Slashdot Mirror
Read the Fine Print
nihilist_1137 writes: "This story is about how MS changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"
What happened to "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
One is that Microsoft sucks for doing this... I think most people can agree to that.
Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements. They are so used to clicking next that anyone who has agreed to this deserves to give thier info to M$
*Scanning software*
:)
Netscape.exe
*1 Upgrade Found*
Applying Opera 6.01.exe
Okay, I can only wish
"All your computer belong to us"
"may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."
If you would consider the average user for a moment. He does not give a damn about most issues you would start campaigns for. All she/he cares for is whether he can watch movies, listen to music and basically create word documents. So would he not like automatic fixes of bugs? From his point of view, it would be convenient.
It's about time you took note of the average userbase Microsoft are aiming for with XP.
-Shaunak.
... where Dilbert installs some obnoxious program on his computer that scans his hard drive, steals his credit card number and automatically purchases software IT thinks HE needs. At that time, it was a joke. Now it's a chilling reality.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
You could refuse - ditto MaOS - if this is no longer the case, they could be on very shaky ground. You cannot be successful in the long run by simply writing agreements that obviate existing rights, such as privacy.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Let us leave it at: usa_2600__x86.pro_no_activation.iso
April 21-27-- Slashdot Blackout: Do your duty.
Umm... Wouldn't that be Windows Automatic Update?
It automatically downloads XP patches, updates, critical updates and bug fixes, etc, etc...
Did i mention the feature can be turned off? Whats the big deal then?
D.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Is this such a bad thing? OK so you have to trust Microsoft here but how else can Windowsupdate work?
Windowsupdate scans your computer for required updates and, depending on your settings, it downloads the appropriate updates and presents a notification on the taskbar that they need to be installed. One click and the updates are installed.
In principle, this system works great for your average Joe User. Of course, for this system to be "allowed", you need to grant Windowsupdate control of your computer hence this section in the EULA.
Now of course, this part of the EULA does open the possibility of Microsoft being malicious but I guess I would trust Microsoft just enough not to deliberately screw over all home consumers in this way
Are we really surprised? How could Microsoft do such a thing? After all the trust we have placed in them - I'm going to stop using their products now! Oh wait - I don't use them now anyway.
now not only will we be fighting to keep hackers out of our windows OS, we have to fight to keep microsoft out as well.
Doesn't this just refer to the option to have XP auto-update your pc? You can turn that option off on the desktop if you don't want it, and the first time it runs it prompts you for what it's default behavior should be.
Seems to me that this only applies to the volume licenses. Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall. If they have a hole large enough for MS to get in to do things like this, they have bigger problems than someone just scanning thier Windows versions.
On the other hand, it does set a very bad legal precedent...
.....betweeen a Microsoft Product and a Virus/Trojan ?
The EULA.
They're aiming for PROs, eh? Should be a lttile more enlightended than your base XP user, right? Unless of course "Pro" doesn't refer to IT or TECH pro features - but instead is a label designed to entice users to spend extra bucks for the "Pro" version...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You're damn right. This is Microsoft's software, not yours. If you don't like it, then don't install it. If you do like it, then go right ahead. Either way, Microsoft has the right to do what they want with software they create and own. Personally, I hate the idea, and that's why i'm sticking with 98SE.
This is Microsoft we're talking about, learn to deal with a little abuse if you're gonna use their software.
We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.
But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly. So we complain that Microsoft isn't doing enough -- that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically, whether or not the stupid user asks for it or not. This, we argued, is the only way Microsoft can stay ahead of security holes and make sure we take them up on the patches.
So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.
And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.
The mind boggles.
Google's Toolbar does the same thing, according to their official-until-we-change-it legalese:
"Periodically, the Google Toolbar contacts our servers to see if you are running the most current version. If necessary, we will automatically provide you with the latest update to the Google Toolbar."
*Windows scans hard disk*
Internet Explorer 6.0 detected
Upgrading to IE 6.1.
Wow, Microsoft is violating my privacy!!! How dare Microsoft do something useful!!!
...and we are supposed to be suprised by this? What's the chances this be held up in court. Im not a contract law scholar but I do recall that there needs to be a full knowledge of the terms of a contract. Forceing users to agree to terms of an agreement to run software, some forced to be used as part of the Windows empire, is tantamount to extortion.
This might be MS's answer to security, update the broken software w/o our knowledge and no one will know how poor they are with security.
EULA for this post:
I reserve the right to automatically update this post to with new words and punctuation marks w/o you express knowledge. Then when you comment on my errors and ommisions i can fix it so i seem intelligent.
From the website
"XP-AntiSpy is a little utility that let's you disable some built-in update and authetication 'features' in WindowsXP. For example, there's a service running in the background wich is called 'Automatic Updates'. I don't know what this service transfers from my machine to other machines on the internet, especially the MS ones. So I play it safe and disable such functions. If you like, you can even disable these function manually, by going through the System and checking or unchecking some checkboxes. This will take you approximately half an hour."
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This is nothing more than the automatic Windows Update feature which IS NOT EVEN ON BY DEFAULT!!! It specifically asks you whether or not you want to enable the feature, and explains exactly what it is used for. This is nothing new. Just the typical "IT'S MICROSOFT SO IT MUST BE EVIL" attitude of /.
Who cares what's in an MS EULA.
/.
I do not need to have reiterated the reasons why I _don't_ use MS products every two seconds on
Yes. MS is bad. We've all figured that out. If the battle is going to be fought though, make it a battle fought on the grounds of content and stability, don't just complain about a EULA.
No one has a right to complain about what MS puts in their EULA because if you don't like it, don't agree to it!
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
hmm seems to me,
IIRC,
that this kind of evil MS thingy was
was what was sugested after all those
worm attacks on sytemes that hadnt
insttled 3 month+ old pathes..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Possibly, but I think you're missing the point here. Read this post to see what I mean. The point is that the average user doesn't know and/or care about these things. As long as he/she can play music, games, get his/her spam from Hotmail ;-) and write Word documents he/she couldn't care less because either they don't understand how this would work or consider it important. Hence, if your audience is ignorant of these things, you can get away with a hell of a lot under the impression that "it's for your convenience/benefit" because most people don't have the time or knowledge to question these actions. We (the technically literate) need to educate the rest of the community ourselves and not leave it up to Microsoft to utilise user ignorance to get away with such things.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
You're damn right. This is Microsoft's software, not yours.
Agreed. Whatever they do or do not do to (wow) there software is their buisness.
If you don't like it, then don't install it.
*duut!* Not agreed. How many computers do you see in sales WITHOUT Windows? How many users would know what an OS is? Are the users given a choice? Nope - they have to stick with Windows. That's what's bothering me. And it all ends up in MS' marketing strategy - "if you sell ALL of your computers with Windows, we'll give you a BIG rebate!" Not many computer-sales-companies says no to that.
We have of course our beloved Macintosh, but that's a different story..
How does this differ from red hat's up2date, which has a red hat network daemon running in the back ground and automatically checks for updates every 120 minutes. Give microsoft a break already, xp is a decent product.
Actually, the quote is, "The right to swing your arms freely stops at the end of my nose."
It is a teaching from Hindu philosophy.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Take Random Joe, he is sitting infront of his new Windows XP machine.
He is watching a streaming movie (which incidentally he had to jockey a server for 30mins to connect to) when all of a sudden the quality begins to deteriorate and the stream stops. What could have gone wrong?? - Has the streaming server crashed?? Was the movie file defective??
Nope, as it turns out, Windows XP decided that it wanted to update itself for the 5th time today and ate poor old Joe's bandwith for breakfast.
Roll on something intelligent like HAL 9000!
"I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that..."
DOH!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
(1) I have not seen any credible posts demanding that auto-download and install of patches be on by default on Windows systems. There have been buggy patches before for Windows, could be again.
(2) Slashdot isn't a unitary entity. If you make the mistake of expecting every J. Random Poster's comment taken together to represent a coherent position on anything, you will be disappointed.
Didn't we already give MS this right when we D/L and install IE? How many times to I have to agree to the non-privacy of my computer!!
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
This Type of survics should always be an opt-in.
Most US law is on the basis of the ordinary citizen is automaticly opted-out of things unless they opt in. People do not have to opt out of buglary, rape, robbery, murder, slavery, etc.
Businesses now assume that you should be automatically want what they offer, and that we should automatically agree to any condition they impose. Microsoft is one of the largest sinners in this regard.
May Bill Gates be tortured by the demons of all worlds religions in the after life. May he be forced to suckle from the 16 poisoned leathern teats of Gophahmet, Whore of Betrayal, until he bursts from an unwholesome engorgement of curdled bile. And may many other such joys await him as well.
Don't mind me. I'm pissed, it's early, and I haven't had my coffee yet.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Oh, big fricking whoop. There is a HUGE difference between 'automatic downloading' and 'automatic downloading and execution.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
And what about the patches that cause bigger problems than they fix? I don't download most new patches immediately (unless it's a major bugfix), I wait until the dust settles.
MS have been known to release service packs that do just this.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Wow, this really gives that bill gates borg icon a new significance.
WTF? You guys are retards. So what if Windows can check if running the latest version of the software? Windows Update has been doing this too. Oh no, what's Microsoft going to do? Put a virus into your computer? Get a life.
Straight from the article : MS says "...is not intended to force upgrades on customers."
This is the same team that told the DOJ that MS isn't a monopoly and if they were they wouldn't do anythign illegal. Yeah I believe them, don't you?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
On the contrary, sysadmins are advising that users disable automatic updates on XP because the tendency of the auto update facility to replace, for example, working drivers with faulty ones, as well as not providing information on which packages are being downloaded. (Read that in an article somewhere. Never used auto update myself.)
I do see this as a privacy concern, because it is only with XP that windows update does not say "this is done without sending any information to microsoft." All other versions of windows use the anonymous facility, so they already have a working production update system which they've replaced with this more invasive version. -Coinciding with the EULA changes.
Whether it is an intentional attack on privacy/piracy or simply that MS decided the old mechanism wasn't efficient enough over a slow connection (or some other technical reason) is speculation.
A lot of us lost all trust in Microsoft a long time ago. Once lost, trust is a very difficult thing to regain.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
edit
/etc/hosts file on your LAN's DNS server
/system32/driveres/etc/hosts
or
mirror windows.update or connexion.com or wherever the packages come from
sit back and have endless fun
okay okay so all auto update systems probably suffer from this vulnerability not just MS systems but at least you don't have to go to the trouble of finding out where the victim get's their updates from. Ubiquity & market penetration are the mischief's friend
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"...that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically..."
What exactly included in Windows XP? IE? Media Player? MS Money? MS Office? Outlook? (has anybody checked the EULA on their other software to see if this new provision has been included in them?).
Give MS total control? Sounds like a great plan. That way they have ultimate responsibility and can probably be taken to court to pay for any damages done because of exploits....Of course this is already covered in the EULA also....
It's not M$ updating my computer with security /bug patches that's the problem here, it's M$ apparently having the right to determine what I have on my computer, steal that information about my software and privacy without me even knowing it.
:( I read through the license agreement and don't remember seeing this however I didn't read it that closely either.
I don't but what if I had a pirated copy of a M$ product, or better yet a pirated copy of a Adobe product and M$ is scanning my harddrive for illegal software to sell the information to Adobe so they know they I have their copy of their software and could try to sue me? Where's my legal protection there?
What's to say they couldn't do something else with this statement that's beyond my imagination at the moment? Anyone remember the clause in the Frontpage agreement that stated you were not allowed to make negative comments towards M$ using Frontpage?
This especially bothers me because I just installed XP pro 2 days ago.
