EULAs

I somehow missed Thurottš recent shot at a topic I find fascinating, viz. the upcoming Vista EULA. As a result, I also missed a scathing response by Ed Bott. Oh well, I'm going to call attention to one bit he didn't focus on much: Thurott'š attempt to explain away the virtualization restrictions as non-restrictions. Referring to the fact that only two of the (most expensive) versions of Vista can become guest OSes, we learn that

as it turns out, there's no massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM

Never mind that what Thurott says here is false (thousands of freelance web developers would put cheap Vistas into Xen to see how their sites look in the latest IE). The problem is the psychology of EULA abuse: Forbid by default even while admitting (as here) when you are placing legal (non-technical accomplishing virtualization is just as easy with any version of Vista) restrictions on some users.

If they dont like these completely superfluous restrictions, defend it by saying there arent very many of them. Fascinating, like I said. This is truly a test of what people will put up with.