|
| Precedente :: Successivo |
| Autore |
Messaggio |
Zeus News
Ospite
|
 Inviato: 30 Set 2009 10:06 Oggetto: Windows 7 sui netbook non avrà restrizioni |
 |
|
Commenti all'articolo Windows 7 sui netbook non avrà restrizioni
Gli Oem potranno installare sugli ultraportatili qualunque versione del sistema operativo.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
axias41
Semidio
Registrato: 10/11/08 12:05
Messaggi: 243
|
| Inviato: 30 Set 2009 11:48 Oggetto: |
|
|
| Almeno la riproduzione DVD su un netbook dovrebbe esserci, il resto è effettivamente inutile |
|
| Top |
|
|
jaman
Troll conclamato *
Registrato: 30/09/09 14:55
Messaggi: 47
|
| Inviato: 30 Set 2009 15:02 Oggetto: |
|
|
Provato 7 ultimate su EEE pc con ram estesa a 2 gb, nessun problema o rallentamento, tutto perfetto  |
|
| Top |
|
|
etabeta
Dio maturo
Registrato: 06/04/06 10:02
Messaggi: 2704
|
| Inviato: 30 Set 2009 22:33 Oggetto: |
|
|
| axias41 ha scritto: | | Almeno la riproduzione DVD su un netbook dovrebbe esserci, il resto è effettivamente inutile |
Scusa ma cosa te ne fai della riproduzione DVD se neanche c'è il lettore?
 |
|
| Top |
|
|
etabeta
Dio maturo
Registrato: 06/04/06 10:02
Messaggi: 2704
|
| Inviato: 30 Set 2009 23:29 Oggetto: |
|
|
| jaman ha scritto: | | Provato 7 ultimate su EEE pc con ram estesa a 2 gb, nessun problema o rallentamento, tutto perfetto |
A che prezzo?
Vista Ultimate mi pare costerà attorno ai 300?.
Ha senso per un netbook?
Per far funzionare un netbook basta un banalissimo Linux che ti costa il cd vergine, un po' di luce e un po' di banda per scaricartelo e per quello che fa' un netbook basta e avanza!
 |
|
| Top |
|
|
nicorac
Eroe in grazia degli dei
Registrato: 30/01/07 08:37
Messaggi: 128
|
| Inviato: 02 Ott 2009 07:37 Oggetto: |
|
|
| etabeta ha scritto: | ... per quello che fa' un netbook basta e avanza!
|
concordo, stiamo parlando di Netbook, per il resto ci sono i Notebook.
Non si può (e non si deve) mettere tutto in un apparecchio progettato per essere piccolo e leggero. |
|
| Top |
|
|
{paolo del bene}
Ospite
|
| Inviato: 11 Ott 2009 19:18 Oggetto: |
 |
|
| Citazione: | Re: Important notice regarding impending lack of privacy, freedom and security from Microsoft Corporation.
As a decision maker within your organization, you undoubtedly strive to make choices that seek to improve the working lives of your employees, enhance the relationship you have with your customers and potential customers and secure the independence and freedom for your organization to operate.
For many years, companies like yours have relied on Microsoft and the Windows operating system. With the release of Windows 7 in October, Microsoft is selling the new version on a combination of fear and threats. They threaten to stop supporting older versions of Windows in the long-term, and because their system is proprietary (not free/libre), you are dependent on them to provide regular security updates and fixes. With the threat to withdraw their support, they try to strong-arm you into adopting new versions of their software even when you don't need them and may have a negative consequence to your ability to operate, once again abusing its monopoly position, explicitly inducing vendor lock-in.
Like its plans to include DRM restrictions with Windows Vista, Microsoft's continued attacks against the security, privacy and freedom of your organization, are no mistake. Microsoft has a history of manipulating computer manufacturers into installing its products onto the computers you purchase.
With its most recent actions, it further threatens computing standards by polluting and perverting the OpenDocument standard with its own XML-based file format.
