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..."
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.
Since you seem to feel the same way, why don't you add your records to the site? I'm sure someone here has enough spare server space to find a temporary home for the info until the three individuals mentioned above can find their checkbooks.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
I hope you apply as secure a lock to your data as you do your house.
For the millions of PC users who exists, only a small fraction of them have any data that anyone gives two cents about.
Moral: use the right lock for the job.
I have been pwned because my
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
The EULA states that they have the power to essentially seek & destory digital rights management circumvention techniques....
I don't think they are out to destory a persons personal files.
Why don't you have a look at the EULA itself, then make your judgements.
Knowledge talks, Wisdom listens
Then remove your bathroom door, you have no need of it, since there is nothing to hide. You may as well remove all your interior doors while you are at it.
Personal privacy includes digital privacy.
Get a free ipod.
The US constitution grants rights, yes, but they protect you from our government, not your corporation. Workers ballance loss of freedom vs. gain of paycheck every day they work. It only becomes insulting when the ballance of power is such that the scales are tipped overwhelmingly one way and there exists no alternative.
Nope, nothing to hide. Come and find it, brother.
I have been pwned because my
They don't need to delete those files, they'll just upgrade the player so it wouldn't play them anymore.
And you think there's a way to delete MP3 players? You give Microsoft way too much credit, my friend.
I have been pwned because my
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!
Pedersen wrote:
> Once Linux satisfies my video editing needs, all
> Windows partitions are gone. Hmmm, maybe it's time
> for me to start researching that a bit better.
The best (and now probably the cheapest) digital video editing system I ever used was iMovie 2 on a Snow iMac. You can pick a 500mhz (the same one I have) one up on EBay these days for a bit over $200. Use that for video editing, and blow away those Windows partitions. That way you can have the little iMac's hard drive dedicated to video editing, and still have your entire PC hard drive for Linux. If the iMac has OS 9 on it, and you want to use as much open source as possible, later versions of iMovie will work with OS X.
Just a suggestion.
"What I'm thinking is different from what you are."
Belabera, "Mothra 3" 1998
Actually, to a great extent, no. The Constitution does not solely restrict the government. If this were true, slavery would be perfectly legal as long as the enslaver was a private party. We certainly do have rights against corporations, not only freedom from slavery but also freedom of privacy and others. Keep that in mind.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Yes, (s)he does.
I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates."
Hmmmmm, so you're experienced at running servers, are you? And you'd love to see some organisation you know little about randomly updating your servers with whatever code they like, whenever they feel like it?
Are security and reliability really your top priorities?
why should it be legal for a required patch to have an EULA that can remove some of my rights to a previously purchased software whose EULA I agreed to ?
Good question. Isn't this the main impetus behind adopting "Free" software?
But then again, the GPL also states that any software so licensed is bound to any future revisions of the GPL.
I have been pwned because my
You forgot that there are some other folks who don't want M$ poking around too --- anybody who could be working on any product that could compete with any component of the M$ fiefdom for example.
Haha. If the product ever becomes big enough to be noticeable, it will be incorporated and the company will be put out of business. Who are you kidding?
Cool, can I come over and look at your checking account statements -- why would you want to hide them -- I promise I won't access your accounts
Sure. I haven't had visitors in a while. You figure out how to come to my house, I'll turn over my bank records.
Can I have someone come on over an catalog your CD collection and then sell the list under the table to Columbia House record scammers?
As long as you can find a way to do it from outside my front door, sure.
I flash back to the 30's, see the Nazi flag rising
Now that's not fair. Invoking Godwin at this stage isn't very sporting.
I have been pwned because my
For the millions of PC users who exists, only a small fraction of them have any data that anyone gives two cents about.
What about marketing data ? Don't you think Microsoft would love to be able collect picture perfect marketing data on each and every one of thier customers ? What websites they visit, what items they buy online, what software they have installed, how many people use the system. Much of this data could easily be collected simply by retrieving everyones IE history and cookie files. You may lead a completely uninteresting life, but other people have data they would rather not have collected on them. AIDS patients and unpopular political or religious views to just name a few. So you go ahead and trust Microsoft to do the "Right Thing", me, I prefer to keep my life private thank you very much.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
"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.
I think you hit the nail on the head, as far as Microsoft's motives go. They don't like the "Microsoft Windows Hole Allows Hackers Full Access to Sensitive Records" headlines as much as anyone. If they can update the systems remotely to avoid such idiotic viruses as Code Red, then this change will be worth it, in their eyes.
The problem of security is important to everyone, but not everyone is paying attention as closely as necessary. Perhaps it is the Windows paradigm of ease before functionality that has engendered this mentality, but many Windows sysadmins are simply not preoccupied with security as they ought to be.
I have been pwned because my
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.
Almost everyone probably has -something- to hide. No, maybe not a porn stash or illegal copies of things, but most people have at least one thing they wouldn't want others to know about. An expectation of privacy isn't really that sinister. Heck, how many of you folks use envelopes instead of the (much cheaper to send) post cards? What? You don't want them all to be able to easily read your mail? Even though most postal carriers would probably never bother? What? You don't want to release your medical history to the world? Even though we often practically force presidential candidates & misc. other politicians to do so?
