Bloody Windows!!!

[bd139]

Just a point here. I spend most of my day inside the bowels of Linux machines. Hundreds of them. Myself and my immediate colleagues use windows laptops because none of us like Linux desktops. Since gnome 2, I’d rather punch myself in the dick.

To software vendors: just fucking leave shit alone and fix all the bugs.

[Refrigerator]

I'll take my words on the spectre patch back because they just installed on my i5 Dell and it feels like a wet noodle now. It was snappy and nice for web browsing but now it's just a weird mix of frustration and disappointment. It's also using 12% of my CPU at idle, which is stupid.

[Zero999]

I have no problem with a rolling release. In fact I like the idea. When I moved to Linux, I deliberately selected a distribution with a rolling release cycle, as I don't like having to reinstall the entire OS, every time it stops being supported, which is quite regularly with most distros. The downside is I chose PC Linux OS which doesn't easily allow KDE to be upgraded without reinstalling everything, so I'll stick with the outdated version, until it causes problems with newer software. Next time, I'll install a fulling rolling distribution, which will update the desktop, without the need for messing around or a reinstall.

The good thing about Linux is, I'm in full control of when I install updates and it seldom requires a reboot. Windows 10 will update itself, whenever it wants to, whether the user likes it or not.

I like rolling releases on Linux, too. The difference is, as you pointed out, with Arch Linux I can choose what and when to update. Windows 10 doesn’t give you the same flexibility (without jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops) and even then, you don’t have a choice of not upgrading the core system. With Arch
Linux for example, I can choose to skip a kernel version and still receive all other updates.

The only issue I have with rolling releases compared to yearly major releases (like macOS) is that things tend break even over the course of the year, instead of all at once, once per year. So it *feels* like you’re doing a lot more work or constantly tracking down one problem or another. I’ve also noticed that, because of this, some people on rolling release based OS’ try to hold off on updating for long periods, because they don’t have time to deal with a new issue right now. (This is likely one of the reasons behind MS’s forced update policy.)

Personally, I’d rather spend a weekend fixing everything that’s broken once a year, than spend an evening once per month doing the same.

I suppose I'm very lucky. The only thing which an update broke for me was LTSpice 64-bit stopped working, although I suppose that could happen when updating WINE on any distro. Fortunately there was an easy workaround: use the 32-bit executable (which is present on the 64-bit install) instead. It was also fixed in the next update, so I didn't have to wait long.

Yep I had always kind of wanted to go Linux, but I knew that I would in some cases just make my life harder since everything is for Windows - and sometimes I think the same way.  If I'm buying hardware I need to make the decisions based on whether or not it will even work in Linux.  Same with items that have an "app" because usually it's for iPhone only, so need to make sure there's an android version too.

But when I saw what direction MS was going towards with windows 8 I jumped ship.  I have a windows 7 machine I use for gaming, and I will keep it windows 7 for as long as I possibly can. 

And I totally agree with the Unix/Linux GUI inconsistencies that is one thing that I find is still an issue and annoying, but now MS is doing the same thing too!   Some programs open in a somewhat normal interface while others open with that ugly white flat one.

Over the past 10 years I have never had to buy desktop hardware based on 'If' Linux supports it. Laptops used to be a problem, especially wireless support, but not so much anymore.

The GUI inconsistencies in Linux are because of no universal GUI API. You have Qt, GTK, KDE, wxWidgets, just to name a few, or you could just go old school and use X directly. Windows OTOH has (had) a single GUI API, you could always override it's behavior or write your own, but from a cost point of view it never made sense to reinvent the wheel and risk compatibility as well as inconsistent GUI behavior between versions. Applications like the GIMP which have a windows port suffer with windows GUI integration because it uses a windows port of GTK.

But I guess that is the nature of open source... If something doesn't work as it "should" open source developers don't weigh in the financial cost in time to write their own version that works how they would like it to work, simply because they are writing it for their own personal satisfaction, on their own time.

Personally I am sick of Windows trying to "enhance" the GUI, and I was satisfied with Gnome 2, until idiots decided to make Gnome 3 and break everything we loved about Gnome 2. These days I just stick to i3wm, it's simple, thin, doesn't hog resources and doesn't get "enhanced" between updates. For legacy software (windows games) I run windows as a VM under KVM with a gaming video card passed through to the VM, this way I get the best of both worlds without being forced into running malware (windows 10) for my working environment.

