran some stupid diag and give them the error code.
    A quick google fixed that problem however

    How Dell gets around this with Linux systems I don't know.
    Maybe they are counting on not getting a flood of noob users clogging up
    their support lines.
    I don't know.

    But how would they deal with a blank system?

    Anyone who has worked in tech support knows you can't believe anything the
    customer is telling you because most of them haven't a clue.


    >
    >
    >> the
    >> specifics of which are, of course, deliberately kept secret, so that
    >> no one can ever prove the corruption. Microsoft have done this
    >> before, and been
    >> prosecuted for it under the Sherman Act, so it's not like this is
    >> merely wild speculation. It is a very probable fact, certainly worthy
    >> of a full investigation.

    >
    > It's most definitely your wild-ass speculation, and that's all it is and
    > that's all it ever will be. There will never be an investigation (except a
    > mock one staged in your bedroom).


    I wouldn't say never, but the claims of the Linux nuts are way over the top
    and make it much worse than it really is.
    >
    >
    >> Meanwhile, Dell have no doubt concluded that it is easier (and
    >> cheaper)
    >> to deal with the occasional lawsuit or claim, on a case by case basis,
    >> rather than forgo their aforementioned clandestine deal with
    >> Microsoft,

    >
    > No doubt that because a paranoid, outsider, OSS luser like yourself believes
    > something stupid, it's true.


    They travel in packs.
    Rex, Roy, Mark and [homer].


    >
    >
    >> and risk losing whatever "benefits" they receive in exchange for their
    >> complicity in Microsoft's corruption.

    >
    > Oh how I wish Linux lusers like you and Rex Ballard could be forced into
    > court to provide legal proof of your ridiculous claims of MS corruption -
    > every single time you utter them. The price of you failing to support your
    > idiocy would be steep: large fines for frivolous claims and wasting the
    > court's time.


    I firmly believe Roy Schestowitz is going to be the test case for that
    scenario.
    It's only a matter of time because he has surely ruffled some feathers on
    some very well positioned birds, by his own words, and it's pretty much
    common sense that he will be singled out.

    He makes some very wild and crazy statements and when he does offer proof
    of his claims, that level of proof (ie:a reliable source told me) will not
    hold up in court.
    And should Roy try and hide behind journalistic privilege, he will lose
    because he is not a journalist.

    > Talk's cheap - and so are Linux loons.


    You got that right!

  13. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:43:33 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> [H]omer wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's my gut feeling that this is no mistake, but is
    >>> institutionalised behaviour, specifically encouraged as a matter of
    >>> corporate policy, and motivated by clandestine agreements with
    >>> Microsoft ...

    >>
    >> You're such a freakin' idiot it's not funny. Michael Dell has
    >> publicly stated MS didn't talk to Dell about Dell's decision to sell
    >> Linux in 1999-2001.
    >>
    >> Dell is doing customers a favor by refunding amounts for Windows.
    >> The customer should have bought the system w/ no OS. If it wasn't
    >> available, the anti-Windows weenie should have gone elsewhere.

    >
    > One thing these Linux wackos forget about is technical support.
    > Tech support, warranty etc is built into these machines, like Dell
    > etc and Dell loads certain utilities on the system in order to help
    > the tech support person diagnose failures with customer systems.
    > Needless to say, these programs will not work with Linux.


    cola nuts want OEMs to shoulder 100% of the financial burden of selling and
    supporting Linux, but they're not willing to buy Linux systems when they are
    offered. They're their own worst enemies.



    >>> the
    >>> specifics of which are, of course, deliberately kept secret, so that
    >>> no one can ever prove the corruption. Microsoft have done this
    >>> before, and been
    >>> prosecuted for it under the Sherman Act, so it's not like this is
    >>> merely wild speculation. It is a very probable fact, certainly
    >>> worthy of a full investigation.

    >>
    >> It's most definitely your wild-ass speculation, and that's all it is
    >> and that's all it ever will be. There will never be an
    >> investigation (except a mock one staged in your bedroom).

    >
    > I wouldn't say never, but the claims of the Linux nuts are way over
    > the top and make it much worse than it really is.


    If MS didn't talk to Dell about selling Linux systems, MS and Dell are not
    colluding on whether Dell will refund a Windows license. That's entirely a
    Dell policy.

    cola idiots: they really are idiots.




    >>> and risk losing whatever "benefits" they receive in exchange for
    >>> their complicity in Microsoft's corruption.

    >>
    >> Oh how I wish Linux lusers like you and Rex Ballard could be forced
    >> into court to provide legal proof of your ridiculous claims of MS
    >> corruption - every single time you utter them. The price of you
    >> failing to support your idiocy would be steep: large fines for
    >> frivolous claims and wasting the court's time.