Besides, complacency isn't the answer. MS isn't currently collecting people's first-born; but reserving the right to would (and should!) raise a few eyebrows. It's not that I think they have sinister intentions right now, it's just that I don't trust them to come up with a way to profit at my expense... something not exactly foreign to them, according the to DOJ...
I don't think that they need that clause in the EULA to do what they want to do; all they need to say is that by using their updating software, you grant them the right to make certain changes to the system for the purpose of installing that software & that if you don't like that, you can just turn it off and prevent it from connecting to MS for updates, but that this may not be a good idea.
BTW, yes it really does bother some people to know that MS has a backdoor on their system, just as much as it would bother them to have sub7, netbus, or BO installed. While we may (think) we know exactly what it's doing, given MS' track record on security, it might as well be BO -- at least you can password protect an installation of that...
Just remember an old legal proverb: only a fool signs a contract because he thinks it's unenforcable.
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
Can I have someone come on over an catalog your CD collection and then sell the list under the table to Columbia House record scammers?
As long as you can find a way to do it from outside my front door, sure.
This is exactly what you are doing, you are inviting MS into your house and allowing them to catalog all your data and once DRM is implemented, you will be the one standing on your front porch waiting to be let in.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Blockquoth the LGPL:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library does not specify a license version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The normal GPL says the same thing. There are no EULA backdoors that allow them to change the license of installed software (like MS is doing). The license only changes if you (the user) want it to. If the FSF goes off their collective rocker and releases a GPL that requires you to install back orifice on your home PC and give them the password, you are free to tell them to piss off and keep using all your current software under version 2 of the GPL.
0 1 - just my two bits
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.
But then again, the GPL also states that any software so licensed is bound to any future revisions of the GPL.
Shut up, liar. Usual license note says "either version two of this License, or any later version." This means, the current version of the license can't be revoked, it only allows the user to choose to comply with the later version if it will be issued later. If the later version will be more restrictive user can choose to continue complying with the older one.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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.
Liar... Thanks.
Anyway, the relicensing capability of licensees allows them to choose later versions of the GPL that the original author never accepted.
Or do you think Linus altered the license for no reason at all?
I have been pwned because my
- But then again, the GPL also states that any software so licensed is bound to any future revisions of the GPL.
Have you ever actually read the GPL? First, the GPL itself does not mention anything like this. The typical (and recommended) application of the GPL requests adding this paragraph to your software:- This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This isn't part of the GPL itself, but I assume this is what you were referring to. Note the at your option part. This paragraph does appear in most GPL software I've seen, and I've never yet seen it without the at your option part.NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
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
cyberlotnet wrote:
n /Millenni um/mgoals.html
o k under "Previous Projects".)
> Heres a good example..
>
> A year from now Microsoft releases Windows Media
> 99x and Announces that its totally incompatible
> with any other media player, So they AUTO
> UPGRADE YOUR MACHINE MY REMOVING ALL OTHER MEDIA
> PLAYERS BUT THERES...
>
> Now while this example may seem beyond realistic
> at this point in time.. THIS IS THE POWER THAT
> THERE EULA GRANTS THEM..
That's an example, supported by the Media Player EULA and the MSN EULA. But it doesn't go nearly far enough.
Remember Kazaa and the distributed net they created on their user's machines? Remember Juno and others who have played the same game? Those were small time trial runs. Microsoft has intended to do their own distributed net, Millenium, for years.
Read:
http://research.microsoft.com/research/s
(Especially "What would such a system be like?")
http://research.microsoft.com/research/sn/
(Lo
In the Japanese movie "Godzilla 2000 Millenium" are two scenes that are very disturbing. They were removed from the American version ("Godzilla 2000") by a supposedly clueless distributor. Toho had apparently gotten wind of Microsoft's research project and decided to make it into a villainous monster alien (seeing as how Toho and Godzilla love Macs).
Scene 1: Shinoda (head of the Godzilla Prediction Network and our hero/Mac user) had just finished getting information about the alien from three heroic open source MAME servers. He prepares to leave, and turns back to the computer monitors, just in time to see the Millenium boot screen appear on all of them.
Scene 2: Katagiri (head of the CCI and our human villain/Windows user) has just set off his bombs in an attempt to destroy the alien. Unscratched and unimpressed, the alien causes every computer monitor and television screen to display these words in multiple languages:
"Earth... Destroy... Erase... Suppression... Dominate... Terror... Prosperity... Oppulence... Oppression... Revolution... Kingdom"
Then the alien blasts the skyscraper it is perched on to bits. At that point there is only one power that can stop it: Godzilla.
Don't let Microsoft get to that point in the real world.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, Godzilla 2000 Millennium (Japanese version)
When did Linus alter the GPL? Can you state the date or offer a link please?
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.
Isn't he the one that said that he'll never touch Win2k? All of a sudden he's using Win2k. In a couple of months, he'll be using WinXP and saying the same things.