Where's my copy of RH...?
-TheRowk
You can change without improving, but you can't improve without changing. -Quote stolen from I don't remember who
I'm really quite surprised that there hasn't been a big backlash from the legal departments of corporate customers over the text in the license agreements from software makers like Microsoft.
Most of the large organizations that I've worked with have relatively paranoid legal departments. The average person cannot, for example, sign a non-disclosure agreement, vendor contract, or do anything else that binds the company without having the document scrutinized in excruciating detail by the company's legal department. And, as anyone who's ever been through this process knows, excruciating is the correct word for this situation.
Yet people install software all the time that binds the company to ridiculously one-sided terms: This software is ours, not yours. Unless it breaks: then it's yours, not ours--and we're obligated to do everything up to and including nothing to help you.
It seems to me like two possible explanations exist--neither of them pleasant:
- Legal departments aren't challenging shrink-wrap licenses because they feel they're not really enforceable contracts. This seems to fly in the face of things like UCITA, though, which allow the software vendor to say "W3 0wn j00" in their license agreements with the force of law to back them up.
- Legal departments aren't challenging shrink-wrap licenses because they realize that most of the time they're dealing with a powerful monopoly--and that the choice is to accept unconscionable terms or simply be unable to perform essential functions. Most legal departments don't understand open-source software, and I think Microsoft's done a good enough job with its fearmongering campaign about the GPL that there will be a lot of hesitation even if the light bulb ever does come on.
There's also the issue of who's allowed to "sign" these things. In most corporate-user situations, the user doing the software installation (and therefore "agreeing" to the click-wrap terms) isn't a corporate officer or someone who's been delegated the authority to bind the company to a set of terms--no matter how reasonable. This seems to me to be pretty dangerous. In the case of a dispute with the vendor, it could potentially put the user at personal risk for representing they had the authority to bind the company when, in fact, they did not. While the economics of pursuing an individual over a company's breach of the license "agreement" probably don't make sense, this remains at least a theoretical risk.I'm sure there is some kind of mechanism in place to turn off this feature, but there is a very good reason why many people don't get the updates right away. What if the update breaks more than it fixes (it's happened). Then a company can lose productivity and money. Will Microsoft be responsible for that? Also, our company is very good about keeping everyone on the same revision level. Things are thoroughly tested before patches are installed.
In previous jobs, I cannot tell you how many hours were spent, fixing the faux pas of others who had just enough knowledge to apply upgrades to software. These were human beings who had a working knowledge of the company. Now we have autmatons who have no knowledge at all, making corporate decisions on our behalf.
The horror. The horror.
Just wait until their servers get hax0red...
A patch that is supposed to fix an Outlook virus becomes a virus? Methinks I'm gonna turn off autoupdate and tell it to warn me first...
--pi
The difference between the two is who has access to my files. Right now, with my Windows 98 machine that I use for games and video capture, I don't mind hitting the auto-update as long as that message saying "We're not sending any information to Microsoft" stays on.
As soon as I sit down to my computer, and it by itself says "Oh, Hi, I just checked your stuff, and we noticed that you need patches. And while we're at it, we checked your MP3 list, and we don't think you legally own 'Rinbo Revolution'."
Extreme? Yes. But it's no different in my mind between letting the plumber in to fix my pipes, or giving him a key and saying "Come in whenever you like and just look around and tell me what I need." I don't trust anybody (except my wife
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
you think Microsoft wan't to keep home users secure? why include it in the EULA, norton antivirus updates pretty nicly by just telling people
"Hey, its been a long time since youæve updated the virus definitions... etc..., you lacy batard do it NOW!"
that works pretty well, what about a windows update wich behaves the same way? prompting on startup every two weeks?
hell this is more like: "we want to know if you pirated some software, bastard of a end user! you are evil, we know you steal why don't just tell us"
We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.
The problem is when you not only tell it you do NOT want auto-updates but also you STOP THE AUTO UPDATE SERVICE and then, when your computer becomes unbearably slow and unresponsive you check the process list and, uh, what's that, autoupd using all my CPU time?! But I told it I didn't WANT auto updates! ARGH..
It really happens... You cannot turn off auto updates in XP.
-- iCEBaLM
" Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws. This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same Windows XP section. In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to download updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology to protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured Content" providers. It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute." In other words, it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems."
What Microsoft is preparing us for is the next step: No root access to a machine.
This is scary ass stuff. Note that MS's EULA gives them the right to change these license terms on a whim. Your license with MS is one sided, MS can change anything they like, and you have no rights other than those MS chooses to grant you.
Running a business on such a system to me would see m an unwarranted risk, especially given MS's pathetic record when it comes to security related bugs and holes.
What MS is saying is that they have "root" access to your machine and can read anything or install anything at will.
This is clearly over the line. NO OTHER industry in the USA can sell a product and attatch the kinds of "strings" to it's use, while disclaiming any and all liability for defects as the software industry.
MS and other proprietary software vendors have had it totally their way for too damn long. We need some sort of law limiting what can be in a EULA, restoring the "first sale" doctrine, and at the very least, a right to "opt out" of new license changes made AFTER the sale.
The best solution is to use Linux or other OSS software. Sooner or later, Microsoft and their goons will go a step too far, and the business world will realize the danger of allowing such meglomaniacs THAT kind of control over their information system arteries.
If this little nugget isn't it, WHAT will be?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
gpl
bsd
apache
by reading the above licensing terms (the bsd one is trivial)
it would cover about 85-90% of the software i use (close to 95% of the stuff i have installed). the rest are some variation of the above. while it might be a pain in the ass your still making a legal agreement. weather or not you care to read what you are agreeing to is not really that important your still responsible for your actions (disclaimer: if you are an adult in the united states)
i would expect that most home users wouldnt be using windows 2000 professional, and i would expect the IT people of a company to be a little more accountable than the average home user. i'm a grad student and i manage computers for my advisor. when i install software, i check out the licenses. most of it is gpl'ed so i dont have to worry too much. it's my responsibility since i'm his IT person. i'm not a lawyer or in need of psychiatric help (i suppose you could argue about the latter).
-- john
I think the most important issue here is that MS can have its OS's download and perform upgrades WITHOUT having to have this kind of language in the EULA.
/. crowd will do anything to bash MS, there is something to be concerned about here.
All it would need to do is have an automatic wizard pop up ever week (or month) or so and ask your PERMISSION to check for and download the latest updates. The Wizard can even provide a lengthy explanation of what it's about to do for those who want more information.
That is all that's required for REAL updates.
This language in the EULA sounds like it might be giving them EXTRA permission to do other things. Checking version numbers of WHAT software? As someone else pointed out, will this include OfficeXP? Is it checking for pirated warez?
So despite all of the people up here screaming that ONCE AGAIN the
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
Perhaps you are missing the actual problem ? I dislike MS products not because they are so hard to patch, but because I _have to patch_ all the time.
:-)
Security holes are not supposed to exist at all. Making a licence that allows MS to upgrade their own buggy products without telling customers is.. better than not, but not good.
They should create bugfree software from the beginning instead
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
It's a basic principle of tort law, but I'd love to see the original reference if this is true.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It's true that for Windows Update to work, it must determine what versions of what programs are on your computer; however, in the past is explicitly said that no information was transmitted to MS in the process, presumably because all the checking was done client side. Now, obviously, if MS looked at what you downloaded they could make a guess at what you have, but such snooping could at least be said to be an invasion of privacy. Now they have made you explicitly say that such snooping is ok. Moreover, in this snippet of the agreement, at least, it does not say such snooping will always be for the express purpose of system upgrades. Finally, you always had the option of not using Windows Update, but it sounds like you have to agree to this now just to use the OS. So I think this is new, different, and shitty.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
[From the Article:It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute."]
Does this mean that if say a music distributor reaches an agreement with MS to send music over WMA that they can request MS to check for non-licensed files? Or can they request MS to implemented some form of CrippleWare into Media Player? (granted your own fault if you're listening to music on it with all the published concerns regarding privacy and the software)
Like everyone else has pretty much said, the Windows Update Feature doesn't really bother me much, but allowing updates requested from other Vendors kind of does--especially if it is a background process that I don't know about.
Sure, this does seem to refer to the update function, but in the EULA you don't seem to agree to inspection of your computer in that specific context; thus, three years down the road, if MS decides they want to crack down on piracy, they already have you permission to scan your computer. Convenient, eh?
Now, you might say, "but how will they do that?" Well, either they already have a componant for such things in the OS (thinking ahead) or else they use one of their patented security holes. It may sound alarmist, but basically, if you give them the unconditional right to see what software is on your computer, given their concerns about piracy, don't you think they'll eventually want to use it?
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
My original point stands - you can't just walk all over what people need and think that can simply go on endlessly... MS spent years engineering a system that took away options - and they got their head handed to them, and the recent revelations show that plain old people DO care. MS is possibly getting off only for political reasons - but they seem to be going back to their old arrogant ways. MS is the irish potato of the computer world - monoculture on which not only does their well being depend, but so does the wellbeing of 90% of computer users. The crop goes bad and lots of users / businesses go dark. They may just creep up on enough small indecencies so that someone calls them on it. MS has an achilles heel somewhere - and the people who depend upon them better hope no-one finds it. This is not original - Nick Negroponte has laid this out in detail with several real possibilities. Someone needs to dope slap the folks who Ok these little things.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The first and last time I watched an episode of "The Chair" They asked the question "What is the last word in the pledge of allegiance?"
The choices were "All," "Your," "Base," "Belong."
I nearly shit a brick !!
The code red outbreak was caused by hundreds of thousands of Windows servers going un-patched. Microsoft had a "critical security update" available a full month before the code red worm was released, but everyone still cites code red as an example of weak security by Microsoft. Perhaps the auto-update is what we need to prevent similar situations.
And as some other posters mentioned, these statements in the EULA basically amount to the Win XP auto-update feature, which you can disable. If you don't like Microsoft automatically checking for patches you can turn it off.
Just drink the Kool-Aid, and all will become clear
You can bet that when this "Microsoft Feature" is installed, the first automatic update will re-install Clippy the dancing paper clip. I told you so, Microsoft never gives up.
.NET, etc. that you have carefully de-activated, will all come back, but now you can't get rid of it! If you do try to uninstall it, just wait and see what the next update will do!
Not only that, but all the Microsoft advertising crap, such as for MSN,
I solved the whole problem by blocking everything except msdn.microsoft.com in my Junkbuster (ad-blocker). That way activex.ms.com, updates.ms.com and many other connection attempts fail right away on my FreeBSD server.
Simple solution.
I don't know what the laws in your country are, but here in EU, EULAs can be totally ignored. I don't actually sign them, and clicking a button (or whatever the program asks me to do) doesn't count as a valid contract.
They could ask for my soul in the EULA, I really don't care, so why bother reading beyond first line?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I should add line that give me the right to there best looking daughter and posably there house and car?
Your sig is actually the chant that Alcoholics Anonymous uses, in condensed form.
I don't know if you want to be associated with a brainwashing religious cult organization that courts order people into.
Say what you want, but I wish there was some kind of Microsoft auto-push update feature to flush out all those goddamn people still hitting me with Code Red and variants. C'mon it's been a few months now, if those bozos aren't going to fix it themselves then someone should fix it for them.
I try to read the EULAs on the software I use, but realistically I only probably read 10% of them. Every damned peice of software comes with one, and most are quite lengthy. Also, consider that sometimes it takes a fair knowledge of computers to even understand the potential problems certain parts of an agreement might pose. But basically it comes down to this: The EULAs are too long, too complex, and too numerous to read all of them in their entirity, for most of us anyway. And if people start finding stuff they object to in them, well companies can just start making them longer and more complex. I'd say that you should try to anticipate which programs might have troublesome EULAs and read those, but in the end, the only real protection is that someone, somewhere will read it and post any glaring problems somewhere like /. to show the rest of us.