The biggest problem with hardware is things like cheap printers, which don't use standard protocols.

The only thing I've noticed, GUI inconsistency wise is the standard dialog boxes, such as the ones for opening files differs between GTK+ and Qt applications. At least now it can be set up, so the widgets look virtually the same.


I think this is more to do with the history of UNIX, rather than open vs closed source. If there had been one standard widget library integrated into X, right from the start, which everything had to be compatible with, then it would look more consistent, but that's not what happened.

[BravoV]

The GUI inconsistencies in Linux are because of no universal GUI API. You have Qt, GTK, KDE, wxWidgets, just to name a few, or you could just go old school and use X directly. Windows OTOH has (had) a single GUI API, you could always override it's behavior or write your own, but from a cost point of view it never made sense to reinvent the wheel and risk compatibility as well as inconsistent GUI behavior between versions. Applications like the GIMP which have a windows port suffer with windows GUI integration because it uses a windows port of GTK.

But I guess that is the nature of open source... If something doesn't work as it "should" open source developers don't weigh in the financial cost in time to write their own version that works how they would like it to work, simply because they are writing it for their own personal satisfaction, on their own time.

Imo, this is the main weaknes of Linux in penetrating the desktop market.

Average Joe and grandma don't care which one is uber superior GUI either with killer features or the slim&mean one, they need consistency across any computers they use.

I'm a Linux noob, just few months ago, while trying latest downloaded Fedora, I accidentally broke the GUI and ended up can not boot into GUI anymore, only the command prompt after booting and left me no clue how to proceed. Though I managed to bring it out again with the instruction from Googling "AT THE 2ND COMPUTER". User with one PC (and no other internet access like from smartphone/tablet) is definitely screwed.

And no, I didn't tweak or changed any system configurations, nor SU and did some silly changes. Just all thru standard Fedora supplied GUI apps.

Until today, I'm quite surprised that it is still very easy to break the GUI rendered the PC only can boot up with command prompt. If I remembered it right, I only did an online auto update as the recommendation, and its a new X370 AMD mobo, that was it, after the upgrade, it failed to boot up the GUI which was not a problem when it was installed 1st.

It feels like the old days when using earlier Linux that was standard came with X, that was so easy to break it, and left the user ended up with text mode command prompt.

Exactly like the nostalgic Windows 3.1 era that we had to boot into DOS prompt 1st and then type Win to launch the GUI, the problem is avg. Joe even doesn't have any idea to type the "WIN" at the prompt to launch the WIN.COM executable. Of course advanced user can tweak the AUTOEXEC.BAT if its broken that makes it to launch windows automatically at booting, but the problem is avg Joe doesn't know heck wtf is that, let alone asking them to launch a text mode editor to edit that batch file. Edlin ? Copy con autoexec.bat ? 

End of Linux noob rant.

[lundmar]

I'm a Linux noob, just few months ago, while trying latest downloaded Fedora, I accidentally broke the GUI and ended up can not boot into GUI anymore, only the command prompt after booting and left me no clue how to proceed. Though I managed to bring it out again with the instruction from Googling "AT THE 2ND COMPUTER". User with one PC (and no other internet access like from smartphone/tablet) is definitely screwed.

And no, I didn't tweak or changed any system configurations, nor SU and did some silly changes. Just all thru standard Fedora supplied GUI apps.

Until today, I'm quite surprised that it is still very easy to break the GUI rendered the PC only can boot up with command prompt. If I remembered it right, I only did an online auto update as the recommendation, and its a new X370 AMD mobo, that was it, after the upgrade, it failed to boot up the GUI which was not a problem when it was installed 1st.

It feels like the old days when using earlier Linux that was standard came with X, that was so easy to break it, and left the user ended up with text mode command prompt.

There are also examples of the opposite. In my case I have been running Ubuntu on the same laptop for the last 5 years and it has survived many system upgrades without any problems. The key to a successful Linux experience is to never mess with the system files nor configuration. If you want stability I recommend to go with Ubuntu. Oh, and don't settle with Ubuntu LTS - always use the latest stable.