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
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.
Please flesh this out. I would love to see how you will take Microsoft's new EULA and derive gassing Jews from it.
I'm absolutely serious. If you can logically derive the outcome of gassing Jews (or your bad guy of choice) from this EULA change without making huge leaps in logic, I will seriously reconsider my position.
I have been pwned because my
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.
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 ?
I thaught that the GPL said that you could be bound by future revisions at your descression.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Heck, how many of you folks use envelopes instead of the (much cheaper to send) post cards? What? You don't want them all to be able to easily read your mail? Even though most postal carriers would probably never bother?
Perhaps the majority of us would like to write more than what fits on the back of a postcard.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
-
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.Comment removed based on user account deletion
So when(if)ever a new GPL comes out, you only can win, not lose.
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...
and
As usual the raving paranoids run rampant here and people's opinions are like assholes, numerous, rife and stinky.
in the same post? Practice what you preach.
If the police has the RIGHT (=search warrant) to enter the house, you go to jail if you treat them like burglars.
When Microsoft has the RIGHT (= this EULA) to do whatever they want on your computer, you are an evil hacker/pirate/terrorist when you deny them their right.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
This service is currently not available. We are aware of this issue and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible.
/. story...
Slashdotted!
That or they intentionally broke it for this
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?)
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.
Ad-Aware might be able to remove it if they add MS Automatic Update to their list of malware. ;-)
Oh, I LOVE that idea! LMAO!
The automatic update feature in Win XP - You can cancel it.
Heh heh. Automatic update is (pretty much) a Good Thing. It is also an effective piece of misdirection. Think about it - there would be absolutely no need for the EULA clause if this was really about automatic update.
They include the clause in the Media Player licence and they included if in a CRITICAL UPDATE patch to close a dangerous security hole. And it isn't permission to install the current file - it is permission to install anything they want in the future. This has nothing to do with automatic update.
Automatic update is pretty much for the users benefit - downloading fixes that the user wants to protect himself. Microsoft is happy to let you can accept of decline these at will. The EULA clause is for things that Micrcosoft wants to change on your computer - things like updating the DRM system. These changes you do not get to decline. They don't even tell you it's happening, it's done silently in the background. You accepted the EULA and they can force these on you without asking. No choice.
Oh, some people don't want to give Microsoft permission to silently install stuff at will? Then you have to never agree to the EULA. For example I declined Mediaplayer 7 in favor of Mediaplayer 6 which did not carry this clause. But then Microsoft announces a security hole and patch. YOU MUST EITHER LEAVE YOUR COMPUTER VULNERABLE TO A PUBLICIZED EXPLOIT or ACCEPT THE EULA. Hmmm, hold a gun to my head why don't they? Oh yeah, and by the way, the security hole was Microsoft's fault in the first place.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
"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.
If you are doing something wrong (stealing music, stealing software), then, sure, you'll feel MS is out to get you. Otherwise, you'll realize that MS has no beef and is simply making empty threats.
What if I'm just doing something unpopular but legal, and I'm worried I might be harmed it if it became known?
What if I were:
an Athiest?
a Mormon?
a Communist?
gay?
a Branch Dravidian?
a civil rights activist?
a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
a Seventh-Day Adventist?
a Catholic?
Irish?
a union organizer?
a Darwinist?
All of the above are legal, but unpopular enough to have been persecuted at one time or another by American society or the American government.
Indeed, members of at least half of these groups have been killed by mobs or corporate thugs or government lackeys for their membership in these groups. Members of all of these groups have been economically persecuted -- denied jobs or loans -- for being members of these groups.
A member of one of these groups might well have material on his computer indicative of such membership, and might well be defensive about what's on his hard drive without ever having engaged in illegal activity. Defensive because he doesn't want to by lynched, ostracized, or driven out of town by the right-thinking mob.
And it's his right, and it's our right, to be secure in the privacy of that information. To secure those rights, the U.S. founding fathers pledged their lives, liberty and sacred honor.
It is our birthright, and you, Esau, would trade it for a mess of pottage and a service pack.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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-
Good link, but you're mising the point: the link describes how Microsoft will currently allow you to manage auto updates. It's not a contract that constrains them from changing how them manage updates in the future.
The EULA is a contract, and by agreeing to it, you agree that Microsoft may, at Microsoft's discretion, alter software on your computer without notice.
The point is not that they are doing that now. the point is that by accepting the EULA, you agree they may do it at any time in the future.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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
Some people refuse to accept the MS EULA.
MS become more intergrated into every day living.
People who refuse to agree to the eula begin finding certian "conveinces" unavailable to them. such as buying stuff without cash. Thats not so big now, but as more and more thing go cashless, and they will, you'll find yourseld more and more restricted.
People who refuse to agree become second class citizens. As history will show, any secong class citzens has less rights in the practical world.
So now these people can't buy a home, car, go to the movies, and can only get food through a few places or "soup kithens".
Of course, this is not "gassing" them, that would take a dictator, or someone with extreme power, but you can see that this could go badly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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?)