On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote: > Please forgive this top posting. > > I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to > say two things: > > 1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of > Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run the > Microsoft OS installed at point of sale of the hardware, you get > a refund for the OS. But Microsoft and the hardware vendors > systematically refused refunds. No they haven't. People get their OS refunded in France. It is a long and frustrating process, but with each victory it gets easier. There's even a step-by-step guide (in French) : http://non.aux.racketiciels.info/guide/index And recently: """ For the first time in a case related to the sale of hardware/software, a judge declares explicitly that the sale of an OS by the OEM when the customer never asked for it can be considered "unfair in any circumstance given its aggressive characteristic". The argument, more direct than ever (speaking about forced sale rather than bundled sale), is usable in all Europe. """ (quick translation from me, the inner quote is a translation of the actual words from the judge) http://aful.org/communiques/faire-payer-systeme-exploitation-non-demande-deloyal-en Of course this is wildly off-topic... -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
