Slashdot Mirror
Financial Institutions Balk at MS Licensing
mmol_6453 writes "Now, not only are hospitals groaning under the combination of Microsoft and the HIPAA, but banks are having issues relating to federal privacy laws. Favorite line: 'Microsoft has told...that it plans eventually to eliminate users' ability to disable Microsoft's access to their systems.'"
And in other news, Microsoft becomes the first fortune 500 company to trogan horse an operating system.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
"That makes Warby nervous. "Microsoft is definitely not known for their internal security," he says, citing undocumented macros in some Microsoft programs, which can be accessed by those who know the right combination of keystrokes. "The idea of Microsoft coming into a server, creates a potentially huge security risk," he says."
has anyone got any examples of this anywhere? i'd be curious to see some of these macros..
Microsoft does provide users with a high level of control over the auto update feature. Windows XP ships with the feature turned off, for example, so users must choose to activate it. And Microsoft notifies users of any updates, requiring them to agree to install them.
Microsoft: This is our highest level of control on anything we've ever included in windows! You can turn it on AND off!!!! AND you have to agree to install the updates, come on how can you hate us now, we give you so much control!
I dunno what they're going to do with 62 gigabytes of pr0n, though.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Trusting the bank != trusting Microsoft. A bank that takes customer privacy seriously and switches away from using Microsoft products has a better chance of getting my business. Pity my account is so small... :(
Notice that everything he's directly quoted on in the article is straightforward...and then a completely bizarre indirect quote.
Most likely he gave a bunch of examples of macro viruses or undocumented APIs and the reporter decided to "condense" things a bit.
May we never see th
that it plans eventually to eliminate users' ability to disable Microsoft's access to their systems.
Ok, this sucks to start with. Why the hell does MS need access to banking systems? Besides to rape accounts that belong to companies that cheat licensing. (sorry, conspiracy theory again) The other thing here the TOTALLY bugs me is that this effects me! I've put alot of effort into removing MS products from my life. But, if banks are running MS, and they have access to those systems, then my efforts seem to be useless. "I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't do anything bad with that kind of power". PFFT.
Here comes another conspiracy theory:
MSFT: Hrm, rmAdmin has $0.34 in his checking account, must be having money problems, lets see, we'll sell his contact info to every 'debt consolidation' service on earth.
Ring ring
rmAdmin: Hello?
StupidTelemarketter: Hello Mr AIDmen...
rmAdmin: ACK!! DIE DIE DIE
click
Ok, maybe not that bad, but who knows...
Can all fish swim?
The article says about SP1: Solely for the purpose of preventing unlicensed use of the applicable OS Software, the OS Components will include installation on your computer of technological measures that are designed to prevent unlicensed use, and Microsoft may use this technology to confirm that you have a licensed copy of the OS Software.
This is done through a product key that is sent to Microsoft over the Internet. That means Microsoft must send an authorization back to your system, says Warby, requiring it to have access to your system.
While I'm no Microsoft licensing fan, I would like to dispel some FUD presented here. The product activation has always been a part of XP, and your system sends the product key number to MS, and not MS going to your system first. After it's activated, MS is not contacted, unless your hardware changes significantly, or you use Windows Update (which does not enforce product key restructions, although the product key is being sent). But in any case, MS never initiates contact with any system.
For SP1 upgrade, the authorization merely checks to see if your product key is one of two that have been widely pirated. It doesn't contact any server at all for this step.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Solely to prevent piracy?
What a joke -- Microsoft could never stop piracy, as the devilsown copy of XP was out months before the release, and service pack 1 for it, fully cracked, was out in an integrated ISO weeks before the release of SP1.
Microsoft doesn't have a chance at stopping piracy, and it's just another lame excuse for Microsoft to follow the logical course of big business and try to control everything.
If Microsoft turns a deaf ear to angry consumers on the issue of collecting data, the federal government has every right to nail them to the wall for it, especially if it interferes with our health and banking privacy.
Arguments against using Macintosh or Linux usually center on retraining issues. However, heavy retraining occurred when migrating between Win3.11, WinNT, Win2000, and - for the chumps - WinXP. So if you have to retrain anyway, then why not go with something easier to both use and maintain like Macintosh OS X or Mandrake/Redhat?
When you consider the bizarre nature of the service pack EULAs, the migration to Macintosh or Linux should be the obvious choice to anyone that can read English.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
They don't care if you trust them...its an indication of how much They trust you.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
has told...that it plans eventually to eliminate users' ability to disable Microsoft's access to their systems.'
Of course, if you are willing to pay just a little more, Microsoft will sell you security. Coincidence? I think not.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Spend some of that porn time on socializing with real live women and you may find an upgrade to porn. Yes yes, I know that sounds crazy, but there are things above and beyond porn.. try 'em out, they're way more fun.
has anyone got any examples of this anywhere? i'd be curious to see some of these macros..
