See, now this is the Microsoft style mentality I have a huge problem with. You can pay good money for it but it is NEVER yours to use as you like, it always belongs to them and they dictate how you can or cannot use it even as the “end user”. At some point consumer rights should be recognized and a moral line drawn. It’s like buying a car and having the car manufacturer perpetually dictate who can and who cannot ride in YOUR car.
I’m thinking that because the products capable of this have not been legally opposed and eliminated from the market they have accepted it and hereby legally nullified their own decree. Like with right of ways across private property, if you do not oppose traffic from using it, then legally it becomes a public right away with no recourse just because you neglected and did not act on your own right to oppose it.
“you allowed it you accepted it”.
Actually, selling a license to use software is a reasonable capitalistic business model, while i find more freedom under Windows than Linux, due to the greater variety of freeware the works with all recent versions of the OS and much less of a learning curve.
And I was not happy finding that at least on one Linux distro insisted that the files of mine on a separate drive were not mine to do with as I pleased, but required learning some script to run each time. That was one reason I liked Puppy.
So many flavors, so much variety, but I think there is much more potential for a free alternative to Windows.