Slashdot Mirror
More MS EULA Fun
gray code writes: "The Register is reporting that Microsoft has placed an interesting wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 that asks for the same remote admin rights as the Windows Media Player patch that raised such an uproar. I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much." Update: 08/04 15:05 GMT by T : Helix150 writes that a separate EULA for W2K's SP3 "contains this nasty bit: 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' Hmmm..."
that sux
Microsoft is required to make this revision in their EULA in order for Automatic Updates to work. If it makes you wary (as if you actually use the OSes) then disable it. Control Panel > Automatic Updates > uncheck Keep My Computer Up to Date. (In Windows XP, the same thing can be found in the System configuration applet of the Control Panel.) Feel free to read the links on that property page to discover what Automatic Updates does, and in newer incarnations, Scheduled Updates.
I believe the fact that this is disablable makes it moot. Such functionality, I think, is almost required for any OS that will play the role of desktop OS. I personally haven't seen the behaviors that take place with Windows 2000 SP3, but Windows XP did alert me the first time it started and before it checked for any updates, permitting me to disable the feature entirely or select from a couple of notification options.
I'm not sure it is acceptable to assume that an end user will actively participate in the maintenance of the software on their system to ensure, above all else, security. Windows had the Windows Update icon sitting in the Start Menu since Windows 98, and it went ignored. As mentioned before, Automatic Updates was released as a part of Windows XP last October. It was also released as an individual update to Windows 2000 over a month ago.
And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.
In any case, justification is pointless. I know people don't like the idea. But, it can be disabled, and if you don't like it, I suggest doing so and updating manually.
Most people just click OK and are done with it. Microsoft never comes to pick up their first-born. The users just go about their business making money with Windows.
It's really only the people who are afraid of having their warez/MP3 collection deleted or who are pirating Windows itself that are afraid of these remarks in the EULA. Most users are not worried about those things because they have nothing to hide.
I have been pwned because my
Sure. Just trust Microsoft, they'll look out for our best interests. No need to worry our pretty little heads about that.
And the government never goes after anyone who isn't a criminal, so there's no need to worry about things like warrantless searches and wiretapping.
Are you sure you didn't intend your nickname to be "oblivious guy"?
Crucify them! Crucify them!
:-)
In the great words from the computer game: State of Emergency.
Destroy the Corporation
Of course, I meant that they have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide. Grrr.... Need more coffee!
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Can we get the IP of that AC? 207.46.230.218
thought so!
I agree that most users never read the EULA anyway, which is their fault, but they might just read it if it were understandable. How about saying no to the EULA box and mailing Microsoft for clarification on what exactly the EULA means? Surely this is within one's rights as a customer, or is it against the law in the USA now (unpatriotic?) to ask to understand what the EULA is requiring of you?
I have no "warez" on my machine or MP3's for that matter, and I do use my Windows machine to "make money" but I don't think I want to allow Microsoft access to my computer for other reasons. The reasons include Microsoft changing the OS to a subscription model without my consent, Microsoft having access to company and private information which would constitue a breach of my and my company's privacy (small company, no corporate versions) and Microsoft modifying the OS to exclude me using competitor's software without warning me in advance.
I think this is a case for the EU commission on privacy and legality of contracts here in Europe. I don't know about the USA though (OI assume that obviously such contracts are legal in the USA).
IMHO, most people are focusing on the wrong aspect of this change. Sure, this change in the EULA gives MS the power to connect to, scan, and update the OS Software on your PC - and with their past record with releasing buggy, security-flaw ridden software, one should think that having the most recent patches installed ASAP would be a good thing (though MS Have been known to go from bad to worse with some of their patches!)
However, you all seem to be missing a more obvious implication - if MS can connect to your machine to load Legitemate updates, How long do you think it will be before your local 3v1l Hax0r d00d works out how to spoof the mechanism to his/her own ends?
It's not necessarily what you are allowing MS to do that you should be worring about - it's what you will be allowing the rest of the world to do that should worry you!
<PARANOIA MODE="OFF">
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
...is eternal vigilence.
Maybe I have _legal_ mp3s? Like from CDs I own, or downloaded off web sites _of the artists_ who want to be heard.
But according to some.. "Downloading music from the internet is a crime."
Is this harmless today? Maybe.
Will it stay harmless for tomorrow? History says no.
And yes I run Win2K.. for now.
Maybe linux on the desktop isn't ideal, but damn Mandrake (or your favorite distro) is looking mighty good about now.
My money paid for My hardware so it runs by My rules. Microsoft "helping" me is electronica non grata.
When I was making a purchase decision concerning Windows 2000, I was also taking under consideration the license agreement, and future bug fixes. Microsoft is under legal obligation to support the product, to allow me to download the patches, and service packs for the product for which I paid, without forcing me to do, or not to do some other things, which were not discussed in the original license agreement.
They are really becoming a pain in the ars not only for their competition, but now also for their customers, which is stupid. Such abuse of power, and trust (or rather what was left of it) by Microsoft will anger, and turn a lot of users away. There are reasonable alternatives to most of MS products on the market right now, and they are getting better, and more attractive every day.
The days are counted.
"You agree to allow Microsoft to become your default corporate network administrator. We will decide, without regard to the stable PC images you built and deployed, and regardless of any specialized applications you may be running, what patches will be applied to the OS on your production machines. If your non-Microsoft, mission critical software stops working after that, you need to get with your software maker."
This is new EULA is Microsofts way, in my mind, of saying "Hey, you people that don't patch your systems, even in the face of known flaws, are making us look bad. Screw this, if you won't do it, we will!"
hubris (hyoobris) also hybris (hibris) n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris" (McGeorge Bundy).
I was using windows media player to watch the matrix on my laptop (which has no dvd drive (I OWN the dvd, and ripped it myself to watch on a train)) windows media player deleted the file when i tried to give it a test play... a small box came up and then the file became corrupted...
even the evil DMCA allows for "fair use" in this manner... so microsoft wrongly deleted files on my computer...
MSFT SUCKS! --- is that assuming to much?