[james_s]

For a noob just trying to get the hang of Linux I recommend Ubuntu LTS, either Mate or Cinnamon are my preference but that's a matter of preference. Another one worth considering is Mint, both are well supported, particularly Ubuntu and there is lots of information out there. Either of those distros are relatively smooth going and will feel familiar to people coming from Windows. I replaced my computer-illiterate elderly mother's ancient dying Windows laptop with a somewhat newer one running Ubuntu and she barely noticed it wasn't just another version of Windows.

[james_s]

It depends on what you do. At work I use Linux on my primary PC, all of our dev tools and products are Linux based or web based, it's a core i7 so nothing feels slow to me. Likewise with my mom's PC, everything she uses is either browser based or has native software, Libre Office works just fine for her, doesn't feel slow to me at all. At home I use a bit of Windows only software but if I had to I could run that in a VM. Quartus, ISE and KiCAD all have native Linux versions, the only games I play are old ones in Dosbox or MAME, eveyything else is browser based. I use Win7 because I like it and I already have some licenses but if it ever becomes non-viable to keep using I'll transition to Linux on everything and spin up a VM if I need to use XP or Win7 for anything. The number of things I run that NEED Windows is steadily diminishing.

[Zero999]

For a noob just trying to get the hang of Linux I recommend Ubuntu LTS, either Mate or Cinnamon are my preference but that's a matter of preference. Another one worth considering is Mint, both are well supported, particularly Ubuntu and there is lots of information out there. Either of those distros are relatively smooth going and will feel familiar to people coming from Windows. I replaced my computer-illiterate elderly mother's ancient dying Windows laptop with a somewhat newer one running Ubuntu and she barely noticed it wasn't just another version of Windows.

It's not about the OS, it's about the software. LO is slow on Windows and macOS, slightly faster on Linux, but still not as fast as iWorks/MSO in their natural habitat.

I haven't done a side by side comparison of LO and MSO on the same machine. I find MSO takes longer to do the same task, simply because the retarded UI requires more clicks of the mouse for the same operation. For example, in LO one click of the mouse or keyboard shortcut, takes me to the open file dialogue box, but the same operation in MSO takes three!

[IanMacdonald]

These days I find that on an install for a small business client using Microsoft software, the licensing aspect can take more time and work than the actual rollout. Even then, you can never be sure you are doing the thing in a compliant way. 

That, and some licensing conditions are insurmountable, for example you can't allow remote access to a Windows 7VM on a standard license, no matter what you pay the greedmongers. That is only possible on a corporate licensing scheme.

Then there is always the worry of being audited, and that due to the degree of ambiguity in licensing there is nothing, but nothing, you can do to  ensure full compliance. You could still be hauled over a barrel even though you have paid for every item of software you have.

I think it really has reached the stage where businesses are looking quite hard at moving away from Microsoft. They will put up with so much, but a tipping point is reached where the pain exceeds the gain. Not just the cost. Going the open source route takes a load of worry off the business owner's mind.

[Zero999]

Then there is always the worry of being audited, and that due to the degree of ambiguity in licensing there is nothing, but nothing, you can do to  ensure full compliance. You could still be hauled over a barrel even though you have paid for every item of software you have.

Audited by whom? And what happens if you simply refuse to be audited? Is there a term in the EULA stating that you need to be audited?

It sounds like scare tactics to me.

[bd139]

Hahaha there's the voice of someone who's never had a SAM audit.

It's a nightmare. They request proof of every damn license you have, including down to invoices for OEM licenses. If you buy a laptop off a distributor, they need that invoice too. Then there's the numerous questions like "oh we've got SQL developer edition running in AWS; is it covered by AWS licensing or ours and is it production or not?". The answer to the last question depends on who does the audit.

Who does it? They do or appoint a 3rd party auditor.

What happens if you don't agree to it? Bye bye license agreement. See you in court.

One company I worked for had a massive SQL Server cluster and they took advice from MSFT on licensing and paid up the expected license fee. When it came to audit time, there was £100,000 disparity in license fees expected between their own advice and the auditor. Not a small amount of cash. The answer was basically pay up £100k or we shut you down tomorrow at your KMS (180 days until everything you have goes down) and take you to court.

That company now uses postgresql and Linux.

They are absolutely fucking bastard mafioso. KMS and activation was the rubber hose.

I did work for a US defence contractor once who said "no". Ballmer himself got a call from someone in the US gov senator level who was rather fucking angry about this and the problem went away magically.