It's my hope that, in the future, there could be legislation to force standards for EULAs that makes it possible for any user to be presented with all the vital information in a reasonable length of time. A good start would be a maximum length cap or a summary requirement. Until then, we may just have to start hacking out EULA parsing scripts in Perl. :)
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most people will not use an OS other than Windows, since comes preinstalled with their computer. I think that it is the above average computer user who seeks out an OS that didn't come with their computer.
Good God, what OS and applications do you run? If you're not patching as much as or more than you'd patch Microsoft products, you're hideously insecure. Turn the machine off now, and work out how you're going to secure it!
Microsoft's most desired flaw is that they do exactly what they're asked to do. The complaint around here is that what they're asked to do isn't the right thing to do -- which you can distill to "users are stupid."
I'm a sysadmin at a small company -- 60 employees, few million dollars is revenue. A reoccuring problem I have is employees who open file attachments from strangers. I've written policy; I've had meetings and presentations. Hell, the CEO said to me once "good thing I use a Macintosh because I double-clicked on that gone.scr attatchment, eh?"
Updating virus protection, and applying patches on every desktop machine is a must. After a particularily scary security announcement about IExplorer.exe, I got the patch off of Microsoft, posted it to our local file server and sent out a letter to the entire staff [insert something here about office politics and loosing face for scaring people] saying "install this patch immediately." Little did I realize that the patch was broken and replaced later the same day on the website with a functioning one. So, I expected everyone would come to me and say "I tried but it did _this_ instead."
Two people came to me to complain. Two people of 59, when I said it was important to install this patch. Of the two people, one of them is a suit who hates using email (kudos to him for reading it).
Some sysadmin, as frustrated as I am, must have asked for this 'MS will upload patches to you whether you ask for it or not' feature. Hell, I've had suits whine to me about "can't you just update my virus software for me, automatically?" and I think to myself "I guess I should, since when I say 'DO THIS, it's very important,' you ignore me."
There's no justification for needing legal authority to install anything, as the system functions today. To "need" this level of authority, Microsoft would have to argue that THEY, not you, are in fact installing the software in question. In my opinion, (not a lawyer) that's crazy.
In order for the software to be installed, you (a person of sound mind and body) have to take the active step of saying "Yes." You're doing it. It's one-click installation, but you made the choice.
Unless future versions of Windows Update will automatically install things? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Got Code Red Part 44 after the Code Red Part 43 patch auto-installed? "Sorry, you agreed we could install anything we want, including buggy, poorly-tested code."
After all, Microsoft would never release a patch that opened up new holes in the feature it was supposed to fix. (Or in other random products.) Anyone claiming contrary will be burned as a witch.
Who did what now?
And what would you be saying if every linux distro had a license agreement which stated "At any time we can root your box and replace any packages we want" ??
This isn't about "having it both ways", it's about whether or not YOU own your box and whether or not YOU control what is done with it. Let's not drag other issues into it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The task of any lawyer or group of lawyers is to zealously protect the rights of their client. (I'm not a lawyer, but studied more contract law in Com/Econ than I wanted too and perused and signed a ton 'o contracts in the real world). The task of every lawyer is to write a bullet proof contract to enforce his/her client's rights. A bad lawyer will tell you they've given you a bullet proof contract. A good lawyer will tell you there's no such thing as a bullet proof contract. If you need the product use it. If you feel your rights have been abrogated sue... it's the American way (Canajen too).
I personally hate the idea of XP and thin client architecture and loosing control of my apps et al, but each to their own.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
WTF do you expect from lawyers? Their job is to give the best possible advantage to their clients. It's down to the consumer to keep companies legal departments in check and because consumers of Microsoft products have been walked all over for such a long time the legal department will do anything that they can get away with. Hopefully the backlash will, like the effect on other companies, moderate their behaviour.
e4 e5
This is a tech "shock" article, designed to get zealots in an uproar, and it should not even be bothered to be read.
And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.
Freedom is about choises, freedom is about having options and beeing able to choose (even if you don't do it).
Having so-called "upgrades" and "patches" showed down your throat, is not freedom.
That's why the /. crowd is complaining !!
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Wipe the anti-MS sentiment from your blind eyes, will you? Oh no. A license agreement that gives them permission to update the components of their OS automatically, without having to bother the user with visiting a site -- and at the same time saving companies millions in administrative fees, as well as (hopefully) saving them from being taken down by the next big worm/virus to hit the stage. That's SO EVIL!
Microsoft is taking a lot of well-deserved flack because they're trying to defend indefensible terms in their EULA. They should learn from Borland:
When Borland had an unacceptable EULA in Kylix, they quickly backed down and posted a promise to change the EULA.
Then they didn't bother to do anything, and the problem was forgotten.
Besides, one might well ask why Microsoft is shipping software with gaping security holes in the first place. In 2002, there is no excuse for any company or group to ship software with buffer overrun-related security problems (yes, this also means open source software).
I thought it was even worse than that - more along the lines of "if you sell any computer with some OS that's not Windows, we won't sell you Windows at all"?
If it was some other company doing this (something the size of Adobe, say, for the sake of argument), that would be bad, but at least people would have the opportunity to "vote with their wallets" and go elsewhere for their software. Since Microsoft basically has a monopoly on desktop OSs, office software and miscellaneous other things, there isn't really that opportunity (I help my more hackerish friends install Linux, but much as I hate to say it, I don't think pushing non-hackerish people into leaving Windows is necessarily justified yet).
Personally I'm OK at the moment with Linux for most stuff and Win98 first edition for games, but I'm not sure what I'll do when stuff stops supporting Win9x (I don't mean Microsoft "support", I mean apps/games which will only run on an NT-based Windows, so I've probably got a few years yet). I'd better hope WINE are still making progress, I suppose.
Well, this could be a very good, or bad thing..
:)
From the good point of view, they're taking responsibility to fix things. The end user with 1 XP machine that coudn't even figure out how to spell "windowsupdate.microsoft.com" is saved from potential problems. Never more will we have to ask/tell the customer, "Go update your software."
Now think about the admin with 400 XP servers on his network. Once a week, he doesn't have to install patches on each and every one. I've had fun before watching a team of 3 guys updating software on 150 NT4 servers. I didn't even ask what the problem was, but I know that we completely reinstalled and reconfigured 16 Linux machines (fresh OS installs, replaced some hardware, set up the sites, and had them running again) before they were anywhere close to done.
The XP admin will love this, assuming they do implement it. The EULA is just saying right now that they have permission to do it.
There is a downside. NT4 SP6 (not SP6a). Anyone remember that one? I believe it was the one that when you installed and rebooted on a Compaq built server, it would fail to boot. The only fix (from Microsoft) was to reinstall Windows.. How many companies use those nice expensive Compaq servers, which would be automatically killed off.
I have a computer at my home, with an i810 chipset, and an Intel Pro10/100 NIC. Windowsupdate insists that there is an update for it. I installed it (point, click, let it run). When it came back up, no more network. The new network driver doesn't recognize my network card. But, Windows automatically identified it as the new and updated driver..
The scenerio of the XP admin with 400 machines under his control. Now he has to go to each and every one, and try to fix the network driver. How long would you think it would take to fix 400 machines? How long if the update happened to come on Friday at 5:30pm, 30 minutes after he left for a weekend vacation.
We have a policy at my office, no changes on Friday. Maintaince stuff is fine, but no changes that will potentially make people work over the weekend. If Microsoft is calling the shots on updates, it's on their timetable. Maybe the day they call to update my network driver is the same day that all the Admins from my office are at a conference, meeting, or something..
We all know stuff never happens at the right time, but we don't really need an extra variable of random events.
I'm all for the updates. Maybe if they have it the way the WindowsUpdate notification works now, it would be very good. it says "There's an update available", they click the button, and it does them.. I'll be interested to see how they implement it, if they do..
Of course, we don't run XP for damned good reasons (We're a 90% Unix shop). NT survives for our legacy sites. I'll watch the comments fly when M$ kills off a few hundred thousand users with a flawed update.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I've been hunting for the past hour on microsoft's site and on google looking for the XP EULA, and I can't find it. I'm awaiting delivery of a laptop with XP on it, and I want to see if I need to delete everything or not when it shows up.
Where the hell did microsoft hide the EULA?
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
On another note they've used auto-update of the OS through MSN for a while and a few of the people I know stopped using MSN because of compatability problems caused by the updates... updates that they couldn't turn off... One person actually had to reinstall her machine because one of the updates completely hosed her system... updating core OS dlls without checking with the user is a BAD idea...
Then again I'm sure the argument from Microsoft will be if you're only using our apps compatibility isn't a problem =)
In general having a system that tells you an update is available and provides an automatic method for installing it is good... but it should also provide a way to find more information if you're a technical user and let you know of any potential problems and let you decide what to do...
.technomancer
Amazing. MS sells a product and stipulates how they will sell it to you. Many of you are complaining that MS is taking rights from you. Others are complaining that the slashdot crowd complains about MS.
1) If you don't like MS's product, don't buy it. You do not own, MS does. They created it and basically lease it to you. They have told you the condition in which it can be used. MS has been monitoring all the MS systems that connect to MSN for ages. This is simply an extension and legal writing of what they do anyways.
2) For the others that say this is the slashdot crowd, then go away. Slashdot use to be interesting years ago. Now, it is hounded by what appears to be MS Astroturfers. Are the compaints because it is MS? Yeah, some are. But many are not. They are well thought responses to a company who was found to be a monopolist and always wants to operate illegal.
Well I did not pirate my copy of XP but I downloaded a crack that prevented it from being "activated". Same thing with office xp that my gf's parents bought her because she likes to use it at home (she is an editor). I know I'm violating the EULA but I also refuse to give any information to microsoft.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
you are forgetting all about the potential for abuse here. MS is overstepping the bounds of doing the stupid user a favor. they are now imposing themselves and grossly abusing thier once noble idea.
Throughout the rest of the licensing agreement Microsoft is careful to differentiate between simply having information on a computer and actually executing that code.
This agreement doesn't say that MS can execute the new code that they force onto your workstation. So, if they did automatically execute it, they'd be stealing computing resources from your company.
hehe
~Tetravus
You seem to have forgotten a little thing... M$ IS a monopoly! .avi-only movies present on the net, against the other formats like .mpg-that-everybody-can-read?
.pdf a document to someone, being sure that everybody can read the .pdf files, he respond me: "Excuse me, my pdf reader doesn't work at the moment, can you send me THE m$-word version of it?" (he seemed like he assumed that I used word to write it)...
R D-VERSION is the only valuable standart? I don't, and yes, I will fight against it!
Let me say this:
I *HATE* M$ products; I hate them but I'M USING THEM! Why? Because I'm OBLIGED to of course!
For example, I *HAVE* to use Internet Explorer not because it's technically the best, but it's the most SUPPORTED... Opera is incredibly fast and great, but sometimes, you can click on a link as many time you want, nothing happen because there's a IE-only functionnality behind it... Konqueror is the most powerfull browser I ever used, but I never could make the flash plugin work on it... Netscape and Mozilla are heavy like hell, and beginning to be outdated (IMHO) and all have the same problems as Opera after all...
Yes, there still are *LOTS & LOTS* of IE-only sites!
Or, have you ever managed to count the percentage of
Or when I send
Yes, but you can use this or that to export a word document! Ah yes... but these simply-don't-work!!! I mean correctly; when an image fall down to the 10th page instead of the 3rd one, that DOESN'T satisfy me; when I cannot read an ms-only-vecor-image, that DOESN'T satisfy me.