-BCC
"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer." That's two separate things. Unless I'm reading it wrong, even if you can disable the automatic updates there's no provision for disabling Microsoft's snooping. Now, if the agreement said something like... "You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer, and for the purposes of doing so may check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing" ...I would be less suspicious of their intentions.
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET framework component of the OS Components to any thirdparty without Microsoft's prior written approval.
How about that, wonder what they are trying to hide? SP3 must contain some of theThere must be ways around this (not legal ofcourse) for example, you could set your firewall not to make or accept connections to microsoft's servers, thus blocking new patches that might contain drm code. There can't be anything in Windows that would disable the OS if it did not receive a patch regularly since they would have to account for the fact that some people simply dont have internet/network connections.
Microsoft isnt playing nice. neither am i (i've never paid for a copy of windows) - win2k is the last microsoft OS i will ever use.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Forcing someone into a new agreement is illegal. Governments should give this some attention. The updates are necessary, partly because the software is sloppily written. The user does not have a good option; the only option is to get a new operating system and re-train everyone, and accept that some programs on which a business is dependent don't work. That's force.
You can remove the Microsoft EULA: Windows VBScript for automatically removing the click-through End-User License Agreements found in most installers.
It's no fun to work at an abusive company. We are seeing a rise in the number of sneaky contracts. This seems due to the presence of people with no technical knowledge at technically oriented companies. These people cannot contribute to the real work of the companies; all they can do is invent ways to abuse the customer.
As companies become more abusive, it becomes more miserable to work there. If you are good at what you do, quit and get a job somewhere where people are treated like people.
This is where it is all leading:
EULA:
- I can do anything I like.
- You have no power.
- You can't say anything bad about me.
- Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this.Slashdot has a sneaky EULA, too. At the top of every Slashdot article, it says, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
This sounds like you own your comments, doesn't it? However, the OSDN Terms of Service says at section "4. CONTENT", paragraph 6,
"In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable Open Source Initiative-approved license."
The contract is written in such a way as to appear that it has been made intentionally confusing. However, it looks like "comments are owned by whoever posted them" means that, yes, you own the intellectual property you created, but VA Software Corporation owns it too.
This appears similar to owning a car, but under the condition that someone else can use it at any time, and without notifying you. In any case, Slashdot's The Fine Print is misleading; it is not all of the fine print, although that line at the top of each story certainly encourages you to believe it is.
EUFA (End User Fornication Agreement)
License me harder Bill. Oh, Yes, I want to feel you deep inside my processor. It feels so good when you fill me with your burning code. I'm so close.... Yes, Yes, Yes! I want you to take me with your big stiff agreement. Yes!
Sigh, pant, pant...
Was it good for you too Bill?
Yes, I just love it when you talk spammy to me.
Here's some more money Bill. Please come again.
Bring Steve next time. You can both do me at once. Just the thought of it makes my disk spin.
I want your big code so bad.
Hey Microsoft... you've been shooting yourself so many times in the foot for over a year... just get the gun and blow your head off... do us all a favor !
rm -rf /home/leia
If I want Windows to update itself everytime there's a new update, shouldn't I give it remote admin rights? How else will it auto-install?
When I use up2date in RedHat, I need to be looged on as the admin and also be registered with them.
It's funny that people make such a big deal out of licenses. Licenses are written by lawyers for lawyers. Not even the developers had an idea of what it is except for those who like to waste valuable time reading the pages and pages of the licenses.
Most people who install SP3 aren't going to read the EULA, or know about the automatic updating.
Also, automatic updating has been a 'Critical Update' on windowsupdate for sometime now, and been in WinXP from the outset.
When these features gain a critical mass (not long now with win2k having it too), has anyone thought of an alternate possibility? Like pushing security patches invisibly to the majority without having to tell anyone?
If they can't write the software properly in the first place, fix the problems without telling anyone. Nice.
Additional Rights and Limitations.
* With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
that OS Product.
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
computer system, hardware, and software information to
implement the features. By using these features, you
explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
access and utilize the necessary information for updating
purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
improve our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
* If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
(s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Doesn't it look more and more like Microsoft is deliberately leaving flaws in its operating system, then issuing fixes under terms of extortion?
Yes, we'll fix that ActiveX problem you have, but in return you must give us the right to your first born. Oh, you refuse? Then we can't be held responsible for any attacks on your system, after all, we don't give mainstream support to Windows 98 anymore.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I find it interesting that as of this post, the offending statements are not in the EULA I got from clicking on Windows Update, selecting SP3 only, and clicking "review and install". I couldn't find anything out of the oridinary, in fact. Where was the original EULA found? Do you have to get it off their web page to see this?
Well, either way, I'm gonna install it. I personally feel that there is a lot of paranoia running around, as for Microsoft to initiate an upload of some software updates to a random windows user X, there would be a HUGE GAPING HOLE in the security of the software (if M$ can do it, 1337 h4x0rz can do it...), plus they would have to know your IP (which seems to change on a regular basis for many home users I've met). So that leaves two avenues: auto-updates (for those who leave that enabled), and manual updates. For those who've used the Window Update feature to manually update, You get a fair amount of information on each update, and although they could sneak something by, I think someone out there would figure it out, and I don't think microsoft is blind to the fact that the public outcry would be substantial.
At least that's my opinion.
You really beleive that. Maybee microsft just does this to see how crazy /. will go. If that is true Bill will be laugh even as I type
This was written to use up your time hahahssa alaahsdhaj asdjfkjafjkfsd gsdd.dsgfsg gf.fs dsf dfdfds gffgfd
I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much.
I don't think the mainstream public really cares about what's in a EULA. Hell, I generally don't either. But just think of the implications of people refusing to install patches and security updates because they're accompanied by EULAs with bizarre "big brother" clauses.
Now, with that said did any of you bother to read the article? Here is the offending text:
"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer,"
A little sensationalistic to call this "remote admin rights" isn't it? Basically, this just gives them the legal legroom required to make their automatic updates feature work, which is a good thing. It means more patched machines out there - less of that Nimda shit.
