Why Should Dealers Require OS Licenses? 31
gandalf_grey asks: "I just got off the phone with my local Dell Rep. She's just informed me that I cannot order my PC's without an OS pre-installed, unless I have a license for my OS. This is despite the "NO OS" option on their website. I was seriously considering sending them the GPL. I ended up just requesting Linux to save myself a minor spaz, but what business is it of Dell if I own my OS or not? Any comments on similar experiences in dealing with other bulk dealers, and OS/license requirements?" Strikes me as if I buy a machien from Dell with a "No OS" license, then I should be able to put whatever I want on it. What if someone is developing an OS and they haven't written a license yet?
Re:ISO Standards (Score:1)
Re:Minimizing service calls. (Score:1)
NO OS (Score:2)
Corporate responsibility (Score:3)
But, what's really funny is knowing the history of Michael Dell who started selling "grey market" PC compatibles from his UT Austin dorm room. (I worked for an Austin-area computer retailer in the 1980's.) Anyone familiar with the Dell story would enjoy the irony of Dell's up-to-date policy.
When you're rich, it doesn't hurt to play by the rules. When you poor and play by the rules: that's character.
Fair policy, but.. (Score:2)
Re:Minimizing service calls. (Score:3)
Personally, I think the original poster should have sent that one Apple 'open source' license. Or perhaps gotten the license from a copy of QNX:)
(1)Does rep know WTF s/he's talking about? ... (Score:3)
(2) Does s/he have an interest in (commission, sales credits, whatever) your choice?
(3) Where does any seller's rights to dictate pre- and post-conditions of use end? Really!!
What next?
"If you order our computer with an over-20GB disk, you must must first send us a copy of your ISP agreement, and promise in writing not to use the disk in any activity not specifically permitted."
"The BIOS, MBR and associated boot sequence files are customized for your enhanced consumer experience, and are present under the terms of a contract we have with 800lb-OL, and you must agree not to change them in any way, nor interfere with their communication of experience enhancement data when connected to the internet."
Um, I think it's time to review the agreement/contract condition-setting process itself. It's getting out of hand. Remember when the 'phone company could dictate exactly what you could have inside your house, attached to their wires? Now you can do as you please, so long as you match the interface specs (though watch of a replay in terms of network use ;-/ ).
There are some conditions which have no business in any agreement, being essentially meddlesome and/or irrelevant to the central sales transaction. Unlike riders on bills in Congress, these are not part of a checks-and-balances process. These agreement riders are pure abuse.
I'm fed up to here with it. Every "agreement" for anything nowadays is packed with everything the lawyers can think of to waive your rights and expand theirs. It's really abusive. And the low end sales droids can't accept a marked-up agreement, so it's all or nothing. There ought to be a law that forces subsidiary "agreement" terms to have opt-out check boxes, so e.g., you don't have to agree to let a company share all the data on the form (and whatever you gave them permission to check on) with whomever they please, just to get a cell 'phone or buy a big HDTV on credit.
Also, if they don't have a right to control something after a sale, they should not be allowed to make it a condition of sale either.
Just Wrong (Score:1)
Re:This just makes sense. (Score:1)
You don't drive a 2000 pound computer down the highway, at the risk of other peoples lives, do you?
You don't have to prove, at some point, that you are morally responsible, that you won't drive your computer when your drunk, or that you won't modify it beyond what DOT specifies.
If you crash your computer, you're not bringing insurance rates up higher, you don't damage physical property (usually! overclockers beware:).
Are there laws governing the safe operation of a computer? The legal owning of a computer?
Re:Fair policy, but.. (Score:1)
Re:Just Wrong (Score:1)
You mean, like when you go to the fast food and take a menu, they are not supposed to propose some extra ice cream ?
Re:This just makes sense. (Score:1)
Might make it ewasier to buy one (and certainly to get it home)!
I wouldn't be upset if they accepted Linux as a.. (Score:1)
In regards to this policy preventing piracy: what's to keep me from sending my Windows 98 SE license that's already running my current machine? (Not that I need to worry; I currently have *way* too many Windows licenses to care.)
(Next: Microsoft requests that my post be removed because it demonstrates a way to circumvent the copy protection process [the license code] and under the DMCA, that's not legal.)
-T
Re:ISO Standards (Score:1)
Otherwise, the manufacturer has to load OS, test, unload OS. PITA for them.
Totally OT - But...I...can't...RESIST! (Score:2)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/441
The short answer is no, you don't even need a driver's license to drive on public roads, providing you are not a commercial driver. It is the Constitutionally protected "right-to-travel". Most people are unaware of such a thing - most judges are unaware of such a thing. I believe every case that has been brought before a court on these grounds has ended up being thrown out (yeah, you will get arrested or ticketed for driving without a license. But show up in court, and argue against it and, provided you have all the paperwork (the MSO is the big one - you have to buy your car outright in cash to even hope to get it, and even then it is a bitch to obtain), and no liens against your car (this won't happen if you paid cash, but if you had to get a loan, which most people have to, kiss that MSO goodbye - the MSO, along with the purchasing invoice and the title, form a complete bill-of-sale, proving you own the vehicle. Most of the time, the MSO gets "split" between the lien holder and the state for licensing, and thus, technically, you don't own your vehicle - the state does), and it will be thrown out, due to Constitutional protection.
