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.'"
*Scanning software*
:)
Netscape.exe
*1 Upgrade Found*
Applying Opera 6.01.exe
Okay, I can only wish
"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."
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
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."
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."
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 /.
Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements.
Now that's something else. I wouldn't call myself stupid. I have actually read the Windows 98 EULA, but all the software that's downloaded and tried through the years' EULAs, I don't bother to read. I mean, how many people actually read EULAs?
If they don't, they are getting what's coming to them. Anytime someone enters a legal agreement it is their duty to make sure they know what their agreement actually is. Would you take a loan, buy insurance, rent an apartment or buy a book from Amazon without knowing the terms of the deal?
This is even worse, though, as it is about the volume licensing for companies. Sure, I can understand that someone buying a game for their kids don't bother with the EULA (consumers do have a layer of legal protection against onerous agreements), but this is about companies not even bothering to find out the terms of use for software that's expensive and critical for their operation. That is stupid.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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..
I wonder how many people have read the EULA and then clicked cancel and returned the product...... oh wait nevermind, since most people get it preloaded they never had the chance.
(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.
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"
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.
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
C> someone who want's to know what they are agreeing to before proceeding
I almost always at least skim through EULA's (and the GPL/LGLP/BSD licences make this easer, read once agree anywhere).
I certainly take the time to read the TOC of the web services I sign up to to see what they are going to do with my info etc.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.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
So what if I don't like the license agreement? By the time I've seen it, I've already paid for the damn product.
:-)
There should be a law requiring the EULA to be printed or summarized on the box, or published on the web site, so people can know before-hand. Once you've bought the product, what are you gonna do, try and return it because you didn't like the EULA, or put it on the shelf?
Once again, consumers need to spread the word about such EULA's, and kick up a stink about them, and let it be known what's going on. Simply clicking "disagree" isn't going to save the next poor bugger, nor yourself.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
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
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
It does seriously put a new spin on the phrase "How much is your time worth?"
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
[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.
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."
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
1-> i connect to a server and get a list of stuff thats updated. then my computer makes a decision.
the eula above
2-> their server can connect to mine and poke around at will.
up2date is a choice and not required by the installation. you must register your computer to use up2date. up2date is not something you explicitly agree to when you install the operating system.
to me there is a big difference.
-- john
So what if I don't like the license agreement? By the time I've seen it, I've already paid for the damn product.
Not only have you paid for it, but if you buy it at a typical store like Best Buy you're stuck with it even if you don't agree to the license -- as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, it's non-returnable. Conveniently, you can't even read the full EULA until you've opened the product. M$ should have to print the entire EULA and attach it to the outside of the box.
No, just like I wouldnt buy, say, Windows XP from Microsoft without knowing the terms of the deal. But I would read the books from Amazon without reading through the intro pages of copyright info, and I don't see why I should need to read 25 pages of EULA to read a book, or use a piece of computer software.
Now let's just look at it: Do you really expect people who think copy-and-paste is difficult to read and understand the EULAs? The paragraph quoted in the article probably sounds perfectly fine to Joe User... should I have to hire a lawyer to use Windows XP?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
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?
Microsoft isn't exactly gonna state that XP uses a 'Consistency' protocol (why is it called that) in their help pages. It ensures that if Microsoft want to force an update down your throat they can take 100% of your bandwidth away from you at the drop of a hat.
Don't always believe what you read......
And next time you would like to call me ignorant - try doing some research outside Microsoft's information circles.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
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
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!
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$
OK, my ex-girlfriend is a lawyer, but I am not. She talked specifically about this sometimes. The Ex says:
(1) One thing that is always considered in legal issues is, "What would a reasonable person do?" Well, no "reasonable person" can read every EULA they get. Therefore, it is not clear that any non-standard stuff that you "agree to" can be enforced, because it has not been tested in the courts (when we discussed this).
(2) Contractual obligations cannot supersede the law, and you cannot sign away your rights. For example, "You agree to enslave yourself to Bill if he decides he wants that," would not be enforceable.
Remember, this is second hand, but it seems applicable here. Perhaps a law-talkin'-guy can expound.
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
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
Honestly now, if I released a program with a long long legal-mumbo-jump-like text saying "you have to pay me 25% of your salary every month you use this program", and then sue my users when they refuse to pay up... What would you say my chances of winning in court are?
Maybe thats a far-out example, but I think you see the point. It could just as easily say "We have the right to use any information as sent to us by this program in any way we see fit. Further the program may look at files on your disk." I could then enjoy the benefits of credit card information, selling email addresses for spam, and what-not.
Face the facts: People do not read legal mumbojumbo presented on a computer monitor when installing "Splatterfest XXI: The Massacre" to play. What if a video tape had the text on it "By pressing the play button on your video player, you agree to send $1000 to the maker of this movie." Is that a legal contract all of a sudden as well?