Nobody's spying on your MP3 collection. There's nothing to see here, folks.
Actually, that bit about 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' is not new -- that has been part of the standard MS EULA that you are presented with every time you download an update from the Windows Update site for Windows 2000 since they changed the format over to the current one (the XP-themed Windows Update site, v4). What is amusing is that you see that same non-disclosure condition even if the only update you download is the "Root Certificates Update" or even a driver download. How can it be legally binding to impose a license condition like this on a component download when that component has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the OS component referred to by the restriction?
If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what does your empty desk signify?
Just find a nearby minor to press the "I Accept" button for you. Done and done!
but under the condition that someone else can *reproduce* it at any time.
The difference is that in your analogy you could be denied the *use* of your car.
In mine you can't.
It's *copy*right people, *copy*right. Not *use*right.
KFG
>I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank >you very much.
You are stupid enough to get their OS in the first place, now dont bitch, because we told you so.
In A.D. 2101 ....
War was beginning.
IT Guy: What happen ?
End user: Somebody set up us the auto-update.
Network Admin: We get signal.
IT Guy: What !
Network Admin: Main screen turn on.
IT Guy: It's You !!
Billg: How are you gentlemen !!
Billg: All your boXen are belong to us.
Billg: You are on the way to destruction.
IT Guy: What you say !!
Billg: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Billg: HA HA HA HA
No court in the nation is going to enforce any restricitons which prevent one from publishing an evaluation of a product -- certainly not benchmarks, which are one of the most important tools for evaluation. The public has the right to know how well a product works.
As for the automatic update worry, one should note that the whole issue is moot so long as the user can disable automatic updating (in which case, they'd update manually, and only select the things for which they wanted and presumably knew what they contained).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As I mentioned in an earlier post there are many companies that enforce this in their EULA. It becomes especially common if the software package targets the enterprise.
Given the tendency of MS "service packs" to "coincidentally" BREAK third party software upon installation (as NT Service Pack 6 did to Lotus Notes), do you REALLY want BillG loading them onto your servers and desktops AT WILL?!
.NET server is slower than 2K server? Or that 2K server is slower than NT server? (which is all true, BTW).
Also the benchmarking clause is a classic... So you aren't allowed to publish benchmarks that reveal that
And especially you can't release benchmarks comparing it to a Linux server. No way
When will it end? And, to bring up an old point, WHAT LIMITS are there that a corporation can put into a contract? Also, what right does MS have to alter the EULA for Windows on a SERVICE PACK (ie, a release of fixes for PRODUCT DEFECTS in the original)?
Seems to me that they are COERCING you into accepting the more restrictive license, because not doing so means running a defective product.
Corporatism != Free Market
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
Ximian Connector's license does this too. I asked the regional sales rep to remove it. He referred me to a VP who did not respond to my email.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
dotNET is not beta on Win2K. The dotNET framework 1.0 was released to run on both Win2K + Windows XP Pro at the same time.
Maybe you are confused on "Windows 2003 Server" (Windows dotNET server) still being in beta (Release Candidate)... but that is not "Windows 2000".
It seems to me that the EULA means that you're not allowed to block out their requests. You'll have the FBI breaking down your door to uninstall your firewall if they really want to "upgrade" you.
In addition to what I have seen most people complain about is that the auto installer opened up unwanted ports on my machine (the FTP port and another port) without informing me. This is just asking to be rooted by script kiddies. /me shakes head in disapointment.
And if you click I accept before the EULA shows up (have a modem access) does that mean I agree to nothing?
This is nothing a good firewall can't solve. Just block the updates/spyware and be done with it. Or switch to an OS whos EULA is the GPL.
My work provided laptop is Win2K. I don't have any choice in the matter, that is the company required OS. I installed SP3 last night. It changed my auto-update setting to automatic without telling me. At work and at home I am behind firewalls. In the work environment all updating of Windows is handled internally, not by windowsupdate.microsoft.com. At home I patch manually. I don't want auto-update turned on. Since I always turn it off, I didn't realize it had been turned on until I checked, after reading this story on slashdot.
I have submitted a formal request for exception to be allowed to install Solaris or Linux on my laptop since I all of my work is primarily done on Solaris platforms. As of right now I have no intention of any of my own PC's having Windows ever again (my personal workstation is RedHat 7.1) and if I get this exception same rule goes at work. My wife uses Mac, and so does my son.
I have never seen RedHat or Solaris updates change settings on my PC/server/etc without asking if it was okay to do so. Solaris packages ask if it's okay to install with root permissions or modify permissions. When is the last time a Windows package asked you that? I've been using computers since about 1979, I'm tired of being treated like I'm stupid. I suspect a major part of the reason users are stupid is because software companies taught them to be stupid.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
Stories like this keep affirming my decision to switch to Debian.
Now it's a great laugh watching people bend over for Mr Bill!
Can't wait for the upcoming story how an SP "accidentally" blows away everyone's MP3s!
Seriously, why do people stand for this crap?
What's so damned great about windows that's worth clicking away all your rights?
Therefore, you must be a FAGGOT in the first degree!
the lack of ability to communicate without insulting other people ? What part of the parent post can't you refute. I seriously doubt that a M$ employee is assigned to /. to put a positive spin on PR issues. As usual the raving paranoids run rampant here and people's opinions are like assholes, numerous, rife and stinky.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This is the kind of thing that I'm sure actually will eventually get me to switch to Linux. I've been using DOS/Windows for as long as I can remember. I've tried Linux before, but it's either been too hard to get working (hardware incompatibility, etc.) or it just plain sucked. It feels kludgey, and I just don't feel much incentive to relearn how to use my computer when it works fine the way it is
I admit, I've never purchased one Microsoft product (aside from their awesome mouse and maybe a game or two published by them). Right or wrong, that's the way it is. But eventually, as these licenses get more and more restrictive, I'm seriously getting that much closer to making myself switch. I'm downloading Knoppix right now to see how much has improved since I last tried Linux... I seriously hope it's up to snuff by now... It _sounds_ good, now that Warcraft 3, etc. are playable in Wine, but we'll see.