Do you assume that the MS-WORD-FILES-WRITTEN-AND-READ-BY-THE-LATEST-MSWO
YES, m$ IS a monopoly, and all of that sucks me to the HIGHEST POINT!
And YES, I will continue to cry and complain about M$ as long as they won't release CORRECT products in a CORRECT way. By correct, I mean technically AND legally (not totally-capitalism-only legally, but humanly legal too... You don't understand my, but I do 8-) correct.
And no, I won't give m$ the right to freely (liberty 8-) enter my computer... as long as I'm not obliged to, but I'm nearly sure this will happen one day 8-P
PS: Excuse my english, and after all life goes on and I have too feed my cats 8-)
Notice the sections that refer to no right of quiet use and quiet possession. This is also used in property law to allow your landlord/property manager to have access to your rental space (residential or business) ostensibly for maintenance issues and also to control what you can and cannot do on those same premises.
It's also in the EULA for Windows 2000 - it's not new.
here:
" 10. Disclaimer of warranties. The limited warranty that appears above is
the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation or packaging.
Except for the limited warranty AND and to the maximum extent provided by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the software and support services (if any) as is and with all faults, and hereby disclaim all other
warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including,
but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of
merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of accuracy or completeness, or responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses and lack of negligence, all with regard to the software, and the provision of or failure to provide support services. also, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE
SOFTWARE."
While IANAL, I'd be interested to read other's opinions of this stuff.
End User License Agreements, also known as "shrink-wrap licenses" or "click-through licenses" are not legally binding.
Here's a page that explains further, including citations of court cases where the judge found that they weren't legally binding.
Microsoft updating their EULA means about as much as Steve Ballmer having MSN carry his latest round of whinings and what they wish the world really was.
"that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."
why is it that no one seems to use the word "upload" anymore?
Don't USE Windows or Microsoft products.
I realize that Slashdot is being composed of more and more pro MS supporters.
Proof is in the lack of alternatives being presented in theory or real life.
Why is there a need to upgrade???
Fixing bugs is one thing and even that should be presented with user knowledge
but changing software to handle new features is a bit leading consumers wearing blindfolds.
Next thing you know, or don't, is that your living in a pod energizing the Bill matrix.
Extracted from you bank account once or more a month.
So stop using the crap and help to build something better.
Or is that to difficult?
I can see this being extremely useful in IT, but only if you can point it at a local server where you select what patches are OK. IT tends to want to deploy service packs are they are verified to work with certain known software packages. For a home user, I would want to verify this myself, so I would hope that they would make this optional. Otherwise, I will not be buying Windows XP.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"
They are saving their own asses, so people won't try to sue them for illegally accessing their computer. I think we should be a little less paranoid, and a more supportive. Microsoft is now providing Auto-Updates for their software. Isn't this what people wanted? (Systems can now be atched quite quickly).
Something else to consider -- Service Packs.
Let's say MS updates their DRM policies and you don't agree with them, and they distribute an "update" to their customers. You disabled auto-updating, and you decide against applying this patch. Now WMP can't play some recently released media, but no biggie, you can find other ways of playing media.
Now let's say a massive bug/hole is discovered and Microsoft is responsive and develops a fix. What's to say they won't release this patch ONLY as a Service Pack, which contains this patch and also includes the DRM patch (and who knows what else!)?
I thought it was even worse than that - more along the lines of "if you sell any computer with some OS that's not Windows, we won't sell you Windows at all"?
Possibly - I know little about the internals of MS Marketing Strategy..
(I help my more hackerish friends install Linux, but much as I hate to say it, I don't think pushing non-hackerish people into leaving Windows is necessarily justified yet).
You're touching a touchy issue there.. I help hackerish people install linux myself, and I'm doing Linux-propaganda to everybody who is somewhat above the average Joe User. But as you say, I have trouble recommending Linux to Joe User. But not for te same reasons as you - I really beleive that Linux is ready for the average desktop (just look at the latest Mandrake or Redhat - even my grandma could have installed and used one of those). But I fear for the average people around, using Windows. "What's that? How does it work? Hey - it doesn't work (the way Windows does)!" The average user doesn't know what an OS is, and how should it then know the difference between different file systems, file formats and way of doing things? In other words, a plain Unix/Linux-world had been perfect. But as long as Windows has the monopoly, the average user won't be able to cooperate.
But in an organization, such as a school, I think Linux is perfect, given the right system administrators.
(This post is probarbly unclear and not very well componated - sorry for that)..
Because Linus doesn't do it, so it must be wrong.
Forget the question of security and rights for a second - those are bad enough, and I'm not going to add anything new there.
What about stability of the platform? At any point in time, your software platform can change underfoot. Word starts crashing in new ways that you can't control by choosing to NOT install the new service pack.
Or worse, as a developer, you're in the middle of developing some application, and a bug that you were seeing due to some Windows problem goes away because Microsoft patched it. Great - except for the subset of your users who want to run unconnected to the net, and without that update. You can probably work around that - but do you want to have to?
Even worse, what happens when the update flat out breaks something? It's happened before - what can you? Reinstall and disconnect yourself from the net? Rely on quick service? Nope - start coding up that workaround...
Finaly - what about traceability? The legalese left me with the impression that not only would updates be installed automatically, but that Microsoft wasn't under any obligation to inform the user of it one way or the other. If Microsoft makes an update that I don't know about, and the box begins behaving differently, I know for sure that I want a guarantee that I can figure out what happened to it, and when.
Everyone sees those service packs and weekly "anti-virus" updates. A few of them know that M$ is changing everything under their feet all the time. Some of them have even figured out that M$ is not the only program they have that calls home. They have been beat down with FUD and convinced that they need that "automatic" hand in there fixing things. To them this is the same feeling they get when they pay for a $100 oil change. They feel ripped off, but don't see a way out.
The people who know the most are the most embarrased. Here it is, laid bare, all those evil things the free software people have been telling them for years. The MicroTurds have led their companies down the rosy path all this time, ignoring poor perfomance and increasingly ugly control from M$. The waste of ever shifting formats was a demoralization they were willing to live with because they thought it would end one day. Now they look around and see the chains. The latest changes in document formats came as a huge shock to them because they know of no other applications than M$ for Windoze. So it is now obvious that the changes will never end and that they are being used as the upgrade train. Last thursday a co-worker told me that M$ was shifting all of their licensing to XP and rental only by next June. He was really shocked. IT is demoralized completely, especially the die hard M$ pushers. "What can we do?" they wonder.
People I work with are now interested in Linux and other free software. These are rank and file engineers who, as one of them put it, "use software like toilet paper, I use what's on the roll." I'm amazed. What I've told a few people about the concepts of free software, its motives licenses and current state, sunk in.
I have three old computers that I'm lending to people so they can see for themselves. I've warned them that I'm NOT a CS or IT dude, and that the machines could be better configured by someone that knew better or cared for things like noise, TV and movies. What I lend them are basic Debian machines with Gnome applications, Netscape, Mozilla, a few window managers and some kind of network connection. This way they don't feel like Free software robbed them of anything (I leave that to dying M$ junk), and I don't have to spend hours at their house figuring out their computer. In short, I try to give them the tools they use for 95% of their work and let them know that there are better tools available for people who really need them, like Latex for typesetters, databases and noise makers.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Most of the issue isn't even what Microsoft will do - it's what they could do. To continue the parent post's analogy, the makers of the distro would assure you that they'd only use their root access to install patches, but you'd still object because their license would still allow them to, say, read your personal documents or install a back-door in GnuPG (or if it was specific about only installing patches, they'd still have the technological, if not legal, means to read/alter your documents).
Rather like the DMCA, really - the copyright conglomerates assure you they'll only enforce it when it's appropriate, but...
#include <rants/common/dcma.h>
We can debate all day about whether the ability to get John Q. Public's computer security patched so it stops DDoSing your web server outweighs the value of having full control over your machine, but honestly, if you don't trust a company enough to have confidence in simple software updates, should you really be running their stuff in the first place?
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
>>Enough with the blanket statements. Just because Christians are fighting in N. Ireland, doesn't mean that's what Christianity is about.
Enought with the blanket statements. Just because Muslims are fighting in Afghanistan, doesn't mean that's what Islam is about.
(yeah, yeah, I'm an atheist)
Download does not mean install. It automatically downloads critical updates and asks you if you want to install.
"I'm sure the users want a system that by default only gives them 85% of the bandwidth because it reserves the rest for talking to Microsoft's servers (this is an XP out of the box default)."
This was a lie propagated by people who are too lazy to hit F1 and find out more information about the checkbox that they were un-checking. But, I guess once we've found something to badger MS about, it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not. After all, this is SlashDot, not some sort of forum for open thought.
-Mark
Perhaps you are missing the actual problem ? I dislike MS products not because they are so hard to patch, but because I _have to patch_ all the time.
:-)
Security holes are not supposed to exist at all. Making a licence that allows MS to upgrade their own buggy products without telling customers is.. better than not, but not good.
They should create bugfree software from the beginning instead
What Operating are YOU using? I would LOVE to see an operating system that DOESN'T have to be patched all the time. EVERY operating system I have ever used, has to be patched once in awhile.
I think if microsoft never released any patches, you would probably be making a similar argument.
Way to go, Microsoft! Hope you get enough income from your digital "rights" management partnerships to offset the loss of sales and goodwill you're about to experience.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
"But it is certainly not our intent to access any user's system when that is not what they desire."
Sounds Clintonesque if you ask me. But at any rate, yet another reason to _not_ trust Microsoft. Watch for CIOs making more noises about dumping MS crap.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
is it not true that most people out there do not have broadband? won't you know when Microsoft tries to downlaod something onto your machine? besides, a computers true usefullness has nothing to do with an internet connection. go ahead, buy Windows XP with Office XP, and use it as it was desinged for; stand alone with no access (no pun intended) to the outside world. without that LAN/modem connection, you are fine. IMHO.
So, here is the question: We in the software industry have quite a high opinion of ourselves, so why have we allowed things to get to this point?
This, of course, is why we use Free Software. This is why freedom is important. I will give it that perhaps the word 'freedom' has a slightly different meaning...it means no needless restrictions on software.
But these Microsoft threads we can safely ignore. I've already decided not to upgrade to another version of Windows (Windows 95 was the last one) on any of my computers. With GNU/Linux, we can safely click "I agree" (if we are ever prompted) without feeling like a hypocrite.
If you notice the trend is that not only is there more proprietary software but somehow it is becoming *more* proprietary. In that, there are becoming more restrictions and the developers are reigning more control over the software we use. From owning software to leasing it to soon we'll be renting it. Its the difference between buying a house and renting one. In the former, you just live there and pay taxes once a year. In the latter its like you're hiding from the land lord because you didn't tell her about your cat!
Actually, "other Vendors" are already part of Windows Update. For example, if you have a 3Com 905-C and you are running an old driver, Windows Update will get the driver from 3Com for you.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The PUR has to do specifically with Windows XP and it's Windows Update service.
1. Windows Update does NOT install anything automatically by default. It's default action is to ask the user.
2. Information about the components installed on the computer are never sent to Microsoft. Instead, the Windows Update service downloads a huge XML file and does the comparisons locally. This was done specifically to quell fears that Microsoft was version checking.
3. What would the lawyers say if Windows Update was installed by default, and they didn't include a blurp about it in the PUR?
4. Do you honestly want all of those Workstations remaining vulnerable to the uPnP attacks?
thought it was even worse than that - more along the lines of "if you sell any computer with some OS that's not Windows, we won't sell you Windows at all"?