[Zero999]

What happens if you don't agree to it? Bye bye license agreement. See you in court.

I just did a quick search though the Windows EULA and it said nothing about audits, so they can't do that. So what they take you to court? Good for them. Now they have to prove you're pirating their software. Based on what evidence? You won't let their nosey busy bodies around your company to look. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

Do you know of any legal cases where people have refused an audit and MS won?

One company I worked for had a massive SQL Server cluster and they took advice from MSFT on licensing and paid up the expected license fee. When it came to audit time, there was £100,000 disparity in license fees expected between their own advice and the auditor. Not a small amount of cash. The answer was basically pay up £100k or we shut you down tomorrow at your KMS (180 days until everything you have goes down) and take you to court.

That company now uses postgresql and Linux.

They are absolutely fucking bastard mafioso. KMS and activation was the rubber hose.

Sounds like an easier solution would be to have refused the audit.

I did work for a US defence contractor once who said "no". Ballmer himself got a call from someone in the US gov senator level who was rather fucking angry about this and the problem went away magically.

Good. Common sense prevailed there.

[BravoV]

I did work for a US defence contractor once who said "no". Ballmer himself got a call from someone in the US gov senator level who was rather fucking angry about this and the problem went away magically.

When it comes to (US military contractor + US senator) ... you don't want to screw these people, let alone Ballmer, probably even the POTUS is scared too.   

[bd139]

I just did a quick search though the Windows EULA and it said nothing about audits, so they can't do that. So what they take you to court? Good for them. Now they have to prove you're pirating their software. Based on what evidence? You won't let their nosey busy bodies around your company to look. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

Read the whole thing carefully. There are a number of clauses assigning arbitrary rights. As a single end user they don't give a crap about you. As a small business, possibly they do. As a large business, they definitely do. Small and large businesses who enter in a specific set of license agreements are bound by additional terms under that agreement with respect to audit. It's difficult to sue a small business because they just fold and liability is limited. Large businesses are easy to milk though so that's where the focus us.

As for proof, that's when they roll out the top dogs from the Business Software Alliance, a world wide "team america world police" against piracy and the like to hammer the shit out of you legally speaking. They are born and bred at MSFT. MSFT also know what you're using from KMS online activations. Every machine you have calls home. When the numbers don't add up to what is observable versus registered then they have you by the balls. Even Linux machines that go unregistered are considered potential license targets.

You have to defend yourself against this tirade of shite and that has a significant cost both monetary and time-wise.

[Mr. Scram]

I just did a quick search though the Windows EULA and it said nothing about audits, so they can't do that. So what they take you to court? Good for them. Now they have to prove you're pirating their software. Based on what evidence? You won't let their nosey busy bodies around your company to look. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

Do you know of any legal cases where people have refused an audit and MS won?

Sounds like an easier solution would be to have refused the audit.

Good. Common sense prevailed there.

You have to understand that you're on the hook as soon as you sign any kind of license agreement as a business. Even running the most basic business is hard without doing something that qualifies. Worse still, there are various software companies that audit companies for each other. Together they run the BSA and if one audits you, they all audit you. If you have an agreement with Adobe, they open up the door for the rest. Both Apple and Microsoft participate, so it's almost impossible to escape.

Refusing an audit is hard too. They use all sorts of intimidation tactics, playing themselves off as legitimate investigators and once an employee lets them in, you can't reverse what they see or discover. It's not a traditional legal process where evidence can get excluded. In some cases, they even worked in tandem with local law enforcement, with people believing they were investigated by actual police.

If you're small fries you might work around audits if you're very careful, only buying consumer versions and thoroughly instructing your staff. However, you don't get any support and are screwed when things fall apart on you. Of course, this is a group that deals with people and companies like that every day, and has a lot of experience cutting through unwilling people. Thinking you'll outfox or outsmart them is naive at best. If they turn their gaze on you, you can only hope for the best as praying for mercy generally is no use.

Like other people have said, even if you go through excruciating lengths to comply, chances are that they'll still find issues. There simple is no guarantee other than actually being audited. Terms and conditions can be very murky at the best of times and there's no incentive at all to make it better. They'll never suffer for it. It's always others.

http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa/bsa-members

[amspire]

These days I find that on an install for a small business client using Microsoft software, the licensing aspect can take more time and work than the actual rollout. Even then, you can never be sure you are doing the thing in a compliant way. 

