you are free to believe whatever but I have a copy of the OS in my possession and it IS (IN FACT) my property.
I'll let the irony of this quote speak for itself.
modern society's "beliefs" do not change the facts.
Got ya. Society is an individual that has "beliefs" and he or she can be proven wrong with verifiable facts (that you seem to have forgotten to provide).
do you have first hand knowledge that this EULA is indeed a valid contract and is it applicable to me? are you certain of that?
Well, it's not really my role to assume that people I don't know anything about are being pirates, through voluntary refusal of the terms of the Windows EULA (which, if they do, they have to return their copy for refund), but we can go that route if you want to... Now of course, if you want to make the counter claim that your country's consumer's laws are above Microsoft's EULA, surely you can point me to the article of law that states so.
are you licensed to give legal advice?
It doesn't take a license to give you this piece of legal advice: If you firmly believe that EULAs do not apply to you and should be free to do whatever you like with software that is governed by them, you might want to stay away from the legal circles of your country as Microsoft doesn't seem to take it too kindly to individuals who think that they are above the terms of the Windows or Office EULAs.
From what I am aware, each country (apart perhaps from North Korea) does seem to have a fairly established anti-piracy bureau, which software corporations can call on to to go after people who refuse to abide by the terms of their EULAs.
But to come back to the actual topic, I do try to read the contracts that legally govern my use of software applications, so that I can form an educated judgement from their interpretation. You are of course free to try to counter this interpretation, but then, for your counter to be receivable, you have to try to back up your claims.
you serve your avatar very well ;-)
Come on, everyone who've seen the movies know that Smith is where the real fun is!
I have made no such claims
You have been posting a reply indicating that it was fine to use XP as one's main platform after I:
1. explicitly chastised people who continue to use XP as their main platform, on account of being a security liability
2. indicated that encouraging the use of a retired platform as one's own choice, in light of the above liability, was also dangerous.
And; what proof do you have to back your claims here?
Microsoft, deciding to go out of their way, right after official Windows XP support had ended, to fix a critical OS vulnerability. As a software developer, with some ideas about the amount of bugs and shortcomings that get left even in the best managed code, especially if it's a very large amount of it, such an OS kernel, I'll tell you that vulnerabilities are pretty much like "the big one" - it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".
who is M$ anyway?
Rather than who, I can tell you what "M$" is.
It usually is a clear indicator of a biased view against the Microsoft corporation (whether justified or not), with the downside of making it harder from the side of the argument using it to be taken seriously.
I know. I used to do that too. But these days, when I criticize Microsoft, I prefer to use unbiased acronyms and let verifiable facts, such as the terms of an EULA, speak for themselves.
do you think he or she can testify or bring forth a verifiable claim in any court of law? again, are you certain (beyond the shadow of any doubt) of that?
Likewise, don't call on "beyond the shadow of any doubt" if you want to be taken seriously.
Am I certain, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you aren't a lizard? Absolutely not.
Still, that doesn't mean the idea isn't laughable.
Also, you're trying to evade the question I asked you. If you want to dispute my assertion, and the logic I brought forward to justify it, fine, but you better do that with something that has more depth than your original "Microsoft just wants to make it harder for users", which has almost as much standing as saying "Microsoft just want to eliminate round shapes" or "The lizard people are among us!".
Again, can you please explain why Microsoft would want to make it harder or less secure for Windows users, as you stated they have been trying to do.
Akeo, are you one of those people so hopelessly lost in the matrix that you will fight to protect it or are you just not ready to exit yet?
I can read the code. I can alter it. I can also create my own.
Moreover, unlike what a Microsoft EULA entitles its users to, I can get my code cloned with pretty much everybody.
Wait, are we still talking about being a Smith in the Matrix, or real life...?