Walmart Sells Linux Online

I visited Walmart.com, plugged in “linux” and searched all departments.
click to visit Walmart.com

So, they’re selling desktop boxes on the small side and the other 70 items? Mostly books and courses on GNU/Linux. They have it covered. Decent prices, too. Some spend more than that for a thin client. Add a monitor, keyboard and mouse and you have a very useful system. Free shipping to your home and they promise it will arrive by December 24. Lots of Android stuff too, tablets, smart phones and books.

Walmart.ca: “Your search returned 0 results.” Sigh. 🙁 Android? One hit and it was out of stock. Price was good, though, $78. What does it mean when the stores are doing better than HQ? I know there’s lots of Android/Linux stuff in my local Walmart store.

Merry Christmas 😉

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Walmart Sells Linux Online

  1. Clarence Moon says:

    “I have a lot more documents I can bring”

    You haven’t brought anything yet, Mr. Oiaohm, except your own fanstasies.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Great I just dyslexia stuffed up who.
    “You will find a lot of us how are not trusting of MS products have been burnt or have been attempted to be burnt by the BSA. I was only attempted.”
    Yep how should be who.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon “Scott & Scott firm” is not the only one. All legal firms dealing with the BSA report the same kinds of bad behavior. Scott and Scott provides the information for free how to remain out of the BSA trouble. Others will change you a fee for that information. Basically tell you the same information.

    Please note those articles were requested by Networkworld.

    http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/091014-gaskin.html

    Yes the articles I was pulling is referring to 2 parties not one.

    Where a reporter had been investigating outcomes of BSA cases.

    “When I spoke to the BSA director several years ago, I asked her what she considers proof of legal software. She told me to ask the software vendors. So I asked the Microsoft person in charge of compliance. She told me to ask the BSA.”

    Kinda key fact here. BSA will not tell you in advance what you really require. Neither will Microsoft. Only people who know what you really require is companies like Scott & Scott who handle these cases so directly face the BSA in audits.

    This is not the only reporter to report this fact.

    “accept reasonable proof” If it was reasonable they would have no trouble telling people what they require.

    Even if you speak to them today you will get the same answers BSA refers you to Microsoft, Microsoft refers you to BSA. Neither answers what is the proof you need.

    So either I Should hate the BSA or a Should hate Microsoft. Since I can prove that neither is giving me the legal information to be safe I simply hate both.

    BSA really should not have any trouble publishing the rules vendors are asking them to audit by if they were out to only get pirates.

    Clarence Moon
    “The BSA gets reports from a company’s employee that the company is violating licenses”
    This is a lie. Basically claim of a internal informant is an attempt to prevent you from attempting to deceive them even if they don’t have one. Yes if you do place discovery against the BSA you will almost every time find there is no such informant you were just randomly chosen because you had not updated you volume licenses.

    Clarence Moon
    “At the end of the day, the law is the law, and the case is not decided by the BSA, it is decided by the judge and the jury. ”
    Problem here is that winning case is not the end of the day even going to court is not the start.

    BSA voids you right to volume licenses win or lose in court. So yes BSA are judge, jury and executioner of a punishment what is loss of volume licenses. This happens as soon as you don’t settle. Not when you go to trial. This can be a few years without volume licenses until you can get to trial. To replace those will be more than the cost of settlement. Yes you are screwed.

    Heck BSA may kill your volume license rights and not even bother taking you to court. The lose of volume license costing you all your copies of MS Office might have successfully put you out of business.

    BSA has no interest in taking companies to court. They just want to force companies to pay up and will use every underhanded blackmail way to see that happen. Yes cutting off supply to force your hand into a non profitable settlement.

    This is why these days I have Linux backup systems. They come threaten us again we will be ready.

    My vengeance against Microsoft has been made by the BSA and Microsoft relationship.

    Oldman wonders why my systems are not dependent on MS office or MS products. This is why I have faced an audit I don’t trust that volume licenses will remain usable any more.

    The reports are not FUD Clarence Moon you have ran out of cards so now the reports have to be FUD if you keep down this line I will just find more and more reports from different sources. Stating the same things.

    Everyone has to be FUD by your line Clarence Moon. The real world in your mind cannot be that the BSA is a complete prick that will nail you to wall any way they can.

    Simple fact here Clarence Moon everything have been saying is the reverse of FUD. Ignorance is Bliss until you are sitting in Jail or your company is out of business.

    You have this magical idea that you will get a day in court to clear yourself. Against BSA by the time that comes you could be out of a job because the company you are in is no more.

    Time you stop believing in magic Clarence Moon.

    If it is FUD Clarence Moon you should be able to find links disproving it. You have provided so such links if you wish to go forwards.

    Its put up time Clarence Moon. You have put up not one link backing you case. You word is worth nothing Clarence Moon. You are not against my word you are against the documents I have presented. Time you start showing some documents or shut up.

    I have a lot more documents I can bring.

    You will find a lot of us how are not trusting of MS products have been burnt or have been attempted to be burnt by the BSA. I was only attempted. They failed so I don’t want to give them another chance.

    Once bitten twice shy. Before I faced the audit I was very much like you Clarence Moon.

  4. Clarence Moon says:

    “You want reports start reading…”

    Perhaps your difficulty in writing language points to a corresponding difficulty in understanding it, Mr. Oiaohm. The BSA gets reports from a company’s employee that the company is violating licenses and the BSA opens an investigation if they feel that it is warranted. What it takes to get the BSA off your case is perhaps important, but they seem to accept reasonable proof if you read the fine print.

    Further, the Scott & Scott firm publishing all the fearful tales (isn’t that called FUD when Microsoft does it?) is rather one-sided in that their business is allaying those very fears that they are stirring up. That makes their credibility somewhat suspect, eh?

    At the end of the day, the law is the law, and the case is not decided by the BSA, it is decided by the judge and the jury. If you have reasonable proof, then you will win the case and recover your costs. I am sure that happens in Australia just as it happens in the USA and even Canada.

  5. oiaohm says:

    You want reports start reading
    http://www.bsaaudit.com/resources/article_networkworld.asp
    http://www.bsaaudit.com/resources/article_networkworld_2.asp
    Clarence Moon this is the USA.

    Yes it gets worse BSA in the USA will not accept invoices from particular locations. Yep buy software on ebay you invoice does not count because all software on ebay is counterfeit(not true but BSA it is).

    Buy software from a company in receivership. Not valid. Basically buy a computer second hand software license is void by BSA rules in the USA.

    So schools receiving donations of computers in the USA are basically screwed unless they go FOSS. Since they might as well strip the COA and shred the disks because legally they are worthless in the USA since they don’t have a invoice of transfer in many cases written well enough.

    Really I am super thankful I am in Australia where they are force by our laws to accept particular things. They are forced to presume the software is legal unless they can prove otherwise as long as you can provide decent proof you are free and clear. Decent proof being the COA or invoice with manifest with enough detail. So you have two chances to prove you are not guilty of being a pirate in Australia. I attempt to have myself covered both ways.

    USA the BSA gets to presume the software is counterfeit or stolen until you can prove otherwise. Yes any bit wrong and its counterfeit or stolen. Missing any one of the following and you are shot in the USA. Invoice exactly correct any error and you are up the creek without a hope, COA, Original disks, Original books and Original case.

    This is not fear this is reality. BSA is the most evil group I know of for how they do business in a lot of countries.

    Its like the fact that its legal for anyone in Australia to walk in and buy OEM software for cash and not take a invoice. Do that in the USA and you are shot. Since the software will be declared stolen or counterfeit. Even that the software was never reported stolen.

    Claim of stolen used by the BSA in the USA not legal under Australian law. If something is stolen it has to be reported to the police otherwise it not stolen here.

    I am simply in a better country. USA is bad Canada is not great either.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon its attack the messenger. You have nothing to defend yourself so you attack me.

    You have not presented one document saying a computer can be legally missing its COA. You will find it does not exist.

    I have presented many detailing over and over again COA must exist. Those documents are enough that people will not go to court instead settle.

    “there is some news report somewhere to support your fairy tale.”

    Sorry you asking for something that will not exist. The parties involved have no option but to settle. Due to this case there are no news-reports.

    Find me a single news report of piracy that does provide details exactly how the piracy was done they are all vague.

    I have you in linkes here one of the leading legal firms for dealing with audit triggered copyright infringement claims for international companies. I can give you Australian specialist firms as well.

    Basically the news does not hear of these cases the firms sorting out the mess do.

    There results are most are paying because companies don’t have there paperwork in good enough order and OEM hardware makers are not providing enough detailing in their paperwork to be able to prove that X computer is from X invoice so leaving only the COA as proof of License.

    No proof you are screwed basically.

    Scott & Scott LLP go talk to them they are the legal experts that the country you are in Clarence Moon. Yes I did use a statement from over the bogus nature of BSA claims of piracy rates. It Scott & Scott who list the USA requirements for COA + invoice + media + books to be valid for MS licenses in the USA against BSA audits as well as MS own documentation. Please note single lawyers in that firm have handled over 200 each. Far more experienced than me. There experiences match mine.

    So is Scott & Scott wrong or are you Clarence Moon. I would say you are wrong they are a highly trusted firm for reducing excess license expenditure.

    Don’t want to believe me fine. Not checked with the lead legal firms in that country shows your error.

    Yes I have learnt from my past mistake and checked out against USA law before I even started with a highly trusted firm. Wanting newspaper articles for legal events is foolishness. Get some true legal advice and you will find out that you are 100 percent bogus Clarence Moon.

    Yes Clarence Moon I do learn from my mistakes.

  7. Clarence Moon says:

    All you ever have to offer is your own “expert” testimony, Mr. Oiaohm. Surely with all the malevolent and abusive behavior that you claim is going on over lost COAs, there is some news report somewhere to support your fairy tale. You have been shown on numerous occasions to be full of crap in regard to your “expertise” and your own such claims are totally worthless. Put up or shut up, Mr. Oiaohm.

    By the way, no one really gives a hoot about Australia besides the Newport Yacht Club and the people using kangaroo leather to make folders for Kindles. So all your totally unsupported assertions about Australia not having conventional laws on the books is immaterial to world trade.

  8. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “I can pull purchase orders directly related to every current software”
    What is worthless with all software. Purchase orders don’t prove that the software was purchased. Purchase orders don’t prove what machine the software should be on. You are after the invoices and shipping manifests. This comes down to what one has the serial numbers of the machines with OEM software. If neither does contain the serial numbers then its on to the maker for a more detailed ID on their paperwork. This has to be done while the OEM still has that paperwork. Waiting until audit you can be in trouble since by then the OEM can have disposed of the paperwork leaving you up the creek. Leaving you in the case that the only proof the machine is OEM licensed is the COA on the machine that has disappeared.

    Yes oldman you could be one of the people without their paper in order what the only defence against being completely screwed over by MS is the COA on the machine.

    oldman
    “I can go online to the Volume license site and pull detailed records of sales.”
    Do you have printed copies. If in a audit you have to go on-line for anything there can be a magical computer glitch. Yes had that in a audit where one of the volume orders was missing from the MS server that appear the next day after the audit. Blamed on computer error. Timing was just too perfect.

    It all a matter of Proof do you have it. If it not sitting in your filing cabinet at this very moment you cannot depend on getting it when the auditors come.

    Its very simple to think your paperwork is in order until the day a Audit walks threw door. This is why I say spend 3 hours a firm that specialises in protecting against these cases. Because everything must be in order before the audit. Its 3 hours well spent so you get your processes right.

    Clarence Moon
    “My belief is that Microsoft would never sue a valid customer over a license mishmash and has, as near as I can tell, always been willing to settle for the fees that would have been collected in the first place had the mistake not occurred.”
    Of course they do they are getting paid twice in many cases of the same software with COA have got lost or damaged. Main reason for this is that the place does not have there paper work in good enough order to prove anything.

    Clarence Moon that you have not seen a MS random audit yet does not mean they don’t happen. Random audits only happen to those that use volume licenses under audit rights volume licenses allow. They don’t need a court document to audit on volume license users since it was part of the contract.

    Basically lose of COA is serous. Since it losing a document you may need to prove that you are not gulity. Ideal is of course not to need it because you paperwork is in perfect order so the missing COA can be explained by vandalism.

    Keeping documentation in perfect order without human error sneaking in somewhere is very hard.

    Remember disgruntle employees can also destroy key paperwork before they leave if you are not careful. Paying disgruntle employees for reporting piracy should not happen since they can be the very ones that put the company in that location by criminal action. MS is not allowed in Australia to pay disgruntle employees for reporting piracy.

  9. Clarence Moon says:

    “So, somebody switches a hard drive or installs some software not on your inventory and the system is toast in an audit. ”

    Where I work now and where I have worked in the past, installing your own software or adding your own hardware to the company network or modifying a computer outside the purview of the IT staff was likely to get you fired if it were significant enough.

    I am sure that all big companies do the same thing. When I was doing field tech work, we had to involve the customer’s IT staff to do things like install diagnostic software or make live connections to their network. Some places, such as Lockheed-Martin required everything to be removed at the end of the day and they actually re-imaged the machines were were doing the testing with each night. United Space Alliance in Florida was the same way.

    Given the malware situation these days, I cannot imagine any sensible company allowing such tampering with their systems.

    Perhaps the Oldman could speak of the policies at his shop.

  10. Clarence Moon says:

    “Forgetting “Get the FUD”, licensing Android/Linux and rantings of Steve Ballmer are you, Clarence?”

    The topic was Microsoft lawsuits filed against otherwise legitimate Windows users, Mr. Pogson. Certainly Microsoft has suggested in public at least that piracy is frowned upon. Furthermore, they have been diligent in asserting their patents where they are being infringed by various Android device makers. That is not the same thing, though, and you have to stay on point or else this turns into the same kind of blather that Mr. Oiaohm spouts.

    My belief is that Microsoft would never sue a valid customer over a license mishmash and has, as near as I can tell, always been willing to settle for the fees that would have been collected in the first place had the mistake not occurred. If you have a counter example that you can cite, I would be pleased to see it and might change my position if it were clearly the case that they refused to honor reasonable proof of license.

  11. So, somebody switches a hard drive or installs some software not on your inventory and the system is toast in an audit. How embarassing and how difficult to prevent. The organization for which you work cannot keep 100% control of everything while allowing thousands of users access. Nothing you do can prevent a foreign machine from being brought onto the premises and networked to the outside world wirelessly, for instance. In an audit, that machine can be found and is prima facie evidence of guilt. All it takes is one person one time taking a shortcut and the inventory is wrong. Then there are the usual things that can go wrong with serial numbers. Device 678945 is declared obsolete and trashed but something goes wrong and the wrong machine is trashed. Someone checks off the disposal sheet and balances the books but the “executed” machine is still alive, a zombie. If someone is doing graphics with it off-line your servers may never see it. No organization can ensure the inventory is 100% without either paying for extra licences just in case or having a redundant system for keeping track, more expense. Everyone is trying to manage PCs without human intervention to save costs and so loses some level of control. What do you do when machine X goes AWOL? Do you declare it stolen? What if someone moved it down the hall and took it off-line for some reason? Do you keep buying licences for missing machines?