    >
    > I firmly believe Roy Schestowitz is going to be the test case for that
    > scenario.
    > It's only a matter of time because he has surely ruffled some
    > feathers on some very well positioned birds, by his own words, and
    > it's pretty much common sense that he will be singled out.


    As much as I would LOVE to see them bankrupted for their lies and idiot
    accusations of corruption and theft, etc, Internet and Usenet kooks like Roy
    Homer Kent Ballard 7 aren't worthy of corporate interest. When I notified
    James Gosling of Sun Microsystems that Rex Ballard was claiming credit as
    the creator of Java, and asked him if it was true, Gosling just said "No
    truth to it - never heard of the guy" and that was it. It wasn't referred
    to their legal department. Rex wasn't served with cease and desist notices,
    etc.

    Successful corporations and people don't waste their time with these types
    of lusers (found all over the Linux "community").



    > He makes some very wild and crazy statements and when he does offer
    > proof of his claims, that level of proof (ie:a reliable source told
    > me) will not hold up in court.
    > And should Roy try and hide behind journalistic privilege, he will
    > lose because he is not a journalist.


    One day Roy will get the Windows job he wants, and grow out of his Linux
    infatuation.



    >> Talk's cheap - and so are Linux loons.

    >
    > You got that right!


    "$15 for ONE application is damned expensive", Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com,
    cola cheap-ass, 7/5/05




  14. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:36:03 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:43:33 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> [H]omer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It's my gut feeling that this is no mistake, but is
    >>>> institutionalised behaviour, specifically encouraged as a matter of
    >>>> corporate policy, and motivated by clandestine agreements with
    >>>> Microsoft ...
    >>>
    >>> You're such a freakin' idiot it's not funny. Michael Dell has
    >>> publicly stated MS didn't talk to Dell about Dell's decision to sell
    >>> Linux in 1999-2001.
    >>>
    >>> Dell is doing customers a favor by refunding amounts for Windows.
    >>> The customer should have bought the system w/ no OS. If it wasn't
    >>> available, the anti-Windows weenie should have gone elsewhere.

    >>
    >> One thing these Linux wackos forget about is technical support.
    >> Tech support, warranty etc is built into these machines, like Dell
    >> etc and Dell loads certain utilities on the system in order to help
    >> the tech support person diagnose failures with customer systems.
    >> Needless to say, these programs will not work with Linux.

    >
    > cola nuts want OEMs to shoulder 100% of the financial burden of selling and
    > supporting Linux, but they're not willing to buy Linux systems when they are
    > offered. They're their own worst enemies.


    A true statement, mostly.
    I do suspect the Dell Linux sales are due to the rah rah in the Linux
    community and I predict that the numbers are a false indication.
    IOW the pool of buyers will dry up after the initial enthusiasm wears off.

    >>>> the
    >>>> specifics of which are, of course, deliberately kept secret, so that
    >>>> no one can ever prove the corruption. Microsoft have done this
    >>>> before, and been
    >>>> prosecuted for it under the Sherman Act, so it's not like this is
    >>>> merely wild speculation. It is a very probable fact, certainly
    >>>> worthy of a full investigation.
    >>>
    >>> It's most definitely your wild-ass speculation, and that's all it is
    >>> and that's all it ever will be. There will never be an
    >>> investigation (except a mock one staged in your bedroom).

    >>
    >> I wouldn't say never, but the claims of the Linux nuts are way over
    >> the top and make it much worse than it really is.

    >
    > If MS didn't talk to Dell about selling Linux systems, MS and Dell are not
    > colluding on whether Dell will refund a Windows license. That's entirely a
    > Dell policy.
    >
    > cola idiots: they really are idiots.


    Yes they are.
    Facts don't seem to matter to these nuts.


    >>>> and risk losing whatever "benefits" they receive in exchange for
    >>>> their complicity in Microsoft's corruption.
    >>>
    >>> Oh how I wish Linux lusers like you and Rex Ballard could be forced
    >>> into court to provide legal proof of your ridiculous claims of MS
    >>> corruption - every single time you utter them. The price of you
    >>> failing to support your idiocy would be steep: large fines for
    >>> frivolous claims and wasting the court's time.

    >>
    >> I firmly believe Roy Schestowitz is going to be the test case for that
    >> scenario.
    >> It's only a matter of time because he has surely ruffled some
    >> feathers on some very well positioned birds, by his own words, and
    >> it's pretty much common sense that he will be singled out.

    >
    > As much as I would LOVE to see them bankrupted for their lies and idiot
    > accusations of corruption and theft, etc, Internet and Usenet kooks like Roy
    > Homer Kent Ballard 7 aren't worthy of corporate interest. When I notified
    > James Gosling of Sun Microsystems that Rex Ballard was claiming credit as
    > the creator of Java, and asked him if it was true, Gosling just said "No
    > truth to it - never heard of the guy" and that was it. It wasn't referred
    > to their legal department. Rex wasn't served with cease and desist notices,
    > etc.