Look into it - look at the various cases, read the Constitution and what it says regarding travel, and you will soon realize how we have let ourselves get screwed...
Re:Corporate responsibility: Don't insult customer (Score:3)
It's not their place to "require a license" that they are not party to. That's not "playing ethically," that's being a meddling busybody.
Don't let the desirability of ends (e.g., preventing piracy) make you think any means promoting the ends are therefore ok and ethical. This fallacy of thought is all too common in Congress, and resulting laws show it.
As it happens, I have licenses up the kazoo, with a Universal MSDN subscription (now lapsed, so I don't have w2k stuff), Red Hat deluxe direct from them, BSD power pak, an old OS/2 Warp, old MSDOS's, and Windows from 3.1, many kilobucks' worth over time, all paid for, and I have the receipts. Beside all those options, I may want to get a NIC with a boot prom and boot a custom file server right onto the metal, and use the disk in raw LBA mode for a great big hashed database hashing direct to bucket sector numbers, or any other thing that's none of their business.
It is not the business of a box seller to check on my honesty, (dammit) (except, to a point, re credit, if they are extending that).
I could see doing some checks if I were buying arms, chemicals, or explosives, but a dumb computer?? It's the arrogance and stupidity of thinking it's ok treat everyone as suspect that gets me. No, worse, it's that they even think they have a right to ask for evidence of honest motives. Just asking is soft-core character assassination.
Of course, if they have to forego revenue when they give you a blank disk, then it's understandable that they wouldn't want to. But leave crime prevention out of it when you are talking to potential customers, because it's insulting. And people sense it, even if they can't articulate why.
The message to the sales folks is, "Insulting your customers is bad for sales." B-A-D F-O-R S-A-L-E-S is B-A-D F-O-R Y-O-U-R I-N-C-O-M-E, and that is all you care about, ethics has nothing to do with it. Got the taste of your medicine yet? Go back to beginning of this paragraph.
New policy? (Score:1)
Re:The GPL is a license, and it is the Linux kerne (Score:1)
Seems a bit of an extreme reaction. Just tell them its none of their business. If they insist go to a different supplier.
Another Dell Experience (Score:1)
Last time I bought a box from Dell, before they started selling Linux, I tried to order the box without an OS. I talked to three different sales reps, and they told me three different things:
At this point, I gave up and ordered a computer from Gateway. I still had to buy a copy of Windows that I threw away, but at least they didn't feed me a lot of bullshit.
Minimizing service calls. (Score:1)
No OS, puts them at the mercy of the installer. Whether that be an experienced sysadmin or Uncle Walt, who "always wanted to try it".
Of course the cynic in me adds:
Isn't part of the MS agreement with such vendors that they had to pay for the license regardless of whether they ship you the box with it installed?
Micr*soft License Requirement (Score:2)
I work for a major system manufacturer... "syst*max" and we were recently notified of the "empire"'s new license agreement requirements for major OEM's. They are as follows (what I know of them for my job- senior tech support)
#1. Systems cannot ship with original Windoze media. We are permitted to ship a recovery disc, provided the disc will only work with that system, and we must pay ADDITIONAL fees to Micr*soft for each of said disc.
#2. Our agreement will allow us to ONLY sell Micr*soft OS on our systems, and those customers or companies wanting a pc or bunch of pcs without an OS, must show proof of ownership of licenses for a Micr*soft OS, otherwise we are not allowed to sell said systems. In fact, managment has warned us all that any employees who violate this policy (processing a system without a MS OS) will be terminated! The only exception is MS will allow us to sell a server without an OS if the customer shows proof of ownership of a NOVELL server product.
There you have it folks. The evil empire hasnt learned it's lesson. Hope I have been of some help.
Re:This just makes sense. (Score:1)
--
Re:New policy? (Score:2)
Its probably a desktop PC-only policy which isn't enforced on servers, since Joe/Jane Average isn't going to be buying a PowerEdge sans OS license and then proceed to call up Dell Technical support asking why [insert OS here] doesn't install correctly. If you're buying a server, Dell assumes that you know what you're doing. (whether that's actually the case.... )
On the other hand, it could just be a particularly rigid sales rep who doesn't understand why you wouldn't want Windows 98SE and thinks you're just trying to make his/her life more difficult. I've jumped through this hoop trying to get Windows NT 4 pre-installed from a certain vendor, so asking for Linux and getting the run-around isn't suprising.
Re:This just makes sense. (Score:1)
Re:This just makes sense. (Score:1)
This just makes sense. (Score:1)
--
Re:Micr*soft License Requirement (Score:2)
I'll be! Thanks for warning me. I was eyeing one of those fine systems, but a quick call confirmed that no, they couldn't sell be a custom-configured system without Windows.
I'll be putting my $$'s someplace else...
-BrentISO Standards (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't be upset if they accepted Linux as a (Score:1)
Here's an example of going the other way... (Score:1)
Re:Minimizing service calls. (Score:1)
After a few minutes of questioning the tech suggests using that "emergency recovery CD" to restore, and then they'll troubleshoot.
Anyhoo, why order a Dell without an OS when you can burn a copy of it for all your friends!
-sid