Perhaps he's referring to many of Microsoft's easter eggs in the OS and apps.
Isn't there a web browsing easter egg in some program? Don't recall if that was MS or not.
Heck, EVERYONE Balks at MS Licensing.
How many people have passed on XP because of the licensing crap? I'll bet a LOT of people have.
I have, and it has nothing to do with piracy.
Haven't you seen the movie "Tomorrow never dies"? (just to make you a little bit more paranoid)
bash$
I think that MS is going to back off on a lot of this stuff, probably even Palladium in its most extreme form.
Their strategy at the highest level seems to be two pronged. On one hand they want to gather up all of the power and control of the monopolist, and on the other hand, they try to respond to customers as if they had to compete.
I know that a lot of people are skeptical about the last part of that, but I believe it. They backed off of the passport nightmare to a large extent.
There are lots of smaller things they've backed off on as well -- their first incarnation of their anti-piracy measures would have made it impossible for corporate users to roll out systems using software like ghost, but they backed down on that, and that concession has had a real effect on the ease with which one can pirate their software.
The banks have a real problem, and MS is going to have to address it or lose the business. I think they're going to address it.
The big conceptual problem, I think, is to consider MS to be a monolith. There are people who are pushing for this stuff, and there are others who are talking to the customers who are screaming bloody murder.
In the end, they will have to listen to their customers.
Yes feel free to take them to court. All you will have to to is find a judge that will rule the MS EULA does not stand in court, because of course this will be in EULA before MS does it.
man
No manual entry for
That's a good point.
Would YOU trust the average MCSE to make those decisions?
himm... there is something I can't understand here. a contract is void by default if it violates a law, so doesn't this invalidate the appropiate part of the EULA, if the purchaser makes it clear that the software will be used in an environment where privacy is mandated by the law?
i wonder if some sort of equal oppurtunity law would mandate microsoft to provide the software and updates with a licence and a method suitable for banks, hospitals etc.
ato
- pwd...container...host....logon...restart...data source
....you get the idea.If you are looking for specific troublemaking 'poison-pill' macros, I'm sorry, I don't have those handy, but if you want, I can send you a Word document you can fill out to request them
"Do something man. Right now."
Actually, there are three settings:
Off. Pops up dialog boxes and warnings: "DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THIS!?" sort of things. After clicking "yes" a few dozen times, WinXP no longer attempts to auto-update, and doesn't poll for update availability.
Automatic Download. Periodically (timeframe? anyone?) polls an MS server for updates, downloads them in the background, you have to click a little taskbar widget to install them.
Automatic Download and Install. Yep, just what it says: "Please, Microsoft, install arbitrary code on my system without alerting me!"
Of course, I'm currently leading an initiative to have all non-technical people required to set their level to "Automatic Download and Install", so I can only be a certain degree of harsh about what that means.
Jouster
I don't use Windows Update, but my understanding is that the "let Microsoft dig through your system" stuff is only if you do use Windows Update. If this is correct, then there is no problem - don't use it!
Surely someone managing machines in a business critical environment would have the nous to turn off the auto-update? Don't use it. Install patches and hot-fixes manually after fully testing them to make sure they don't kill your system. Do not rely on Microsoft (or any third party vendor for that matter) to automatically update your servers without you knowing exactly what is going on!
The XP-related stuff though, is a bit of a worry. Then again, the solution is pretty straight-forward - DON'T USE XP. If you need Windows, use Windows 2000. If Microsoft bring the same checks in to 2000 via future service packs, then configure your firewall properly and stop it happening.
As a bank, what will your legal staff say when they learn your IT dept. signed off on EULA's that prohibit such action?
As a street level tech mostly working on MS boxes I can be a tad upset about the "auto update" feature.. i've made so much money in billable hours on boxes that just needed windows updates and a disk defrag that i can't even count.. i usually charge $50 for this service and explain what i did and that they need to do it themselves evey once in a while... well i still get reapeat calls to do it about once every 10-12 months on most boxes..and they don't want to be bothered by learning to click on it themselves.. hey..let the little guy make a buck..:)
Just Limin' Mon
My mom phones me weekly yapping about some new virus that has slipped into her computer. She is 50+ and i think she is doing a nice job learning her WinXP. What she is frustrated with is the fact that she has a firewall, a antivirus program and she updates often even if she is on a modem. Still she have gotten successful attacks into her machine and even viruses has slipped past her antivirus system. She is getting real paranoid and feels that its not fun anymore when you have to be a fully fledged sysadmin to surf and write mails. She is going for linux and i will try to install it as safe as possible for her. No services open and a default drop on incoming connections should keep her safe for a while. That is what i would call proactive security.