Nope. You're wrong. Manufacturers were always able to buy Windows at retail price to install on the computers they wanted. But that was not what they (IBM) wanted. They wanted Windows before it became available publicly. They wanted it at a cheaper price. You really should read some of the depositions in the case so that you don't sound so clueless. The problem, of course, is that the issues get exaggerated with every telling.
Mmmm.. Donuts
This story is about how MS changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer.
My computer?? Since when did I run Windows XP on my computer?
Radio Button says, "Disable", but License says "Screw you all day long!" I wonder which one will really hold force? I also wonder just how good this fine program will be at turning off the kill feature of XP so that your computer will continue working after you disable this "feature." Forget it, the slavery is made manifest and the number one condition of any oppresive EULA is the company saying that they can terminate your license and destroy your work at will. This is really that clause put into action.
Yes, it really is the best windows ever. I don't like it and I don't use it. I have one surviving windows 98 box that I've tried to make blind to the network. It never really worked that well, but I expect the EULA that came with it to reamain in force that way. XP, "Hunh, have you ever been eXPerienced?!" Not me.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I wish they had limited themselves to "bugfixes and security fixes". However, this is still much better than expecting granny Smith to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com whenever she reads about a new vulnerability on bugtraq.
Realistically, automatic updates are needed if you can ever expect home computers to be reasoably secure. Very few end users bother to keep up with all the new worms, and most don't even know how to retrieve the quickfix from microsoft.
Does anybody have stats on how quickly an out-of-the-box install gets hacked vs. how quickly an up-to-date box gets hacked?
Stop the brainwash
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the FBI's Magic Lantern. Not that MS couldn't sneak it past you before, but now it seems that it would be legal.
-Willy
for some reason i remember reading this on slashdot last july i think
It really happens... You cannot turn off auto updates in XP
Sure you can - you just need to perform some registry surgery. Anybody know the keys in question?
Reboot macht Frei.
This world would be a much better place if it were not so filled with paranoid loonie. When faced with ambiguity, I usually assume incompetence rather than malice.
This clearly sounds like a case of some lawyer getting lazy and writing a too-restrictive EULA just in case. As the article states, they needed some language in the EULA to allow for automatic update when the user chose to turn it on in order to protect MS from someone turning it on and then getting pissed off that it was happening.
Mmmm.. Donuts
The problem is, even though it has to be turned on, the EULA is still bad. However, the EULA is there because of MS's legal team being "over careful" about the feature. It's to protect themselves incase a user turns it on and sues them because they claim MS was spying on them. The real issue is that we live in the United Litigations of America. Do I like this section of the EULA? No - I don't want an EULA on any of my software. Nevertheless, I agree that the primary goal of this article was FUD, not an intelligent discussion of EULA's and why corporations keep taking them to the next level.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I'm actually appalled at the number of applications that "phone home" while you're on the internet - sending back to the companies that created them information about themselves and the computer they are running on. Were it not for Zone Alarm, they would be doing this in secret without me ever knowing it.
At any rate, at least MS says that they do this. There are a lot of others. Even if you are using an Linux or BSD firewall, as I do, those probably are set up to allow you do send any sort of communication out without checking. Something like Zone Alarm will tell you what applications are trying to access the internet by themselves. Its been highly enlightening ever since I started using it.
In the case of something that runs over port 80 like IE, I'm not sure how you could use the internet while preventing it from sending back info to its parent company. I guess you would have to use something that promises not to have spyware built into it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Attorney General's Warning: Removing the shrinkwrap could very well endanger your sanity, but that's only for starters. You agree to have Microshaft inspect your system at any time to ensure you have the latest daily security "fix", and also to prove you're not a criminal. You agree to only install this software on one PC, even if you're a home user who happens to have multiple PCs. And you grant Macroshaft the right to guarantee this stupidity. Last, but certainly not least, you agree that it's okle-dokle to work with bug-infested crap as a Premier Microshaft Beta Tester.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Actually, "other Vendors" are already part of Windows Update. For example, if you have a 3Com 905-C and you are running an old driver, Windows Update will get the driver from 3Com for you.
Drive-wise, and only through Windows-Approved Drivers AFAIK (ie. They won't update with a 3Com Driver that has not gone through Windows testing)
I'm referring to changing functionability of the software per a Third-Party's Request
It is about being able to opt out or opt in as you like.
It is about freedom of choice.
If they want to offer this as aservice fine. And maybe I might recommend it for your first time shopper, buying their first computer at the CompuMaximus Grotesguerria. But then maybe MS does know what the best choice would be for everyone in the country.
For Myself, I have sufficient experience that I would dare to have actual opinions about my choice of configuration.
For this I may well by relegated to that worse possible of all Microsoft hells. A world without Microsoft. Sign me up.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Personally, I think this article was written just for the sake of sensationalism and to nit-pick at some details of a EULA. As it has been repeatedly pointed out, MS still asks you in Windows XP how you'd like to handle auto-updates. You can A) disable them completely, B) just have it alert you that a new update is available, and let you decide if you want to download it, or C) let MS auto-download them all to you. Some people (normally *home* users) would like to choose option C, so MS wanted to have a clause in their EULA allowing them to offer this option to you without legal issues coming up.
What's really going on here is a larger issue which has been around with *all* of the Microsoft products since day 1. Everything is still designed around what makes the individual home user happy. Corporate environments are much different. Security is tighter, and they're usually run in a more authoritarian manner. "We, the sysadmins, will tell you what you can and can't run on your PC."
Despite MS trying to develop two flavors of Windows XP (home and corporate), even the corporate edition is chock-full of potential security issues that are only there because they made concessions to what the home consumer would think was "cool" or "worth upgrading for". If their "Professional" edition was truly aimed at corporate America, they'd remove all of the Internet media playing crap, never even consider letting the product auto-update itself, remove the default installation of the MSN messenger, ditch most of the cutsie wizards, and stick with a more clear-cut security model. (Try sharing the root of your C: or D: drive out under Windows XP. All you get is a warning that it's risky, security-wise, followed by it asking if you still wish to do it. If you do, you're not even sure what sort of permissions it placed on that share - or whether or not it is allowing it only for the local LAN, or for the whole Internet.) At least Windows 2000 gave everything to you straight. You just clicked the security tab and saw which options were on and off. Makes much more sense than trying to "user-friendly up" the security with simplistic prompts and questions.
This is a chicken and egg problem. How would you ever know that these bugs would crop up other than to download the code? Don't tell me "reading BugTraq" because we all know damn well that maybe 0.5% of /. users and even network admins read it
Most people here won't admit it, but /. is one of the most absurdly self-contradictory, FUD-spewing, makes-no-sense message boards on the web.
Is autoupd an executable-driven function or is it part of the kernel? If it is merely an executeable that gets activated now and again, or a daemon, can it be deleted? Is there an "autoupd.exe" or some such that one can delete and make this whole thing moot?
What port does M$ violate your privacy through? If you setup a nice firewall, could you not block all access to this port and prevent spying M$ eyes from getting in?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Personally, I think MS was trying to sneak the ability to patch its digital "rights" management code, and possible to do darker things, under the radar by burying the "agreement" to this in a EULA they know hardly anyone reads. And that the media have done the right thing by throwing a flag.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'
I already refuse to upgrade to WinXP because of all its WPA junk. This is just one more reason why I won't be making that upgrade.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Hopefully, this will cause a backlash from the big corporate buyers that will cause MS to change the EULA, at least for a while. Perhaps we should change the name of the EULA to the Edict of Unlimited Arrogance!
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
When every week Microsoft supplies a large update to all the dialup users, people will start calling in saying my streaming porn movie is very choppy fix it. And most likely they will only have one phone line so they will disconnect half-way through the update to call tech support and when they get back online for awhile it'll be fine until the update starts over.....then they will call tech support again. This wouldn't be very funny except I guarantee it will happen. Just like the cdrom coffee cup holder probably happened because the funniest things come from real life.
... that most people would want somebody else to fix their computer? Personally, I don't, and that is why I use linux. But in this case you have to think of the millions of people using computers that don't really know the difference between their computer and Windows. These people will never apply a security patch, let alone even know how to upgrade. Microsoft is crossing some lines here, but they will make it easier for people to use the newest version of the operating system (will all the security enhancements from what they've been saying).
This is, of course, if they don't blow it and release a buggy OS onto 500,000 computers by accident.
do you expect them to HELP you download a driver that isn't certified, so when it doesn't follow the standard and crashes the OS you can blame Microsoft? Gimme a break...
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
The 85% bit has been covered already, so let me just address the rest of the FUD you've got going there...
I know stopped using MSN because of compatability problems caused by the updates... updates that they couldn't turn off...
We're talking about Windows XP updates here -- which can most certainly be turned off. In fact, one of the first things XP does after installation is ask whether you want updates to be installed automatically or not. If you change your mind later, bring up System Properties, and select Automatic Updates.
One person actually had to reinstall her machine because one of the updates completely hosed her system...
XP has a few features designed to prevent this kind of thing. One is Add/Remove Programs -- every automatic update I can think of has installed an entry there. Second is System Restore. I've never had to use it, but I hear it works well for restoring system DLLs that you didn't want replaced. Third, there's the feature that prevents different DLL versions from stepping on each other's toes. (I'm not clear on the details of that one, so I'll leave it at that.) And finally, there's Driver Rollback, which I have used. If you update a driver and your hardware doesn't work as well anymore, hit the button and go back to the old version. Any of these can be done without rebooting, much less reinstalling the OS. At least that's what my experience with XP has been.
Lemme see, they say they MAY provide upgrades and patches....etc. How is this "giving" them control of your computer? That's like saying Apt gives the Debian project control over your computer. That makes it sounds like that you can't and don't or won't be able to use your computer. First off, they use the word may. May means that you may do something, you may not. It's up to either party. You have to allow any of those things to happen. You own your hardware, not Microsoft. The EULA changes nothing about who owns your hardware. If Microsoft tries to tell ya in a EULA that you can't delete their product in favor of say Linux or FreeBSD, well, they CAN'T do that either!
EULA's, I have always felt, are unenforceable. Has Microsoft ever won a case or sued someone because they did not follow some obscure portion of the EULA? (Piracy is NOT obscure....piracy is wrong whether you actually read the EULA or not!.)
This is something that, in my opinion, should have never been posted. It's not serious and nothing that is really all that new or interesting. I hate to bring this up as an example, but it's just like the news media saying "Oh May there was another bombing in Isreal". That's news??? It's an everyday occurance there! The same goes for Microsoft trying to do somethign stupid in a EULA.
Gorkman
You can turn it off, but that part doesn't need to be in the EULA.
Honestly, this isn't a big deal. Quit trying to make everything MS does into a "Big Brother" issue.
Sig missing. Reward.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The idea that Microsoft can change our software without notifying us is totally unacceptable," said one corporate IT manager. "Any alteration to our standard configuration can only be rolled out after careful evaluation and testing. Does Microsoft have no clue?"
...it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems.
I guess it takes these kind of things to force people in these positions to begin to realize this.
Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws.
If they are pushed this far, Microsoft is going to begin losing some important customers. Or at the very least, miffing them off.
That has been known for a long time, but this is just dragging it in the open.
"If the user elects not to update the security component, he or she will be unable to play content protected by our DRM from that point forward, although content previously obtained would still be usable."
I love this balancing act. Makes it sound like the customer has a choice. Which they do! But, look at the concequence (?).
That's not a concept that will make anyone other than Bill Gates feel very secure.
Which is the only person who matters in this game, and people know it.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I am SO glad I just installed linux!
