In article <1266727.EDkq0zubNj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> Analysis: DRM may be why Microsoft flip-flopped on Vista virtualization
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Whether most users would call DRM a feature, however, is questionable. A
> | close cousin to DRM technology, known as Windows Rights Management Services
> | (which in turn is part of a larger category of technologies called Enterprise
> | Digital Rights Management, or ERM), can help business users password-protect
> | key documents and files, or assign the ability to open them only to trusted
> | co-workers. But DRM's main purpose seems to be to help the Warner Bros. and
> | Sony Musics of the world keep consumers from sharing movies and music. The
> | entertainment industry claims that almost all blocked sharing is illegal;
> | digital rights watchdogs argue that legitimate consumer uses are also blocked
> | by such technology.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9025466&pageNumber=1
>
> How so very fragile DRM has become. It will punish the innocent and never stop
> pirates (as everyone predicated all along).
>
>
> Yesterday:
>
> Is need for control behind Microsoft's flip-flop?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Meanwhile, Gartner analyst Michael Silver took Microsoft to task
> | for its continued restrictions.
> |
> | "Microsoft's policies...come off as a way to gouge customers," Silver
> | said in an e-mail, noting that customers are forced to pay for higher
> | priced editions, even though they don't get many of the benefits, like
> | the Aero user interface, which often won't work in a virtual machine.
> |
> | Silver argues that Microsoft is likely leaving money on the table.
> | "Allowing use of lower priced (editions) could even be worth more
> | money to Microsoft as it would likely increase the number of people
> | that would legally run a Microsoft OS in a VM (like on a Mac),"
> | Silver wrote. "Eventually they will have no choice but to make their
> | peace with virtualization."
> `----
>
> http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9733433-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>
>
> Last week:
>
> Microsoft insults our intelligence on Virtualization security
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft has once again pulled out the security argument for its
> | decision again and I must say that I find it rather insulting. It?s
> | not that I think Microsoft doesn?t have a right as a private business
> | to set the terms of the EULA as they see fit, but don?t take us for f
> | ools. If they want to restrict Virtualization, just come out and
> | say it and don?t make up ridiculous excuses for it.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Trying to stop a Hypervisor Rootkit with a EULA is like trying to
> | stop Malware with a EULA.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=549
>
If you gave MS a perfectly square piece of stainless steel for
safekeeping, it would **somehow** end up a mangled pile of rust.
Only MS.
Anything they touch either dies dead, or it becomes corrupted to a degree
impossible to describe.
Actual psychotic behavior. The Redmond Syndrome.
|
|