Offtopic side question that you can choose to ignore: Can anyone explain the advantage of Linux having all the different stupid partitions? Isn't an easily configurable swap _file_, etc. just as good as a partition? Partitions are the worst part of the Linux experience, imo, regardless of whether modern installers can set them up automatically or not. I actually like the fact that with FAT32, I can just boot off a disk, deltree the appropriate files and do a fresh install.
If this automatically downloads and installs future patches, does this mean that you do not have to agree to any new EULAs? Since you won't be clicking "I agree" on them, do they count?
be interested in seeing the cost justification for TCO. I've NEVER seen figures that favored M$ except from M$ of course. The additional maitenance cost on a win2k box and the additional time ensures our sysadmins have 25 windows boxes or 75 various Unix boxes and they can keep up with either. I hardly beleive the cost of the initial equipment outweighs the long term support costs, and M$ support is VERY POOR, compared to a service contract from SUN or IBM. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, I've been a NCR ADMIN, SOLARIS, AIX, MS, and Linux for the same company.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This will probably be modded down as flamebait, but I really don't care.
I knew the second that this article was pointed out, the MS shills would come out in record numbers.
You people aren't fooling anybody. We know who you are, and who pays you to post to defend this crap.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
1. No contract can contain terms or requirements that are against the law. Is it legal to say you can't post benchmarks? Isn't that a violation of free speach? As long as your not posting any propriatary info with them...
2. If your that worried about MS taking over your system, just set up your firewall to block them when your not downloading updates. Probably better to have a propper firewall set up anyway. MS isn't the only one trying to get at your system.
"You can't do that, it's my computer!" he told Ernestine at Microsoft.
"Mr. Veedle, that's so cute!", she snorted " No, no, no, you're dealing with Microsoft. We are not subject to city, state, or federal legislation. We are omnipotent!"
(With apologies to Lily Tomlin)
Sigs are bad for your health.
Does anyone know if these same terms are showing up in service packs delivered to large corporate customers? Our IT organization gets really bent about people not having the "standard" OS and app images on their machines, and their own tools and schedules for upgrades. They would presumably go ballistic if thousands of machines starting getting into odd states because of partial upgrades...
-
The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
Could this be construed to allow Microsoft to access your machine even with Windows Update off? Corporate users, especially sysadmins, should bring that clause to the attention of their attorneys. It's probably unwise for corporate users to install this update without obtaining legal advice.EXACTLY! This is what I was thinking as well. I personally would be more comfortable: IF (AND ONLY IF) you enable Automatic Updates, THEN you acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer. Instead, they have created a Trojaned EULA that makes it seem as though this is only for Automatically Updating, but it's legal ramifications are MUCH MUCH larger. They can use it for anything, those motherfuckers. I hope all the Microsoft lawyers die of stomach cancer. That's it, I'm officially through with Windows. I'm not installing SP3, and switching over my main machine to Linux. Fuck you, Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read the remark about "get a minor to press accept", but more realistically, it's going to be the system administrator who accepts the EULA, which leaves me free to do whatever I want. He can't make the "promise" in my name.
What will this lead to? Does the EULA not apply to other users, or will we get a login screen with all EULAs pertaining to all software once installed on the system?
And what about people who don't understand what they accept? E.g., I am not a native speaker of English, yet I use systems with English "localisation". The only way to stop them accepting the EULA without understanding is to have some kind of test afterwards. Especially in the read-all-when-logging-in scenario this can become quite a problem...
At 6:28 am an article is posted about the negative aspects of the new Microsoft EULA. At 6:31 am an Anonymous Coward posts a well-written, generally grammatically-correct response that explains the need for it.
./ is being actively astroturfed?
The response is 383 words. That's over 127 words per minute.
Furthermore, this paragraph smacks of being mandate-driven...
And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.
Am I the only one getting the feeling that
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The new SP3 just fixes many bugs in Win2k. Sure the EULA gives Microsoft the ability to upgrade any OS component. They can't delete your mp3s because the mp3s belong to you. I ripped my favorite songs from about 8 cd's of mine. They can't delete them because I own the cd's.
Isn't it true that a reporter doesn't have to reveal their sources? Why does the person publishing the benchmark have to be the one who agreed upon initial install? I think I'd like to try this just to mess with MSFT.
" The real question is whether this license allows Microsoft to do things to your machine even if Windows Update is off."
No the real question is "are you allowed to turn off windows update?". Remember now MS has the right to check your computer and modify it. If you attempt to block them from doing so you may be committing a crime.
War is necrophilia.
Just stick with the llama. F*ckMS AND Real1. They both suck.
It is entirely fine with me if Slashdot publishes a CD archive. I've urged them, in an email message, to do that myself, to make money. The problem is the sneakiness of saying something in The Fine Print and then changing the terms in a hidden way.
Also, the terms give OSDN the right to publish a book based on one person's comments; the person would have no control. The OSDN provisions are too broad. For example, if a Slashdot reader eventually becomes vice-president of IBM, or mayor of a large city, OSDN is giving itself the right to make money by publishing the readers's comments out of context.
Any company that builds software that would require automatic patches, should not have the access to a computer to do so. If they did not perfect the release of the software, then how can you trust them to install updates perfectly enough not to interrupt daily business.
The code to remove the EULA is an act of civil disobedience. It is there to make a point to get the law changed; it is not intended to do anything bad to the sensible rights of the software suppliers or the rights of users.
Putting aside the usual rants that will spew forth here, I'd be really ticked if I was a dial-up user and MS started pushing a multi-megabyte patch to me the next time I checked my email. Especially if I was billed for time on line.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I just love slashdot's faithfulness to the cause. Right below a blatantly anti-MSFT article was a big Visual Studio.NET advertisement. I'm saving a screenshot of this.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Try it for yourself.
1) Windows 2000 cd original.
2) Slipstream service pack 3 into it (admins do this).
3) Install it to a drive on a computer.
4) MARVEL at the fact that slipstreaming DOES NOT change the EULA and that you have the ORIGINAL W2K EULA while using sp3.