    There was an episode of MASH, the TV series, wherein Hawkeye was put in charge of the inventory. It was found that there was a deficiency of plates. To fool the auditor, plates were stacked up, passed through a window and counted again… Everyone was happy afterward. During WWII, my father was in artillery and had to account for every round. Somehow a surplus was built up and “the boys” got to do some plinking at a German transport, against orders. When an officer showed up, a cold barrel had been swapped and the inventory was correct…

  12. oldman says:

    “No organization of any size can keep an inventory accurately. ”

    Sorry Pog, but ours has no problem doing so. I can pull purchase orders directly related to every current software, and if needed, I can go online to the Volume license site and pull detailed records of sales.

    The real issue is that the organizations that you have worked for seem to skimp on clerical staff and are generally haphazard with bookkeeping, leaving it to staff like yourself to pick up the pieces.

    So perhaps my calling it incompetence is wrong. Negligence is a better description of this.

    Either way its not microsoft’s problem, its the software lessee problem.

  13. M$’s customers are mostly OEMs and M$ has never been cordial with them. Search for HP/Compaq, IBM, in the evidence. You will find much. M$ repeatedly charged more for less cooperative OEMs and promised to cut off licensing entirely in some cases.

  14. Clarence Moon wrote of copyright/patent abuse, “it would be difficult to show where that has ever actually happened”,

    Forgetting “Get the FUD”, licensing Android/Linux and rantings of Steve Ballmer are you, Clarence? It’s not difficult to find at all, from 1994ish to date. M$ did not write Linux. M$ did not create UNIX. Yet, M$ claims to have power over others’ software but will go away if paid… It’s extortion, pure and simple, except that lawyers are legally permitted to do extortion.

  15. oldman wrote, of asset inventory, “So it is OK for the same people who a responsible for keeping the accounts for running an institution to not do another necessary piece of bookeeping, eh?”

    No organization of any size can keep an inventory accurately. There are many sources of error: transcription errors, mistakes large and small, embezzlement, sabotage and even over-paying. Some businesses admit to overpaying on licences just so they can survive audits. It’s a hell of a liability for a business. It’s not like buying and selling goods where goods are transferred, invoices are delivered and bills paid. It’s a liability for the life of the product and longer, at disposal.

    Most of the schools where I worked did not even have an inventory of PCs. I created several and there was no paperwork that I could access for the acquisitions. Schools are in the business of educating, not enriching M$. Schools have no budgets for accounting for such things. They are paid lump sums plus per student per annum amounts. Mostly schools keep equipment until it dies in which case there are no consequences for inventory problems or depreciation except in case of fire/insurance claims. Since PCs are “free” that’s not a serious consideration. I doubt many small/medium businesses are anxious to spend money on keeping M$’s coffers full. In any event, M$ makes value for money extremely difficult to compute because a licence has a variable price depending on many factors, versions, upgrades… and I doubt anyone can keep track of it. M$ does provide software which purports to count licences but that will never interface with a proper accounting system.

    Thus, it is doubtful that any business even very large ones could actually survive one of M$’s audits unscathed. M$ constantly changes the rules and goes out of its way to make licensing complex so that businesses settle rather than do the audit. M$ is just another form of malware.

  16. oldman says:

    “oldman is blaming the end user again.”

    So it is OK for the same people who a responsible for keeping the accounts for running an institution to not do another necessary piece of bookeeping, eh?

    “if you have a copy of the software, you have a licence for it. Simple.”

    Where do you think that you get to dictate the terms of license for someone else s product? If you use a particular vendors product you are responsible for providing proof of license for that product on demand, end of story.

    If you dont like the terms it is your right not to use the product in the first place. But if you use the product, then you have to be ready to comply with the terms.

  17. Clarence Moon says:

    It is easy to suggest that a large corporation like Microsoft could “abuse” their customers via patents and copyright laws, but it would be difficult to show where that has ever actually happened. Where users have been found out and penalized for illegal use of software, it is hard to see where there is any such “abuse” unless you re-define the term. If someone breaks a law, is it abuse for them to suffer the penalty when caught?

    Certainly there is a potential for an abuse of process in the law and being named in a lawsuit is a frightening matter for anyone. But the only instances that I have ever heard of in regard to Microsoft doing that have actually been Business Software Alliance, not Microsoft per se, actions involving Microsoft’s and other companies’ products where there was actual violations of long standing by companies who surely should have known better. The penalty has usually essentially been to require the guilty company to pay the fees that they would have paid had they been in compliance from the start. For some that is a lot of money, but they knew they were guilty.

  18. Clarence Moon says:

    You say “Nonsense!”, Mr. Pogson, but you do not provide any facts. In the trial that you reference, there was some discussion of what IBM might need to do to qualify for the same discount schedules that had been extended to Dell and others. The requirement was for IBM to use Windows internally as a reference site, to refrain from promotion of OS/2 and their Lotus Suite products, and some co-marketing arrangements. These were certainly not acceptable to IBM, but they were the norm at Dell, Compaq, HP, and Sony and possibly others not mentioned in the suit.

    The total value of the discounts was some $7 per license, too, hardly enough incentive for IBM to abandon their own brands.

    The school system audit program that you reference seems to be an isolated instance from almost 10 years ago that was never even pressed according to the article you cite. After the schools pushed back on the terms of the audit, Microsoft abandoned the attempt and nothing further seems to have been done.

    What I would take away from that, based on the facts presented and on my own experiences with commercial software sales, is that Microsoft made a mistake in judgement at least with the tone of the letter and had to backtrack to correct the sales situation. It is best to never do such a thing and avoid the black eye it leaves, but what they did only shows that they are smart enough to realize that they have to keep things cordial with their customers and that they will correct mistakes such as you relate.

  19. oldman is blaming the end user again. M$ has repeatedly abused patent and copyright laws to abuse end users. Without M$ involved there would be a lot fewer problems in IT. The EULA alone is more than sufficient reason to use FLOSS. With FLOSS, if you have a copy of the software, you have a licence for it. Simple.

  20. Clarence Moon wrote, “Companies big enough to register on the audit scale are themselves equipped to manage their licenses and they all maintain cordial relations with Microsoft’s sales organization. After all, these corporations are Microsoft’s best customers and can drive whatever bargain seems reasonable on a contractual basis.”

    Nonsense. There was plenty of evidence filed in US DOJ v M$ to verify that M$ dictated terms to the largest corporations on the planet and when governments began to migrate to FLOSS, M$ tried to hold whole countries hostage. At one point they did use threats of audits against schools spiking the uptake of LTSP. They used such threats to help salesmen get a foot in the door they were loved so much… M$ was charging $ per PC, even the ones that ran MacOS.

  21. Clarence Moon says:

    I think that if you look fairly intently at the facts, you will see that there is very little litigation by Microsoft on these issues. Companies that are discovered to be in gross violation of licensing are actually guilt of that and they know that is the case and they capitulate to cut their total losses. Individuals are never sued. Hardship cases are not pursued due to the inevitable bad publicity involved.

    Companies big enough to register on the audit scale are themselves equipped to manage their licenses and they all maintain cordial relations with Microsoft’s sales organization. After all, these corporations are Microsoft’s best customers and can drive whatever bargain seems reasonable on a contractual basis. I have worked for several companies that have had massive licensing agreements with Microsoft and I have never heard of any such audit.

    The only things I have ever heard about are the stories about some company who violated the licensing and was turned in by some irritated employee to the BSA who used the information to get warrants for discovery.

  22. oldman says:

    “M$ is a financial liability.”

    Nope. the incompetence of those who either didn’t keep proper records or who accepted donated goods without making sure that properly licensed software came along is the real liability.

  23. There is never a “win” against M$ in court. Legal costs of licensing or defending an audit or the audit itself are all expenses over and above the cost of a licence from M$. M$ is a financial liability.

  24. oiaohm says:

    Remember Clarence Moon that Robert Pogson is in a different legal section to me. I am in Australia he is in Canada. So our cases don’t 100 percent line up what we have to present in court. I get away with presenting COA items alone. I have stated that this does not apply everywhere.

    This is why its critical to visit a lawyer local to your area that specialises in these cases. You have not stated your country yet Clarence Moon. So I can look up what your areas requirements are and give more regional particular information to you. Also without it I cannot be 100 percent sure if you are talking as far out your ass as I suspect you are.

    Many things you have stated are talking out your ass and you would have been told if you have visits a specialist in the field. Like the idea financial records alone will solve it. This is talking out your ass. Specially prepared financial records may solve it in some regions. Note the word Specially general will not. Like making sure you were provided with serial numbers of the machines in each order and checking that the machines you got match perfectly. Overhead you better down right do if you are in an area that financial records cover you.

    Yes even in regions that financial records can solve the missing COA case you do have to do extra things to make sure you have everything you need in the financial records so you are not toast.

  25. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon sorry of you go to court you lose even if you win. Reason you will have you volume license revoked. Microsoft does not have to grant you it.

    “Rather, it is the old fashioned way of financial documentation and sworn testimony by witnesses. Then the judge and jury decide based on the law. COAs do not figure into this other than perhaps as an exhibit to show the jury.”

    The COA is evidence to show the jury that your staff are telling the truth. Financial documentation may or may not exist as Robert Pogson noted. Donated machines you may not have the Financial Documentation for.

    Did the financial information clearly provide evidence that its talking about the machines that the missing COA’s were on. Lot of OEM invoice don’t clearly prove past question that the machine you have with the missing COA was the very one on the invoice. So no proof of license in that case from the financial documentation.

    Like a invoice saying you aquired 30xMachines of the following configuration with Windows. With no serial numbers or other linking information is worthless in court. That could be your only financial record of the machine with missing COA. With no way to prove that the machine is from that.

    So serous-ally the COA might be the only evidence you have that the machine has a license. So COA damaged or lost can be very serous. Since you will have no evidence at all to protect tail.

    Even the OEM might not have records of the machine serial.

    So basically you would have to call the OEM into court and hope they have the information if you don’t have the COA. That they may not.

    Cannot present the evidence Microsoft will win in court.

    Here in Australia machine has it COA Present photo of that in court and independent witness stating it is genuine by all required inspections. No financial documentation required. Yes the 95 COA also count for more than the number of machines missing COA is also instant win for Volume license upgrade cases where the machine is missing COA. Case over and won for your company quickly and painlessly. They will not bring a case because they will not even get to jury trial it will be thrown out.

    Yes waving COA’s does apply in Australia its instant win to a lot of issues.

    Going financial documents is only maybe win here. You must know if the financial documents are complete enough that you can win with them.

    Now if you are in a country where you have to present the financial documentation it can turn horrid.

    Clarence Moon you are presuming you will be able to prove you paid for it. That it may turn out you don’t have the evidence.

    Also remember the volume license upgrade of windows does state the COA for the prior OS must exist before you install it. So no COA breach of license for volume license users. Also to reinstall Windows the EULA states the requirement of COA.

    So volume upgrade license side MS has you over the barrel with missing COA’s they claim that at the time you installed the COA was most likely missing since there is no evidence of it presence by glue residue or other means at that time. Yes Forensics bent.

    Simple point you twit Clarence Moon. My advice to sit down with a lawyer specialising in this is critical. There are many traps that will get you fried where you don’t have the documentation to protect you ass. You must sit down with them and learn how to tell what documentation covers you and what leaves you exposed. Sometimes its knowing to contact OEM for extra purchase documentation straight up so your documentation is in order. Like a list of all the serial numbers of the machines. Some OEM if asked can provided you with a list of serial numbers with matching product keys in the order. Down the track the OEM may no longer have any records of this. Yes once the machine goes out of warranty lot of OEMs delete records. So a person like you Clarence Moon would be fried.

    I have sat down with a lawyer and been through all the requirements I must have for Australian law. Of course you have not stated country your are talking about Clarence moon. So what you are saying might be true for your area due to your local laws. But not true to mine.

  26. Kozmcrae says:

    “In either case, being able to show that you paid for it does not consist of waving COAs, as has been noted in Mr. Pogson’s cites.”

    They really need to check with you first Clarence. You know how to save schools and other organizations a ton of money on COAs.

  27. Clarence Moon says:

    Mr. Oiaohm, you are full of crap as usual. You invent things in your mind and seem to spend hours embellishing them with your clumsy style. But it is all for naught.

    If someone is violating a copyright, they may be sued by the copyright holder or else they may be prosecuted by some government agency that sees a felony being committed. The latter is rare, but occasionally it happens.

    In either case, being able to show that you paid for it does not consist of waving COAs, as has been noted in Mr. Pogson’s cites. Rather, it is the old fashioned way of financial documentation and sworn testimony by witnesses. Then the judge and jury decide based on the law. COAs do not figure into this other than perhaps as an exhibit to show the jury.

    Everything that you seem to say is bogus, Mr. Oiaohm.

  28. I do not fear the BSA. I don’t run non-Free software from M$ or Adobe etc. I was trying to help my employer understand copyright law as applied by the EULA. The BSA doesn’t actually operate in Canada. They have another organization at work with a similar plan.

  29. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon you have two parties here who have been on the receiving end. Of the BSA.

    “It could happen that a school was using pirated software, as noted a couple of times, but it never had a COA in the first place, so that sort of anecdote does not qualify.”

    How does the school prove that the machine did have a COA and its been lost or stolen. Issue is they cannot. Clarence Moon.

    Damaged past readable schools may get away with it if they have volume license installed. If it has its original software on it for some reason it will be disputed that its illegal install.

    That is the problem lost or stolen the volume license doubles the problem.

    Clarence Moon MS gives schools software cheap. But they do expect absolute conformance to License in return.

    Clarence Moon most of those schools would have seen the wrath of the BSA. North American got heavily audited by the BSA.

    Firms exist to attempt to prevent the BSA taking companies and schools to the cleaners.
    http://www.bsaaudit.com/resources-news.asp
    –Mr. Scott says, “In our experience of handling more than 200 BSA software audits, we have not found clients intentionally purchasing 10% to 100% fewer licenses than needed. Rather, we believe that the complexity of software license agreements, lack of resources to establish costly compliance initiatives, and the BSA’s $1 Million Reward Program may be strong contributors to most unintentional non-compliance.” —

    Speak to these firms and you will find out very quickly everything I am saying is reality. Clarence Moon. They are not reporting a huge number of people who internally pirate. What they report repeated is people who lose there proof of purchase requirements being held over a barrel and made pay up and give public statements that they copyright infringing to keep there volume licenses.

    Yes most is most unintentional non-compliance this is items like lost and damaged COA stickers then not being able to prove the machine is licensed.