I am still forcing everyone in the company which I am working as IT admin, to stay on Win2k. When I buy win2k licenses these days, it's a bit more expensive than BEFORE winXP came out... which is odd. Anyways, Win2k is the best OS MS ever did, and it's the first time I am not missing my old amiga's OS. XP on the other hand is great for home users for the look and ease of use, but it's basically just 2K with a buttload of useless (for professionnals) services added, decreasing overall performance, and killing your privacy. I'd like to see the sales figures of XP pro compared to win2k in corporate environments because I'm sure I'm not the only one who had reserves buying that after evaluating it.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Which is 100% completely wrong. The auto update facility of Windows XP will only download updates that are marked as "critical" (ie, they fix a major bug or security problem). As well, they are not installed by default, simply downloaded (okay, so you can configure it to install by default, but the default is to download and then ask you what to do. Read the EULA -- it says "download", not "download and install"). When a new update is downloaded, a little text bubble pops out of the systray, and you can pop up a dialog that lets you install the updates now, install them later, or forget about it. At this point, you can also get details on what updates were downloaded, or just go to the Windows Update site and have 100% total control over everything.
Really? Because the Windows XP Windows Update page explicitly says this:
So it's a bit different from not sending any info to Microsoft, but it still protects your privacy (well, unless you're a tin foil-wearing conspiracy nut that thinks Microsoft is out to get you).
More likely, it's simply you (and the rest of Slashdot) jerking your knee at a benign change to a useful tools (Windows Update), integrating it into a good OS (Windows XP, believe it or not) to make the users' lives easier. Don't want it? Turn it off. Microsoft can not turn it back on remotely.
Quit trying to make everything MS does into a "Big Brother" issue.
We will when they do.
You know, if this provision wasn't in the "Program Use Rights" (nee EULA), what they're proposing to do would be computer crime under existing law.
-=Maggie Leber=-
you just gave them control of your computer
Just because you were duped into making this mistake, doesn't mean that we're all as stupid as you. Please don't include me in your sweeping generalizations of computer-user idiocy. Your mistakes are your own.
--
$tar -xvf
The decision to apply patches should be convenient, but voluntary. Just because I trust a particular rev of an OS, does not imply I trust the latest patch.
Look:
1. If you dont like a products EULA, don't purchase it.
2. If someone buys a product, but is unaware of the EULA and does not read it, are they worth defending? I say no - you agreed to give microsoft partial control over updates, so dont whine about it.
If you dont like XP, do not use it.
I'm having to do exactly that right now. I let Windows (2000) Update install the pre-SP3 patches and now Forte Agent won't start and my USB has stopped working. I've tried removing them (reboot needed after each one, even though they were installed as a batch!) but no luck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you are a minor in the US (under 18), you can't legally enter into a contract without your parents permission. That's why your parents have to sign everything with you. An interesting case in court would be one in which a student installs software, say XP then sues Microsoft for accessing their info. If there was no licensing agreement between the two parties, then would MS have the right to look at the hard disk?
Another comment: I would assume that MS's right to update is contingent on responsible use of the procedure. If someone was to hack the system and change everyone's start up screens to the Playmate centerfold, do you think that MS would be able to retain the right to complete future updates?
All this does is gives Macrohard a more dynamic capibility to deoptimise the code behind the APIs. Microsoft does this with there service patches all the time. MS choses what APIs a particular vendor can use ( of course MS reserves a set for their products to use). If a vendor might become a competitor or might make a version of its software for Linux, MS just deoptimizes some code, and presto chango, that vendors softwar no longer works so good, slow to load, slow to render, etc. The next reviews ( paid by MS) come out and blast that vendors product
If companies want to screw with their customers, then that's their right. Most of them get away with it because customers have no idea what's going on. Most people will fork-out the rip-off price for a new version of windows because they don't know any better. If people were educated as to what they're getting into then most would realise that they are just buying a very expensive bit of plastic, containing a program funded by the richest man on earth, written by monkeys, which cost next to nothing to make but sells for so much.
Most people don't even understand the concept that Windows is an OS and not part of the computer. They call the hard drive the C drive as if that was what it was. Why would anyone use such a stupid naming convention?
I haven't paid for a version of windows since Win 95, when it came with my computer. Since then i have loyally stuck it out with Microsoft - upgrading to Win98 and then WinME (All pirate of course). Since XP came out i have decided not to upgrade, because to do so would be to downgrade. As soon as i get a motherboard and soundcard that works with Linux without bringing the whole system down, i will leave windows to lamerz who like having their life and money controlled by Bill Gates. Oh, yeah, and i also have a PocketPC, with WinCE 3 which is the crappiest OS in the existence of mankind - i suppose that counts as buying Windows.
What we need is more public service ads, not saying "stay in school" or bull shit like that, but explaining things like Open/Closed source, the price of pressing a CD, why DVD sucks, and how Bill Gates became the richest man alive.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Wow I didn't know a group of people with a medical problem who offer a freedom to accept or reject any god could be considered a cult. Interesting that you think this way. BTW your email addr doesn't make any fucking sense...you bash MS and then you use email from them.......
So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.
And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.
And damnit, I forgot my password, so I can't reap the karma from this comment.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's no freedom, you must accept God to complete the program successfully. You must oftentimes accept God so you don't go to jail, if you are court ordered to complete the program.
How again is that freedom?
BTW- About my email, try looking up irony in the dictionary.
It is a matter that any reasonable company can be expected to provide code for THEIR product that actually fixes the problem it was designed for and not open new holes.
:-)
Of course we are talking about Microsoft and I don't think that reasonable could be applied to their definition. Microsoft has become famous for sinking their heads in the sand when a major problem shows up or flat out denying it's existence. They take their sweet time releasing a "fix" to a problem that they were FORCED to recognize. Supposedly the time it took to release said "fix" was used to ensure that it worked and didn't break anything else. This is a falicy. The other item Microsoft has become (in)famous for is using the public as a giant beta test pool.
My big beef is not that Microsoft is a poor quality company, but, that it is a poor quality company that takes away my options/rights on a regular basis and then hides behind laws that were never thuroughly(?) thought out to begin with. No, you cannot turn off autoupd for XP. If you try the system breaks. I hope that I or someone else is able to find/create a hack that allows me to reclaim my rights. I am still looking.
I am learning Linux as fast as I possibly can. My ultimate plan is to switch over everything I can as soon as I can. As for games I will simply keep a windows box in a corner and not connected to the network for any games that I can't get to run with WINE. Sorry to have ranted. I will probably get modded to Troll.
Your actions in life will determine your children's future.
What are we talking about here? It's about a function Microsoft put in XP (that can be turned of btw) and all they do is put something in the EULA about it to cover possible legal actions.
Yes, XP can automatically download updates and patches without asking the user first. Yes, I don't like it either, but you CAN turn it off. And the EULA doesn't actually tell you you HAVE TO let XP automatically update XP, you just give MS permission if XP is configured to do so.
Not that I like XP or am a big MS fan or anything, but you guys are really overreacting this time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Irony is all well and good, but that's just stupid.
Somebody mod the parent up
"Funny, I dont remember installing this Mozilla skin... Guess they ran out of other things to make..."
0xC3
Anyways, I don't consider pointing out that they've fucked up trying to do this kind of technology before to be FUD. Thank you for the additional info on the technology involved (and I'd be interested to see if the DLL conflict management actually works...)
.technomancer
Hi
If I have copied windows XP from a friend (why should I buy MS products?), surely the EULA doesn't apply to me - since I haven't actually purchased the said product?
;-)
Microsoft should be able to create secure, reliable products without having to access my machine uninvited. Before you say anything about M$ reliability, compare my mailserver, running Debian that has been up for 118d 15h 21m or the Beowulf cluster all of whose slave nodes were up for 409 days (the only reason I had to shut them down was to move them between buildings), with my wife's Win98SE box which crashes (bluescreens, locks up or just reboots itself) 2-3 times a day. I know it is not a hardware issue because it dual-boots Linux, which doesn't have a problem.
The second thing, is that I don't trust Microsoft, the company that intentionally put hooks into Windows to break under non-MS DOSes (e.g. DRDOS), enough to give them access to my machine...Not while I have strength in this body...
--Storm
What you don't understand is that this is a legal document. That paragraph isn't about features at all. It is about rights. And if you read it, it isn't about giving you rights, it is about giving Microsoft rights, and taking your rights away.
If it was about a feature it would say something like "the user has the right to automatic updates from Microsoft..."
Here's the missing quote that should be in there
'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
That's what you get from Microsoft.
you have always been under control of the evil giant, only now, they going ahead and covering thier tracks by making you agree to it. Unless they are stopped, it's only going to get worse.
Please people, think of this as 'Star Wars', MS is the 'Evil Empire' so join the 'Rebel Forces'.
USE THE SOURCE LUKE
We're keen on bringing peace to the universe and preserving freedom of this and future generations.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Seems to me by the looks of that paragraph, that if you agree to the EULA, you permit MS to check your WinXP version info, and upgrade any old components. Thats all. If those updated components contain any sort of 'spyware', that is, collecting personal information, then I am pretty sure MS will get in trouble for invading thier customers' privacy without the customers' explict consent to do so. The EULA does not give MS the right to do this.
;-)
Okay, so it can be argued maybe you don't want your components upgraded (say because MS is breaking a standard), but hell, why not? If you're running XP, you've already ditched your old OS for a new one, so whats the difference? I'd rather hope that once in a while MS will sneak a _good_ update in, so that some bug that crashes my computer finally goes away. I have no problem with MS sending my computer updates, as long as thats ALL they're doing.
It would be unwise for MS to try to do anything much else, because if they were, and it was illegal, the court would have to sapoena (sp?) MS source code to bring a case against them. MS does not want that, believe me.
Besides, what does MS need your personal info for? MS doesn't depend on advertising cash, as it still has a strong foothold in the PC/Server OS markets. While even if MS did get caught doing something they weren't supposed to, the US must have a domiation in the computer industry (good for the economy), we can't let microsoft crumble till they'res a formidible player to take its place, so they just get a slap on the hand. They won't get in trouble, but they will be forbidden to do it again. Microsoft doesn't really want to lose the government's favor (when you start messing with the population's privacy rights), but they will do as they please until they are told not to.
Which begs the question, then, would we really be better off without MS? I could understand and agree with both sides of that.
And if MS fell, who would take its place? Linux? Uhm, what Linux company? *BSD? Who's going to run the company to distribute it? If we are to stay near the top of the tech industry, we need a company large enough to handle global marketing. You can have all kinds of little companies sparring with each other, but hey, RedHat Linux has an install base of what? A hundred thousand? Half a million? MS has an install base of what? A lot more, and thats for a reason. Marketing is a big part of the game. Not just marketing doublespeech, but I mean as in advertising, distribution, support, classes, etc.
Sorry, this got wayyy offtopic, but who'd be a suitable replacement (as a company) for microsoft? I'd love to see that poll.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
If you've already deployed XP, sorry; this doesn't apply to you. If you haven't, I recommend that you point this clause out to your PHB. if you are the PHB, I recommend that you contact your local MS sales rep and let them know that you will not be considering an upgrade until this issue is resolved to your satisfaction.
In other words, if this bothers you, don't whine; just threaten not to buy the software. I guarantee you that my 900-user law firm will not be upgrading to XP this year as planned until this clause and any software that supports it are eliminated.
I worked on the original Windows Update in windows 98. Before I left the project in disgust. Many people wanted to make it do automatic updates, and I adamantly opposed it, for all the obvious reasons. Cooler heads won the day. Apparently all the cooler heads went away and now only the Bozos are left.