The burning question is, what are the legal implications of this discovery? Slipstreaming is a standard admin procedure. Which EULA is valid. The one you were presented with, or the one they want you to use but didn't bother changing when you slipstreamed.
I really want to know.
(Slipstreaming for those who don't know, is when you put service patches or updates into a base install so they are pre-installed and don't require you to install them over and over for every machine on a network. This is done often for Office for example where patches are streamed into an admin install and then by executing one command they can update every office install on the entire network without having to walk to each computer and doing it by hand.)
Don't you see that, when you remove the EULA, you are only doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to you? You are changing the terms of the original contract with Microsoft without giving Microsoft any real control in the matter.
Is there anyone besides Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer who believes that Microsoft should have broad legal rights, while users should have none?
I've been working for literally months on getting systems ready for a customer that use Windows XP. The cost of buying Windows XP is trivial compared to the cost of dealing with its quirkiness and poor documentation. Now, after I cannot back out of the agreement without losing all my time and money, they have changed the agreement! That's not acceptable.
Basically, if Microsoft changes the agreement now, they can change it again later. Who knows to what provisions Windows XP users will be bound in the future! If what Microsoft has already done is legal, then it is legal to change contract provisions again to say that Bill Gates can come to your house at any time and raid your refrigerator.
I've bought sevearl windows O/S licenses as well as office licenses. The SP3 EULA crossed a line for me so I let them know I will not be buying their O/S products.
? sc id=sw;en;1076
Let them know what you think.
http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx
Let's take a moment here to think about how Automatic Update works, in fact this applies to most client-server software. When your computer contacts the Auto-Update servers do you think that it is just pulling a text file off the server and comparing that to your computer? Probably not. If it is like most client-server software today they have opted for thin-client and a lot of the code will be on the server. Hence your computer probably sends a list of it's current configurations to the server, the server performances the diff and determines what to upgrade, and then send the list of upgrades to the client to download. Pay close attention to that second point: the SERVER may perform the diff and calculate the list of changes. At this point, it is Microsoft (they own the server) checking the version of your OS and components. So this needs to be in their EULA. I'm suprised this hasn't been in there software before, though perhaps the design of Automatic Update changed neccesitating a change in the EULA.
Gues who had an advertisement on the page when I saw it?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
Translation: "Yeah, it's slow as hell. Shut up about it!"
(Of course, XML, SOAP, et al.: why would anyone expect it not to be slow?)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/ser vicepacks/sp3/spdeploy.htm#automatic_updates_for_w indows2000_gahz
in short, you must explicitely set up your system to allow downloads of updates. You have 2 options:
Notify for download and notify for install
Auto download, but notify for install (= default)
Auto download and schedule the install coward
Ad-Aware might be able to remove it if they add MS Automatic Update to their list of malware. ;-) (As I'm previewing this comment, it now occurs to me that that would probably violate the Windows EULA.)
This really isn't necessary though. Look at the EULA again.
The automatic update feature in Win XP can be figured to download updates automatically and optionally install updates automatically. I've seen it in action. It downloads updates in the background while you're web browsing or doing whatever online. When the downloads are complete, the Update icon in the system tray starts blinking. When you click on that, a window pops up showing you all the updates that have been downloaded and then it asks you: do you want to install these now? You can cancel it. It is in Microsoft's best interest to inform the user before the installation begins if for no other reason than that the user might be doing something that would disrupt or prevent the installation process (i.e. components to be "fixed" might be in use).So while the downloading may be automatic, the installing is not.
i finally decided to take the risk and begin SP3 installation, and i decided to read the EULA in its entirety rather than just trusting the community's response to it.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
the first sentence in this section seems to indicate that the software component is the channel used to transfer the ambiguous "updates" and "fixes". logically, the software component in question can be removed or disabled to prevent Microsoft's possible subversive measures. if the backdoor can't be disabled, then it is the only backdoor on my system that can be exploited. i'm not comfortable with that.
the section immediately following the above makes me almost laugh because i own 10 legal licenses for Windows 2000 Server (of which i have used 3 to my understanding of the term "licenses").
"DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT
AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS
COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES
RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT
SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND
SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND
CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR
STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR
RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF
NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT,
QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE
RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES
REMAINS WITH YOU."
this makes me cringe a little. it indicates to me that they are fully aware of all faults in the OS, and that they have not fixed them and they're just going to ship it to you that way. the government should instruct them to REMOVE this part. then we can rest easy knowing that they're responsible for every damn thing that happens. i'd love to see that.
the rest is more liability stuff that can be easily inferred, since it's in every EULA that i've read.
note that i've quoted this verbatum, and i feel a little more comfortable installing the servicepack. a little. it still upsets me that the first section i quoted makes the statement that is there. maybe some smart fellow (like a whitehat hacker maybe) finds a way to disable the "software component" mentioned in the EULA....?
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Favorite quote: "Microsoft . . . . restricting market share . . . . will probably mean an increase in software prices, as well as a decline in quality and level of service."
Interesting comment.
See Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going for more information on the unacceptability of Microsoft's policies.
I should say at this point that I agree to Slashdot's The Fine Print, but I do not agree to OSDN's unfair contract.
See my comment, The OSDN provisions are too broad.
it has become apparent that microsoft is an infestation of lawyers and overpayed, no good programmers. I saw some of the latter in Barcelona this summer, dragging their stupid little .NYET computer cases on Parallel, some .NYET is NO GOOD
actually dared make it all the way to El Corte. It does not matter WHERE you hold your fake conferences, the result is clear
Now, does that analogy make any sense to the MS loons astroturfing /. ??? You would rightly think Ford was being outrageous but you'd accept identical attitudes from MS. You're a strange breed alright, throughly brain washed to unstable, buggy software, poor performance, outrageous EULAs, and high prices and normal.... yet you demand these atrocities and want to inflict the rest of the world with them.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
>Almost everyone probably has -something- to hide.