    Your story that is people who were pirate who are being hit by BSA is not the reality. For BSA to knock on your door you have to have agree to a MS volume license or other equal license by other software makers to acquire software. Clarence Moon. Buying retail boxed sets will not place you in the cannon path of the BSA.

    So all the parties who BSA hits are attempt to be legal. I guess you were not aware of this fact the the BSA does not audit everyone.

    http://www.scottandscottllp.com is one of the firms in Robert Pogson area who attempt to dig schools and other companies out the hell of what the BSA does. Yes the hell is bad enough that decanted companies can make profit helping people get out of multi million dollar payments BSA will at times attempt to get. Lots of times after proper investigation without proper cause.

    So are you going to argue with the companies that dig places like schools out as far as they can from a BSA search.

    Clarence Moon
    “rather a practical situation that is cured simply by preserving the key information in a safe place. And you can get it replaced if you work hard enough.”
    LOL. See you have never tested this path.

    The replacement has to come for OEM software COA from the OEM you got it from. Companies like HP and Dell wash there hands of the machine when its out of warranty. So replacement may not be an option once the machine is out of warranty. Preserve the key information and you still may not be able to get replacement. In fact more often than not you will not be able to order replacement of OEM COA’s. If OEM is out of business you cannot get replacement either.

    Microsoft does not under any condition provide end user with direct replacements to lost COA stickers on OEM products. Only OEM’s can order those replacements.

    Sorry Clarence Moon your idea here does not work at all. How companies get themselves into be trouble when BSA audited. We have a list of numbers we will just order replacements when the BSA comes. Sorry too late.

    Did you not notice robert agreement with me that a list will not hold up in a BSA audit. You did not check the replacement process.

    Poor end companies are being taken to the cleaners without valid cause. Mostly because the COA MS provide is poor quality and has stupid requirements to be placed where they can be damaged.

    Really what MS is doing is like if your car rego/pink slip had to be stuck on the outside of car and anyone walking past could nick it and if you are lacking it you are in trouble. Australian Fair Trading does not call this valid either.

    Microsoft really needs to alter its COA rules so non gulity parties don’t get stung in copyright infringement hunts.

    Really I have no issue with MS protecting against people who truly doing copyright infringement. I have just a very big issue with the number of people who are getting burnt who are not doing copyright infringement other than the fact they have lost the proof of ownership due to actions outside there control.

    Yes MS due to poor COA’s is having people pay for the same product many times over.

    I try to counsel people who to avoid getting burnt Clarence Moon. It is not helped when I have people like you stating untested solutions to the problem. Because people follow what people like you say Clarence Moon and get burnt badly when they don’t work.

    People who follow my instructions over this don’t get burnt. Keep you paperwork in order for you countries requirement. Go to a legal firm that specialises in BSA counter cases. Sit down with them have them list everything you need by your countries law including the loop holes that stop BSA dead. Like 95 and 2000 on book COA’s and retail box sets. Then make sure you have it. Its 3 hours well spent.

    Yes buying some retail can be small shield against COA errors in some countries if you are running volume licenses. So you have 10 of those not installed so as long as when BSA comes you don’t have more than 10 defects on machines running volume licenses they have to walk away in some countries.

    Basically the cure is not the list Clarence Moon. The cure is like my 200+ 95 so that errors are cushioned so you have time to deal with them. Its knowing what in your country can be and is the cushion against COA errors.

    I know how to deal with the BSA and not be hurt by them. They find stuff I have time to fix. I find stuff I also have time to fix. Companies running with the buffer don’t have time to fix they are in trouble straight up.

    Its like all disaster management how good you prep is defines how badly the BSA hurts you. Problem is most companies have not done the prep so when BSA turns up they get really badly burnt the first time. Not because they are intentionally doing anything wrong. They don’t have buffers like I do against defects in the system.

    Of course the buffer costs money to store and maintain it. Self auditing to make sure you replace damaged costs money. All extra costs on top of the price of running MS products.

    Running redhat I do have to run audits. But I don’t have the issue of COA sticker. I have license letter that is the COA. They tell my how many active running copies I am allowed. Oracle is the same. MS the only company I know that COA is not a letter to go in the filing cabinet or a item forever stuck to the packaging of the software.

    Basically I don’t have a issue with all COA’s. Just the way MS does theirs due to the people being hurt by it.

  30. Kozmcrae says:

    We can now send anyone who is concerned about licensing products from Microsoft to Clarence. He will tell them whether to be concerned about it or not. You can make a lot of money with a service like that Clarence. A lot of money.

  31. Clarence Moon says:

    Indian as in “North American indigenous tribes”, Mr. Doughman. Those were the schools where Mr. Pogson feared the wrath of the BSA, I think.

  32. dougman says:

    The link is dead, and the article is old. The NYT is a dying newspaper anyways and why should poor Indian students concern themselves with Windows? The majority of the one’s I know use Linux and laugh at Windows users stupidity.

    On another note, I did find this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E4DF1130F932A35751C1A9679D8B63&ref=linuxcomputeroperatingsystem

    Whereby, the entire issue of licensing, activation and anti-features is unwarranted.

  33. Clarence Moon says:

    You fellows are beating a dead horse. No one has any reference to any incident wherein an individual or school was denied legal use of their legitimately purchased software due to a lost or damaged COA. It could happen that a school was using pirated software, as noted a couple of times, but it never had a COA in the first place, so that sort of anecdote does not qualify. Similarly, having lost the COA information and subsequently losing the installation is not a legal situation, but rather a practical situation that is cured simply by preserving the key information in a safe place. And you can get it replaced if you work hard enough.

    Lacking any citation as proof, Mr. Oiaohm can suddenly testify to being arbitrarily audited himself. How convenient!

    Microsoft has long-standing programs to alleviate the costs of using Windows in situations where students are unable to pay for what they need.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19iht-msft.4.5359631.html

    It is not likely that Microsoft would support the notion of the BSA “bullying” poor Indian students regardless of how convenient or inconvenient their location.

  34. oiaohm wrote, “BSA for MS COA list of numbers in safe don’t count in a audit. Also don’t count in court.”

    Correct. I only recorded the numbers so that I could keep our OEM-licensed units “authenticated”, otherwise the vessel would sink. It was a relief when we switched to GNU/Linux and I could ignore all that garbage. It lightened my workload considerably. I don’t think I recorded the data for the last 20 new arrivals. Our chief protection against BSA bullies was that it would have cost a lot to fly in to a remote northern community and we simply could not pay the usual penalties. I looked for proof of licensing and found none. The shipments from Computers for Schools did have paper which I filed for future reference but those papers merely were a paper trail back to CFS. I have only their word that there was a licence. I never saw it. It was a far better strategy to pave over that other OS than take the legal risk and I told my employer that. I have no idea whether they really understood the liability that using M$’s OS entails.

  35. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “Recording the numbers and preserving them in safe place is the simple prudence needed to overcome the greatest danger in having a lost or defaced COA.”

    BSA for MS COA list of numbers in safe don’t count in a audit. Also don’t count in court.

    The sticker/form with holographic stuff and all must exist. Other wise they are a recorded list and the missing ones are machines you have disposed of or never had and used a keygen or aquired from the internet. Basically the list falls flat on face in Audit. Yes they will accuse you of salting the list. Where you have a stack of above board with a stack of illegally aquired mixed with each other to attempt to hide the fact.

    The list enabled you to correctly order replacements for damaged. Does not get you out from having todo that and the cost for replacing them.

    “The issue of audits, though, is not germane to the discussion as to the legal necessity of having a COA on the computer in use.”
    Audits are the legal necessity if they walk in the door and find a machine that you cannot find the COA for your are screwed. So in business you cannot afford to be running like this.

    How much notice do they have to give you of a Audit. Zero. You agreed to that in volume licensing. As long as they do not disrupt operations doing the Audit they can come when every they fell like it. Do they lose this right when you stop paying your volume license. Nop it a forever right that MS can audit.

    Clarence Moon
    “Audits seem to arise due to some employee of a company getting even for being fired or passed over for promotion or some such reason.”
    I had the luck of being pulled at random from being next door(inside 50 kms by Australian auditors standards ) to another business they had a report from so they audited where I was at the time while they were in the area. Percentage of the audits are just pulled out at random just because you happen to be near another party getting audited. Large number are people reporting. But equally large are the poor suckers like me who just happened to be near someone who was reported. Because we did not report them. We did not know that they had 4 out of 20 machines non legal yes we were 50 km’s away from them. How in heck were we to know. Yes that triggered the audit on us.

    This here is the License the OEM software provider has to obey unless they have something about there country that overrides it. Yes a few sections of this are override by Australian Fair Trading if you are in the USA all of this applies.
    http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/2008_SB_Licenses/FY08_SB_License_English.pdf
    –6 You must distribute the complete unit of Software, including the COA.
    Certificate of Authenticity (COA) Label. If this Pack contains a Microsoft operating system and you pre-install it, then you must affix the COA on the front, top, side or back of the Customer System case. If the Customer System is a laptop or tablet PC, the COA must be affixed to the bottom of the Customer System. If a portable Customer System includes a vanity case or “skin” that can be removed and easily replaced with another case or skin by the end user in the normal course of use, then you may affix the COA directly on the bottom of the Customer System under the vanity case or “skin.” In that case, you must print “Microsoft COA and Product Key are located under this removable covering” on the outside of each vanity case or “skin” distributed with the Customer System. You may replace “removable covering” with a more specific word or term that clearly references the vanity case or “skin.”–

    So OEM is forced to stick MS COA on by MS OEM licensing rules in places like the USA.

    Note only portable systems are allowed to have a material covering the COA. The covering cannot be locked. Yep no brat protection. Even if the covering is clear. Yes technically sticking clear tape on top is not even permitted since you provided it under a covering.

    Strictest rule you are stuffed basically. Volume license agreement you also agree to have COA’s on the computers.

    Notice Windows 7 EULA does not give you the right to change how you received the COA. So if OEM has stuck it on you are stuck with only an option to order a replacement COA and pay for it to get one in filing cabinet away from brats.

    This is your problem you have no legal right to remove or change it.

    Try fitting this on a mobile phone case
    “Microsoft COA and Product Key are located under this removable covering”
    MS cannot work out for some reason why Windows Phone 7 is not popular with hardware makers???? Stupid request like this that ruin the look of the phone why would they.

    Now if you wish to avoid the glued on in all countries. You only have one option a retail boxed set full version of Windows that is more expensive. And you have to fully install yourself in most cases.

    To install the upgrade of a volume license you must have “genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity label for the software you upgraded from”. Not just the numbers or a sticker that might look like a genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity that is too badly damaged to confirm.

    COA are deadly critical when running volume licenses. You cannot image or install volume licenses without them. Scary enough is that missing COA is a double case of piracy on the machine if you have installed a volume copy of windows.

    1 for the OS that you should have upgraded from. 1 for the installation of the volume copy.

    Clarence Moon
    “Even then, using licensed software only requires meeting the terms of the license, which means having paid the license fees and continued compliance with the terms of use. COAs are not required in the terms of use and merely serve as a consumer confidence item.”
    Now you F wit give me one link from MS that says this. There is nothing about COA that is consumer confidences. COA were first introduced on covers of books so MS could locate counterfeit copies. This is why the true COA must exist to be valid. Yes MS used them in MS Press before they used them on software.

    Remember audit is what us in business have to worry about. You might get away with missing COA at home but forget that in a business setting.

    Nothing you are saying Clarence Moon legally works.

  36. Clarence Moon says:

    Well, that is an enlightened enough view of the issue, Mr. Pogson. Recording the numbers and preserving them in safe place is the simple prudence needed to overcome the greatest danger in having a lost or defaced COA. I have a number of keys that I have gotten via email from paying for software that was originally downloaded and available for trial before buy. If I ever want to re-install it, I need to preserve the key data. COAs are no different conceptually there and hardly rise to a condition of “enslavement”.

    The issue of audits, though, is not germane to the discussion as to the legal necessity of having a COA on the computer in use. Audits seem to arise due to some employee of a company getting even for being fired or passed over for promotion or some such reason. Audits are the only way for software companies to enforce compliance with copyright laws and, odious as they are presented to be, they only reveal what may exist in the way of license fraud.

    If the penalties are steep for piracy, then it behooves a company to be diligent in managing their licenses. The cost of doing that is certainly an offsetting factor when calculating the total cost of ownership of commercial software, but it is a minor cost overall and a very minor cost considering the cost of not doing so and having piracy discovered on one’s business premises.

    Even then, using licensed software only requires meeting the terms of the license, which means having paid the license fees and continued compliance with the terms of use. COAs are not required in the terms of use and merely serve as a consumer confidence item.

  37. dougman says:

    I would not bother with Clarence Moon, obviously he just wants to argue without any sort of reason, and these are NOT straw-man arguments.

    The COA for Windows can be thought of a tax stamp, without it you are you not legit. There would be no need for any citation of any news story, as your are still using software illegally, so the point is moot. People can argue all they want over EULA and policies, but in the end, you as the licensee, do NOT own the software.

    THAT in itself, IS, THE, competitive advantage that Linux distributions offers to it’s users.

    Section 15a of the Windows 7 EULA states, ” Genuine Proof of License. If you acquired the software on a computer, or on a disc or other media, a genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity label with a genuine copy of the software identifies licensed software. To be valid, this label must be affixed to the computer or appear on
    the manufacturer’s or installer’s packaging. If you receive the label separately, it is invalid. You should keep label on the computer or the packaging that has the label on it to prove that you are
    licensed to use the software. If the computer comes with more than one genuine Certificate of Authenticity label, you may use each version of the software identified on those labels.”

    Section 16 speaks of transfer to third party, whereby, the transfer must contain both the software and COA.

    Here are some other cites:

    From Microsoft’s website: http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/ “Always look for a Certificate of Authenticity (COA). A COA is a label that helps you identify genuine Microsoft software. A COA is not a software license – it is a visual identifier that assists in determining whether or not the Microsoft software you are running is genuine. However, without it, you will not have a legal license to run Microsoft software.”

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979803.aspx “Although there are many ways to identify genuine Microsoft software packaging, two of the best are a Certificate of Authenticity (COA) and a sophisticated holographic design on the CD or DVD media. A COA is a label that is on the retail product package or included in the materials that come with a computer purchase (for preloaded software). A COA helps customers visually identify whether or not the software they purchased is genuine. A COA is not itself a license—but without it, a customer does not have a legal license to run that copy of the Microsoft software. A COA should never be purchased without the software that it authenticates. Genuine Microsoft software CDs or DVDs (including volume media DVDs) come on holographic discs with multiple defining characteristics that are intentionally hard to duplicate. For example, a genuine hologram image changes as the disc is tilted.”

    http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/howtotell/Hardware.aspx#PCPurchase: “The COA is a sticker or a label that is often attached to the body of a computer for products such as Windows, Office, or Windows Server. When buying a PC with Windows preinstalled, the COA usually contains the 25-character product key that is required to activate Windows. You can typically find the COA sticker on the body of the computer or, for some newer laptops, inside the battery compartment.
    A COA should always accompany the product with which it is associated. COAs and/or product keys cannot be purchased separately from the product.