Automatic updates is impossible to do without destroying some percent of the the machines. Windows configurations can be very complicated, and very customized. Many many people use precise bit images of their machines to ensure reliability, repeatability, and consistency. If this automatic update thing kicks in against their will, chaos will ensue.
The light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that this clause will not free Microsoft from responsibility of destroying data. Which will happen. Then I think they can be sued willy nilly.
Red Hat Network does exactly the same thing that the Microsoft EULA describes (automatically examines the version of Red Hat and RPMs on your system, and can auto download available updates)
Of course, the slashdot story fails to discuss this, making it look like Microsoft is the only company in the world with auto updating software.
I'm a Linux user, but have been disappointed of late with Slashdot's tendency to fail to research and present more than one side of a story. It's this aspect of Slashdot that is ruining it's credibility.
My dell laptop came with XP preloaded and I can't remember if it prompted me about if I wanted Auto-update. I Might have clicked through a window claiming it would keep the computer more secure etc.
So the first time auto-update broke a driver I spent 30 minutes sifting though controls disabling everything that looked pointless or evil. And there is a lot of bloat like Univeral Plug&Play. designed for home appliances to 'plug and play via ethernet or firewire' without needing a driver.
Extremely useful to IT? Uh. NO.
Most professional IT departments have made it their corporate policy to disallow WindowsXP from being used on their hardware and connected to their network. For example, at my place of business, installing XP is a terminatable offense.
> One is that Microsoft sucks for doing this... I think most people can agree to that.
/.:
>
> Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements. They are so used to clicking next that anyone who
> has agreed to this deserves to give thier info to M$
As I read this, I noticed at the bottom of the page was this ``quote of the moment" from the folks at
> If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
You do realize that the GPL, BSD, and many other licenses you love.. also allow this. You can think of a software license like a firewall.
Microsoft has a default deny policy, and then states what rights they and you have.
Most open source licenses have a default accept/allow policy, only denying few things. When you agree to a GPL or BSD license, you are agreeing to the same thing as you have no warrenty.. just restrictions on what you may do with the source.
All this is saying is that Microsft software is one step more 'free'.. Oh, how the slashdot trolls are afraid of their government removing their freedom, but more afraid of giving Microsoft some.
Hipocrites. People make me laugh.
It says '....MAY automatically check the version .... and MAY provide upgrades or fixes ....' .
I think they are just covering themselves legally for a SERVICE that is installed on WinXP.
You can turn it off by disabling Automatic Updates in Services.
The real purpose of the reworded EULA is so that Microsoft can, in the future, quietly scan your system to verify that you have purchased licenses for all their products. If they find you're using a duplicate serial number or installation code, then they know you have "borrowed" a copy from someone else. You can then expect to get a letter from the BSA or Microsoft themselves telling you to fork over $$. If you fail to do so, they will quietly and remotely disable the software they feel has not been properly licensed and paid for. The possibility exists that through bugs in Microsoft's software, they will disable software that HAS been paid for and is licensed.
I'm sure you really felt like you "owned" your car whenever it got stolen and the theif was driving around in it while you're ass was taking the bus to work. Did they ever catch his ass? Probably NOT.
"All pirates get caught..."
Puuuuuleeeeeeease!
Maybe all pirates that make millions of dollars, but certainly not all that USE it. Wake up!
You fail to realize that once that CD leaves the store, it belongs to me and there's REALISTICALLY not a damn thing that anyone can do about it. If I pay for it with cash, there's no way you can ever PROVE that I even bought it, so how can you expect to know wheteher or not I have an illegal copy of it. Therefore it's MINE along with everything else on it.
I bet you believe that most crimes are solved by the police, don't you? I've witnessed many more serious crimes that have never been solved, on the streets of the real world (where most of the M$ wankers wouldn't last 5 minutes anyway) NONE of this crap matters and it becomes a moot point after you get shot in the neck by the guy on the corner selling bootleg 2Pac and Windows XP CD's.
What world do you people live in? Physical reality is the only one that really matters at all and if they can't physically enforce IP laws any better than they do now, I can't help but laugh at them and your comments.
microsoft is just trying to make thier os more user friendly, at least thats what i think their trying to do
Average schmaverage! This is the same EULA the people in my civil government and military are probably agreeing to!! Medium or large businesses, which can afford to hire a computer dude to deal with updates (they have to hire someone anyway, just to clean up messes), have no need for this feature.
What is wrong with having "convenient" features be optional? There is no good reason that something like this should be a requirement for using that product. Hopefully, people will find out about this and Just Say No.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm a dangerously underweight, obsessive-compulsive computer geek, and I sit here with my stopwatch, timing out twenty seconds to write a comment, then resetting the watch and timing out two minutes until the next one.
b) - you can be court ordered to attend AA meetings, but you have no obligation to work the program. It's no different than courts ordering marriage counseling in divorce cases. There has never been a court order to "complete the program", because there is no completion - this is a basic tenent of the AA program. There is also no third party "asessing" your progress, and rejecting you if you don't "accept God". There's no boss, and no gold stars. AA is a support group and a methodology, it has very little structure and no authorities.
Please learn a little bit about topics before you rant. Especially when it's offtopic.
That kind of behaviour would lose them the trial in a moment.
Anyhow, EULAs aren't binding. Never were, never will be.
how is this insightful? you just backed up what the previous poster said. That it was infact running, except for the nonlazy people who did something about it.
Instead of performing the registry surgery yourself, you can use something like xp-AntiSpy, a nice piece of freeware which will let you do just that.
This could be a good thing or a bad thing. If Microsoft chooses to abuse its power it will be bad, if they just use it to keep everyone safe it will be good. You just have to trust that Microsoft has good motives.... I do....
Now if you'll excuse me, Toto and I are going to see the Wizard....
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
At last, somebody brings reason to this non-issue.
Maybe I won't get 50,000 hits per week from SirCam and CodeRed machines.
Maybe this will MAKE FEWER PEOPLE WANT TO USE MICROSOFT TRASH. (Since 100% lack of security, originality, style and class seem to have no effect.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
...you can only license it. That is why they call them "End User *License* Agreements". It is a legal hack to get around the obligations the software companies might normally have when one sells something to someone.
Ppl keep commenting on the divisions of /.
one thing is universal - we are all in the IT (yes broad meant to be) industry.
This is about legal attempts from MS - NOT about their product (it can does and will change).
Our industry is hurting, can't you guys see this is not about product or open source etc...
for once surely we can all agree, using legals to manipulate a user (and the market) is wrong -- isn't this why MS has been in court already?
The point is not if it is Unix/Linux/Windows - it is about the vendors acting sensible and building the industry that feeds us all, it is a great idea (having the choice) of allowing updates or not - but that is software and a CHOICE.
It should not be presented in legal documentation that IS confusing and DOES allow for future abuse.
I for one disagree with the division and think all platforms have good and bad points - but also realise that without some industry agreement of MORALITY (remember the trusting networks ??)
then it will be never ending the battle to actually build REAL systems versus a new form of gambling that is about screwing everyone for money...
Just an opinion,
for those who need justification to allow
my opinion to stand - I use;
Solaris, Mandrake, MS NT4-98-2000-XP.
The easiest fix here is to take that PC you got, see, and unplug it, see, and replace it, see, you know, like, with a Mac running OSX.
Hope that answers everyone's questions!
Open the Flame Pit doors, HAL! Someone questioned the Intel paradigm!
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
The mind boggles. /. to keep quiet about such?
It's a lot easier to fix these things before they get let loose.
Afterwards, Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place. Nothing they can do will make everything all right again. Everything Microsoft does and can do will have problems and concerns. Do you really expect
>Wow, you can finally change drivers without
>rebooting?
Sometimes. If you're lucky...
Video drivers are particularly bad, and my XP system demands reboots in the weirdest situations. Hasn't crashed though...
Also, a lot of shit software pops up a box on install that says you need to reboot before using it... about 80% of the time, this is rubbish.
I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, just thought i would paste this off the windowsupdate site:
Windows Update Privacy Statement Windows Update is committed to protecting your privacy. To provide you with the appropriate list of updates, Windows Update must collect a certain amount of information from your computer. This information includes: Operating-system version number Internet Explorer version number Version numbers of other software Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices Windows Update does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of personally identifiable information. The information collected is used only for the period of time that you are visiting the site, and is not saved. To provide you with the best possible service, Windows Update also tracks and records whether the download and installation of specific updates succeeded or failed. Windows Update records the ID of the item that you attempted to download and install, and information about your operating system version and Internet Explorer version. The information that is stored cannot be associated with anything that is unique or personally identifiable about you or your computer.
Says.
Does.
Microsoft quite often says one thing and does another. And does not say what it is doing.
Remember the time-bomb in the auto-update feature of Red Hat 7.0. Did anyone actually get bitten by it?
It really happens... You cannot turn off auto updates in XP
/bin/true. That way the system will happily think it's running it. Maybe /bin/sleep 500 would be a better option (if it wants the program to run for a bit).
Sure you can - you just need to perform some registry surgery. Anybody know the keys in question?
More to the point, you probably want to find the executable and replace it with the moral equivalent of
Sure, M$ has it in mind to overreach on this one, but I gotta tell you, a lawyer advising M$ who didn't advise her client to get express permission to check and pass data to a server risks claims of Computer Fraud and Abuse. I'm here to tell you that CFAA class actions have been asserted for far less.
Since CFAA claims today can result in severe civil liability and serious criminal responsibility, I'm actually inclined to cut Microsoft a break this time.
Wow, it took this long for someone to actually bother to read the EULA.
I had IIS running on NT4.
Did not get Code Red.
Not patched.
Not firewalled.
(no gateway)
I've had it with all this microsoft bull$#!+ i'm digging my commodore 64 out of the closet and dusting it off!
This is going to be a nightmare for the poor System Admin chaps out there (MS gets to be the BOFH, remember!!) In a network of a 100 machines, and with 30 unique configs, how is MS gonna decide which is a patch, which is a bug-fix and which is really a security hazard?? What if the sysad specifically wanted to provide a certain combination of versions to a certain user? And what if (as noted frequently) MS does'nt get it right? Remember the IIS patch which hung systems and networks for weeks? The poor sysad is gonna break!! To top it all, mgmnt guys will say, "Heh, we've got MS to keep our network up. Why not bring down our sysad team?" Eeks.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Dmait I hope MS does not find my copy of Man... nevermind I am runing linux. what was I thinking
-- any one elses thinks it's funny that there are linux warez news group--
Its the supid stats of death. Get a clue, the number of people killed has no relevance to who is right and who is wrong. Nor does it discribe who wishes the numbers of killed on both sides would lower and who wants to kill everyone they hate.
Download Steve Gibson's UnPlug n' Pray here. That will do the trick. The page also contains a good description of exactly what is wrong with UPnP.
You can't sue a software company over software they produce. It's protected by law, so it don't matter if it destroys data or not, there's nothing that can be done to MS.
I am Sp0r, Scourge of the Cosmos!
According to what I have learned in the past concerning "licenses" and such; one is bound only to the terms of the license that was originally included and signed, no others are legal or binding as the document/s first agreed to never included information or warnings that any such license could, at will, be changed, modified, rescinded or denied. Based on land contracts and property sales, ONLY the first, original document is legal and binding IF it is signed by both seller AND purchaser, with every clause well defined and retained rights of the seller are previously known to the purchaser BEFORE the "license" or "contract" is signed and/or notarized. Not one legally binding contract or license is one-sided! Two parties MUST sign any and all documents before being legally bound to said contract or license.
206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
to use LINUX...
Tell Bill Gates to bow to the penguin!