You may think that you have nothing to hide, but you are not setting the rules. And you have no appeal. Do you have a Linux partition? A BSD partition? Any other OS? Any competitors software? StarOffice? Eudora? Apache?
You now have something to hide. Remember that Linux has been declared as MicroSoft's greatest threat. Others go unmentioned. Your software and data may be at risk. You cannot change the rules (within the game). You have no appeal. And try not paying for this software, regardless of whether you use it.
Who watches the watchers? And remember the watchers are more powerful than many governments, with or without the help of the US gov.
How long do you suppose it will be before someone develops a honey pot for the Microsoft updater? This could be a Windows XP box that was simply set up to study how Microsoft manages the computer remotely. Does anyone suppose they've managed their internal security so well that their automatic update tools don't expose vulnerabilities? After all when their systems have established a connection to your computer, it's potentially a two-way street. Perhaps consumer push back should take a slightly different form in this game than complaints in the media.
>(i've never paid for a copy of windows)
Could I suggest that you not pay for a free operating system. You would then cease to support this abuse of power. You would also have increased security.
You may object because your commercial software and games may not work on another platform. Well, stop wasting money down the toilet and secondly, get out more.
08/02/02 03:23a 130,978,672 W2Ksp3.exe
1 File(s) 130,978,672 bytes
IOW, 128 Megs or so...
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
Two quick comments... the EULA says may download, not install. This is a very important distinction. I assume they have to do this simply because they offer a tool to auto download and have to have your permission to do that. Secondly, the benchmarking thing is as standard as can be, everyone does it. IBM, BEA, Oracle, etc etc require their permission before publishing benchmarks. That's why you generally only see comparisons of DBs, App Servers, etc against previously published numbers, rather than everything tested by one company.
Well, it's all about trust - go ahead and give admin rights to the vendor if you feel comfortable with that.
Years ago I trusted Stratus not to abuse their remote service facility that involved uploading failure info from our machines to their support site without manual intervention.
I wish I could say the same for Microsoft, but the little practices already mentioned - making the auto updater a critical update in its own right, introducing new EULAs with what are ostensibly security updates, an undocumented profusion of call-home mechanisms in XP - mean that I don't feel comfortable adding this risk.
In fact, I find any shrink-wrap style license objectionable in a corporate context - a sys admin is not necessarily a corporate officer - this ridiculous trend should have been struck down years ago, and I sincerely hope that in the UK some test cases will soon do so.
A swap partition never becomes fragmented.
/home and /usr in separate partitions offers a few benefits, such as being able to reinstall a damaged system without obliterating user files, and some extra safety from damaged disks.
Having
Also, you can stagger the partitions' maximum mount count, so the entire disk still gets checked, but not all at once. Less important if you use ext3.
I typically don't bother; however it is always good if you can have different parts of the filesystem on different disks/IDE channels, so data can be transferred to both simultaneously.
(There are other reasons for multiple partitions, www.google.com is your friend)
--
bje
"You allow OSDN to use it in a reasonable manner."
The contract says nothing about "reasonable". There are many possibilities that are not reasonable, that are allowed by the contract. See the comment, The OSDN provisions are too broad.
"If you don't agree then post elsewhere or sue me
I was hoping for a more thoughtful response.
I don't understand your sentences that begin with "It would also..." and "Especially..." and "Admittedly,
Let's face it: Windows 2000 continues to be the one and only holder of the title "The Windows that Doesn't Suck," and Microsoft is learning this the hard way (much to their chagrin) as they try to compete directly with it with Windows XP/.NET. Now while XP/.NET do have a few nice little bells and whistles in it that 2000 doesn't, the technical changes are insignifigant (we're talking about the differences between NT 5.0 and NT 5.1 here) especially compared to the licensing changes. About the only way Microsoft can hope to compete with their only real success it to deliberately try to break it. Of course, they could always just fix XP's EULA problems, but this is Microsoft we're talking about...
Service Pack 3 if nothing else gives Microsoft the ability to "convince" you to upgrade to XP with automatic "updates" and "patches" that do more harm to system performance than good (how much longer before benchmarks show XP is faster than 2000 SP3+?). While whether Microsoft will do it or not is debatable, it can't be denied that they now have the ability to and this was brought about by a deliberate change to the EULA terms.
Sooner or later Microsoft is going to try to exercise this new power of theirs to some degree and there's going to be a heck of a lot more fall-out than just an article on Slashdot. And when push comes to shove, it will still be in Microsoft's best financial interests to force their customers to upgrade to XP no matter what.
What am I getting at? Service Pack 2 can be downloaded here and for about $20 you also have the option of buying the CD instead of burning your own. How long do you think Microsoft will continue to maintain these files on their web servers? Especially if, six months from now, it's in their financial interests to all but deny any SPs before 3 even existed?
If you use Windows 2000, it's in your own best interests to grab a copy of this (or even two if you're really paranoid) and lock it away in a safe place if you ever need to re-install.
So I tried to figure out how to do it.
What I did was kill the wwwauclt.exe process, then go to your system32 directory and delete the following files:
wuauclt.exe
wuaucpl.cpl
wuaueng.dll
wuauserv.dll
You'll never guess what happened next. They reappeared!! They were literally recreated before my eyes!! I was left wondering what kind of evil had posessed my system.
If anyone knows how to disable this mysterious magic, then please feel free to reply.
DeeK
Overall, I support what you (or someone close to you) wrote in the article you posted, but here's my beef(s):
/.? Don't try pulling a fast ones like this.
:)
1) Disclosure. There's a difference between "Look at this article I found on site X" and "Look at this article I WROTE on site X". The first is information. The latter is infomercial. Want cred on
2) The Registry. You refer to the entirety of the Registry as "this one (large, often fragmented) file". I can't say as to Win3.1 (The first incarnation of the registry), but in Win95 and newer, the reg has never been "one file". In 9x, there were 5 files (User.dat, System.dat, User.da0, System.da0 and System.1st) at the very least.
3) More Details about Registry Problems. You conveniently ignore the fact that one can back up portions of the registry without backing up the whole thing.
