is there a way to circumvent the maximum 10 shares (concurrent connections) per winxp machine?

[Matthias99]

IMHO, making the claim that software is licensed rather than owned is just adding confusion. Until the electronics section of Wal*Mart has you sit down with lawyers and sign a contract prior to shelling out your cash, the stuff you buy there is owned.

Maybe... but the sort of "ownership" you get is quite limited. And even with something like a book, you don't have unrestricted rights to it (for instance, you cannot go and copy and distribute a book you "own" without the author/publisher's permission).

IMHO, Microsoft is well within their rights as software developers to put limits on what the 'consumer' version of the OS can do compared to the 'server' version, and modifying or reverse-engineering the OS to get around such restrictions is really pushing it.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Maybe... but the sort of "ownership" you get is quite limited. And even with something like a book, you don't have unrestricted rights to it (for instance, you cannot go and copy and distribute a book you "own" without the author/publisher's permission).

Absolutely. As stated above, I agree with copyrights.

IMHO, Microsoft is well within their rights as software developers to put limits on what the 'consumer' version of the OS can do compared to the 'server' version, and modifying or reverse-engineering the OS to get around such restrictions is really pushing it.

Modification and reverse engineering are not wrong. They are GOOD things. If it wasn't for reverse engineering, she'd have no Samba shares to ... err share. Believe it or not, you can legally open your toaster. The "restrictions" are artificial. It's a symptom of this campaign of intimidation and misinformation that EULA's create that has people like you assuming that doing something they don't like is the same as breaking the law.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: doornail

IMHO, Microsoft is well within their rights as software developers to put limits on what the 'consumer' version of the OS can do compared to the 'server' version, and modifying or reverse-engineering the OS to get around such restrictions is really pushing it.

Modification and reverse engineering are not wrong. They are GOOD things. If it wasn't for reverse engineering, she'd have no Samba shares to ... err share. Believe it or not, you can legally open your toaster. The "restrictions" are artificial. It's a symptom of this campaign of intimidation and misinformation that EULA's create that has people like you assuming that doing something they don't like is the same as breaking the law.

I didn't say that "modification and reverse engineering are wrong"; I said that "modification and reverse engineering to get around restrictions [the copyright holder purposefully placed in their product]" are pushing the boundaries of what is 'fair use' of the product. This is a legal grey area at best.

Microsoft wants you to buy the Server version of the OS if you need more than 10 simultaneous connections through their native samba client. Hacking your OS to allow this to work (even if you could, which is unclear from this thread) is, from a certain perspective, defrauding Microsoft of a Server OS license.

 

[tami]

i'd also like to mention that whether this is legal or not (i'm still not sure), microsoft is quick to pull illegal cracks/keys off the internet, but these discussions are still searchable and viewable on the internet.

i'm really undecided about this. a registry tweak may very well be within my legal rights. i really don't know.