Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (
More info?)
Rick wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d8tsdq127g6@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>> > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:d8ssp30mvn@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >> Rick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "schooner" <schooner@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ecdse.57509$HI.9776@edtnps84...
>> >> >> And no one likes it why? Beside the typical anti MS stance some
>> >> >> like to take.
>> >> >> Most that hate .net have no clue what it even is, they just hate it
>> >> >> for spite.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Its a runtime library.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, a runtime library for subscription based software.
>> >> >
>> >> > Schooner, take your head out of your ass. "Most" people
>> >> > know perfectly well what .NET is all about, and that's why
>> >> > they hate it. MS's vision for the future is one that prevents
>> >> > end user upgradability for computer hardware, and also
>> >> > phases out users from purchasing licensed software.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? I think you have the .NET SDK confused with Microsoft Passport
>> >> or something.
>> >
>> > I think you don't know what you're talking about:
>> >
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/dotnet_backgrounder.asp
>>
>> Which is five years old
>
> What does that have to do with anything? The purpose
> of .NET hasn't changed.
And you know this how?
> If you want more recent references, there's no shortage of
> them. Look 'em up.
Why don't you present a few that actually demonstrate that some feature
of .NET that supportst your argument.
>> and is discussing a whole slew of Microsoft
>> products, not just the .NET SDK.
>
> Again, not relevant. .NET is the framework necessary for
> subscription-based software.
Huh? Microsoft seemed to be able to distribute subscription-based software
just fine several years ago.
>> So tell us what features of the .NET SDK
>> "prevent end user upgradeability for computer hardware"
>
> I never said .NET is intended to prevent end user hardware
> upgrades. Those design specs are in a different part of MS's
> roadmap. I mentioned it because the philosophy is similar
> to .NET.
In other words you're spreading FUD.
>> and how it "phases out users from purchasing licensed software".
>
> We're already seeing examples of it. .NET Office (as
> mentioned in the link I gave),
So how does one go about subscribing to this ".NET Office"? They said that
Office 11 was going to be distributed that way among others. Well, I'm
running 11.6 and there's no subscription and if you can find a way to
obtain one please let us know. Yes, they ran a subscription based trial
and found that end-users avoided it in droves and the few that did go for
it got really mad when the subscription expired.
> and third-party examples such
> as products from Symantec, Adobe etc. E.g. CS and CS2
> now install Macrovision's SafeCast. SafeCast supports
> subscription enforcement as one of its four licensing options.
So? Macrovision is not a Microsoft subsidiary and their whole purpose to
existence is to annoy people, so what relevance do they have to .NET?
> Adobe simply needs to flip a software switch and Photoshop,
> Illustrator etc. will no longer run without calling home and
> forcing users to pay a subscription fee.
At which point they will tell Adobe to go screw themselves just as the
customers in Microsoft's subscription-based trial did when their software
quit working at the end of a year. And Corel laughs all the way to the
bank. And if those customers were not informed before purchase that they
were being provided a subscription-based product then by the time the
lawyers are done with them the executives responsible for the decision, as
they sit on their heating grates chugging their Ripple, will agree that
they wish that they had never _heard_ the word "subscription".
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram