Yandex seemingly is the only major Web browser for Windows 7/8.1 that still gets updated regularly

[Quack Therapist]

I don't care what M$ management thinks.

You should though because ultimately it's the leadership that's in charge of making such decisions.

at the expense of taxpayers

If there is any miss managed taxpayer money involved, isn't it up to the government to rectify this as they're ultimately the ones responsible directing where it flows?

immoral

Companies have never been moral. And since when has the US government ever used tax payer money for moral purposes? Have you seen the bombing of the Middle East for the last couple of decades? The funding of Israel's army to pretty much commit a genocide?

I get that you're upset by this but I don't understand the surprise.

they should be forced to do so by law.

Good luck with this one. As far as I'm aware, M$ has a pretty good relationship with the current US administration. This isn't 1998-2001 anymore where M$ had several anti-trust lawsuits against them led by the US government.

[NikoB]

Good luck with this one. As far as I'm aware, M$ has a pretty good relationship with the current US administration. This isn't 1998-2001 anymore where M$ had several anti-trust lawsuits against them led by the US government.

You should wish good luck to the people of the USA...they will need it.

[A]

I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

You have no sense of integrity and no intuitive desire to benefit society.

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff. But even I who supports open source, open hardware and things not going to trash disagree with you. Not because I don't think things should last longer, I'd be happy if W7 were supported longer. But your argument is fundamentally wrong

You simply do not have the mindset to distinguish between licensed software and the concept of "work" with public money, which has already been paid for and can easily be made publicly available as a result, because it does not require any additional work other than posting patches on servers for everyone to download .

The government doesn't pay 100,500 times for M$ to make the same patch for the same OS or software 100,500 times for each copy. Or is it not getting through again? The patch is made 1 (one) time for all 100,500 licensed copies.
If M$ considers that 100,500 licenses multiplied by the fee for each is not enough to develop 1 (one) patch, i.e. labor costs do not pay off with a profit, upon receipt of payment in the amount of a conditional $100 x 100500 copies, then M$ refuses to develop a patch or demands an increase in the payment amount. But if she herself agreed to the level of payment, she is obliged to develop a patch as part of the contract.

And once the patch is ready, it is already paid for by all taxpayers and M$ has received payment for this work and profit. Further, this patch must be posted publicly, because it improves public safety and allows owners of old OS to secure them, because M$ made this patch with the money of these people too.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

And this why the copy left provisions of open source licenses are so important, because they insure that if you receive a copy of something, you are entitled to both the source code and have the same rights to redistribute it to others

But this does not mean that someone has the right to use the software if they do not have a license for its copy, although this can be argued if a certain fee is collected from everyone in the country, in favor of all copyright holders.

For example, in my country, all storage media are subject to such a tax automatically at the state level, and this automatically excludes the average person as a defendant from any claim for the use of content (video/music, etc.) from the network, except in cases where this citizen receives from this, a clear profit - and the profit will have to be proven to the copyright holder in court, as a plaintiff.
Those. a legal entity will still have to pay to obtain the right to use the content for business purposes. But an individual can receive any content for free for personal viewing. Because the government itself forced everyone to pay a content tax and copyright holders lost the basis for lawsuits in courts against individuals, but not against entrepreneurs - because for entrepreneurs, it is possible to prove profits, and therefore losses, of the copyright holder.
If someone paid FOR WORK, which is socially useful to everyone and is copied simply by pressing a button (and not by labor costs for copying), then not posting ready-made patches with taxpayers' money is IMMORAL.

We have no such tax here in the US. Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

And it is immoral that US legislators have not yet passed a law on software security, according to which any company that has performed work for government agencies and services to develop patches with taxpayers' money will be obliged to make this patch freely available to everyone.

The thing about this is MS pretty much makes W10+ a free upgrade. Even if such laws were passed, as I mentioned above it would do nothing, the patch would do nothing as it would see you have no license for extended support. If anyone sues, they will just point to W11 and say to upgrade for free

hat is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

You're stupid? It has already been explained to you several times that no licensing has anything to do with this. The patch is made not for the license, but for the software as is. It certainly amuses me to watch you bang your head against the wall in your stupidity.

And it has already been explained to you several times, they aren't paying for patches, they are paying for annual licenses for extended support per computer. The patch is made for the license.

Look, did you know that if you have a computer with 2 cpus instead of 1, you need to buy 2 windows licenses? Yes, even though it is the same computer

If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free

You are lying. I never wrote that. We are only talking about patches and fixes to the system and software that people legally own.

You did, you just don't realize it yourself what you wrote because you don't understand how licensing and contracts work. What you said is no different than someone saying "I am not stealing, I am borrowing without consent or plans to return it"

You really are from that cohort of dishonest people who, unfortunately, have filled the entire planet. You have no understanding of integrity and the desire to benefit society. Apparently your parents and teachers raised you with such an ugly mentality. I am very sorry that you mentally cannot understand what is obvious to any sane person, because you simply don't have common sense or rational thinking.

You are talking about yourself here, you are too stuck up with going "me me me" you don't realize that society is built on a foundation of rules. Breaking such rules for quick conveniences never turns out well. Which is why if you actually cared about benefit of society and honesty, you would push for open source like Linux. The open source licenses give people rights under the legal framework of maintaining proper rules. Demanding that MS hand over their stuff to you when no such agreement has been made is immoral. And again, this is coming from someone who doesn't like MS. Because unlike you, I actually have integrity to know right from wrong

[NikoB]

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

But your argument is fundamentally wrong

Again pointless nonsense, without arguments. Your point of view versus mine is nothing more. Only I have much more arguments and they are rational.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

Issues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

Upgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software. But you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

But you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Even in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

[NikoB]

A - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

[A]

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

Issues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

Upgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

But you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

But you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

Even in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

A - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

[Hotz]

Yandex! Yandex! Ya-Ya-Ya-Ya-Ya-Yaaaaaaaaaaa!

[NikoB]

I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago.

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

Issues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

Upgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

But you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

But you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

Even in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

A - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Officially no.

Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows fixes are made with the money of all US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

Issues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

[NikoB]

Upgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

But you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

But you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

Even in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

A - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters
[/quote]
Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

[NikoB]

Poorly written scripts for the forum ruined everything. But here is a clean answer without errors from the scripts of this forum.

I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.

Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

[NikoB]

By the way, here is a quote from a comment by a Slashdot member with the nickname WaffleMonster regarding the cynical and immoral "support" system for W10 after the fall of 2025 (tech.slashdot.org/story/24/04/03/1757230/microsoft-reveals-subscription-pricing-for- using-windows-10-beyond-2025#comments) (at the same time, M$ is obliged, according to old promises, to support LTSC 1809 until 2028, LTSC 2021 until 2026 and LTSB until 2026 for free - how does this fit in with this?):

Microsoft should be thrilled about the prospect of being able to fix safety defects at distribute those fixes electronically at low cost to themselves. Instead they've chosen to monetize their own failures and incompetence by charging people for the privilege of having the vendor correct their own safety defects. This practice is disgusting and (should be) illegal.

[A]

Poorly written scripts for the forum ruined everything. But here is a clean answer without errors from the scripts of this forum.

I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

Nope, you never cared about society. You just always had a bad habit thinking your voice is the representation of society even when it clearly wasn't. You also have a bad habit of declaring yourself the winner in everything even when you are not.

Even in your response your bad habit of trying to speak for everyone leaks out.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

And what is the right direction? Who decides that? You not liking it does not making it immoral. And just because there is corruption doesn't mean this specific issue is it. If they didn't give free upgrades or locked down devices, sure, but they don't. But even then your statement about government paying for licenses for extended support should mean it is handed out is ridicilous

Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

The consequences you ask for would bring up costs for everyone. Because you are demanding that if government buys licenses, than it must be given free to everyone. Which means that MS would have to raise prices to government 100X fold, which then would be paid by us the tax payers

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

You can see how little they care about it by the fact that they promote Linux on Azure and how they worked to standardize hardware drivers which helped linux a lot. We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue. Of course they did this so they could shrink windows bloat, but there is no way they wouldn't realize the side effects

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.

They gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023 which was when the extended support for windows 7 ended. W10 to 11 is still free

That said, you can still fresh install unactivated copies of w10 and w11. And as I explained, unactivated w10/11 are free minus a few features

Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.

Before you had to cracks or workarounds to get windows working, while MS officially claims they are paid they make the unactivated windows usable without going out of your way

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

So end of the day you say you would sacrifice your morals for winning?

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

I don't get why you have a hard time understanding the difference between being paid by the year for support contracts per pc, and being paid for patches. I kind of wonder what your job is to have such an awkward take on reality

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

What part of my post is slippery and 2 faced?

While I have at one point changed my name, mostly cause I don't remember the old one as I didn't post for years. But I have never posted with 2 different names and again, even this name has been around longer than you have.

[NikoB]

You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

Once again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.

Nope, you never cared about society. You just always had a bad habit thinking your voice is the representation of society even when it clearly wasn't. You also have a bad habit of declaring yourself the winner in everything even when you are not.
Even in your response your bad habit of trying to speak for everyone leaks out.

Pathetic troll, you can't prove it because you're just lying. It's your word against mine. The trouble for you is that mine is more significant, taking into account everything I have written even here over the years. You are simply insignificant compared to me.

And what is the right direction? Who decides that? You not liking it does not making it immoral. And just because there is corruption doesn't mean this specific issue is it. If they didn't give free upgrades or locked down devices, sure, but they don't. But even then your statement about government paying for licenses for extended support should mean it is handed out is ridicilous

I decide. As an adequate and decent person. And people like me. It is my personal right to make such a judgment and give reasons for it. Which I proved with arguments. After which you troll shamefully disappeared into the ditch, without providing a single argument why this is not immoral.

The consequences you ask for would bring up costs for everyone. Because you are demanding that if government buys licenses, than it must be given free to everyone. Which means that MS would have to raise prices to government 100X fold, which then would be paid by us the tax payers

Stupid lies and a priori false statements, like all the above, not supported by anything. Proving that you are an arrogant and deceitful troll.

We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue.

Again a lie, not confirmed by anything. Deceitful troll.

They gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023

Lie.

So end of the day you say you would sacrifice your morals for winning?

No vile troll, it's you above who proved, with the question of student loans and in a bunch of other comments up to this point, that you are two-faced, just like the criminal mafia Biden administration, which flouts the law because it can with the connivance of the stupid crowd. So I just pinned you against the wall and you disgraced yourself and you know about it, like all the readers of this forum. It's not I who meanly change nicknames, but you who are the troll.

I don't get why you have a hard time understanding the difference between being paid by the year for support contracts per pc, and being paid for patches. I kind of wonder what your job is to have such an awkward take on reality

Again, creating the appearance of misunderstanding where the i's are dotted and the lying troll is already backed up against the wall.

What part of my post is slippery and 2 faced?

You are two-faced in that in one case you cannot answer on the merits, but in fact you justify these immoral forgiveness of student loans (and with stupid and completely inadequate arguments) at the expense of the money of all US taxpayers by the criminal Biden administration, which is flouting the law and the decision of the US Supreme Court on prohibition of such payments, i.e. who recognized that this is a direct violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, i.e. those same, so you, supposedly beloved RULES for everyone, and in another case, when the patches are already paid for and made with the money of ALL US taxpayers, you duplicitously pretend that you do not notice the immorality of such behavior of private companies and criminal US officials who enter into They are similar immoral contracts.

If you do not notice, or rather diligently justify the immoral behavior of US officials and politicians, you, troll "A", yourself prove that you are immoral. After all, for you this is the NORM. But not for normal people who understand that everything that has been done with the money of all taxpayers, especially in the field of public safety and improving support for old software, should a priori be publicly posted and accessible to everyone.

Only a criminal conspiracy between corrupt US officials and the greedy US business environment allows this to happen.

My task is to identify this and show everyone how immoral the whole system is.

[A]

You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

Once again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.

I quite literally gave you the name of the threads and also offered that you actually search for my name. If you would have done that you would have realized you were wrong. But like always even when all evidence goes against you, you resort to baseless nonsense

But sure, here are links:

This is one of my first in 2018 using the name A:
notebookchat dot com / index dot php ? topic=96787 . msg354756

Here is me responding to you in one of your first threads 4 years ago:
notebookchat dot com / index dot php ? topic=107908.0


Now will you apologize and admit that you are a liar?

This will be a test to see if you actually have any morals or simply as I mentioned before someone who is self centered and could care less about morals


I will address your other points once you show your "morals"

[NikoB]

Considering that you are a lying troll hiding behind the short and non-unique name A, you will have to work hard and find at least one long enough chain of reasoning in the past to confirm your characteristic way of thinking, to prove that it was not another forum visitor who put such a short nickname. In the meantime, you are just a talker and a liar, and this has been proven many times.

By the way, Google is introducing a paid subscription for heavy queries to "AI", as I predicted - because the cost of energy consumption for one such query exceeds the cost of an ordinary query in their search by several orders of magnitude. But the real level of complex queries, as I predicted, will not be available even with this regular paid subscription.

And it is for this reason that I have proven that LLM in small amounts of memory and computing resources is a stupid and useless toy in practice, suitable only for entertainment and teaching novice students on the topic of expert neural networks.