Because of Microsoft, many decision makers in America are now wholly dependent on the Windows operating system for their business computing.
The root cause of this dependency is proprietary software (not free/libre) and with the release of Windows 7, you have an opportunity to break your organization's dependency on it.
Free software is about freedom not price. Free software is software that you can use and adapt independent of any one vendor, such as the GNU/Linux operating system or the business productivity suite OpenOffice. Free software provides all of the freedoms Microsoft tries to deny, and is therefore better in all areas: security, accountability and monetary cost. GNU/Linux and OpenOffice are available from numerous vendors ensuring competition for your patronage and your freedom to change supplier.
Microsoft's recent 10-K reports (June 30th, 2009) speak of free software and tell a similar story:
The OpenOffice.org project provides a freely downloadable cross-platform application that also has been adapted by various commercial software vendors to sell under their brands, including IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems.
Despite these efforts, actual or perceived security vulnerabilities in our products could lead some customers to seek to return products, to reduce or delay future purchases, or to use competing products.
Free software is more secure because you and the wider community are independently able to read the source code of and customize any program you use in your infrastructure. It saves you from relying on a secretive third party, and the public availability of free software code means that many qualified eyeballs, the security experts and researchers around the world, are continually studying and reporting on its integrity.
Replacing all your desktop systems with GNU/Linux will give you independence from Microsoft, access to thousands of free software applications, and help break the social ill of proprietary software. Thousands of organizations have already moved to free software. What's your organizational plan?
Investing in Microsoft's Windows 7 will only get you more stuck and more dependent on them.
Take the next step -- evaluate your organization's opportunity to use free software -- and sign up for regular announcements on making the move away from Windows and to receive information about the work of the Free Software Foundation: http://windows7sins.org/signup.
A message from the Free Software Foundation.
© 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc
This page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
We've already mailed this to 499 of the Fortune 500 companies (we didn't think Microsoft would listen), but that's just the start...
We'd love to send more letters to the Windows 7 decision makers that people have identified within their own organization or community, and with your help we can. If you donate $25 dollars, we'll send 50 more letters, donate $100 we'll send 200 letters and so on.
Send us your suggestions for organizations who would benefit from our letter. You can also see a list of organizations we've already mailed.
With Windows 7, Microsoft is asserting legal control over your computer and is using this power to abuse computer users.
Education
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Increasingly, computers are expected to be useful tools in our children's education. But today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's ? Microsoft spends large sums of money on lobbyists and marketing to procure the support of educational departments.
The education of children represents a major revenue stream for Microsoft, and a strategic opportunity to embed their products into the lives of future adults. By enticing schools to teach their students using Windows and associated software, Microsoft can also make parents feel obliged to provide the same software at home. Where else do we see one corporation able to put their marketing and corporate branded materials in front of children as requirements in this way?
Many US states even boast about how they are cooperating with Microsoft, either ignoring or not understanding the corrupting influence that accepting freebies from this huge corporation has on their government. Because Microsoft's software is proprietary, it is incompatible with education ? users are simply passive consumers in their interactions with Windows, they are legally forbidden from adapting the software to solve a particular problem, or from satisfying an intellectual curiosity by examining its source code. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly through indoctrination.
Free software, on the other hand, gives children a route to empowerment, by encouraging them to explore and learn. Nowhere was the promise of an educational platform using free software more significant than the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. Launched by MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in 2003, OLPC was designed to lead children around the world to an advanced education using the combination of information technology and freedom. The project aimed to produce low-cost devices (starting with one called the XO) so that millions of children could have access to them, and free software, so they would have the critical freedoms to explore and share their software.
Then under pressure from Microsoft, Negroponte backed the project away from its commitment to freedom and announced that the machine would also be a platform for running the nonfree Windows XP operating system.