    > Successful corporations and people don't waste their time with these types
    > of lusers (found all over the Linux "community").



    Ahh, but you are missing a major point.
    There is a difference between an idiot like Rex saying he invented Java and
    a well organized campaign disparaging a major company.

    IOW, most people will reach the conclusion Rex is a loony toon and is
    really no different than a fanboi name dropper who "knows" Madonna, Jack
    Nicholson and Harrison Ford.
    These people are harmless and laughed off as jokes.
    However, should one of these fanbois launch a site with disparging claims
    and spew it all over the Internet, Jack, Madonna and Harrison will more
    than likely talk to their lawyers.

    See the difference?


    >
    >> He makes some very wild and crazy statements and when he does offer
    >> proof of his claims, that level of proof (ie:a reliable source told
    >> me) will not hold up in court.
    >> And should Roy try and hide behind journalistic privilege, he will
    >> lose because he is not a journalist.

    >
    > One day Roy will get the Windows job he wants, and grow out of his Linux
    > infatuation.


    For his parent$ sake I certainly hope so.
    They are probably frittering away their retirement fund on his career in
    college.


    >>> Talk's cheap - and so are Linux loons.

    >>
    >> You got that right!

    >
    > "$15 for ONE application is damned expensive", Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com,
    > cola cheap-ass, 7/5/05


    See Loki for details on how cheap the Linux community is.


  15. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >
    >> With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    >> discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    >
    > Go ahead. I may even join in.


    Thanks, done ;-)

    Although the discussion is in Dutch and I'm about to do my best to move
    the discussion from the GNU/Linux community, "out in the open", I will
    report any positive news in this case to COLA, unless Roy is faster than
    I am, with his [News] post, which is perfectly right with me ;-)

    I just think, this will give GNU/Linux adoption another boost...

    Yeeha! :-)

    Cheers

    --
    |_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
    |_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
    |0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com

  16. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >
    >> With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    >> discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    >
    > Go ahead. I may even join in.


    Darn, shame on me!

    I forgot to give a link to my latest entry in the discussion:

    http://forum.nedlinux.nl/viewtopic.p...303161#p303161

    ;-)

    --
    |_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
    |_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
    |0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com

  17. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0100, ml2mst wrote:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    >>> discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    >>
    >> Go ahead. I may even join in.

    >
    > Darn, shame on me!
    >
    > I forgot to give a link to my latest entry in the discussion:
    >
    > http://forum.nedlinux.nl/viewtopic.p...303161#p303161
    >
    > ;-)


    Do they know about your poster Marti?
    They do now.....

  18. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    ml2mst writes:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that ml2mst spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> With your permission I will copy and paste your remarks into the
    >>> discussion (it was originally posted in a forum, called NedLinux).

    >>
    >> Go ahead. I may even join in.

    >
    > Thanks, done ;-)
    >
    > Although the discussion is in Dutch and I'm about to do my best to move
    > the discussion from the GNU/Linux community, "out in the open", I will


    You're bringing it out of the closet? Good on you.

    > report any positive news in this case to COLA, unless Roy is faster than
    > I am, with his [News] post, which is perfectly right with me ;-)


    Faster and bigger is not always "better" Rafael. Remember that. Size
    does not matter - it's the content of a man's article that is important.


  19. Re: Dell refunds Vista and Works license fee

    ____/ High Plains Thumper on Sunday 27 January 2008 06:10 : \____

    > ml2mst wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> Since she had planned installing GNU/Linux all along, and she
    >> is not particularly fond of the though of paying the Microsoft
    >> tax for software she will wipe out right away, we took care to
    >> read the EULA that is shown the first time the machine. The
    >> license said that if the EULA is declined, the customer should
    >> contact the manufacturer (or installer) about their refund
    >> policy. By the way, the EULA box seems to have been engineered
    >> to let people accept the EULA as quickly as possible:

    >
    >>

    http://blog.danieldk.org/post/2008/0...ks-license-fee
    >
    > I found this a good thing when she insisted on a refund:
    >
    >
    In the next reply a Dell representative answered that she
    > was indeed eligible for a refund for both Windows Vista and
    > Works. The combined refund is Euro 70 excluding tax.
    >
    > EUR 70 is USD 103 or GBP 52. That is a hefty tax even if OEM.
    > Open Office is a much better product than Microsoft Works, so it
    > is a big gain with no losses.


    It also shows why Microsoft is not a good financial state (it's bluffing).
    Because of Linux, Windows is sold relatively cheaply to OEMs. The big cash cow
    is Office, which faces threat from ODF and the Web.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows O/S: who ownZ you tod4y?
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    12:05:01 up 3 days, 21:59, 2 users, load average: 1.02, 1.24, 1.35
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

+ Reply to Thread