That, and some licensing conditions are insurmountable, for example you can't allow remote access to a Windows 7VM on a standard license, no matter what you pay the greedmongers. That is only possible on a corporate licensing scheme.

The Windows licensing is so obscure in this area that if you speak to 10 different Microsoft licensing experts, you get 10 different points of view.

For example, if you are running a web server on Windows 7 and multiple users are connected, is that legal or not? It comes down to the meaning of some words that are not properly defined. The EULA seems to imply that only one person at a time can be using a Windows 7 system - which would mean that even file sharing is out! File sharing is a standard part of Windows. A court would almost certainly throw out file sharing as a EULA violation, but I doubt it has ever been to court so no-one knows for sure - especially the Microsoft Licensing experts.

Then there is always the worry of being audited, and that due to the degree of ambiguity in licensing there is nothing, but nothing, you can do to  ensure full compliance. You could still be hauled over a barrel even though you have paid for every item of software you have.

I think it really has reached the stage where businesses are looking quite hard at moving away from Microsoft. They will put up with so much, but a tipping point is reached where the pain exceeds the gain. Not just the cost. Going the open source route takes a load of worry off the business owner's mind.

With Windows 10, Microsoft has been exceptionally slack about licensing. You can get an OEM Windows 7 license key from a notebook in a dumpster, and use it to install Windows 10 OEM on new hardware. It is not meant to be transferable but Microsoft never check and don't seem to care. Microsoft actually want as many people as possible using Windows 10 by 2020. As far as Windows 10 is concerned, I doubt if anyone has much concern from an audit.

In 2020, they can start to use a completely new form of licensing and activation that may be near impossible to cheat. Sometime between 2020 and 2025, all the addicted Windows legal and illegal users will probably have to decide whether they move to a paid (probably subscription) Windows-like OS or take the traumatic step of moving away from Windows into the unknown.

[bd139]

The big problem I have is that as a paying customer you are treated like a criminal and a cow to milk.

[Mr. Scram]

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that Microsoft being lax with Windows 10 licensing will get you off the hook. That's the devious part of much of it. It will all work and there might not be objections but if you're audited, not having the proper licences means being beaten up for it all the same. I don't think there's much difference being made between a reused OEM key or a fully illegal Pirate Bay copy. If it's not completely right, it's wrong.

[bd139]

Yep definitely. Windows 10 is about conversion to the new windows as a service model.

[IanMacdonald]

If that means we can do NET STOP WINDOWS then I'm all for it. 

[jonovid]

The big problem I have is that as a paying customer you are treated like a criminal and a cow to milk.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that Microsoft being lax with Windows 10 licensing will get you off the hook. That's the devious part of much of it. It will all work and there might not be objections but if you're audited, not having the proper licences means being beaten up for it all the same. I don't think there's much difference being made between a reused OEM key or a fully illegal Pirate Bay copy. If it's not completely right, it's wrong.

Yep definitely. Windows 10 is about conversion to the new windows as a service model.

what is needed is open source operating system, PC software that can run 90% of Windows applications on 90% of PC hardware.
with out all the BS, a stripped-down operating system that has all the automatic and proprietary licenceing parts removed.
if I was a software engineer, I would have a go my self as a challenge. but Im not. 

chinese will probably never do it. there just not good at original ideas.    to break free of the microsoft monopoly 
we need the software version of the IBM PC , a non proprietary windows clone.   

[bd139]

Http://www.reactos.org

[Zero999]

I just did a quick search though the Windows EULA and it said nothing about audits, so they can't do that. So what they take you to court? Good for them. Now they have to prove you're pirating their software. Based on what evidence? You won't let their nosey busy bodies around your company to look. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

Do you know of any legal cases where people have refused an audit and MS won?

Sounds like an easier solution would be to have refused the audit.

Good. Common sense prevailed there.

You have to understand that you're on the hook as soon as you sign any kind of license agreement as a business. Even running the most basic business is hard without doing something that qualifies. Worse still, there are various software companies that audit companies for each other. Together they run the BSA and if one audits you, they all audit you. If you have an agreement with Adobe, they open up the door for the rest. Both Apple and Microsoft participate, so it's almost impossible to escape.