Security must be proactive and not reactive. MS is simplifying reactive security instead of focusing on proactive security. The old vuln ??? patch treadmill is stupid. I think some dists should stop making their default installs wide open aswell. Close all ports and code a nice simple app that makes it easy to open the ones you need to be open.
HTTP/1.1 400
-- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!
Your 50 year old mom can't figure out Windows XP but she's going to have no problem with Linux? Sounds like a load of FUD to me.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
that's right, what happens when M$ decides to go kazaa all over your system. there's nothing you can do about it. face it, its just your hardware, the OS (i use the term lightly for windoze) belongs to them, 100%. You're just borrowing it. That's not good enough to pass muster for private information. If M$ wasn't so large, a bill to make them post surety bond for every financial house would be an ideal restraint for the mighty beast
oh well, chances of legislation unsupportive of m$ are about as likely as me giving birth.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
MS wants to be a bank, remember? How better to throttle back competition than by tossing a smoke bomb or two into their home office...
"While other banking institutions are suffering from network slowdowns and corrupted databases, MS First Union can provide you with reliable access to your funds around the clock. Bank with MSFU....we keep an eye on your money!"
Many rely on Solaris, etc. for mission critical data. I'm sure there are related processes on Linux somewhere in every large banking system. Might be automated network performance reporting....automated backup audits....prototype network planning....human resource forecasting...project management analysis, etc. There are too many facets to modern banking to be able to state simply that one OS or another is responsible for 'handling' personal accounts.
Why am I having a hard time believing that business as we know it will come to a complete halt if MS isn't allowed in the door?
Commerce in one form or another, from bartering coconuts to brokering used RAM, will find a way to continue, regardless if the transaction is on limestone, paper or bubble-ether crystals. Unified...disparate...co-mingled...far-stepped or translucid....who cares. The point is supply and demand, not demand by MS.
about pirracy and privacy is driving me nuts, why can't people see the obvious? M$ is pissed because their products are being pirated left, right and up their asses... but they then cause difficulty to who? That's right, legit owners of the software, CUSTOMERS... that's who!
Pirates will always find ways to circumvent any protection the boys at M$ can come up with. Heck, I've seem similar web-based authentication registration being spoofed by web-proxy based crack (it was a version of zMud about two years ago)... so to the pirates, these are just old tricks implemented differently.
Why doesn't M$ realise the answers that have been looking at them straight in the corneas for ages... produce less-expansive stuff and respect the customer's privacy. That's all they're asking for... is it too much to ask?
If the price of Windows reflects on development put into it, why oh why do we still have security concerns that are similar to those of previous versions, sometimes even more critical.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
oh.. another eula thing... snooze...
-
There was Corporate America. And people enjoyed to remark this. And there was a company that claimed that Linux, Open Source, GPL and Co. were a treat to Capitalism... And there was a lot of FUD, among some people, that all this was the same thing as Communism, if not worst. And they raised Corporate America in a crusade against the Spectrum. And they said: buy only true corporate software. And Corporate America felt that it would be easier to deal with a corporation, rather than risking its health and wealth with something that sounded like some old enemies calls.
Now Corporate America is eating the fruits of its short vision and its lack of support to venture capitalists, small developers and a little more freedom for people. Soon, we may see that Corporate America is no more. Welcome to M$ America.
You apparently work cheap. Downloading updates and especially defragging Windows drives takes a long time.
Sadly though, this is also in windows2000 sp3. So, you'd have to move back to NT 4.0 to be completely safe.
While you may be correct in their intentions, the EULA doesn't specifically state this. Going by just the wording of the EULA, they can do whatever they want, if you have auto-update enabled or not. This is where the problem is. If they specified a clause that would state something to the effect of "unless the user turns off auto-update" or have this EULA addendum pop up when they user enables auto-update with a yes/no box, it would be much, much better. This wording of the EULA in current form of not mentioning any change based on auto-updates being enabled is what is keeping SP3 off of our rdesktop Terminal Server.
Another interesting note is that the EULA for SP3 with the bad text is only there when you install the update, the original Win2k eula.txt is still left unchanged on your hard drive. Makes it kind of confusing, if you ever want to review what you actually agreed to at a later date.
Yet, so far, the reports of them actually doing something about it and moving away from MS are very thin on the ground.
It would appear that however much MS wishes to shoot itself in the foot, or deny users specific rights, people are still unwilling to move to a different OS.
The fact Linux is free didn't compell them, the fact Linux doesn't "phone home" didn't compell them, the fact Linux is easier to maintain within an organisation didn't compell them, the fact Linux doesn't come with arcane restrictions on what you can and can't do with your PC didn't compell them, the fact Linux doesn't suffer so many virus attacks didn't compell them, the fact Linux is more secure and robust didn't compell them and the fact that Linux applications can read and write Word documents didn't compell them to move.