    COA features the product name printed on the label and typically contains 3D Voilesâ„¢ and security threads. 3D Voiles are circular shaped areas where the COA varies in thickness and where an interwoven thread appears at the surface. Some older products contain Port-Holesâ„¢ and security threads (Port-Holes are small holes in the COA itself with uneven edges).

    If you don’t see a COA, it’s likely that Windows isn’t properly licensed on that PC and may even be counterfeit software.”

    http://domainsolutions.co.za/saas_invite/A%20summary%20of%20Microsoft%20Licensing%20Options.pdf

    “So what does it mean to be licence compliant?

    To be Microsoft license compliant certain criteria needs to be met on all products. The main products to be covered in this document are operating systems, server systems and application products.

    In general the following criteria must to be met for the computer to be license compliant.

    That is the following are required per computer:

    Operating Systems.

    1. A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) must be attached to the outside of the computer; and

    2. The original gold coloured Microsoft installation CD (or manufacturers recovery disk); and

    3. All manuals and packaging; and

    4. An invoice showing proof of purchase.

    Server systems.

    1. A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) must be attached to the outside of the server; and

    2. The original gold coloured Microsoft installation CD (or manufacturers recovery disk); and

    3. All manuals and packaging; and

    4. An invoice showing proof of purchase.

    Application systems.

    1. A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) must be attached to the outside of the CD COVER; and

    2. The original gold coloured Microsoft installation CD; and
    3. All manuals and packaging; and

    4. An invoice showing proof of purchase.

    IF ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION (INVOICES ARE SOMETIMES OVERLOOKED) THEN THAT PARTICULAR PC IS NOT LICENCE COMPLIANT.”

  38. Clarence Moon wrote, “Still no citation of any news story to support your mistaken notion, Mr. Oiaohm? There never will be any since it has never happened. In any event, it is a straw man sort of argument on your part to suggest that Linux has any competitive advantage due to not having COA stickers used. That’s what makes the difference at the end of the day.”

    The COA issue is another example of M$ enslaving people. Extra work has to be done to preserve COA data in order to keep the system running. I did it last year. I placed all the codes in a database in case stickers were damaged. Many were. Technically, it was illegal to run without proper stickers. That’s a burden for any user of that other OS.

    e.g. Even having the “COA” is not sufficient proof of licensing for the BSA, M$’s bullies:
    “In BSA audits, companies often mistakenly believe that production of a Microsoft “Certificate of Authenticity,” activation key or packaging and installation disc constitutes sufficient license proof. However, the BSA almost never recognizes license credit for those kinds of materials. Product keys may be a result of cracked codes or multiple installations, and Certificates of Authenticity are not dated and therefore may be purchased after the effective date of the audit demanded by the BSA.” see http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/Microsoft_Certificates_of_Authenticity.aspx

    Without proof of licensing it is madness to run the software or even to have a copy.

    There are untold numbers of terrifying incidents of BSA audits. How many of them are based on missing COAs? Businesses are being charged penalties of $thousands per discrepancy. Many cases involve fewer than 10% of machines in the organizations. So the cost of complying or not complying with M$’s EULA is $hundreds per machine. That’s reason alone to use FLOSS exclusively. Fewer headaches and lower costs.

  39. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon the cites backing up all the legal state is there. Just because you don’t read them. You wanting a direct site of a person pulled up on a missing or damaged sticker. Simple fact that will not exist because that is not how its reported to the media. The internal details of the infringement cases are never released to the public. But I can tell you that missing COA is audit breach. I have listed why.

    Yours is straw man argument you have not presented one MS document saying that COA does not have to exist.

    I have presented many saying COA must exist.

    Really find one MS document backing your case that a COA sticker can be missing. Every MS reference will tell you repeatedly COA must exist. Don’t exist you cannot use the software any-more unless you have contacted MS and reported the loss and got permission to keep on using. MS does charge a fee for this.

    The idea of a news story is not required other than proof auditors exist. I have given you the rules auditors work to by MS documents.

    Simple point Clarence Moon I have had to deal first hand with MS auditors. I know what they are looking for and exactly how you will be burnt. Have you ever been audited?

    The rules are the rules Clarence Moon.

    Everything you have stated is made up garbage basically Clarence Moon. The refurbishment document clearly states you cannot reinstall without the COA.

    You cannot re-image without the COA. You cannot do squat other than run the machine without the COA. You cannot even restore from backup image without the COA. Unless you have contacted MS and got an exception that you will want in writing.

    Like those few laptops that don’t need COA stickers on them. Due to the fact the COA stickers fall off due to heat have an exception document voiding them from requiring a COA. If you get audited you will want to show the auditor that and say leave those machines alone they are legal known fault.

    Basically a machine without a COA with windows installed is illegal unless you have documentation of exception or the COA that owns that machine in storage. Damaged is also meant to have exception paperwork at a min. Again none of this paperwork is free. When you get the exception paperwork for damaged COA you get replacement COA sticker. Of course todo that you need the PID and product key.

    Of course the OEM you got the machine from has to agree todo the COA replacement process. They are under no obligation to assist at all.

    This is why when it comes to refurbishment you end up looking down the barrel of having to order a new windows license that is worth more than the machine.

    Yes the refurbishment guide is very clear. No way to recover lost COA’s that is simple or cheap.

    This is the problem Clarence Moon I guess you have never worked in a work place using volume licenses with the requirement to be ready to be audited at any time by Microsoft.

    After you get audited you will sing a different tune Clarence Moon. To get a decent settlement price with MS you must sign NDA not to tell press about exactly what you had that was infringing.

    Yes Clarence Moon you are asking for something that you will never hear because its locked away from public by NDA settlement.

  40. Clarence Moon says:

    Still no citation of any news story to support your mistaken notion, Mr. Oiaohm? There never will be any since it has never happened. In any event, it is a straw man sort of argument on your part to suggest that Linux has any competitive advantage due to not having COA stickers used. That’s what makes the difference at the end of the day.

    Microsoft sells a product in a mass market and you folk hope and pray for a better tomorrow, thinking you are somehow in competition.

  41. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon This is my last post on the matter of COA. For the simple reason if you wish to run illegal that is your selection. Time will catch up with you.

  42. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon ok this is the problem.

    You don’t understand the difference between a product key sticker and a COA sticker. They are two completely different stickers and Items. Yes they both do hold a 25 digit number with a product key most of the time. Yes MS being downright confusing.

    Basically look at the picture is a yellow sticker. This is a volume license product key. How to replace a volume license product key is the instructions you found. Not how to replace a COA.

    They do tell you a clue for OEM’s
    “How to obtain a replacement product key
    If the software came preinstalled on your computer, please contact the manufacturer of your computer to obtain a replacement product key.”

    Also another nasty little fact. Damaged MS Office 2010 stickers in boxes can only be replaced in “North America” and “UK”. Damage the that product key in Australia replacement is not an option. Same with many other countries. Yes that comes with a fee changed if you are in either of those two countries. They do say a fee might be charged its will be charged.

    I did ask what country you were in for a reason Clarence Moon. It does change what the hell is possible.

    Clarence Moon
    “Perhaps the sticker or the computer itself were stolen, then the license is likely to be invalid due to faulty conveyance.”
    In fact no. Australian law stolen does not make the sticker invalid as proof of valid rights for the software to be there. Failure to activate because its marked stolen does not make the sticker invalid once returned to rightful owner either. Basically you cannot charge a person with software piracy on top of stealing a computer if it still has the same COA based software on it and they had reinstalled it in the time.

    Again what country are you Clarence Moon. Seams strange because if what you are describing is fact someone steals a laptop they can be change with software piracy. I don’t want to visit a country like that. That could make a case of laptop mix up quite a hazard.

    “Second, a license is given by the license itself”
    That states the requirement of the COA presence.

    The particular even is the volume license requirement. “Upgrade Licenses” You are deploying a image of a volume license of Windows that activates against KMS servers. Requirement at time machine is image is for the COA sticker to exist of the prior MS OS for that machine and you to know where it is at the time of image. Missing COA sticker or damaged past identification you should not have a volume license copy on it.

    To reinstall you also are absolutely required to find the COA for XP and up.

    Lost you have lost proof that it valid as well.

    You are disobeying the license requirements for OEM and volume copies for the machine not to have a COA. Unless you have special permission from Microsoft like in the case of the laptops where the stickers are known to come off due to glue failure.

    Clarence Moon
    “Rather the problem was due to school administrators participating, knowingly according to your citation, in the copyright violations.”
    That is the way its always written up by Microsoft no matter what the issue was. Anyone who has been audited know this. Part of being volume license you are meant to undertake licensing training.

    http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/C/1/FC19022C-24A5-43A2-AA3C-F0F6F9F29C68/Microsoft%20Refurbished%20PC%20Licensing%20Guidelines.pdf

    Get this and read. Australia removes one requirement that the harddrive image/original disks must be intact.

    –Q: I have a used PC without a Windows COA. Can I install Windows on the PC?
    A: Yes, but because the PC does not have proof that Windows was originally installed on it, you must purchase a full version (not upgrade version) of the Windows operating system Windows through a retail channel.–
    No COA no reinstall unless you have another way of poof that the software should be there and there will be a fee to get a replacement.

    Lost COA are a major costly problems. Damaged COAs you do have the option of like the a refurbished PC COA or the Replacement COA to stick next to it. They are cheaper. But not free and only valid while the damaged COA remains connected to the case. Reason why the failing glue is such a pain.

    The information is all over the MS site in different locations point out over and over again lose the COA lose License.

    Basically Lose COA bill, Damage COA bill.

    What I can say Clarence Moon is that you are not a tech who as worked with volume licensing or computer recycling at least. Otherwise you would understand the importance of the COA.

  43. Clarence Moon says:

    Obviously your carelessness with language has evolved to being unable to understand the meaning of common words or to follow simple logic. I will note just a few things that you have taken incorrectly.

    First, the issue was loss of use due to damaged COA stickers. No amount of proof that institutions are occasionally audited and found to have not purchased the software that they are using goes to show that the problem was due to students defacing COA stickers. Rather the problem was due to school administrators participating, knowingly according to your citation, in the copyright violations.

    Second, a license is given by the license itself, not the sticker on the bottom of the computer. The license is valid when the terms are met, which is using the program the way that it was specified and paying the license fee, if applicable. The sticker is simply a device for proving the latter, but it is not a necessary and sufficient condition overall. Perhaps the sticker or the computer itself were stolen, then the license is likely to be invalid due to faulty conveyance.

    Lastly, the problem that may occur in the rare instance of where a sticker were lost and the original software materials were subsequently damaged and needed replacement is not an everyday occurrence anywhere. Even then, simply losing the sticker information does not invalidate the license, it simply makes it more difficult to obtain replacement media. As long as the computer continues to operate, there is no downside to losing the sticker.

    That might make it harder to sell the computer to someone, but not much of that goes on either.

    As to where to go to get a replacement, you might look at the correct KB article, namely the one that deals with COAs instead of manuals:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811224/en-us

  44. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon school and large volume license locations have agreed to be audited. This is not raided. Audits are nicely timed for schools for school holiday’s when students are not there. So students will not be there when the system is audited.

    Not schools but this the most recent I know of.
    http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/audit_frights.aspx
    Basically if I dig far enough I will find cases of schools that have been audited.

    Just to give a idea how out of touch you are. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/03/10654 The audit mentioned here is 1996. Audits have been around since 1995 so over 15 years.

    The auditor is no fake bogeyman. There are three cases there. They really do come and knock on your door and point the the volume license right to audit and basically say let me in now.

    If you paperwork is not in order you will find you self in court like the Dependent of defence did here. Yes these auditors do have balls.

    Missing COA stickers are enough of your paperwork out of order for the auditors to start hammering you.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/326246/en-us

    If you read that most people are refereed to mentions COA but gives no instructions to replace it.

    Please provide the one you are basing the idea you can replace the COA. Most likely its the one for 2000 and before and does not apply to XP or latter.

    There is just as many good as bad stories. Some people lose the sticker off there laptop ring up Microsoft state what model laptop it is since all that model laptop shipped with Windows installed they will straight up provide you with a new key. This still has proof of purchase. Also the product key lots of those stickers don’t work if they are still there. Because due to heat removing those stickers MS deactivated activation of all those keys. So rendering those COA sticker worthless.

    Basically the printing is on top the glue is dud when exposed to heat. If you were wanting to design a proof of purchase that will fail with age MS has done a great job.

    Should I be happy with MS over this no way in hell. Its poor service there COA stickers.

    Then there are HP machines with a COA sticker that you find out does not even work. HP only provides new recovery disks for 3 years. Then MS and HP will not help you at all.

    Clarence Moon
    “Conveyance of license legally cannot reside in the COA sticker.”
    What country are you in. In Australia it can and does. Fair-trading over ruled the requirement to ship media with the COA to transfer license.

    Yes Conveyance of license in other countries can requires more parts including installation disks. I cannot answer on your particulars without country.

    Simple point Clarence Moon you are living outside reality.

  45. Kozmcrae says:

    “…never
    history of man
    nothing else
    Period
    never happened
    Never…”

    What is it that you are trying to say Clarence? Why don’t you just begin a string of absolutes with, “in my mind”. That would be closer to the truth.

  46. Clarence Moon says:

    It has never happened in the history of man that a school or individual has been raided and penalized for not having COAs due to some mishap in service, such as children destroying them in class.

    The COA is a consumer device to assure buyers that the goods are likely to be genuine, nothing else. Conveyance of license legally cannot reside in the COA sticker. Period. It may be accepted as proof of purchase, but you dispute that elsewhere yourself.

    Bottom line, though, it has never happened that anyone has been denied access to Windows or penalized for losing one. Never. That’s why no one can find a cite. It is a bogeyman to scare children, nothing more.

    If you did lose one and you did need it for some reason or another, you can get a new one if you go to the trouble to chase through the MS Knowledge Base articles referenced when you Google for “lost Windows COA sticker”.

  47. M$:“A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) is a label to help you and your customers identify genuine Microsoft Windows software. Without it, your customers will not have a legal license to run their Windows software.”

  48. Clarence Moon says:

    For the last time, Mr. Oiaohm, find a cite to support your position or admit that you are just fabricating hypothetical situations that you then present as fact. In less polite circumstances, that would be called a “lie”{, but you have one more chance to prove yourself.

  49. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “Find a single verifiable cite for anyone anywhere ever being legally barred from using their computer due to a damaged or missing COA, Mr. Oiaohm.”

    No COA and you get audited the machine is called a infringing copy until you can prove otherwise. Without the COA you cannot prove its not infringing unless you are lucky and the machine was made by some big OEM who embed the COA key in the BIOS or some small OEM who placed it on the paper work that could be linked to that machine. Other wise you are 100 percent up the creek with a illegally installed machine on your hands.