Side note: The Registry is one of the most often used reasons ppl I know have chosen *not* to switch from 'doze to *nix. Aside from recent (and not fully mature) developments like APT and RHN, *nix seems to be lacking a good remotely-administrable system service and software configuration database. If I'm wrong, please shoot me a link.
4) A government that uses Microsoft software is not an independent government. Wow. From hard evidence to personal opinions in no more than a <br>. My browser (moz 1.0) must have missed the "</fact><opinion>" demarc
5) Backup Problems(duplication and deployment of Win2k/XP). I work for a medium sized call center with ~1000 NT/2k/XP workstations. To walk around and do each install by hand would be an unacceptible time (and $) sink. We use the (MS-Provided) tool SYSPREP.EXE to prepare disk images for deployment. As the image boots for the first time, the IT flunkie (present for imaging) is asked for one piece of data (the NetBIOS name of the machine). The OS (win2k/XP) then detects its HAL, devices installed, etc. A logon script configures individual (non-MS) applications, and the machine is ready to go in <30 minutes. We don't like having to imaging computers, but it's a hellofalotbetter than doing OS installs by hand.
My point was that 2k/XP installations *with applications* *CAN* be imaged and deployed in a timely and accurate manner.
6) Reduced Functionality in Windows XP. Jeez, do I have to go on? Yes, there are some features that cmd.exe does not have that command.com did. Which of these do you use on a regular basis? Cmd.exe is oriented toward an NT4/2k/XP (networked/multi-user) environment. User/Group/Share mgmt features et al. Cmd also doesn't have command.com's bad habit of hogging CPU resources. This is at best a weak argument. Start.exe can be run with a "-d" switch to return control immediately.
Am I an MS PR Bunny? No. Just an admin who likes to call BS when he smells it.
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
The cover story on the latest Technology Review mag, "Why Software is So Bad" claims that restrictions on publishing benchmarks are common in EULAs. It mentions that in 1999 Oracle used their EULA to prevent PC Magazine from publishing benchmarks against SQL Server, even though PC Magazine allowed both Oracle and Microsoft to setup the machines running their software. (July/August, p. 38)
:)
Granted, Oracle is evil in its own right, but the point is that its not only Microsoft--its the industry. Rather than picking apart MS licenses and whining about what big meanies they are, perhaps we should be gathering more examples and making efforts to bring software users' rights as an issue before our local representatives. (Sorry, possibly US specific comment
Don't blame me, I get all my opinions from my Ouija board.
I'm really busy now, but I can make some quick replies:
You are really right about Linux lacking a central configuration database. Windows XP configuration is easier, even though the access is poorly designed. I've been hoping that Jonathan Abbey of Ganymede will extend his project to include program configuration.
Nothing is being sold. It is not an infomercial. Yes, I wrote the article. No one ever questioned that before. In the future, I will make it clear that I wrote the article.
There is no -D switch in Windows XP Start.exe
I thought your comments were excessively negative, as though someone is trying to sell you some lies.
You are confusing system preparation with backups. This is a common mistake, I've found. Perhaps the article could be more clear. The facts were verified by Microsoft employees.
Here is an example. Suppose it is four years from now. You have a backup that was made a week before. When you do the restore, you quite likely will not do it to a machine that is identical, because you won't be able to buy identical parts. That's where one of the problems lies. The new machine won't work with the old system drivers or hard drive drivers, almost certainly. Sometimes this problem can be solved, sometimes it can't. Microsoft says that it can't, and they don't support it.
In Microsoft XP, the registry is several files, scattered around the hard drive. Corruption in any of those files can cause your machine to be useless. However, most of the problem occurs with one big file SOFTWARE, which is 25.69 megabytes on the machine I am using to post this. Here are the files names for that machine. As you can see, more files has made the problem worse, not better:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\
"\\REGISTRY\\MACHINE\\HARDWARE"=""
"\\REGISTRY\\MACHINE\\SECURITY"="\\Device\\Harddi
"\\REGISTRY\\MACHINE\\SOFTWARE"="\\Device\\Harddi
"\\REGISTRY\\MACHINE\\SYSTEM"="\\Device\\Harddisk
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\.DEFAULT"="\\Device\\HarddiskV
"\\REGISTRY\\MACHINE\\SAM"="\\Device\\HarddiskVol
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-20"="\\Device\\HarddiskV
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-29_Classes"="\\Device\\H
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-12"="\\Device\\HarddiskV
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-13_Classes"="\\Device\\H
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-20-1177998915-706699826-
"\\REGISTRY\\USER\\S-1-5-20-1177998915-706699826-
TOO not TO.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
"...provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer."
Shouldn't this read either "fixes to the OS Product that will automatically be uploaded to your computer" or "fixes to the OS Product that your computer will automatically download"?
Time for some benchmarks, I think...
From the Register Article: "The change needn't apply to corporate users. Microsoft recently introduced Software Update Services, which allows managed upgrades across the Intranet to users with Active Directory. (So you don't have thousands of desktops hitting Microsoft servers at once)."
Microsoft's definition of "corporate users" is rather self-serving as well. Active Directory only works with a Microsoft DNS server running on the local Intranet. Managing 10+ 'doze systems by SysAdmins means either running their DNS server (and thus a copy of their Server OS) or a lengthy amount of time by manual means. Errrgh. I thought tying products together by a business declared as a monopoly was illegal...
BTW, I still feel that the #1 way the winds of change will move other OSes towards a larger market share is by local techs recommending and installing those OSes on end-user systems; but I still hear and see Linux-loving techs recommending and installing monopolist-produced OSes... Do yourself and your clients a favor and recommend/install something better!
People writing EULAs at MS have the following priorities to consider:
1. Don't get sued.
As a consequence of this, they spend all their time worrying about what rights MS needs to get their software installed and functional, and none worrying about the rights they don't need but are inadvertently requesting anyway. What you're seeing is simply that; an overzealous rights grab from someone who doesn't want his too-timid EULA to land Bill in court again. Oh, and they probably didn't think hard about EU privacy (MS is a pretty domestic-thinking company); either that, or they have a diferent license in the EU.
