What do Acer and Microsoft have in common?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn May 21, 2009 5:35 PM EDT |
What do Acer and Microsoft have in common? They both are ready to kick a charity in the teeth. See: http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=63B8D6DC-1A64-6A71-CE239976... Tip of the hat to tuxchick who ran that story on LinuxToday. |
| caitlyn May 22, 2009 7:39 PM EDT |
OK, my first hasty gut reaction response was really inappropriate. All we have to go on is Ken's/Helios article. We all know Ken can be a tad bit confrontational at times. He may have been the perfect gentleman on the phone with Acer or he may have been, um... frustrated and it could have come out in the conversation. It is also unlikely that help desk folks answering the phone would be able to make the exception Ken was looking for. We don't know if he tried to go up the food chain into management or how far he got. I probably should also point out that Acer had no way to verify that Ken was who he said he was on the phone. Doing so would have, at the very least, required a minimum amount of due diligence, again something a low paid phone answering person is unlikely to bother with. I'm not saying that Acer doesn't deserve Ken's wrath. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. I'll feel much better about jumping to conclusions here if I get to read a response from Acer or at least more details from Ken. |
| tuxchick May 22, 2009 11:53 PM EDT |
To me the big question is why do they implement this Trusted Computing crud that renders the whole PC inoperable? Well OK I'm nitpicking, because the article says that $100 bills will fix them. The industry tried very hard to destroy the second-hand software market, and nearly succeeded. IMO Trusted Computing was an attempt to kill the second-hand hardware market. Or is it present tense? Are they still trying to force Trusted Computing (oh I hurt at typing nasty Newspeak) on us? |
| caitlyn May 23, 2009 12:48 AM EDT |
tuxchick: You and I have no disagreement at all when it comes to (Mis)Trusted Computing. That doesn't answer the questions I raised about what transpired here. We still don't have the full story. Ken can fill in the missing bits if he wants or leave questions unanswered. It's up to him. For me to take it at face value, which was my first instinct, I just want some questions answered. Too many people are way too quick to condemn nowadays. |
| gus3 May 23, 2009 1:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:Too many people are way too quick to condemn nowadays.And too few are willing to use their brains to bring a situation to resolution. Why in the world must I pay some nitwit corporation to find out how to fix MY machine? And why am I not allowed to share that information with others who own the same equipment? It isn't like I'm asking the Nitwit Corp. to do the work for free; I'm asking them for the instructions on how to do the work myself. But this line of thinking says I'm not allowed to fix my own system. This is exactly what the Free Software Foundation warned about regarding Treacherous Computing. That "reasoning" flies less and less these days. Case in point: a pending bill in the US Congress that forces disclosure of diagnostic codes in cars and trucks, to restore to the owners the right to do their own diagnoses and repairs. "Condemn" is too light a word. I will make sure to badmouth Acer to everyone I come in contact with who is looking for a computer. They've earned it. |
| hkwint May 23, 2009 8:33 PM EDT |
Believe it or not, Acer is the ONLY, let me repeat that: the ONLY company who offers a reasonable return policy for Microsoft Windows. I know it might be offtopic (how can it be given the thread is about Microsoft and Acer?), but it is one of the reasons if you are forced to buy a company from a big brand (they benefit from scale advantages) you might consider buying an Acer instead of Toshiba or HP. The latter two clearly say they don't offer refunds for unused 'parts' of the 'solutions' they ship. Honorable mention to Fujitsu Siemens as well, they offer a refund which is so expensive it will only cost you money, but hey, they tried. What I also didn't read as of yet in this whole story: Microsoft and Intel are the sole reasons the whole DRM-market - including TPM - came into existence. Whenever I can, I tell people not to buy from Intel - at least if you care about freedom (there have been issues with Intel-sites on assumed confiscated Palestina area and privacy / gay rights earlier; Intel only limits freedom). Remember: TPM wasn't included because Redhat or Theo de Raadt asked for it; even Hollywood didn't. Someone should bash Intel and MS for that. If nobody is willing too, I'm willing to take the vacancy. Not only Acer should be blamed. What's happening here is MS and Intel, who caused this garbage; are keeping real quiet and while standing in front of Acer are ducking now the poo is thrown back at them. Guess who needs to wash their face (Acer obviously couldn't duck because they manufactured the s*** they were ordered to) after that happens. And - speaking about 'duck' - it's easy duckhunting at companies with brown faces. I'd suggest sending all those parts - signed for return and paid by the recipient if possible - to Intel and Microsoft (at least we know the names of their managers) and tell them THEY caused this garbage with their DRM policies. Oh, and please do send samples out to George Ou - the most vocal shill of DRM or Microsoft but probably both - as well. Phew, feel better now. You guys can rest now, the interlude is over. Back to bashing Acer I guess, or otherwise something that can derail this thread. If the latter won't happen within a few days, I will be happy to do so. I already typed the perfect reaction to all of this crap, until I realized it would only end up in a clear TOS violation within millisec and I removed my 'flamebait' (which, by the way, was rather serious and in my opinion valid as well). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!