    Schools have had this happen when the BSA have audited. So Missing does not require a cite for the simple fact is how are you going to prove that what is installed on that machine should be without the COA Clarence Moon. How can you prove that is a genuine install. Having the installation media is not enough.

    What is the difference between a machine with a missing COA and a machine that has been installed using a stolen or over using COA key. Nothing you twit Clarence Moon. So people in this case have no legal leg to stand on.

    Simple point is for this the cite is here. In this very chat. http://mrpogson.com/2011/12/19/walmart-sells-linux-online/#comment-71248

    Yes once you have lost the COA you have to now “find proof of purchase” and be able to prove that the proof of purchase you found lines up to the machine with the missing COA. Not that simple really. Basically you are screwed at this point in a lot of cases.

    There are many more cites about it schools complaining they cannot prove purchase on machines that have lost the COA so having to pay again.

    Damaged is still a matter of proven you case. Again it being stuck over a barrel. Normally you will be force to pay out on them. Reason going to court and losing over the ones that are missing is going to hurt worse than settling for damaged + lost.

    Damaged to the point you cannot prove MS has more tricks up there sleeves too.

    Correct MS is not the only one that cares about piracy.

    MS is the only one that has had a requirement to stick a sticker on the machine with a number that rubs off then beats you up for it. They should be required to provided decently constructed proof of ownership. It would only be a few extra cents per sticker to put a layer of plastic on top of the printing to stop it from being rubbed off as simply. Even better allow the use of holders to protect the proof when connected to the computer.

    The rest on that list give you nice licensing paperwork that goes in your filing cabinet that can dig you out of hell.

    “convicts” is your swapping words. MS lawyers vs person who pirated. When they lose MS lawyer technically wins a conviction. So “MS has convicted” is a correct statement because they were prosecutor. Swapping for convicts is a wrong statement. Clarence Moon.

    Yes Australian law does not require DPP to be the prosecutor in criminal charges. Goes back to cases of police corruption. Where the DPP could not be asked to prosecute there own.

    I don’t know about other countries if MS would be allowed to be prosecutor.

  50. Clarence Moon says:

    Find a single verifiable cite for anyone anywhere ever being legally barred from using their computer due to a damaged or missing COA, Mr. Oiaohm.

    You tell an absurd tale, Mr. Oiaohm. It is a complete fabrication, I am sure, and the clumsy way that you go about embellishing it makes it obvious to everyone. The notion of your being an inner circle Microsoft VAR is laughable. You don’t have the qualifications based on the way you present yourself.

    Further, Microsoft “convicts” no one of anything, in the US or in Australia. Criminal justice systems might do that, but not Microsoft. Further, the vehicle that almost all major software companies use to pursue commercial pirates is the Business Software Alliance.

    http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx

    It is not just Microsoft that cares about piracy.

  51. oiaohm says:

    The existence is require by the EULA.
    “There is no need to maintain the integrity of the COA sticker to permit continued use, however.”

    Read the words of the EULA you moron Clarence Moon. Without Proof of license every allowance in the EULA is no more. The EULA is dependant on the COA.

    “You should keep label on the computer or the packaging that has the label on it to prove that you are licensed to use the software.”
    This is plan english in Windows 7 EULA’s. XP it still there just written in legal terms.

    What is your english that bad that you cannot obey instructions Clarence Moon. It is called a plain english contract. You should is a directive you can choose to break it where does it say you can lose.

    “licensed to use the software.” is what you lose if you don’t maintain the COA.

    You keep the COA so you keep you license. Lose the COA get inspected you will not have proof licensed so its just another pirate copy. That you aquired it legally does not matter. Copyright infringement is not done on innocent until proven guilty.

    Yes its guilty until proven innocent with these copyright cases over MS licensing. You better have the paperwork to prove that you are innocent.

    You are required to keep the COA at all times as your proof that you are licensed to use the software. No COA no acceptable proof that the software is installed is valid.

    Damaged to the point you cannot read the numbers on the COA you cannot prove COA and the install copy are the same. So even if the installed copy was done by that COA its still pirate. Yes to be evil MS prints the numbers on top of coating of plastic on the COA sticker instead of under the coating of plastic so the number can nicely rub off.

    Really come to reality.
    “That itself is far afield of the original absurdity that you were presenting, namely that COAs being defaced by students is in any way a loss of use, access, or money for school. It has never happened and it is not likely to ever happen. Imagine the publicity that would surround some effort by Microsoft to raid the premises of some remote Indian school and take away all their computers due to abrasions on a COA.”
    BSA in the USA does this all the time. No out cry.

    Basically they might not do it in a poor country. They might give the poor country donation of software to make them legal. In a rich country they will take your hide off for it. They will play that the machines are running counterfeit software. You will normally lose in the media. Such and Such school caught running pirate software. More often that not its destroyed COA by kids. So schools have to do the job of going around every so often and inspecting that the COA are ok and order replacements for the ones damaged.

    Windows 7 and Vista allows them to have them in a filing cabinet at long last away from the brats. Reorder replacement you place it in filing cabinet where brats cannot destroy it again. So saving on costs and some schools are asking for the stickers to never be attached to the machine instead a makers serial number be placed on the software packaging with the sticker.

    And of course that filing cabinet takes up space. Lose a record is also piracy that you will have to pay for as well.

    This happens this is reality stop living in a dream world. COA is critical.

    Clarence Moon
    “other information that can be used to identify the user”
    This is is correct. They cannot id the user who pirates they can only ID the machine.

    This is why a machine that has been dis-actived many times has worse effect faster by WGA tools. Like there is normally a 90 day delay before the system goes into auto rebooting after so much time. Machine that has been caught many times will inside 4 days go into auto rebooting.

    Clarence Moon WGA reduction in performance of machines still happen today yes exactly how stated how many times the machine has been caught is a factor. Just MS is not game to go as far as they did in china. But they are still every 6 months what the WGA tools does as revenge is getting worse. MS is basically seeing how far they can push it before people get upset.

    The idea that MS cannot reach out and touch you is wrong.

    From everything you are saying Clarence Moon you are a software pirate who basically has no idea what the license limitations really are. Who believes when they get to court they will be able to make up some sob story and get out of the charge.

    My COA sticker was damages so I used a key from on-line so I am fine right. Nop pay MS for a full boxed set copy + legal time.

    My computer was installed using the COA. Sorry the numbers are rubbed off. MS argument is the number is a known one from pirate sites. You have nothing on the sticker to prove that it yours. Pay MS for a full boxed set copy + legal time.

    That is exactly how it plays out.

    Once you cannot use COA to prove licensed you are stuffed. Yes minor damage but the numbers must be unharmed so you are legally safe.

    I get a letter every 3 months telling me who MS has convicted in my area. MS idea of keeping there supply lines on the straight and narrow.

  52. Clarence Moon says:

    I guess that English language comprehension is not your strong suit, Mr. Oiaohm, else you would see the fallacy in your position. The COA are used, as you quote points out, to ensure the person who is buying a Windows pre-install is getting a legitimate copy of Windows with the purchase. There is no need to maintain the integrity of the COA sticker to permit continued use, however.

    Your faulty comprehension seems to continue with your citation about the Chinese Windows problems with black screening after installing the WGA test application. That was a Vista issue in early 2008 and was the result of users voluntarily downloading the WGA test.

    http://www.itworld.com/windows/56610/microsoft-responds-chinese-user-outrage-over-piracy-tool

    “We absolutely guarantee that we will not in any way collect the user’s name, e-mail address, or any other information that can be used to identify the user,” Microsoft said. The company said that participation in the Windows Genuine Advantage program is voluntary, and that users’ computers will not be deactivated or otherwise affected.”

    In any case, the effort to highlight the piracy issue in China has been discontinued and no such problems are being reported today.

    That itself is far afield of the original absurdity that you were presenting, namely that COAs being defaced by students is in any way a loss of use, access, or money for school. It has never happened and it is not likely to ever happen. Imagine the publicity that would surround some effort by Microsoft to raid the premises of some remote Indian school and take away all their computers due to abrasions on a COA.

  53. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon really someone from anti-priracy should door knock you I expect they will make a killing for number of machines you will have running against license. Because you have failed to understand the limitations of the MS EULA’s.

    “For that matter, I cannot find any instance of an individual user ever being prosecuted or even denied continued use of a pirated copy of Windows.”
    China known pirated copies of windows were black screened of death.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333050,00.asp

    Also individuals have been hit who have been mixed up in p2p. Basically if the media companies cannot get people with anything else they look at software installed.

    Basically person who pirates the OS and is not mixed up in p2p might get away with it. Or might like in the case of china have a black screen of death when they are meant todo there tax returns.

    Yes the idea that MS has to catch up with you to punish you is wrong. Timing of there actions of revenge can harm you far more effectively. When you are running pirate copy of windows and its detected 1000’s of settings inside windows get changed. These include slowing down disk and network performance and making the machine reboot every so often to be really annoying. It is possible for MS to black list access to particular sites invisible to you as well.

    MS has the power to reach out and crush you just they have to work out how todo it in a way governments don’t get upset. You can be sure one day MS will work out away that is perfectly acceptable to your government. They are already blocking full functionality leaving part functionality and governments accept it. Yes it does send back a full hardware profile of the machine before it locks the bugger down.

    So they do know if pirate are back using another pirate copy of windows from another source on the same machine when they catch pirate again.

    I don’t have to worry about any of these issues. I run legal. I don’t even have to worry about being false positive detected as running pirate.

  54. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “There is nothing in the EULAs for Windows that require the presence of a COA to use a computer with Windows installed.”

    There is in volume licensing EULA. I guess you did not read all the EULA’s. Because its only a upgrade and it has to have proof of prior OS on the machine somewhere. Do you have a upgrade copy of windows there. Clarence Moon.

    Anyone who does ring up MS will find that up to Windows 2000 they would send out replacements for damaged or lost COA. XP and latter you have to buy replacement if you ring up. Even if it a 25 dollar education only COA. Yes Clarence Moon I have tried using those numbers. Even getting the Windows 2000 you had to have proof of purchase and confirmation by maker of machine.

    XP the rules on COA replacement become a lot more strict. As a system builder for microsoft you are forbin from sticking a standard OEM COA sticker on a old clean skin machine(replacements are tagged as such). You have to make the person buy a retail boxed set if they want you to stick it on. Does not matter if you built the machine or not. Australian law is good since everyone can buy OEM packs. So you sell them the OEM pack and have them stick the sticker on. So no legal fowl. USA not permitted for XP stuff.

    Yes as a system builder I can fill in the form to order replacement COA. But there is a big buts.

    The machine must be one I have built if it build by a different system builder I cannot replace the sticker. So if the system builder who build the machine have gone out of business COA replacement is now impossible. Yes schools do get this old machine damaged COA and no way to replace.

    I require the PID and the COA sticker number. Yes really helpful here you are ordering a new COA sticker and you need the COA number that is most likely the damaged bit. If someone has not run some of the bad reg cleaners that may be still in registry using third party tools. There is a reason why I normally type the COA number on the invoice. So person and I has a backup copy so I can order replacement stickers. Yes MS provides no tools to recover it from registry.

    I have to take liability if lost sticker does turn up. So unless you can bring me the ruined sticker it is very unlikely I will do replacement. Damaged past identification I am also unlikely. Because there is a chance that you have removed the sticker and placed it on another machine.

    Mr sheen on metal cases common sticker killer.

    Note the PID is generated on install. So if I have a COA sticker I have miss handled and never managed to install I have lost that copy of windows unless I send the damaged sticker back with disks books and everything else in the pack. Shipping is my expense of course. So yes ouch.

    Also Microsoft don’t send out replacement COA sticker for free. There is a 30 dollar handling charge from MS end without my time. So yes I could be billing half the cost of a new copy of Windows to replace the COA. Yes you hear ms saying to to the system builder they can replace the COA of course gloss over they bill the System builder for the replacement.

    Here is the final kicker I am under no legal requirement as a system builder to replace that COA you have lost or damaged. So I fully can tell you to go jump and be legal even if you are my customer. I am not required to keep record of what COA you have so I can replace it.

    Sorry Clarence Moon you have never done a replacement COA and it shows. The process is a pain in but and its not free and can turn out impossible. Basically don’t destroy you COA sticker basically. Destroy the disks if you like PID you can order new disks no matter what.

    Yes as system builders in the system-builder contract we are required to stick the sticker on the machine. Worst part on somewhere that can be sean without opening case. So we cannot place it on a internal panel protected from brats. We are not even allowed to have cases made with a clear window and place the sticker behind the window. Schools would love this. If it not stuck on the machine we are not meant to provide support either for illegally installed copies of Windows by system builder rules. So yes until your computer has a new COA we as system builder who built it cannot repair it from even the most minor issue legally.

    Of course time to replace is money.

    BSA equal in Australia is forced by fair trading to accept COA as proof of ownership. Due to the exact issues you described Robert Pogson. But it is required to be connected to the machine to be accepted as proof of ownership.

    Australia is better than the USA BSA what is a complete ass. You have to have the invoice showing that you got the machine with windows on in the USA. That the sticker was not moved from another machine. Yes complete ass.

    Basically you are google idiot Clarence Moon. I have done the COA replacement process many times I know what the pain in but it is.

    Here is a direct quote from Windows 7 OEM Professional EULA.
    “16. PROOF OF LICENSE.
    a. Genuine Proof of License. If you acquired the software on a computer, or on a disc or other
    media, a genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity label with a genuine copy of the software
    identifies licensed software. To be valid, this label must be affixed to the computer or appear on
    the manufacturer’s or installer’s packaging. If you receive the label separately, it is invalid. You
    should keep label on the computer or the packaging that has the label on it to prove that you are
    licensed to use the software. If the computer comes with more than one genuine Certificate of
    Authenticity label, you may use each version of the software identified on those labels.
    b. Windows Anytime Upgrade License. If you upgrade the software using Windows Anytime
    Upgrade, your proof of license is identified by
    ·
    the genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity label for the software you upgraded from,
    and
    ·
    the genuine Microsoft proof of purchase label from the Windows Anytime Upgrade Kit you
    used to upgrade. Proof of purchase may be subject to verification by your merchant’s
    records.
    c. To identify genuine Microsoft software, see http://www.howtotell.com.”

    Turns out Windows 7 has it in better english and has added a few allowances. Basically No COA Sticker no right to use the software so now pirate unless you take it back to the system builder for replacement.

    If you built the machine yourself you could register and a system builder and get replacement that way. Yet it will still cost you.

    “There is nothing in the EULAs for Windows that require the presence of a COA to use a computer with Windows installed.” Basically this is a straight up lie. The COA has to be somewhere that is findable.

    XP nasty legal clause
    “This EULA is valid and grants the end-user rights ONLY if the SOFTWARE is genuine and a genuine Certificate of Authenticity for the SOFTWARE is included.”