Always remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" (or ignorance, or fear).
--dan
PS: the .NET server thing is sleazy and no doubt someone thinking they're clever; it can't be enforced in US courts anyway.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
He's right. Mandrake, for example, asks maybe 3 easy questions (Do you have a wheel mouse?) and takes care of the rest.
Maybe Microsoft learned enough social skills to know that astroturfing doesn't work? ... Nah...
I've lost my info on how to do this. Could you provide a link, or instructions? Does SP3 unpack into component files that can be copied over the original files?
Step 1: install the software
Step 2: do the benchmarks
Step 3: write up a detailed report
Step 4: put the report on a freshly installed Win2K server sitting on DSL or a cable modem
Step 5: announce the fact that your report exists but that you won't disclose it
Step 6: wait for someone to disclose it for you
Now, am I the only one that caught "downloaded to your computer."? It doesn't say that it will INSTALL them, it just says that it will automatically download them. This option is already in use with windowsupdate, you have the option to automatically download updates and have it prompt you to install them.
I belive MacOS can do the same...
From Computer Magazine issue 1-2003 in a test of development environments:
.NET where the EULA had been altered. They saw this as the only way to reduce our legal responsibility.
On advice of our lawyers we acquired an illegal copy of
I recently installed Win2K service pack 3 on my machine. It may have patched a few bug-fixes, but more importantly, it caused both my DVD and CD-R/RW drive to stop working. The reason for this was "The device driver could not be loaded." or something.
What I worry about is if I agree to the terms of said MS EULA, and MS decides to "Update" my software, am I going to turn on my computer one day to find that my graphics card drivers no longer load? How about my CD-Drives again? They both bit the big one. I installed a different OS, and they both work perfectly. Go Figure.
Microsoft shouldn't even be posting a EULA like this for a peice of "necessary" software that breaks people's machines.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
You are wrong! any windows service can be firewalled! and its windows service ...windows updating that we are talking about..
its the same on unix side..:)
Don't Tread on OpenSource
They are allowing themselves to print my comments out of context. I don't agree with that. Also, I don't like the sneaky way they changed the contract. Most people think "the fine print" is everything.
I see in numerous posts that people have suggested that this clause is just a fail-safe for automatic updates. You'll note that the clause does not specify *which* part of the OS it refers to, so it gives MS blanket rights to push software to your system.
They may intend for it to protect them in the event of an automatic update mess, but they also may intend to use it to push whatever DRM software the entertainment industry suggests....
It's not illegal to force somebody to sign a contract, but that contract is then unenforceable.
That's a huge difference. If you think that something is illegal, you have to convince a DA to file charges. If you don't (and your original statement is true), then you're stuck with that contract. But if you think it's unenforceable, you ignore it until they tell you to change your behavior, and then you can tell them "make me!" - only a court can force you to change your behavior.
But this specific situation is a different kettle of fish of another color. The EULA change isn't tied to a new product, it's tied to the vendor fixing a known security problem in their original product. There's no exchange of value (the vendor provides a patch, but the customer doesn't pay more money), so there's no contract to tie the new EULA to. Simply put, this EULA should be no more enforceable than the user unilaterally deciding that XP is only worth $10 per copy and attempting to get the rest of the purchase price back from Microsoft.
Of course, since this is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide some may decide to ignore both law and common sense. I recently read that pay for federal judges (with years of experience) has lagged inflation for so long that it's now common for first-year associates at major law firms to earn more than the judges who hear their cases. This is not a situation that will attract and retain the best and brightest legal minds.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Thanks for the clarification. I was sloppy when I wrote the parent comment.
I agree with the point you made about federal judges. Those who want a corrupt government can get it by limiting the amount of money paid to judges.
What are the necessary elements of a binding contract?
Competent Parties - For a contract to be valid, each side must have the capacity to enter into it. Most people and companies have sufficient legal competency. A drugged or mentally-impaired person has impaired capacity and chances are a court may not hold that person to the contract. Minors (e.g., usually those under eighteen) cannot, generally, enter into a binding contract without parental consent, unless it is for the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, or for student loan contracts.
Consideration - If the other side is to be held to the contract, you must give up something in exchange. This is called consideration. No side can have a free way out or the ability to obtain something of value without providing something in exchange. Money is the most common form of compensation, but it can also be property, giving up a right or valid claim, making a promise to do or not to do something, or anything of value. Agreeing to perform an illegal or illicit act is not consideration and the contract is void.
Mutual Assent or Meeting of the Minds - This means that each side must be clear as to the essential details, rights, and obligations of the contract. Putting the deal down on paper prior to signing it goes A LONG way to avoid future misunderstandings and disputes. Meeting of the minds sometimes can be expressed by words spoken or gestures made or can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. There is no meeting of the minds if: (1) one side is obviously joking or bragging, (2) there is no actual agreement (i.e., the farmer who is selling a gelding and the buyer thinks the horse is a brood mare), or (3) both sides have made a material mistake as to the terms or details of the contract.
(Copied from Free Advice: What are the key elements of a binding contract?)
Whether it changes the text of the EULA or not is only sort of an interesting question - it doesn't change the code that you're installing. The provisions of the EULA don't matter until they're inplemented in code (such as the Windows Update feature) that performs the functions that the EULA grants MSFT permission to run.
If there's code in W2K SP3 or XP SP1 that implements this, and you install it, then you've given MSFT the keys to your machine, whether you agreed to the EULA or not. If you didn't agree to the EULA and MSFT installs stuff on your machine, then it becomes a question of who has better lawyers and more patience to deal with a lawsuit.
I think a more interesting question was whether this conflicts with HIPAA: organizations that are regulated by HIPAA might be caught on the horns of a dilemma... Run software with known security holes, which HIPAA frowns upon, or enter into a contract allowing a third party (MSFT) access to a machine with sensitive data on it, without being able to hold MSFT to the data protection and privacy terms that HIPAA demands.
Of course, when you're on the horns of a dilemma, you can always leave the situation through one door or another.
Pete