The inevitable...My return to Windows

Today I received a disappointing surprise when I turned on my desktop computer, which is a triple boot (Mandriva 2010.2 PwP, Pardus 2011, Windows XP SP3). It came as a cold shower after a day that started with gratifying experiences that skyrocketed...until I got home and tried to use the PC. But bear with me and let me describe how the day went, so that you grasp my tragedy in full form.

My day started with a class discussion on malware, lies, and false pretenses thanks to two texts that we read. It's a reading comprehension class and my students reacted with an awakened interest that you normally do not expect for a class that begins at 7 AM. After reading a poorly supported piece spreading misconceptions, we read Carla Schroder's post on FUD, which cracked a paradigm that many of us once failed to see. The session went great and was followed by a challenging task. Yes, two colleagues asked me to install Mandriva to their netbooks, a Toshiba and an Acer powered by that little gem of an OS that has prompted many to give Linux a try: Windows 7 Starter. I could have failed there had not been for the timely help I received from Megatotoro, who saved the day with his tactics to make Starter share the HDD.

The rest of the day was pretty normal until I went back home and turned my computer on with a fervent wish to post a festive entry. As usual, Mandriva started the computer, but there was something unexpected: the network applet, instead of showing a green check mark, displayed a red "X". Without caring too much, I clicked on the applet to launch Netdrake and fire off the connection manually. However, the X stood there, defying my clicks and laughing sardonically before my baffled eyes. "Mandriva is not working," I thought, after having checked the wires and realizing that everything was properly attached. "Well, there's always Pardus," I consoled myself, and rebooted the PC using the Turkish distro. But Pardus also told me that the connection was unavailable and a spiral of uneasiness ascended through my stomach. My two Linux distros had deserted me: only Windows was left, that long-forgotten OS that had rested unused for more than four months already. Windows was my last hope to connect to the Internet. I could not prevent it; I was shivering as I clicked the red button in Pardus and selected "Boot Windows".

Last time I tried to use Windows, there was a blackout, so I, logically, got a black screen asking me if I wanted to boot Windows normally, or with the last configuration that had worked, etc. I selected "normal" and saw with hope the XP logo...but the computer rebooted unexpectedly and threw me again to the same black screen. "OK, let's go 'last good config' this time," I mumbled and chose. And XP, for its part, chose to do something wonderful: it got me into a cute loop and refused to start. Isn't that wonderful? I have been using my PC all this time without even knowing that Windows XP had fried! Thus, my return to Windows was colored by the inevitable reminder of its many weaknesses.

Five years ago, this loop would have thrown me into a state of anxiety that easily justified my spending the whole night up reinstalling the darn OS. Right now, I just don't care. No anxiety build-up. The plain truth is that my computer works; Windows doesn't.

By the way, I realized that the problem with the net was because the hardware is malfunctioning. See, I'm posting this entry from the wireless connection. Tomorrow, I will get the hardware piece replaced :-)

Microsoft Windows 7 Starter EULA and customer abuse

Today, as I was reading this post, I decided to pay Microsoft a visit and download a copy of their glittering Windows 7 Starter EULA. I read some requirements that unsettled me. Let me transcribe an excerpt of the Windows 7 Starter EULA to tell you why those conditions are simply outrageous:


"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed [...].

You may use the software as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

• work around any technical limitations in the software;
• customize the desktop background
• reverse engineer, decompile [...]

Certain features of other Windows 7 product editions, including Windows Aero and the ability to change the desktop background, are not included in this software." (Microsoft Windows 7 Starter EULA)

I doubt that Microsoft lawyers seriously expect users to comply with those ridiculous terms and conditions. First, an interesting tautological falsehood is created if you must accept the software (Windows 7 Starter) with all its flaws and the license forbids you from "working around technical limitations". If you accept the conditions of this EULA and take Windows vulnerability to malware as one of the implicit "technical limitations in the software", the logical implication is that the EULA itself forbids you to install an antivirus solution to protect your Windows system. Of course, lawyers will claim that the clause refers to improving the OS itself, not "helping it" with additional software. However, the contradiction lies on the fact that the EULA makes the OS and the system an indivisible unit (remember: you must return the computer if you do not accept the license). Therefore, if hardware (tangible, made by an OEM) is ridiculously bundled with software (intangible, made by Microsoft), why would they claim that other software running on the OS to protect it is not an indispensable part of the system? Because it is third-party software, not Microsoft's, they will probably say. Well, how about the hardware the OS is running on? Is not that third-party, too? Why is it that I must return the hardware if I reject the software (Windows), then? After all, the hardware was not made by Microsoft. I suppose that Microsoft representatives would say that it is because the OEM agreed to install Windows. If that is the case, then the OEM should be required to agree to the EULA, not the computer buyer.

The situation, however, becomes even more ridiculous with the second clause. The statement is categorical; there is not any ambivalence to it. I guess you can even rephrase it as a biblical commandment: "Thou shall not customize the desktop background".

Basically, dissatisfied people who found third-party programs to change the hideous Windows 7 Starter background are against the law. Yes, they are violating the Second Law of Microsoftics. Period. There is no argument about it. Nevertheless, I do not see Microsoft's legal war machinery aiming its weapons at them. Why not? Well, because the progenitors of the unpopular 7 Starter knew from the beginning that sober people would never comply with such buffoonery and that other software companies would palliate the situation which, in the end, saved Microsoft's face (yes, Starter seems to be a rival for Clippit's unpopularity). That is why the Redmond bully never filed a lawsuit against Oceanis, for example, even though the latter company produced a program designed exclusively to make users break the "unalterable background" law.

Interestingly, Microsoft's failure to launch an attack to force users respect the content of the Windows 7 Starter EULA spawns yet another contradiction: Can this permissiveness be taken as a signal of amnesty toward infringement? If so, then the whole content of the EULA goes void, which means that I can pirate Windows 7 without any concern. But you know how this would end: Microsoft lawyers would not hesitate to take me to court if I do.

I wonder what would happen if people realized how anti-democratic these EULAs are. Not only do these irrational licenses cut your freedom, but they also establish discriminatory policies against users who "rebel" against them. This looks more like fascism than anything else to me. (The image was censored because it depicted inappropriate content for Microsoft, I suppose. After all, any visual connection that you make between this company and fascism is perceived as such regardless of the clearly anti-democratic practices the company promotes. What attribution does this company have to "limit my rights" as an individual and transfer the execution of this violation to OEMs?)

Las particiones de Mandriva: ventajas y desventajas

Las HP Mini me están empezando a cansar. ¿Por qué HP vende netbooks con el disco duro tan particionado? Cuatro particiones (y dos prácticamente inútiles) son demasiadas. Además, eso impide que uno pueda fácilmente instalar Mandriva, ya que esta distribución Linux crea tres particiones: la partición de sistema, la de swap, y la de home (datos del usuario)

La ventaja del particionado de Mandriva radica en que, si por alguna razón uno debe reinstalar el sistema, sencillamente puede hacerlo formateando la partición de sistema. Todos los datos, elementos personalizados y archivos del usuario se mantendrán intactos. De esta forma, su computadora estará TOTALMENTE lista en cosa de media hora.

La desventaja es que, cuando el OEM misteriosamente crea cuatro particiones, es más difícil para un usuario inexperto instalar Linux. ¿Será esta una nueva técnica para impedir que los "usuarios satisfechos" con Windows 7 Starter migren a Linux?