if you read this using your left eye you owe me money
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Sep 13, 2010 9:03 PM EDT |
Stupid stupid stupid. EULAs are unilateral, non-negotiable, and not discoverable until after purchase, and there is zero vendor responsibility for defects, truthfulness, or functionality. They are completely customer-hostile. In a sane country they would be laughed out of court. |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 13, 2010 9:36 PM EDT |
Wait a second Carla..I patented reading with your left eye last year so its you that owes me money...;-) |
| kenholmz Sep 13, 2010 10:09 PM EDT |
I'd like to see the judges' stock portfolios. |
| tuxchick Sep 14, 2010 1:10 AM EDT |
I'm going to patent reading, that'll fix the lot o' ye! |
| tracyanne Sep 14, 2010 1:40 AM EDT |
If EULAs are legally enforceable, then the refund section is as well. |
| bigg Sep 14, 2010 9:30 AM EDT |
> If EULAs are legally enforceable, then the refund section is as well. I don't think a refund section is necessary. Not a refund on the OS, but on the entire computer system. My understanding (from many years ago) is that the EULA would not be valid without the option for a refund. That is why Microsoft explicitly includes the refund section. You can't sell a computer, then when the consumer gets home, say, "Oh by the way, all of these additional conditions apply. If you don't accept them, you can't use the computer we said we were selling you." I suppose that it is possible the retailer might be obligated to provide you with some compensation for your time if you return the whole system. |
| tuxchick Sep 14, 2010 10:01 AM EDT |
Tying the OS to the hardware is a slimy move MS has been trying to cement into law for years. You might recall their recent move to make bare computers without an OS installed not tax-deductible, their attacks on schools and other organizations using donated used computers, their lock on Tier 1 vendors who still charge their customers for a Windows license whether they want one or not, and their nasty OEM Windowses that are tied to the original system they are sold on, and that cannot be moved to another PC. We have to maintain a firm separation between software and hardware, and that includes refunds for software apart from the hardware. |
| helios Sep 14, 2010 10:26 AM EDT |
Speaking of tying hardware to software and ... Recently I was slumming in some Windows IRC channel and found a posted discussion on direct vs dynamic partitions. Someone bought a laptop with Win7 on it and decided he wanted to dual boot the computer with Linux. Nightmare ensued...it was dynamically partitioned. Dynamic partitions as they exist will not allow dual booting anything without damaging the existing system. Of course you can buy specific Windows software to do it at about 40 bucks...what? Here's a bit about getting it done using said software, and more importantly, some of the restrictions on doing so. Bet the EULA doesn't say anything about that...just guessing. http://www.partition-tool.com/buy.htm What is Dynamic Disk? A dynamic disk is a physical disk that provides features that basic disks do not, such as support for volumes spanning multiple disks. Dynamic disks use a hidden database to track information about dynamic volumes on the disk and other dynamic disks in the computer. A disk managed by a software RAID provider with support for flexible volume reconfiguration. A dynamic disk uses a partition as a container for volumes; there is no guaranteed mapping. What is the dynamic volume resizing limitation in Disk Management? Before Windows Vista, you cannot resize dynamic disk conveniently, you can only extend dynamic volume in Disk Management. Moreover, following operations are even impossible. 1. Extend System Volume/Boot Volume. 2. Expand Mirrored Volume. 3. Increase Striped Volume. 4. Extend RAID5 Volume. 5. Extend the Simple Volume which was converted from the basic disk of Windows XP/2003 that was upgraded from Windows 2000. Some conspiracy types will say that these are provided to discourage dual booting. Someone I trust anticipates that future EULAs will make it illegal to "tamper" with partition structures. I'm not sure I can get on board with that but then again, I can imagine MS smugness in recognizing the inadvertent road block. It all goes back to "if you don't own the software on your computer, do you really own your computer?" h |
| gus3 Sep 14, 2010 10:40 AM EDT |
In other words, M$ once again played "catch up" with *nix, and implemented Volume Management. (Insert your favorite TOS-violating phrase here.) |
| tuxchick Sep 14, 2010 12:03 PM EDT |
Wanna bet it's LVM? The LVM license is very liberal: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license Quoting:We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source and to use a liberal open source license. The current license is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, which boils down to this: |
| gus3 Sep 14, 2010 1:33 PM EDT |
Huh? You're talking about the Low-Level Virtual Machine, not the Logical Volume Manager. |
| hkwint Sep 14, 2010 6:33 PM EDT |
On the other hand, shrinking a software-RAID-0 array on Linux isn't possible either, as far as I know. |
| gus3 Sep 14, 2010 6:56 PM EDT |
Yes, it is. For example: --two physical volumes (PV's), 60GB and 80GB, in RAID 0, in one volume group "vg0" --two logical volumes (LV's), 30GB and 20GB, in "vg0" Either PV could be removed from vg0, without compromising the data. As long as there is enough room in the VG to hold all the LV's, it's simply a matter of shuffling the extents. The same is true for btrfs volume management: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Mul... |
| helios Sep 14, 2010 10:56 PM EDT |
Either PV could be removed from vg0, without compromising the data. Oh yeah? Give me a shot at it. ;-) |
| gus3 Sep 14, 2010 10:59 PM EDT |
@helios: Check the pvmove(8) man page. |
| hkwint Sep 15, 2010 9:15 AM EDT |
gus3: That might explain it! I was using mdraid, not LVM - to do the RAID-thing. Then there's an LVM-container on top of my /dev/md0 (basically, the container is md0). But maybe such a setup is senseless, I'm not sure. I had a RAID 0 array spanning 4 disks, 320Gb total with about 120G used (data). One disk had a "faulty" connector corrupting the disk from time to time, so I wanted to "remove" it, and redivide the 120G over the 3 working disks. But I didn't find out how to do so, but of course I might be the one to blame, like most of the times. So I bought a 250Gb external disk, made a backup to it, removed the faulty disk, and simply repartitioned the 3 working disks again. Anyway, now I've hijacked the threat: Is LVM striping an alternative for mdraid? Once I tried to find out, but I'm not sure anymore. |
| gus3 Sep 15, 2010 12:34 PM EDT |
There's also this, from TLDP: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/removeadisk.html One thing not pointed out, is that LV striping parameters cannot be modified by "pvmove". That is, you can't turn a 2-stripe RAID0 into a 1-stripe non-RAID. But I can move a non-RAID LV back and forth between to PV's all day, and the data is none the worse off. I did tinker once with the mdraid tools, back in 2002. It's a much more manual process. LVM2 is practically self-administering, if you don't mind a generic setup. It's even possible to create a LUKS volume on an LV (I just did). |
| caitlyn Sep 16, 2010 3:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:Wait a second Carla..I patented reading with your left eye last year so its you that owes me money...;-I've got you beat, Scott. I've got a patent pending for reading with both eyes. When it gets approved all you people who have two eyes and use them both will be paying me royalties. |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2010 5:19 PM EDT |
So, I will have to read with my right eye the coming decade I guess? Maybe it's time to learn Braille. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!