    Yes all rights granted by EULA of XP are void as soon as you lose or damaged(past point of being able to prove genuine) the Certificate of Authenticity. Yes the COA sticker is all mighty important. So you don’t have rights to use XP until you replace the lost COA. So people miss read the included as include in package they got. Its included as in sense with the device somewhere for ever.

    Don’t call my bluff on this stuff Clarence Moon. Yes the COA is absolutely required to run the OS. Its not just to prove genuine. Without it every allowance in the EULA is voided.

  55. Clarence Moon wrote, “No one has ever lost access to their genuine Windows installation due solely to a sticker being lost or damaged. No one.”

    But, if you have lost proof of purchase, BSA boogy men come to take you to jail. The BSA does not accept COA as proof of licensing. Schools often lose COA because students/rodents chew on them. Many schools use donations and have no proof of purchase. Others have had turnover/filing errors and cannot find proof of purchase. That does happen. This authentication is more slavery to M$ and is easily avoided by paving that other OS over with GNU/Linux. I think this issue alone is worth 25% of the momentum away from that other OS in schools. In the northwest USA, M$ was threatening schools for licensing audits and they started converting to LTSP. It was less expensive to do that than to hire people to track the damned licences.

    And, Vista did quit running after 30 days if you did not phone home. I paved that for a family who had no Internet access and no phone.

  56. oldman says:

    “Yes I guess you can understand why I was seeing some of the things you saying as completely nuts. I am not going todo something that could see me behind bars or worse.”

    Well, well, well.

    It simply didn’t occur to you that being in another country I just might be operating under different roles.

    Idiot!

    It seems that Bernard Shaw was correct after all.

  57. Clarence Moon says:

    “I can quote the EULA but is nasty reading.”

    No you cannot and apparently you admit as much, Mr. Oiaohm, since you do not link to it. There is nothing in the EULAs for Windows that require the presence of a COA to use a computer with Windows installed.

    If you google around, it is also easy to find references to the Microsoft support numbers that will get you a replacement COA in the rare instance where you might need one after the initial installation. No one has ever lost access to their genuine Windows installation due solely to a sticker being lost or damaged. No one.

    For that matter, I cannot find any instance of an individual user ever being prosecuted or even denied continued use of a pirated copy of Windows. People in the practice of selling pirated copies of Windows or computers with pirated copies installed have been prosecuted, but never an individual user.

    Your story is a fraud, Mr. Oiaohm, and everyone can see that.

  58. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “The question is were your manager you to REQUIRE the use of NON FOSS software to be used in your solution architect could you do it?”
    I could to a point. That I still would have a Linux backup system stored away for the network just in case.

    I have deployed solutions where general operations are Windows and MS Office. But my desk most of the time I don’t need MS Office. My need of MS Office is that rare. I have had to use it when converting macros and other things to see what the macros are really doing.

    oldman
    “Fair enough. But the reality is that in the end you are NOT the company, and if you management makes a policy decision, you get to either a) go on record with your concernes about what is being done and then implement it to the best of your ability or b) look for another job.”

    You are missing the c the correct answer. Have the tools ready to fix up the mess the day everything goes wrong in there policy decision so the business lives and is not killed by a poor policy decision. When you are employed to design networks you are meant to have designed and tested for all possible outcomes.

    So even if the network is fully Windows I still have a Linux recovery mode just in case everything goes wrong on me. Completely infected windows images and all means I have to have something

    If I am in a location that I don’t have tools waiting to used it rare. This was disasters are more annoyances to me with min damage to the company. Advantage I live after disaster and my set a side repair system normally becomes company policy as it works and something like it should have been there.

    Yes you have to do what has been requested by boss. But you are required as a network designer to test out other options to handle the problems that could happen. This is why you can have Linux recovery disk sitting and ready to go if required.

    In the end as a professional you should be ready for what ever hell comes you way. Nothing your management should say or do should reduce the quality of your disaster ready state.

    The old saying in the “end you are not the company” as a excuse to do low quality work. It will come back and bite you here. Without information and the means to alter information the company does not exist.

    The fact of the matter the IT system is like the nerve system of most businesses if it fails your bosses orders could really mean nothing.

    Why I am the way I am.

    I was a young stupid network designer once learnt a really important and lesson.

    I followed the exact A path you described oldman. Result network did fail. Result the company did fail. Result I was out of a job. Even worse I was blamed for the failure as the scape goat even that I had reported up the line the design was defective. This made it hard for me to get another job.

    As a professional here I have to be very careful never to obey an instruction that will harm the company. It the professional that can fall for it. I was young and did not know that.

    BOSS got to walk away unharmed when I got burnt. I was lucky to walk away not having to pay damages and without a criminal record from doing my bosses orders at the time judge in case was kind due to youth got let off with a warning. If I had more years under my belt back then I could be sitting in jail right now.

    Have you ever been through that nasty experience where the company folded due to bad IT options taken that were ordered on the as a network designer. So ending up in court having to explain self and trying to get self out of hell. You might call me once bitten twice shy.

    I have learnt my lesson over it oldman as yet you have not. It all about being ready to serivce the needs of the companies entity. If you don’t have that in your mind you should not be a network designer.

    Who is the final boss really oldman. The companies entity is here. By law here under fair trading if I have followed an instruction by my boss that will damage the company I am liable since I am an IT professional my boss most likely is not in most cases so does not have to know that the order he is ordering you todo with threat of being fired will destroy the company. But as a IT professional I should know that and not follow the BOSS instruction even if it means being fired. Australian law is a Ass at times.

    That is the thing oldman might be a bit different where you are.

    Never again oldman am I going to get caught that way. A option is not valid unless you want to risk ending up a scape goat for why a company failed. You have todo option C. Have a system build to recover with so you don’t end up scape goat or walk away. Option A if you are thinking of doing just that you should take your option B now if you are in Australia.

    Laws were you are would be worth checking oldman if your bosses orders are overridden by your professional status. If they are you better change your option A now before you suffer what I did when I was younger.

    This might be why we are hitting each other so hard oldman. A slight different in law.

    Basically the section of the Australian law based in the idea that you should not be dumb enough to jump off a cliff without safety gear even if ordered.

    Now if you have the safety gear setup and it fails due to something you did not expect you get to walk away.

    Of course I guess it never crossed your mind that something about Australian law might be the difference causing a complete different point of view requirement.

    Oldman it did not cross my mind that professional being required to stand up to boss would not be in all countries laws. I was only recently made aware that not all countries have that legal requirement professionals. So here were could be equal idiots.

    Yes I guess you can understand why I was seeing some of the things you saying as completely nuts. I am not going todo something that could see me behind bars or worse.

  59. oldman says:

    “Boss’s can come and go with sane and stupid ideas. The company entity has to stay healthy or my job will not exist. This is something a lot of people forgot. First and foremost has to be the companies health because that is what will pay you long”

    Fair enough. But the reality is that in the end you are NOT the company, and if you management makes a policy decision, you get to either a) go on record with your concernes about what is being done and then implement it to the best of your ability or b) look for another job.

    That is reality.

  60. oldman says:

    “In fact no. Boss tells me I have to run Windows this does not stop me from having a Linux back up plan in case of disaster to re-image the machines back to windows. Nothing prevents you from being readily for disaster other than yourself oldman.”

    You presume much sir. Then again ,since you are a linux/FOSS bigot and presume me to be an idiot it doesn’t even cross your mind that I might actually be prepared using MY tools.

    I also find it interesting that you presume to contradict your management Sir. IN fact, It occurs to me that in spite of your avowed familiarity with windows and being a microsoft VAR and all, you sure do use a lot of linux, even to the point of force fitting linux tools into a windows environment. The question is were your manager you to REQUIRE the use of NON FOSS software to be used in your solution architect could you do it?

  61. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon In fact there is in the legalise that say you cannot use windows once the COA is lost or destoryed.

    All volume licensing for desktop versions of windows requires the COA sticker on the case to be legal since the machine must have a prior copy of Windows and proof on that machine. This is in the EULA as a upgrade condition. I can quote the EULA but is nasty reading.

    http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/antipiracy/pages/COA_hologram.aspx
    “A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) is a label to help you and your customers identify genuine Microsoft Windows software. Without it, your customers will not have a legal license to run their Windows software. ”

    Yes upgrades, volume and OEM all depend on existence of COA sticker on case.

    This is the plan English it is written the EULA of Windows. Lost or damaged past readable your Microsoft COA you software is now illegal. Does not matter if you aquired the software legally.

    MS Office has a COA connected to the packaging.

    Yes Clarence Moon you idiot if the COA is destroyed you proof of ownship to the software is destroyed.

    Fallen off if you can find it you can re attach it. Legally you have to re attach it. If you cannot find it or someone has binned it your ownship is lost so complete right to software is lost.

    Notice Oldman was avoid this. I have him nailed there is no solution other than FOSS or something else equal when COA’s are lost until new software can be aquired.

    Clarence Moon the information I have access to MS will provide to anyone for free who registers with them for it. Of course it region based. Its not inside information really. You have never registered to receive it so you did not know you were putting your foot in it talking about china.

    The simple point here you are a idiot Clarence Moon you should not start throwing stones without knowing if you are standing in a glass house.

    You are making out the information I had access to was special I am only a low level Microsoft Var. I don’t pay for gold or any special level. In fact I don’t have to pay at all to Microsoft for the information. MS will provide those who need to know with the information free of charge.

    You believe the limitations of the china deal were secret they are not to any one registered for MS updates in the region where the deal was done.

    Really you spend some time going through this novice site to MS licensing at a min Clarence Moon. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/howtotell/WhatToLookFor.aspx

    There are about 20 other areas of the Micorsoft site you should read covering volume licensing and other things. I am willing to show you those for a fee Clarence Moon so you don’t keep on making a fool out your self.

    Oldman if you are so skilled why did you not pull Clarence Moon up on this error. You want to pull me up about time you play fair right.

    oldman
    –“Due to the fact closed source can ruin my operations I don’t depend on it.”

    Unless and until you boss tells you that you have to, in which case all of your opinions are moot.–

    In fact no. Boss tells me I have to run Windows this does not stop me from having a Linux back up plan in case of disaster to re-image the machines back to windows. Nothing prevents you from being readily for disaster other than yourself oldman.

    Really my operations are my operations I have to perform for the entity that is the company. As long as I can always achieve them I don’t hurt the company.

    Boss’s can come and go with sane and stupid ideas. The company entity has to stay healthy or my job will not exist. This is something a lot of people forgot. First and foremost has to be the companies health because that is what will pay you long term.

    Basically oldman will you go drown yourself just because you boss told you to. Answer no right. This is exactly what you are saying in a IT sense. Boss tells you that you have to drown self you are not going to. You might go and make yourself wet and say you failed.

  62. oe says:

    @Kozmcrae

    I know not to evangelize but rather let folks ask away when they see the laptop “looking different”, your home machines being of a different flavor with weird-yet-cool apps, or they’re complaining about their own laptops windows problems where you hand them a (GNU/Linux) LiveCD and state it’s powerful anti-malware,…oh and I mention that it’s pirated too, very expensive….that you don’t get something for nothing works so hard against FOSS despite its great quality.

  63. dougman says:

    “I have had the rather dubious experience of rescuing several friends who had Linux “recommended” to them by enthusiast like yourself.”

    The obverse, could be said as well.

    I have had the rather unsavory, however profitable experience of rescuing several customers who had the “most secure Windows ever” given to them by knowledgeable people.

    I am very curious as to how you “rescued” several friends, did you blog about the experience?

  64. oldman says:

    “The unwary? Who is unwary and why are they unwary?”

    I have had the rather dubious experience of rescuing several friends who had Linux “recommended” to them by enthusiast like yourself.

    That having been said the above comment was intemperate.

    Consider it withdrawn.

    A happy holiday and a healthy new year to you and yours.

  65. Kozmcrae says:

    “But why do you foist FOSS on the unwary?”

    The unwary? Who is unwary and why are they unwary?

  66. oldman says:

    “But why are they trying to foist it on everyone else?”

    But why do you foist FOSS on the unwary?

  67. Kozmcrae says:

    “Concentrate on the technology, people.”

    Didn’t I say he was a gentleman?

    Will work against my natural knee jerk response to blind Microsoft subservience.

    Oh wait, that’s just supposed to be their choice… But why are they trying to foist it on everyone else?

    Could it be because everyone else used to use Microsoft’s products without question? I think so.

    Without question, people are beginning to think twice.

  68. Clarence Moon says:

    “This is a real world case you must be ready to handle.”

    If that is Mr. Oiaohm’s notion of the “real world” it is easy to see that he is a fraud. There is no recorder instance of anyone anywhere ever losing legal access to the use of their Windows OS due to a sticker falling off or otherwise going missing. There is nothing in the legalese that states that a machine may not be operated without the sticker attached. It is merely a way for the seller to represent the legitimacy of the unit to a customer.

    Mr. Oiaohm is welcome to present citations to the contrary, but any sort of representation that he is VAR of good standing and so privy to insider information will be just another manifestation of the fraudulent image he has attempted to present here.

  69. oldman says:

    “Due to the fact closed source can ruin my operations I don’t depend on it.”

    Unless and until you boss tells you that you have to, in which case all of your opinions are moot.

  70. oldman says:

    “Reality has to be accept that is end of problem basically. I will not change my point of view of oldman while he hold the point of view that is outside reality.”

    While it is indeed true that when one wishes a particular application because of its functions and features, one must come to terms with its owner in order to be able to use the applications. It is also true however that in the end the acceptance of terms is a voluntary act. Nobody twisted my arm to get me to use the software that I use – I entered into the contract willingly and with eyes open. And that includes the full knowledge of what my rights of use are, INCLUDING rights under disaster recovery.

    Have said the above I say it again. I do not give a crap about what you think of me or my skills. You are to me nothing but a babbling nym.

  71. oldman says:

    “Claiming own terms when they were not. This is pure annoying to me.”

    Tough.

    “Of course oldman is weaselling out.”

    Nope. Oldman is not going to play an arrogant jerks game. What I do or do not do I will not be sharing with you. You have shown that you do not deserve any information except what I choose to impart.

    SO tell me Mr. Microsoft VAR what windows products do you actually recommend?

  72. oiaohm says:

    Main thing is claiming there is a solution that is valid when there is not.

    “NOTHING that you have laid out that could not be taken care of by other means without having to coerce your users into using FOSS on linux.”

    This is completely not true. Restoring from disaster and remaining operating FOSS more often that not is your only option at times.

    Robert Pogson its a idiot/fool or something to claim what Oldman did.

    Claiming own terms when they were not. This is pure annoying to me.

    Reality is reality. You can accept reality or reject it. A person rejecting reality is a fool because one day reality will force itself on them.

    Now a person can be using closed source accept the fact straight up that its not there terms and accept the downsides. Be truthful about the downsides. The downsides of closed source licensing can put a company out of business and did to many business in sep 11.