Let me just try to explain it like this:
I work for a smaller web company. We have made a web site (and some acompanying software) for a big firm in our country with a large legal department.
While they are using M$ products (they own more than 200 licences for Word), they read through our EULA very thrurally and wanted us to give 1-year guarantee (we settled for 6 months) on our software.
I did not help us to point out that MS guarantees their software will function as specified for only 1 or 3 (I can't remember which) months after the purchase.
My opinion is that they simply don't care anymore: "Everybody's using it, so someone must have read through. And, anyways, is not as we can change anything."
boky
Right-click on My Computer, and choose Properties. On the Automatic Updates tab, choose to install updates manually. Apply and OK.
:-)
Right-click on My Computer and choose Manage. Browse to Services. Right-click on Automatic Updates and choose Stop. Right-click again and choose Properties. Set Startup Type to Disabled. Apply and OK.
You should have no further trouble. I'm not.
Chris
PS. If you then go into the system properties and look at the Automatic Updates tab, it will say that the Windows Update service is unavailable.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
For what it's worth, it seems apparent to me that auto-update works only for critical updates, which are reserved for security patches. I have it turned on, and I can still visit the update page and find updates waiting. It doesn't autoupdate device drivers, for instance (and well it shouldn't: the current nvidia drivers cause my machine to reboot randomly, so I must use an older set).
is that microsoft has claimed the legal right to aggressively modify your system, without asking your permission. They are not currently doing so, but they are claiming the legal right to do so. This is WAY over the line. Make 'em take it back!
You forgot one very basic premise here; it's called PERMISSION to access PRIVATE PROPERTY!
No matter if it is a computer or real estate, the same protections apply all the time. M$ does NOT have any "right" to access your private property without your consent, and they can not deny your rights just because the EULA says so. No person, corporation or even the government has the authority to decide for itself that your rights do not apply. M$ can't arbitrarily trespass and snoop your computer without your specific permission, and to do so IS a criminal act according to private property laws. M$ would have to cross ONTO your property, albeit by proxy, in order for them to "check" your property for "updates" and "compliance", no law or laws can be made by a corporation that grant specific rights to themselves to trespass "covertly" and steal private information for their use.
For M$ to do so willingly would grant them a trip to court for criminal trespass, breaking and entering and also criminal damage to property with the "intent" on industrial espionage(yes, it's still espionage in that M$ IS an "industry".).
M$ could not afford to fight a drawn out battle on several "fronts" that would surely arise if they were "found" snooping and stealing files and data from private property, both corporate and private.
They could not survive a few hundred thousand suits claiming theft, espionage, and trespass.
Really, what else could one call a corporation's snooping and theft of private property and information? What"use"does/would M$ have for information that is not "normally" available to a person or company without having "intimate" knowledge of that person or company/corporation?
If simple, unenforceable EULAs become the norm in the U.S., then that very "agreement" could simply be written on a note and taped to a door by a theif that wants your stereo system...hell, he provided a EULA outlining his intentions, it was "delivered" to you.......Trespass officer? I think NOT! I forwarded my EULA to them, they didn't "object" to it, so I assumed my "right" to enter into the property.
*Reading this message indicates to us that you are in agreement with the planting of our feet far up your behind, and any damages that arise from the application of this EULA, you hereby agree to hold harmless, all persons and actions and also waive any right/s to remedy or redress under this agreement*
206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
Hey !
even rehat has an autoupdate feature which has to download information about every program installed on your computer for it to work ! and noones complaining about prvacy there...
If I press the "Accept" button on a license splash screen, is that as legally binding as a signature?
And what about software wrappings that say, "By opening this package you indicate your acceptance of the following terms..."?
Doesn't a contract need a signature to be binding?
If it wasn't Microsoft then auto-update would probably be useful. I would be quite happy for my Linux distro to update itself, for example, because I know the disto would issue patches in good faith.
Not so with Microsoft.
Their patches are more-or-less gauranteed to...
1) Break compatibility with non MS operating systems,
2) Enforce content protection,
3) Extend their Monopoly by the above and other means.
Also, one big issue here is that auto-updates should be something the user has the right to choose, not something that is legally enforced by the vendor.
...if XPAntiSpy would get around that anyway?
http://www.xp-antispy.de/index.html?/news-e.htm
[quote]
I do see this as a privacy concern, because it is only with XP that windows update does not say "this is done without sending any information to microsoft."
[/quote]
Actually, think about this for a second. They do not need to send any information at all from your computer, and they'd still know what you are running (tho the "you" part is FAIRLY anonymous, since they only have your (firewalls/proxys) IP).
It determines what updates you need and sends you to the download page. They can just take the info on the updates that are selected for you in stead of sending the same info from your pc..
Legally, that sentence doesn't mean anything(tho IANAL) and they still get all the info you need, just not by sending it to you.
...don't you think?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
No WAY! How can that be modded 'Offtopic'?!?
It should be +10 Fucking Hilarious!
Didnt you you fagshits realise parody is covered by law...?
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
One of the major features of WinXP is its auto-update feature. This is not a feature that most of us on slashdot would use, but for novice home users it's critical that the software (read: bug) updates that are posted be installed as automatically as possible. The whole reason that the problems with MS happened last year was because end users are idiots and both don't know how to properly use email and don't upgrage their software. This is a Good Thing {tm}. Those of us that don't want features like this can always turn them off.
Please read this:
Then this:
Then petition your government to pass plain English laws too. It's not just corporate lobbying that gets results. Public interest lobbying sometimes does too.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
I have read speculation posted as fact. I have read people say "Why don't they do this....?" when they already do. I have read the ridiculous rantings of anti-MS zealots who have no friggin clue what they are talking about. I have read the stupid opinions agreeing with the aformentioned clueless zealots.
I remember when Slashdot was a fun and informative place to hangout. Now it seems to be dominated by nitwits.
The EULA does not say that Microsoft can automatically upgrade if you want them to -- it says that simply by running XP you give Microsoft permission to enter your computer and upgrade your software. This could even be construed as you agreeing not to turn off the auto-upgrade...
Oh yes, and if the "upgrade" fscks your system, it's your problem, not Microsoft's.
If the intention is really just to give MS legal cover for auto-upgrade when the user selects that, the proper place for the legalese is not in the EULA, but in the dialog window that enables auto-upgrade.
MS has for the past few years automaticly been sending notices via the internet when a new version of IE is available. Yup, every time you start IE it 'phones home' to see if an update is available. If you decline it, it seems to put a cookie in your registery to remind you the next time you start the computer. I just ingnore it since I don't know if I WANT IE6 yet. Now they may be doing this with other software. No big deal.
Same thing at my place as part of policy I helped push. But is it inconceivable that a place that does use XP would want this, albeit under the restrictions that I mentioned? If this whole "trusty computing" thing actually happens (another inconceivable?) then places moving to Windows XP would find this useful. They are already doing this with Windows Update Federated Server for Win2k/XP, though not to the extent of putting it into the EULA.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
I dunno, I support about 200 windows desktops. How much bandwidth will this use? What if one day an update screws all 200 PC's? The business will screech to a halt.
Or, to be more precise, the legalese applies anyway, if you have the autoupdate on or not. So if MS has another hidden backdoor (maybe not now, but a few years down the road) the legalese allows MS to fiddle with your system, and even turn it into a quake-server if they see fit (or maybe let it sniff your net for unlicensed software). The Article sums it up quite nicely, asking, why Microsoft didn't make these terms specifically apply to the autoupdate, if that really is what they intended (as they say), i can believe their lawyers are incapable of doing it right the first time.
I think it just the tactic to push the boundary as far as it can go, and maybe trace back a step when caught on it. And had noone pointed it out and raised a ruckus, Microsoft would happily have it left unaltered, and in a year or so with the next version of Windows or another update you wouldn't find an 'off' button for the autoupdate feature, and, when complaining about that, find out, that you allowed it long ago.
--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The article mentions, that some firms have legal contracts with their customers (which might even be the government), which conflict with this EULA/PUR. So if i where a customer, i could drag them to court over the fact, that due to their contracts with microsoft they can't grant me the rights i have due to my contract with them (like confident handling of my information).
While there's nothing to win in this, someone might just do it to see the shit hit the fan, and i think the FSF should just use that approach, if only to draw more attention to how restrictive software licenses have already become. Also any big corporation using software with such license agreements shold consider how they're open to legal attacks through this: anyone could drag them to court, and even if that only results in bad publicity, that's already a lot of damage.
Since Microsoft would laugh anyone privately challenging them over their EULA out of court it's only wise to use some large corporation as a lever.
--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It's not trespassing, assuming the EULA is legal, as you granted them permission. (Note it could be breaking and entering, still, if they have to get pat a firewall.) If someone has permission to log into your computer, then it's legal, and people clicked 'okay'.
Now, as to whether or not this is legal, I don't know, I get a minor to install my software. I seriously doubt it, though.
But that doesn't mean MS doesn't think it's legal. They think they have a perfect right to play around inside any computer running XP. That's what's upsetting.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
In that case, maybe I should change it back to the original slogan of "There is no problem that can't be solved without the proper application of high explosives", eh? ;-)
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
Another issue is: can you enter into an agreement with a machine (which is asking you to agree), and even if you can is your computer a duly-appointed representative of MS? Mine isn't, and if it was I'd get a new one.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
There's a difference between stopping a service and disabling it. Check the Services console (Control Panel\Administrative Tools\Services). If the Startup Type on "Automatic Updates" is set to Automatic, it will restart every time you reboot. To stop it permanently, double-click it, and set Startup Type to Disabled.
This sig intentionally left blank.
What about OEM installs of Windows? People who buy a computer from Office Max or Wal-Mart don't ever get the 'Agree/Disagree' prompt. Usually there's a little book that says 'For distribution only with a new PC.' inside the box, but does it ever say anywhere 'Read me or die a horrible death?'"
Actually, when the user first boots a new OEM computer, Microsoft's OSes load the whole "do you agree?" routine. If you say now, they either simply shutdown, else they nuke the bootsector and shut down (I cannot remember which).
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
I agree, but I'd like to add that also people in companies often have no choice. The company regulation is often not so that one can just use the OS he/she likes.
If XP (which I don't use yet fortunately) doesn't allow any user influence on the automatic upgrades, I can only say that it can never be used for professional market.
How can they ever guarantee that nothing breaks down after an upgrade ???
They can never test their upgrades to this level.
What I mean is, check wether existing windows software (no matter what) keeps working after such an upgrade.
Microsoft doesn't have any right to look into company PC's and if they do they should be sued like any other guy breaking into someone else's system. What's the bloody difference ?
I guess I'm getting a bit paranoid and this isn't really true. MS wouldn't be that stupid, or are they ?
oops, you where too fast too :-)
Geez, Micosoft wants to violate our corporate software policy at will in order to grant us the privilege of buying (excuse me, perpetually renting) their bloated, insecure, overpriced, buggy software (only in the sense that it is not hardware).
I think the challenge of finding the security holes after they've "upgraded" my computer on their schedule with the lastest "Code Red Attractor" patch could be a bit of fun.
If you add the monetary punishment of their new licensing requirements to that, it's really quite compelling.
But wait, if you call in the next 10 minutes we'll include "gathering information about other software on your computer" SO WE CAN DESIGN THE NEXT PATCH TO BREAK IT, if it isn't from Redmond.
They have found out that their customer base has a one to one correspondence with membership in The Masochist Society for the Feeble Minded.
All right, THAT'S IT! I'm taking up a collection to bribe the Justice Department to reinstate...
No wait, they screwed up already.
Instead, we'll bribe the DEA claiming MS software is a mind damaging drug.
No wait, this is true.
We just need to get those Narcs to do their job!