Now, maybe where you are corporations rule and buy their own laws left and right but that's not the way it is all over the globe. I have a feeling that in many countries the court would just say "if you want people to understand it then write so that they can."
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
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.
No, a lawyer's primary task is to make money for their firm. Just as a prostitute's primary task is to make money for her pimp. In both cases it is often, though not always, a good tactic to make the client happy, but that's just a by-product. Also, in both cases law and morality are non-factors.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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."
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!)?
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.
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
"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
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?
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
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
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.
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?
For example in Germany the whole EULA is completely void, that's why there are no longer OEM-licenses in Germany. (Courts said that users could use them everywhere, not just on the computer it came on)
The funny (or sad) part is that Microsoft also does not follow their own EULA in Germany: You don't get any refunds.
But they still ship everything with the EULA...
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
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
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
'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...
> I realize that Slashdot is being composed of more and more pro MS supporters.
No, just more and more people have grown sick and tired of reading juvenile MS-bashing rants on slashdot in lieu of actual news, and perhaps even resent the fact that in this economy, these people still get paid for this slipshod level of journalism.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anytime someone enters a legal agreement it is their duty to make sure they know what their agreement actually is.
But are EULAs really legal agreements?
No laws are clear on it, and it hasn't been tested in court yet. But the widespread suspicion is that a court would rule that an EULA is NOT a legal agreement.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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=-
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?
I did this once on my network. Within two days, my /var filled up with logs from all the Windows machines on the network. They were trying to download http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ident.cab every 30 seconds constantly. No Windows Update feature had been activated on any of the machines. This ident.cab file, when extracted, contains a single text file with some interesting information in it. Microsoft is already doing stuff behind our backs. Unfortunately I've not been able to rid myself of the need for Windows-only software yet, but hopefully my employer, or some other group will be able to change that.
A solution to the problem with music today
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
My understanding is that it acts the way it's always acted; you can tell it not to check, to check, then prompt you for download, or check, download, then prompt you for application.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
> 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
Except for the fact that EULAs are not contracts.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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.
"its components that you are utilizing" may be considered, for example, any dll on your system. Arguably, any program that makes any system calls at all could be considered a component. While I think it's perfectly possible that this is, in fact, intended as a CYA with regards to auto-update, you should note that the language doesn't mention the windows update service - meaning this clause would hold even if you disabled windows update. Which could mean you're in violation if you don't, for example, download the latest patch to the DRM utlities.
...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.
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
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.
I had IIS running on NT4.
Did not get Code Red.
Not patched.
Not firewalled.
(no gateway)
And where else would we get timely and useful info on the latest Microsoft wormage?
Now, do you always trust Microsoft?
It's a matter of who is in control.
Up.
Down.
Master.
Slave.
Up is the controlling entity.
Down is the controlled entity.
"that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."
Not only are you outranked, but you have no say in the matter.
An X-client! Actually many X-clients.
It's sure not an X-server.
(Systems can now be atched quite quickly).
Precisely!
Something is confusing here. If one doesn't update their DRM, it says you cannot play any newly downloaded material. That seems to define one of two things. Either EVERY distributer of media for WMP must upgrade to always be current (or the existing DRM Should play from any source which hasn't upgraded)
-OR-
Windows and their Media player require a connection to a microsoft type site which is verified at every point prior to a download. This seems more likely, as in a
Now THAT sounds absurd. Let's see.. wasn't the Billy Gates 'trustworthy computing' memo something about privacy and security. That's going to be great privacy when they track everything you obtain via WMP, and probably send you ads based on what you download. Real nice. What crap. They'd better state that very very plainly up front if that's the case.
The interesting part becomes the vendor of the media. If one has a subscription service? They'll have to put in as part of the subscription that you MUST activate that automatic upgrade, or you will have services paid for but not available. This is going to get very very messy from the vendor standpoint, not just the consumer. Real Networks certainly has something to take advantage here if they play their cards right. I know too many places that'd never permit any type of automatic downloads for anything.
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.
"These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men"
That's the best. Thanks, I have commited that to memory. I know a few born again Christains that I am just waiting to try me to use that one on.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
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
you bring up a very good point and i dont have any problem with what you suggest. i was simply stating what i thought people were legally responsible for. if you disagree with the law then that's ok by me (i dont really agree completely either). there is a difference between disagreeing and simply ignoring that the law exsists.
for example, i once spent over an hour trying to convience someone that downloading copyrighted material (mp3s) that you have no claim to (having never purchased the cd's) is illegal. he simply refused to admit that it was illegal.
-- john
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.
I keep track of all the EULAs I've agreed to. Fortunately, none of them have been provided by MS. That is why I do not run Windows, I do not agree with MS's licensing terms.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
If IE is unable to load ident.cab, it retries every thirty seconds. So, with only two Windows machines on the network, the logs filled up the /var.
A solution to the problem with music today