    I respect people using closed source who accept that its not there own control. Who accept that at particular times due to the limitations of closed source you are going to hit walls.

    When you hit those walls you will be force to use FOSS or fold. This is the reality of the world that oldman is not accepting. Until he does he is a fool in my eyes.

    70 percent solution is better than no Solution. This is a case I have found myself in more often that I have liked.

    Same if you are truthful Robert Pogson you have faced the reality limit of closed source licensing.

    Reality has to be accept that is end of problem basically. I will not change my point of view of oldman while he hold the point of view that is outside reality.

    Of course oldman is weaselling out.

    “Solve the COA sticker destroyed issue first without spending any money and be legal?”

    This is a common issue hit in some schools oldman. Its also a common issue it in case of disaster that you find that stickers have fallen off or been destroyed. This is a real world case you must be ready to handle.

    Being a old hand you have to hit this. Did you just disregard it.

    Oldman of course to handle it has to admit those closed source license limits can be complete pricks and ruining your means to operate. This is reality.

    Due to the fact closed source can ruin my operations I don’t depend on it.

  73. oldman says:

    “It is a waste of time to call people out repetitively on their choices even if they are wrong. Concentrate on the technology, people.”

    Thank you Pog, for he timely comment. I would indeed like to concentrate on discussing technology and IT, as opposed to defending myself from scurrilous attacks.

    Unfortunately Pog, the reality is that people like myself who have the temerity to point out the problems and issues on the other side of the equations are going to make themselves targets of people who take umbrage with those views and who take it upon themselves to “defend” you anainst people like me.

    I will for my part try to keep it civil, but I am human and eventually I am going to respond to their comments.

    Should I have to, I will do my best to keep it civil and on target.

  74. @oiaohm, koz, oldman, no one is an idiot for supporting the monopoly. It is a choice some make pragmatically. One can get IT done that way. One can get paid that way. I disagree with that choice so to me it makes oldman wrong, not an idiot. Very clever people can be wrong, like the pilots of AF 447.

    It is a waste of time to call people out repetitively on their choices even if they are wrong. Concentrate on the technology, people.

  75. oldman says:

    “Oldman, I am actually surprised that you keep responding to Ohio for such a long time. Congratulations for your nerve.”

    To be honest, I am surprised myself. I guess I dont like bullies like this a$$hole, so I decided to respond to his crap. The problem is that he takes more time to go after than I have to give, and in the end this venue is really nothing more than a floating bull session about IT. More importantly, it is run by Pog, not this joker.

    Now that he has officially declared me an idiot (a title my wife gave me years ago BTW ;-)) I will simply ignore him and concentrate on responding to Pog.

  76. oldman says:

    “Thank you by you stupidity for admitting I am superior to you oldman.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    You really do not get the fact that your opinion of me means zippo, nada. You are nothing but a nym. as far as your “superiority” is concerned, For all I know you could just be very good at making it up as you go along. Thats the bitch of a NYM – noone really knows who you are, and no one can verify your credentials All that can be verified loud and clear from your posts is that you are an arrogant jerk.

    GO ahead Mr. Microsoft VAR, declare victory for all good that it will do you.

    I could care less about your babble.

    You are in the end, a joke.

  77. oiaohm says:

    oldman you have admitted checkmate sorry that is bowing. Now how can I checkmate you unless there is a major flaw in your logic. I have won thank you oldman for admitting it. Change you arguments in future to something that is common sence or I pin you over and over again to walk away like this so bowing to me oldman.

    There are a set of problems a person has to beware that closed source drops on them that is not avoidable.

    Now of course oldman you proved yourself as a idiot.

    What was the correct way out avoiding having to give superiority is to openly admit your over-site. That does not make me superior oldman. Humans make mistakes. You have from the start wanted to play the superior card. I just want good quality.

    Thank you by you stupidity for admitting I am superior to you oldman.

    Phenom I gave up on you years ago.
    Phenom sorry Ohio handle is a different person as well. Really funny how many of those cases are me and how many are the shadows that followed me.

    Sorry Phenom that you are using the wrong handle for me most likely means you did not see my incompetency at all. But one of the imposters who took sport poking fun at a person who nailed them.

  78. Phenom says:

    Oldman, I am actually surprised that you keep responding to Ohio for such a long time. Congratulations for your nerve.

    I gave up that some months ago and now I absolutely ignore him in any forum he decides to polute with his blabbering. He demonstrated incompetency on so many occasions, that no sensible one can belive his self-proclaimed skills.

  79. Phenom says:

    Ivan, I won’t care about BlueRay, when I can stream HD rental movies from the Internet.

  80. oldman says:

    “Take it and prove you are not a idiot. If not all my statement against you are fact not insults oldman. Your choice.”

    You really are quite funny Mr. oiaohm. I am not going to play your game, and there is nothing that you can do about it. The fact that you now declare me an idiot is equally meaningless, and has been for quite some time. THis is because because frankly I do not believe that you will ever do anything else. Because the only way that I can win would be to bow to your “superiority” – something which you do not have the creds with me to even get me to consider doing.

    So now you can feel free to dismiss me as an idiot and incompetent, and am free to continue return to my job doing what I know I can do,

    and we all go on from here.

    Toodles…!

    And NOTHING you say from this point on will change me.

  81. oiaohm says:

    So from that I can take it that you have no skills at all so fully deserve to be called incompetent oldman nice day to you.

    Of course being a idiot oldman I don’t expect you to understand that its not a insult to call a person a idiot or incompetent when they are.

    I have given you a fair chance to prove you are not.

    Take it and prove you are not a idiot. If not all my statement against you are fact not insults oldman. Your choice.

    Solve the COA sticker destroyed issue first without spending any money and be legal?

  82. oldman says:

    “oldman No I have given you a put up or shut up.”

    Sorry sir, I’m not playing your game. Your threats of continued insults insults mean nothing to me at this point.

    In fact they are getting almost funny…

    I think that it is time for you to practice what you preach and stop talking to me Mr. oiaohm, because you are getting NOTHING further on this subject from me.

  83. oiaohm says:

    oldman No I have given you a put up or shut up.

    Time to put up if you are so skilled you should be able to design a bullet proof plan.

    You are the bully who oldman who is unable to put up to back his position so must resort to insults.

    To be correct my location is perfectly understandable if you had skill oldman.

    I do what is least risk to the company. This is a mixture of Closed source and Open Source.

    This makes me a nightmare I am not black or white I am a shade of grey. The idea that a person has to be anti-microsoft or anti-foss is not reality.

    You are such a idiot you never allowed on the fact you might hit a person with no bias to FOSS or Closed source but uses them in the most effective way.

    You are too closed minded of a bully to understand me oldman.

    Solve this Oldman:
    Solve the COA sticker destroyed issue first without spending any money and be legal?

    Keeping to your closed source ways if you can oldman. When you cannot accept that you have a problem. You cannot design a plan using closed source alone that works in the worst possible cases.

    Please note I have been a Microsoft system builder for years. Been to enough Microsoft conferences. Seen what they call good solutions. Laughed my guts up at many as I have question them on real world event cases against there examples and watch the poor MS person die on the stand.

    Yes I do have balls and I am very proud to bring incompetent people to the knees like you oldman.

    You want me to stop insulting me solve the question.
    Solve the COA sticker destroyed issue first without spending any money and be legal?

  84. Ivan says:

    “For about the same amount one can buy an Xbox 360 (including the kinect) and have not only probably the best gaming console these days, but also a nice home theatre device.”

    Not really, when BluRay won the format war the PS3 became the better choice for a home theater, despite it’s crippled design.

    @ Ohio Ham: “Currently they are crap so you should be treated as such.”

    Pot – Kettle – Black

    Have you sought help for your delusional belief that your brainwaves interfere with 2.4 Ghz wireless signals, yet?

  85. oldman says:

    “Yes it will only go down hill from here. I am skilled enough to rip you completely apart oldman about time you wake up to this fact. You are standing in quicksand oldman.”

    What truly amazes me is the size of the balls that you exhibit. you really think that I give a crap about your babble anymore, sir. It also amazes me that you actually think you are ripping me upart, when the reality is that you do nothing but prove what a sad little bullying nothing that you are.

    Bernard Shaw once said thjat “No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strictest sense an idiot.” You are as far as I am concerned exhibit one of shaws dictum. In fact Mr. K has more brains than you exhibit Mr. microsoft var, and from what I can see Robert Pogson has more honesty. At least he is consistent in his rejection of Microsoft., while you are a hypocrite who takes the queens silver.

  86. oldman says:

    “At least he knows how to “take it like a man”.”

    Yes being an adult has its trials. But then again you will learn that when you finally grow up.

  87. Kozmcrae says:

    “I have ZERO problems with microsofts terms or any commercial vendors terms for that matter.”

    -o- oldman’s crapper before accepting Microsoft’s EULA.
    -O- oldman’s crapper after accepting Microsoft’s EULA.

    At least he knows how to “take it like a man”.

  88. oiaohm says:

    oldman Don’t you get it. Your selection of software directly links to how safe you are. Rejection of FOSS as part of your solutions shows you are flawed.

    MS products before all else tell me that you are not a safe person.

    Get over yourself oldman you NYM here only has respect based one the quality of your statements. I am giving you exactly the respect based on quality of examples you are giving oldman. Currently they are crap so you should be treated as such.

    “NOTHING that you have laid out that could not be taken care of by other means without having to coerce your users into using FOSS on linux.”

    Sorry oldman I bet I will rip holes in it like you virtual images solutions. You are product poor quality work examples I expect that your solutions will be crap. Time to put up oldman a disaster management plan that I cannot rip you to shreds over.

    Even worse I can apply you solutions to real world events and use those to find out if your solution is solid. That is the fires in Australian and the USA, Sep 11, Floods in Australian, the insane guy with a backhoe who cut a major fiber line and a ship that was off course that ripped a fiber line.

    Remember to be legal volume licenses still require COA sticker on case. And if case is no more so is license. So how can you take care of that problem legally you cannot. Remember extra cost can be the equal in a disaster between a company living and dieing.

    Solve the COA sticker destroyed issue first without spending any money and be legal oldman.

    Yes it will only go down hill from here. I am skilled enough to rip you completely apart oldman about time you wake up to this fact. You are standing in quicksand oldman.

  89. oldman says:

    “You statements oldman are those of a idiot who by there idiot ways kills people. So I don’t have very much respect for you at all. Should I like a person who does manslaughter or will do?”

    Are you stupid or something? What does any of this verbal diarrhea have to do with my personal software choices?

    I do not CARE about all your theories of software utilization – they are IRRELEVANT to the point that I was making, and there is NOTHING that you have laid out that could not be taken care of by other means without having to coerce your users into using FOSS on linux.

    As far as all the noise that you were making in my direction, if being a “twit” and an idiot” makes me someone different from you sir, than I am glad of it.

    I say again, Get over your self, you are NOTHING but a NYM here!!!

  90. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “The desktop applications that happen to meet my needs are commercial. That is a fact that will not go away no matter how much you sneer and call me incompetent. Do you actually think that I am going to dump my commercial applications and work with you YOU have characterized as a 70% solution just because i don’t have to pay for it?”

    You are short sited fool. Nothing says you cannot use both. The safe path is being able to use both.

    70% solution that you can always install no matter how your budget looks. You get a new machine someone forgot to order MS Office for it libreoffice works right oldman. Using FOSS on windows expands its functionality. Now without it machine is less functional.

    MS and commercial terms means if you run out you have to find money. This is what killed many companies in sep 11. Studies of all companies that lived after sep 11 used FOSS to get there feet under themselves because due to the massive damage to the company spending on software just weakened them even more. 70 percent is better than zero proven in sep 11. Yes it was a good case of have equally screwed up companies. Companies who had people like you oldman who were like closed source I must have went under.

    Simple fact here you are an idiot you have not learnt the lessons of history.

    Please note that I am talking about using the 70 percent solution for the people it suites and having the 70 percent solution if the shit hits the fan. So productivity damage is reduced as low as able.

    Idiots have not properly prepared for disasters. This is what make me different to a normal IT officer. I grew up on farms I was trained to be a property manager before I got hurt. Being hurt means I could not use the means of transport you require to be a property manager any more.

    Since I was trained as a property manager I am trained to make do with what I have until I can get better. As per properly manager training logically prep for disaster. Like you know bush fires will come. You don’t wait for the bush fire to come to buy or test your fire fighting gear. You also have to plan if nightmare of nightmare that you fire fighting gear has gone up in flames. Same with other legal paper work as gone up in flames. How are you going to get back on feet.

    What is the fire fighting weapon if you have no tools because they have been destroyed. The fire itself. The burnt ground is safe. Nothing is left but you live. Against fire 70 percent intact can be a impressive worst out come. Building can also be designed to be fire resistant so reducing your losses. You can pay for a proper fitted fire proof safe before the disaster to protect paperwork. Please remember fire proof safes are limited volume in size when fitted correctly.

    Now what is the big problem with MS licensing. COA stickers that you require are on the computer cases so cannot be stored in fire proof storage or in schools kid safe storage. So after disaster you will have to re-buy all that even that you budget is going to be stretched to breaking point. Yes the MS stuff becomes the straw that breaks the camels back.

    Note this the safe and the building have to be done before the disaster comes. Having a 70 percent FOSS solution is like having the fire proof safe and fire resistant buildings. So that in disaster you have something.

    Note the size of my FOSS 70 percent. A few discs. That is all. No specialist paper work other than a short guide how to use the discs and remake them if melted. Machines don’t need COA stickers after disaster.

    This training for propriety manager makes MS EULA unacceptable. Because when you go through the fire test logic of what might be lost MS EULA is not going to be helpful in fact MS EULA is going to be the straw that going to kill you in criss.

    Cost of doing business is the universal excuse of the incompetent so they don’t have to prep properly for disasters. Yes I have heard people saying if we get burn out it is the cost of doing business as well. Of course forgetting that in being burn out people can die because you did not have you evacuation plans done, tested and trained. You cannot restore life. Just like you cannot restore a company to life if it runs out of resources at critical times.

    There are true cost of doing business you have to pay MS EULA’s are not one of them. If it will make things nicer you can pay for it when you have the budget to pay for perks.

    Basically I would not let a person like you oldman plan building evacuation plans because you most likely would get people killed by your defective logic. Since you would not build the fire proof building for staff to go to. So they would get trapped and killed. Poor planning costs lives. About time you learn this oldman.

    Also its simpler to see what you are doing with a drill press not using safety visor. But it simpler to end up blind as well. For safety you have to put up with your productivity being limited. The is a reality of the world oldman.

    You statements oldman are those of a idiot who by there idiot ways kills people. So I don’t have very much respect for you at all. Should I like a person who does manslaughter or will do??

  91. oldman wrote, “You the potential client have essentially two choices, buy the goods and accept the terms of use, or for go the goods altogether.”

