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.'"
"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
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.
.....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.
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
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.
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.
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.OK. YOU need to re-read that sentence from the EULA... Windows update is an ACTIVE process. You have to enable it. You have to run the update. You have to select/agree the downloads.
This little 'phrase' is saying that they reserve the right to make those decisions FOR YOU.
And THAT is a bad idea, if for no reason other than their track record of patch management and hidden 'features' in their patches.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
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
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 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.
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."
Ever hear of port 80? Web services?
MS doesn't need a big hole. SOAP would do fine.
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.
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?
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.
Unfortunatly given Microsoft's past behavior the more likely scenerio is: *Scanning software* Opera 6.01.exe *1 Upgrade Found* Deleting Opera 6.01.exe Applying IE6.0.exe
This is a tech "shock" article, designed to get zealots in an uproar, and it should not even be bothered to be read.
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"
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
Google's Toolbar does the same thing, according to their official-until-we-change-it legalese
The difference is Google only checks for a single piece of information on a single piece of software and my system does not depend on this software to run. I have never had a Google Toolbar update screw up my entire system or even introduce another bug or open security holes. Google also has a pretty good privacy policy for which it has an excellent track record for following. In short, Google has earned my trust, Microsoft has proven time and time again they can not be trusted and it will take more than setting aside 28 days out of the last 20 years to fix problems to restore that trust.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
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?
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'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...
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.
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
Perhaps you might try using XP and seeing how it works, then you'd better understand. Normally, to update XP you have to go and click on Windows update, search for updates, download them, etc just like past versions of Windows. However it offers you the OPTION (it askes during setup and can be changed later) fi you'd like it to grab and install updates automatically. If you answer yes, it will update itself for you, and then just let you know.
The phrase in the EULA is a CYA measure on their part. They don't want someone enabling this, and then trying to sue them for it. However, I repeat, this is voluntary. You can leave it in the classic mode where you must instantiate an update.
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.
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.
Has anyone else noticed that the windows update with XP no longer says what the 98/2000 versions used to say something along the lines "does not send any information to microsoft" while checking the installed updates.. This has changed to "Windows Update does not collect any form of personally identifiable information from your computer."...
Slight wording differences.. but still... what is "personally identifiable information "? For the longest time, an IP address did not fall into that category.. but as anyone knows... an IP address can id quite alot...
The privacy policy for windows update has:
-----start quote..
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.
------ end quote
--
Time is on my side