Refusing an audit is hard too. They use all sorts of intimidation tactics, playing themselves off as legitimate investigators and once an employee lets them in, you can't reverse what they see or discover. It's not a traditional legal process where evidence can get excluded. In some cases, they even worked in tandem with local law enforcement, with people believing they were investigated by actual police.

That's my point: they're not the police. They have no legal power. If a company had agreed to audits, as part of a licence agreement, then they need to accept it, or risk being in breach of contract. In the absence of any agreement to periodic audits, there's nothing they can do. If they resort to intimidation or pretending to be the police then they're breaking law themselves and need to be punished.

If you're small fries you might work around audits if you're very careful, only buying consumer versions and thoroughly instructing your staff. However, you don't get any support and are screwed when things fall apart on you. Of course, this is a group that deals with people and companies like that every day, and has a lot of experience cutting through unwilling people. Thinking you'll outfox or outsmart them is naive at best. If they turn their gaze on you, you can only hope for the best as praying for mercy generally is no use.

Seems straightforward to me, just don't sign anything which agrees to audits and what support do you get anyway? Not much by all accounts.

Like other people have said, even if you go through excruciating lengths to comply, chances are that they'll still find issues. There simple is no guarantee other than actually being audited. Terms and conditions can be very murky at the best of times and there's no incentive at all to make it better. They'll never suffer for it. It's always others.

http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa/bsa-members

The burden of proof is still on the copyright holder. If an organisation hasn't agreed to be audited, as part of the licence agreement and won't accept an audit, then it's very difficult for a software company to prove the said organisation is violating their licence agreement, unless they're doing something really obvious.

[Mr. Scram]

That's my point: they're not the police. They have no legal power. If a company had agreed to audits, as part of a licence agreement, then they need to accept it, or risk being in breach of contract. In the absence of any agreement to periodic audits, there's nothing they can do. If they resort to intimidation or pretending to be the police then they're breaking law themselves and need to be punished.

Seems straightforward to me, just don't sign anything which agrees to audits and what support do you get anyway? Not much by all accounts.

The burden of proof is still on the copyright holder. If an organisation hasn't agreed to be audited, as part of the licence agreement and won't accept an audit, then it's very difficult for a software company to prove the said organisation is violating their licence agreement, unless they're doing something really obvious.

I don't feel you quite understand the situation. It's pretty much impossible to buy any sort of software as a business without committing to the BSA. Just check the list of participating companies. As soon as you buy software as a business, you'll sign an agreement that makes you part of this. While I'm not sure of all the specific terms and conditions and these change all the time anyway, even using something like Azure probably opens you up to it. You simply cannot buy the software businesses depend upon without agreeing to this. It's not something you can trivially opt out of, as everyone would do that. Even a fully compliant business has every reason to avoid audits like the plague. They cost a lot of time and money. If avoiding getting audited was easy, people would do that without doubt.

While you can play a game of hide and seek, you have to understand that these people making it their business to catch people who try this. They have years of experience doing this, can afford literal armies of high paid lawyers and have developed a portfolio of tricks. To think you can outfox them would be very naive.

The only way I can see any way to avoid this is buying consumer grade software and avoiding signing any sort of contract at all. I'm not quite sure that's possible, as even Adobe Photoshop comes on a contract nowadays. You would cripple your business considerably and there's probably a few legal backdoors you haven't thought about. Or they just show up at the front desk, make convincing legal threats and an employee shows them what they need. From that point on, you're on the hook, and there's nothing you can do about it. Of course, your employees might be the ones who reported you, as the BSA claims to award cash to those that do. In the cases there is any evidence to go on, like a tip, they apparently sometimes do get help from law enforcement.

Of course, if you depend on any sort of license server or even updates for any software of a BSA member, they could simply cut you off and be done with it. That shifts the burden of proof on you and if it sinks your ship, so be it. These people whoop the asses of very serious companies with very deep pockets and significant interests. There are companies that solely exist to help other companies to make sure they're compliant. That's not for shits and giggles.

The BSA is known as very aggressive and very well funded. It's one of those organisations that can litigate your business into the ground, whether you're right or not. Considering even a trial version installed by a random employee six years ago can mean non-compliance, you're most likely to not be right.

[bd139]

The best way to avoid the BSA is to just pirate the fuck out of everything.