Gil Hale wrote: > Trusting me (past tense is really what I mean), I must have blown right by > it in the setup, as I had no reason to think I would be having to deal with > a wnd layer of CAL charges for TS. And, as said before, it was not clearly > disclosed on the 2003 server pack itself. I would have had to license 2003 > Server, then actually go slow enough in the install to have read the > advisory, to see it. By then it would have been to late, as nobody will > take back opened software - unless it is defective in some cases (I guess > any M$ OS ought to be returnable under thoat condition then <g>).
Don't feel bad, Gil. Most packages of crack cocaine that you buy on the street don't have the "this is going to addict you before you get home" label attached either. Silly consumers - why don't they already KNOW this stuff? Because it's not in the manufacturer's interest to fully inform you. They just want to hook you without telling you everything you should know. Whil _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