Microsoft is not the only threat to education ? Adobe and Apple are both firmly placed in education, even on Windows. Adobe's proprietary Flash and Shockwave players and Apple's QuickTime and iTunes are widely used by educational software.
Microsoft is now targeting governments who are purchasing XOs, in an attempt to get them to replace the free software with Windows. It remains to be seen to what degree Microsoft will succeed. But with all of this pressure, Microsoft has harmed a project that has distributed more than 1 million laptops running free software, and has taken aim at the low-cost platform as a way to make poor children around the world dependent on its products. The OLPC threatens to become another example of the way Microsoft convinces governments around the world that an education involving computers must be synonymous with an education using Windows. In order to prevent this, it is vital that we work to raise global awareness of the harm Microsoft's involvement does to our children's education. A great way to do this is by downloading Sugar and helping a child in your local area experience free software.
How does free software stand up to this? Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
Further reading: Why schools should exclusively use free software
DRM
Microsoft loves DRM.
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are technology measures that restrict what people can do with their computers. DRM is built into the heart of Windows 7, and many Microsoft services push DRM on users. In some cases, Microsoft has added these restrictions at the behest of TV companies, Hollywood and the music industry. In other cases, Microsoft DRM goes way beyond these companies' demands, suggesting that Microsoft is using DRM simply to create lock-in. Whether Microsoft is merely a co-conspirator with big media companies or an advocate for DRM in their own right, the result for software users is the same...
The monomaniacal fear of big media companies is that people will share digital media with their friends, building a free public library of cultural works. Public libraries are wonderful institutions, and in a digital age they become almost miraculous: we can now provide universal access to human knowledge and culture?or at least anything that's been published?at little or no cost. The amazing thing is that it's almost automatic: once people can share freely with their friends over a global network, you get a digital public library. P2P networks are one example of a digital library, and the web is another. The value of these libraries to the public is historic and immeasurable. But media companies serve shareholders, not the public, and are therefore very ready to destroy in its infancy any public resource that might interfere with their profits. The personal computer is built from the ground up to make sharing information fast and easy, so for media companies to restrict sharing they need the full cooperation of software makers at the deepest level. Enter Microsoft.
In order to completely prevent sharing, media companies needed Microsoft to do two things:
*
First, they had to make sure that any outgoing digital signal is just as locked down as the DRM'ed music or movie file. Otherwise you could simply play a video on your computer out to another device (like your digital camera) and press record. So Windows, when playing a file with DRM, needs to constantly check to make sure any connected device is cooperating with the DRM scheme. This anti-feature is called Protected Media Path. Microsoft introduced it with Vista, and it continues in Windows 7.
*
Second, media companies needed Microsoft to keep other programs from observing the playback process and intercepting the audio and video in unencrypted form. After all, it is still your computer, and (as much as media companies hate this) you can install and run whatever applications you want. Vista and Windows 7 close this "loophole" by monitoring all the applications currently running whenever a media file with DRM is playing. If Vista or Windows 7 detects an unapproved application running in the background, your song or video will simply stop playing. In practice, the encryption on most popular DRM schemes (including DVD and Blu ray) has been cracked, and DRM-free copies of almost any piece of film or music are available on the internet. But users of Windows 7 and Vista still have code running on their computer?at all times?that is trying to limit their basic right to share media with each other and their power to build libraries.
These restrictions have gone beyond what many would expect. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft prevented Windows Media Center users from recording television shows that NBC would rather you didn't, even though this kind of recording is an included feature of Windows Media Center. They claimed that they were just following FCC regulations, though the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no authority to make such regulations.
Microsoft even adds DRM in contexts where media companies have largely given up on it. This year, after every major online music store went DRM-free, Microsoft launched a DRM-encumbered music store for mobile phones ? this music service has one particularly charming limitation: many people switch cellphones every 6 months to a year, but there is no way to transfer songs from one phone to the next. If you switch phones every 6 months, then you lose your music every six months. But more importantly, this is a level of DRM that music companies are no longer demanding, indicating that Microsoft has its own aim in promoting DRM: lock-in. Because DRM creates artificial incompatibility, it is the perfect tool for tying users of a service to a particular product. When people buy music from a Microsoft service, they cannot use any other music players (like the iPod, for example). Even when Microsoft launched its own "Zune" music player, the Zune did not play tracks with Microsoft "Plays for Sure" DRM sold by other music services (including the MTV URGE Music Service built in to Windows Media Player 11). Pressure from big media companies is not the only reason Microsoft pushes DRM; lock-in is central to Microsoft's business strategy and DRM is a great way to pursue it.
Microsoft is not the only company guilty of this. Apple, via its iTunes software, and its Macintosh, iPod, iPhone and Apple TV devices also imposes DRM on users. Adobe and Sony also impose DRM on users. But Microsoft is a particularly aggressive user of DRM, and the integration of DRM at the deepest levels of Windows 7 is a key reason not to buy it.
Free software, by its very nature, does not support DRM ? if DRM were added to free software, the users and developers would work around it and remove it.
Further reading: Opposing Digital Rights Management
Security
"The security of your computer and network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks. It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network. If other people don't maintain their security, we're all more vulnerable to attack. When many unsecure computers are connected to the Internet, worms spread faster and more extensively, distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch, and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail. The more unsecure the average computer on the Internet is, the more unsecure your computer is."
-- Bruce Schneier
But how do you know your computer is secure? If you're using proprietary software, you don't! With free software, even if you don't have the skills to evaluate the software, you can be certain that someone else can.
Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in SPAM-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems -- but Microsoft has its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.
In 2005, a vulnerability was discovered that affects all versions of Windows from Windows 3.0, released in 1990 until Windows Server 2003 R2 from December 2005, with XP and later versions most severely affected. The problem, which affects the Windows Metafile image format, a format commonly used for clip-art and other vector images. Files containing specially crafted 'Escape codes' allow for arbitrary user-defined function code to be run when displaying the image fails.
Security researcher, Steve Gibson, believes the flaw may be intentional, too.
The situations where such files are viewed is wide:
* Viewing a website in Internet Explorer.
* Previewing an image on your desktop or using Windows Explorer.
* Previewing an infected email in Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express.
Microsoft even introduced a new class of malware, the macro virus -- allowing seemingly innocuous spreadsheets and word processing documents to contain malicious programming code in Microsoft Office.
Part of the issue of Windows security comes from the fact that that by default, administrator accounts are used and expected by many applications -- these adminstrator accounts also allow malware to attack the operating system.
In free software this would be treated as both a technical issue and a social problem -- if software needs to do things as an administrator, it needs a good reason to do so, and if it prevents users from doing the job without risking their privacy and security, it is anti-social.
Monopoly
Microsoft's monopoly
Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic behavior all over the world. With Windows Vista, Microsoft worked with PC manufacturers to significantly increase the hardware specifications for the standard user-experience, causing people to require new computers to run the updated OS.
Early versions of Windows 3.1, relying on an underlying version of the DOS operating system would throw an error if non-Microsoft DOS, such as Digital Research's DR-DOS, were detected. At one point, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, in an internal memo said "You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MS-DOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there [sic] feature they have that might get in our way?" with Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS."
Microsoft recently tried to sell a bunch of patents which would threaten GNU/Linux to patent-trolls, but the patents were eventually purchased by the Open Innovation Network, a group with patents to protect free software.
In recent months, we've seen Amazon.co.uk is starting to make Windows refunds quick and easy for GNU/Linux users buying netbook computers. Whether this will become a growing trend, who knows?
Worse, most PC manufacturers still do not offer you the opportunity to buy a machine without Windows.
Traditionally, building your own machine was a way to get around the Windows tax. Microsoft has managed to hurt this, too. Sites such as NewEgg have many of their best deals tied to a purchase of an OEM copy of Windows, penalizing those who actively seek to avoid Microsoft and other proprietary software companies in the name of freedom.
The monopoly of Windows isn't just limited to the direct influence of Microsoft's products: many computer manufacturers only ship machines with Windows, because of bundling deals with other software companies, loading up the machine with a variety of proprietary software, including trial offers for Internet providers and other junkware.
Free software doesn't have this problem: There cannot be a monopoly on free software, because everybody has the source code and everybody can change the software and distribute modified versions. While some major PC manufacturers are flirting with the idea of selling machines running GNU/Linux, all major PC manufacturers are still heavily advocating the use of proprietary software, by virtue of their relationship with Microsoft.
Further reading: The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software
Standards
Microsoft opposes standards...
Standards are important. With standards, users of various computing platforms can share information. It also removes users from the barrier of vendor lock-in. This is most prevalent in the area of Office documents, where entire governments, at both a state and national level, have made decisions based on the future proofing of their information.
Microsoft is attempting to block an established, free and open format by heavily pushing one they have much more control over, and they're using all their lobbying power to try and fast track it through the standards process, destroying the reputations of the very standards bodies they seek approval from. Microsoft challenges the existing OpenDocument standards for Office documents with its own Office OpenXML format, which specifically implements Microsoft Office, rather than a more general standard.
Unlike OpenDocument, which is well-supported and cross-platform, Microsoft's format is only supported by proprietary software from one vendor, and because it has been designed to implement every bug, glitch and historical feature from Microsoft's Office software, the specification to implement OOXML is over 6000 pages long, making it much harder for other software to implement the format.
Office documents are not the only area where Microsoft has railed against standards. Microsoft has abused its monopoly position on the internet, by making its Internet Explorer browser support only a subset of the published web standards, whilst submitting users to an inferior experience when an alternative browser was used. In Europe, Microsoft has been forced to offer a 'ballot screen' of alternative web browsers to the user upon installation of Windows 7 to force Microsoft's browser monopoly to end.
With free formats, it's important to ensure you are using free software as well. Free formats cannot excuse the damage done by proprietary software.
Lock In
Microsoft's lock-in strategy
"Embrace, extend and extinguish" -- that's how Microsoft described its strategy for locking its users into proprietary extensions to standards.
Microsoft regularly attempts to force upgrades on its customers, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, whilst changing the file formats used by its desktop applications, leaving many businesses in a position where they are forced to upgrade to continue to use the software and document formats they've invested time in.
By removing support from operating systems and other software, such as Microsoft Office, Microsoft leaves companies with no choice but to upgrade to later versions of its software. The later versions of the software have file formats which differ from the previous versions, forcing companies who exchange these documents to also upgrade. Additionally, some applications refuse to run on older versions of Microsoft Windows, forcing complete system upgrades for what is essentially a document exchange format.
This behavior is not limited to Microsoft, but also to proprietary software companies producing products for Windows. Adobe regularly updates its software to patch flaws used to bypass restrictive measures in its PDF readers, and Apple used its Software Update application on Windows to coerce users of iTunes to install the Safari web-browser.
How free software defeats this problem: Everybody who uses the software has access to the source code, this creates three distinct options for providing support for the software beyond any support that may be offered by the developers of the software: Firstly, a subset of users of the software may decide to continue supporting the product with updates and bug fixes themselves -- a group called Fedora Legacy did this for Red Hat 7.3 and Red Hat 9, for several years after official updates ceased. Secondly, a new project may decide to continue the development of the software by itself, offering users an alternative upgrade option in the form of a new release or distribution of the software. Finally, the user can hire an independent software developer, or team of developers to continue to improve and maintain the software.
Privacy
Privacy and Microsoft
Who should your computer take its orders from?
Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. Yet, with a plan they call "trusted computing" and software they call Windows Genuine Advantage, Microsoft and others are planning to make your next computer obey them instead of you, and this has serious consequences for your privacy.
Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) is Microsoft's system for remotely checking your computer. WGA scans various parts of your hard drive to reassure Microsoft that you are running an "approved" version of Windows. WGA is mandatory monitoring system and if Microsoft decides you are not "approved" they can disable your computer's functionality. Currently Microsoft confirms that WGA checks:
* Computer make and model
* BIOS
* MAC address
* A unique number assigned to your computer - Globally Unique Identifier or GUID
* Hard drive serial number
* Region and language settings of the operating system
* Operating system version
* PC BIOS information (make, version, date)
* PC manufacturer
* User locale setting
* Validation and installation results.
* Windows or Office product key
* Windows XP product ID
WGA has caused a number privacy related problems, including deletion of software. WGA gets automatically updated as part of Microsoft's critical update procedures, giving users little choice but to accept changes to the systems Microsoft can monitor. Many have claimed that WGA is spyware, and although Microsoft have denied such intent, they retain the power to decide what counts as an invasion of your privacy.
For Windows 7 they are changing the name of the product to Windows 7 Activation Technologies (WAT), but the functionality remains the same.
Microsoft's version of a "Trusted Computing" scheme is called "Palladium". Proprietary programs have included malicious features before, but Palladium would make it universal.
Hollywood and the record companies will use Palladium to ensure that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer and the sharing of 'authorized' files will be entirely impossible.
Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to use the same facility for email and documents--resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company.
Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all.
Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer.
You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
© 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc
This page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
|
Se questi sono i pregi di windows 7 allora bisogna fare la fila per prenderlo e bisogna anche sponsorizzarlo ? pensavo foste decisamente superiori a questa buffonata, un windows vista ritoccato e gratuito, con tutti i difetti che ne derivano, windows vista costa sui 262 euro e comunque gratuito o a pagamento, oppure un equo contributo, non fa di esso un sistema operativo software libero.
ma alla microsoft conoscono i termini free software, open source, gratis, no to pay...
c'è una bella differenza, direi, non si può prender in giro la gente facendogli credere che se gli dai un prodotto gratuitamente, comunque non li vincoli a loro a vita e non li rendi liberi, infine voglio proprio sapere se Adobe è disposta a dare il suo adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Distiller ... gratuitamente come fa la microsoft con windows 7.
la microsoft dove ci guadagna nel distribuire windows 7 grattuitamente ?
cerca di grattare il fondo del badile di GNU/linux e tutti gli altri, cercando di spodestarlo, forse alla microsoft non hanno ancora capito che si parla di due sistemi operativi totalmente differenti.
wiwndows per coloro che vogliono rimanere lobotomizzati e GNU/linux, GNU/KFreeBSD, GNU/NetBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNUSTEP, GNU/Darwin, GNU/HURD, forse è meglio che si documenti la microsoft prima di cercare di far manovre assurde, quando i sistemi Unix-like hanno l'X-Window System in up, solo per rendere la vita facile agli utenti, altrimenti dovrebbero lavorare a riga di comando, stiamo parlando dunque di due cose differenti.
E' come se mettiamo a paragone una pera ed una mela, entrambi sanno di essere frutti, ma non hanno la stessa forma, odore, sapore, buccia, colore...
Lo stesso dicasi per i sistemi operativi Unix-like che già fra di loro sono differenti, ma se paragonati a windows, non si troverà nulla in comune.
Anzi è possibile che microsoft abbia rubato qualcosa da BSD !
Saluti Paolo
p.s: persino il boot loader di GNU/linux è decisamente più veloce rispetto a quello di windows e mac os x |
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Non puoi inserire nuovi argomenti
Non puoi rispondere a nessun argomento
Non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi
Non puoi cancellare i tuoi messaggi
Non puoi votare nei sondaggi
|
|
FAQ
Cerca
Lista utenti
Gruppi
Registrati
Profilo
Messaggi privati
Log in