    I can and do choose to shop elsewhere from other suppliers. That’s the free market system in action.

    oldman wrote, “I cant believe that in the end that you notion of Price/performance competition comes down to a vendor giving you something you did not pay for.”

    When I buy my hardware, I expect to be able to use it to the fullest extent. Under no circumstances will I agree to use it to less than its full capability, and pay for my own enslavement. You would not go to the grocery store and buy a loaf of bread with fine print that stated by buying this loaf you agree to only eat half of it. That would be bizarre and yet that’s what you advocate for operating systems.

  92. oldman says:

    “No, they’re not. A proper business sells goods and services, not restrictions.”

    A proper business sets its own terms of use Robert Pogson. Those terms are bound by two things, the boundaries of law and the boundaries of what the market will bear. You the potential client have essentiall two choices, buy the goods and accept the terms of use, or for go the goods altogether.

    But complaining about how someone chooses to dispose of their property is IMHO pointless – the owner of the product sets the terms, not you.

    “If M$ were competing on price/performance they would allow you to run the software on a larger number of computers.”

    Do you realize how stupid that sounds, Pog? Microsoft is in business to make money. They have a product that commands a certain price in the market, and they have set their terms accordingly. I cant believe that in the end that you notion of Price/performance competition comes down to a vendor giving you something you did not pay for.

  93. oldman wrote of the EULA’s restrictions, “They are the cost of doing business,”

    No, they’re not. A proper business sells goods and services, not restrictions. When you buy a tire for $200 you are not required to drive at less than 50 km/h but M$ has a provision that you can connect no more than 10 “devices”. So, there is imposed on you a restriction to not use your hardware to its fullest capability. That restriction really bites in schools where there may be 100 PCs. A 10 device limit is plain stupid. If M$ were competing on price/performance they would not have that restriction and they would tell you how to get maximum benefit from the product.

    Being able to run the software on only one computer when you have two is also a severe restriction as it the restriction to run the software only on the machine in which it came. Say, your motherboard dies but the rest of the PC is fully functional, including the software, and you are prevented from replacing the motherboard and carrying on. That prevents you from getting the full life out of your hardware. If M$ were competing on price/performance they would allow you to run the software on a larger number of computers.

    Then there’s copying. The EULA prevents you from doing normal copying of software for installations, backup, and version change.

    It goes on. There are so many restrictions one cannot legally run the software without consulting a lawyer. That’s not what IT is about. IT should be the best way to do most things. Instead, M$ makes it the most dreadfully encumbered technology on the planet. Thank Goodness there is GNU/Linux which has none of that garbage.

  94. oldman says:

    “On your own terms oldman you should be able to run unlimited that you cannot. So don’t come to be claiming novice crap oldman. Its just insulting for someone who claims to be a oldman.”

    Here’s a newsflash. I have ZERO problems with microsofts terms or any commercial vendors terms for that matter. They are the cost of doing business, nothing more. Since internet connectivity is ubiquitous, authentication is a non issue, and even if it were, there is always phone authentication.

    Once again, you ignore my point. The desktop applications that happen to meet my needs are commercial. That is a fact that will not go away no matter how much you sneer and call me incompetent. Do you actually think that I am going to dump my commercial applications and work with you YOU have characterized as a 70% solution just because i don’t have to pay for it?

    Are you actually that stupid?

    “At some point I will give up on oldman for being such an incompetent twit that he is not worth talking to. If he cannot get stuff right like the terms he is using software under he is not worth dealing with by anyone.”

    Ah, now I am incompetent twit because I regect the pearls of wisdom of the greay OIaohm – he of few flaws…

    Get over yourself sir, you are not THAT important!

    I’ve already determined that you are an arrogant narrow bigot whose positions are so compromised by his blinders as to be useless. I can get far more useful information from a good google session and some book reading than I have read in your posts, and and at least in that form I can assess form myself where the biases are.

    And as far as the noise on my abilities are concerned, I’ll take being a “twit” my terms over being an expert on your terms any day!

  95. Kozmcrae says:

    “And how many hits for “malware android”?”

    Phenom? How’s your book “The All Crow Diet” coming along? Oh wait, that’s not on topic, just like you’re not on topic. You must be uncomfortable with Walmart selling GNU/Linux and Android.

  96. Phenom says:

    And how many hits for “malware android”?
    And how many hits for “malware android OR linux”?

    Would you dare to try? 🙂

  97. malware vista OR “Windows 7” : 33million hits.

  98. oiaohm wrote, “Again oldman you are problem.
    “MY needs on MY terms”
    Your terms. How??? You have licensing conditions you must meet. So this is not your terms.

    You have your Needs on MS terms”

    Amen! Touche! Anyone who reads M$’s EULA will get that point immediately. It’s documentation of the freedom you don’t have with that other OS. I always made sure any client of mine who insisted on an installation of that other OS read it. I needed to do that only a few times and it was an eye-opener. I used it in lessons for my high school students. The kids could parse and understand the GPL but not M$’s EULA. What’s with the networking limitations? Kids are really sensitive to the concept of freedom to use their property their way. M$ takes away from that ability.

  99. Clarence Moon wrote, “It is premature to jump in with assumptions about what will happen to a PC down the road.”

    Nonsense. Even consumers have an idea how long a purchase will last. In IT, MTBF of products is very commonly published. You can find MTBF numbers for hard drives and PSU and fans. Thus we know that a modern PC will be able to show the pictures and send the clicks for many years longer than M$’s release cycle. We also know that P3ish performance is adequate for many thin clients so a modern PC can run for a decade or so, mostly limited by display resolution. Since 1024×768 is now declining, we can expect a modern PC to be good for a decade of adequate performance. Lots of businesses using thin clients keep the boxes going for a decade. That’s why on 1 or 2% of PCs shipped are thin clients but 10% of PCs running are thin clients. A modern fanless thin client should be expected to survive 10 years if not crushed, burned, drowned or shot yet a Wintel PC is expected to be useless in 3 to 5 years based mostly on failures of that other OS to run on older hardware or to survive indefinitely without crashes or malware infections. At Easterville in 2006, I installed 96 thin clients with fans. I have not heard of any of them dying. They even survived drowning when the fire-sprinkler system failed and users protected them with their jackets. My Beast, which is a thick client/server has been running for several years without slowing down or experiencing malware. I expect fan changes could keep it going for many years more.

  100. oiaohm says:

    Again oldman you are problem.
    “MY needs on MY terms”
    Your terms. How??? You have licensing conditions you must meet. So this is not your terms.

    You have your Needs on MS terms. Boy locked in nature has oldman tricked perfectly. I accept when I am using Linux and other open source stuff I have it under FOSS terms never my terms. The only stuff under my terms is stuff I code myself or is public domain. So I can reinstall on any machine I like no counts of how many I can run. Don’t need internet connection to activate and other equally annoying MS processes.

    On your own terms oldman you should be able to run unlimited that you cannot. So don’t come to be claiming novice crap oldman. Its just insulting for someone who claims to be a oldman.

    Part of MS training as a Microsoft VAR is the fact the software is given to you under MS terms and has to be used in accordance with MS terms not your own.

    A licensing newbie??? oldman. Or have you not attended MS training on licensing???? Yes I do get letters ever 3 months from MS listing the people in my area they have charged with crimes and convicted. Wonder if you will appear on one of those one day. Because you will if you are trying using MS stuff by your own terms oldman.

    70% solution might be a 100 percent for you oldman. Or might be 100 percent for other users.

    This is the problem not all users need 100 percent oldman.

    Oldman is so far locked in he cannot see reality any more. So is believing he is doing stuff under his own terms when is not.

    At some point I will give up on oldman for being such an incompetent twit that he is not worth talking to. If he cannot get stuff right like the terms he is using software under he is not worth dealing with by anyone.

  101. oldman says:

    “Oldman is a classic example of MS locked in person. They start believing that the applications that run on Windows have to be the best for everything. It about the only way they can create something in there mind to justify the nightmares they see.”

    What Nightmares? Personally, My desktop has been running quite well for over 3 years without problem. I have the applications that meet MY needs on MY terms.

    The true nightmare Mr. Microsoft VAR, is to have to give that set of working applications up for your admitted 70% solution.

  102. oiaohm says:

    Phenom really you are lucky. There is quite a lot of malware for Vista and 7.

    Have you picked up any of those crap toolbar bundled with windows applications. Linux world calls this extra bundled stuff you did not ask for malware or rootkit. Centeriq you saw what the Linux world thinks of crap like that.

    I guess if I went over your system carefully I would find quite a bit that from the Linux world would be called malware or rootkit. Phenom basically Linux world has the strict meaning of the stuff. Stuff that Windows rootkit hunters leave behind as acceptable.

    Please note even with the massive growth in android malware the phone market is still less than a thousand pieces of malware a year.

    There is more malware for windows 7 and vista release in a month than the phone market has had in 5 years.

    Of course there is worry about the rapid growth rate.

    Remeber what I said about all important unit numbers. Percentages if you are not careful can tell complete miss truths. Yes the booming malware on android is overplayed.

  103. Phenom says:

    Pogs, it is not appropriate for you to speak of malware for Windows, when the current fastest growing malware platform is… Android:
    http://globalthreatcenter.com/?p=2492

    I am yet to see a thriving piece malware for Vista and 7. Actually, I haven’t seen any on these two, but I assume that I simply know better than to open these “jenifer lopez nude xxx hidden camera.jpg.exe” attachments from the spam folder.

  104. Phenom says:

    Good for OEMs does not translate as good for customers.

    For about the same amount one can buy an Xbox 360 (including the kinect) and have not only probably the best gaming console these days, but also a nice home theatre device.

  105. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon the issues with windows are on going.

    In fact mass market channels have not been exclusively Windows. Dell has maintained a line of Redhat workstations. Hp and IBM also does lines of Linux Workstations. So yes OEM do placate Linux users. Dell proving some Ubuntu hardware is also to keep the Linux people happy.

    Clarence Moon think for a while and work out why big OEM do support Linux stuff.

    Moving away from windows also has its pain. Vendor Lockin has it evil side effects. oldman statements its about the applications is correct.

    It a true savage cycle. The most dominate OS has the most applications. The reason you cannot leave the OS is that you need the applications. So it remains the most dominate OS.

    The thing is the application lock is getting weaker.

    Basically you can beat windows users over the head with malware removal bill after malware removal bill and they will keep on coming back for more because they need the applications.

    Oldman is a classic example of MS locked in person. They start believing that the applications that run on Windows have to be the best for everything. It about the only way they can create something in there mind to justify the nightmares they see.

    Linux advocates funny enough are the only ones saying the same things about Windows. From time to time you hear MS staff saying the same kinds of things about the secuirty issues. Paying to hunt down the virus writers is the sign of the desperation of MS over the issue. MS have to do something so there users don’t blame them for there problems.

    Simple fact MS users wake up out the fog and sue MS of lack of due care that could be proven in quite a few cases MS would be out of business.

    Its funny to watch this from the side lines.

  106. No AV product is entirely effective. Malware is cranked out at the rate of 1000+ new species every day. It takes days for the AV systems to recognize the new stuff. Many AV products are 100% effective against a hotlist of malware but it drops to 80% or so for the entire universe. It becomes a matter of luck whether a PC encounters a species not covered. Some AV use a system where every executable requires a signature to be checked before running, a whitelist, but even they can be bypassed when a rootkit gets in, that is something gets to run even if it is not an .exe or other normal executable. All the while, AV sucks the life out of PCs, snooping at every file access or download.

  107. For the hardware that is in the gadgets, the price is too high, but considering there is no licence for M$ in the price, they are great products for OEMs and retailers. Hence Walmart. I hope and expect that phenomenon to spread to more powerful units.

  108. Many consumers do not see the price of M$’s products. That is by design and in itself an anti-competitive act. OEMs and IT people do see the price and can take action.

    All consumers that I know do see the price of malware. Retailers sell then AV products when they buy stuff. They also see their machines slow down or stop working. There are consumers who buy a new box when malware overtakes the old one. Inform a consumer that they are 1000X less likely to encounter malware using GNU/Linux and they are interested.

    More consumers these days are buying online and can see the prices of No OS, GNU/Linux and that other OS. The absence of that choice on retail shelves is the biggest obstacle against adoption of GNU/Linux. That’s why government and education industries are so important to GNU/Linux and why M$ puts special resources to thwarting adoption. Those efforts have delayed but not stopped widespread adoption. Everywhere in the world that price and supplier independence are important, GNU/Linux has made great strides.

  109. Clarence Moon says:

    It is premature to jump in with assumptions about what will happen to a PC down the road. Some people have problems, certainly, and you read about them. Others really have no such problems. Enough people do not have problems so bad that they go out and seek an alternative solution.

    Pogson found an alternative, as did Doughman. Can it be so hard to find as to keep hundreds of millions of users toeing the Microsoft line?

    Of course my answer is that so very few users actually have the problems that the Linux advocates here suggest are inevitable that OEMs do not sense any real need to placate them and so continue to use Windows exclusively in their mass market channels.

  110. Phenom says:

    This devices may be good as a home theatre setup, but are way too expensive in my view.

  111. Phenom says:

    @dougman:

    OpenOffice / LibreOffice for Windows – free.

    Antivirus – you don’t need one; even if you do, MS Security Essential is free.

    The last point doesn’t even deserve a comment.

  112. dougman says:

    “For a few bucks more than the price of the components, you can buy an integrated system with Windows OS.”… but you are leaving out, oh lets see:

    – Office Software.. $100+
    – Antivirus Software $50 & $35/year
    – Costs for repair after it’s hosed with malware in less then a year, add another $200.

    Someone with an OPEN mind and a Linux distribution, allows you to avoid all that, period. As one of my customers once told me, “Windows costs me money, you do as well, not as much, but your stuff just works and works.” I built them a Ubuntu based Samba server a few years ago, it is still running to this day.

    I wrote back with, “Thank you, and yes, M$ is a for-profit entity and please remember this: If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good. ― Bill Gates”

    Honestly, I could care less what OS people buy, but don’t come crying about cost’s when your “Lucky #7” breaks.

  113. Clarence Moon says:

    You can get the Acer even cheaper at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-EB1007-B0410-EeeBox-Mini-Desktop/dp/B004GVWJ44/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1324334303&sr=8-7

    Still, though, I do not see the ordinary customer buying one of these things. At a minimum, you have to understand how to get a keyboard and mouse and monitor and how to make everything work together. You know how to do that, of course, and so do I. But how many out of a hundred know that?

    For a few bucks more than the price of the components, you can buy an integrated system with Windows OS. That’s what is on the shelves in the stores and that is what people buy.

  114. No, it’s not a typo. ASUS ships Linpus Linux. I have no idea why, with all the great choices available.

  115. Conzo says:

    omfg, they called it LinPUS

    I pray to Goddess that it’s just someone in the marketing department with an impish sense of humour.

Leave a Reply