So the question is, what on earth will compell them to drop Windows on the desktop? Because it's sure as hell not any of the issues we've seen so far.
(and here i'm talking about the masses, not the odd special case)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
New Coke.
New Coke was a means of converting the bottling plants over from powdered supplies (sugar) to liquid supplies (high fructose corn syrup).
The way it worked was to make something that tasted sufficiently bad, compared to the original, that when they "switched back" to the old formula (actually, the old formula, minus sugar, plus corn syrup), they were sufficiently close to the old formula that people didn't complain about the switch (they just got fat off the new stuff).
The best way to get something small and distasteful past someone is to try for something very large and distasteful, and when people complain, back off to the small distasteful thing you wanted in the first place.
To get unimpeded weapons inspections, ask for a "regime change" and an OK to invade. To switch over to cheaper, easier indistrial process supplies, like corn syrup instead of sugar, change everything, and then change "almost all the way back".
If you don't think Microsoft knows about this technique, you are fooling yourself. You should be much more worried about the consequences of whatever they pick as their "backed down" position.
-- Terry
So long as they work out what my Kazaa and WinMX nicknames are of course :)
then hand back what the courts tell you to.
Corporate security officers really should be concerned about this. From a security and privacy point of view, Windows XP is already out of control, and it looks like it's getting worse. Even if all those connections were harmless, it's hard to even identify a real trojan horse with all that junk going on.
Software updates and contacts to other services are much more sensible under Linux: nothing happens unless you explicitly enable it, you have the option of updating via media or mirrors, and all software updates can happen through a single server.
I turn off automatic updates on all machine I admin (about 250 across various organizations), not out of greed, but out of fear and responsibility. The fear part comes in when you get a call at 6 am, followed by 10 more in the next hour saying 'all our computers are dead'. Not a happy day. Automatic updates can do this, and have done it to me. I like to get a patch, test it, THEN install it.
If your computers are protected properly, (firewall, virus scanners w/ heuristics etc), you can get away with not patching for a day or 2. Use this time wisely, large corporations do, you should also. That is the fear part.
The resopnsibility comes in when you test the stuff for your clients so the BSOD scenario does not happen. I charge a lot, but thing like this make me worth it to clients.
-Charlie
By requiring a key to activate XP, Microsoft has the ability to force an OS upgrade simply by no longer issuing them. Therefore if (say) Windows YP is released and sells abysmally, MS can announce the withdrawal of keys for XP, forcing users to get YP should they need to reactivate. Instant sales boost, instant share price surge.
You could pull the network plug during install, watch for traffic, block those IPs that are associated with the install, plug network back in.
But then you are operating in a way where you know you can't trust them but are relying on being able to outsmart them. It won't work because you are at a major disadvantage:
1.) They've a whole kingdom of bloated code to hide their sneaky little bits.
2.) If they wanted to do something dirty, they have the resources to find someone who could outsmart most people. All kinds of sneaky ways one could send out data.
3.) They could eulagize you into submitting to, and accepting whatever they did, and even require you to submit under the auspices of the DMCA.
One is completely powerless with these agreements that come with software. You click on that agree button, and you are magically transformed into a worm whenever doing anything at all that has anything to do with the software.
Of course such agreements may be useful to some degree in certain circumstances but the situation has progressed far into the absurd. The expectation is complete dominance over whoever uses the software.
1. Eula
2. Dominate
3. Profit!!
Really just a reflection of society at large these days. Brutal grabs at power followed by relentless utilization of the aquired power. Things like shutting off the electricity to entire states and requiring people to purchase entire operating systems to view DVDs-with enforcement provided by the government.
Nobody is going to switch until Linux is better - specifically more useable for the Desktop user. And at the moment it's not. It's also going to have to be quite a bit better, otherwise people won't view it as being worth the hassle to switch.
...and every one of them has a clause that basicly says "if any part of this agreement is illegal, that part is void, and everything else is in full effect."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
and Linux is knocking at the door of the MIS. That would mean rooms full of servers and thousands of NT desktops.
Tellers and staff run custom apps, don't have multi-media or ever web browsers on their machines and definitely aren't playing with their machines so M$ latest geegaws are of absolutely no interest.
A usage study has shown that only a small percentage of the features of the Office Suite are actually used and a great deal of the features that M$ wants to reverse engineer into their products (in direct violation of the DMCA they pushed for, which will come back and bite them some day) are already available in other products from vendors with better market focus.
In the second-rate, also-ran, pursuit of Apple's flash and style, M$ has lost focus of their customers, the same boring old desktops that didn't want a computer with a funny name back in 1980.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Well, personally I'd like `shut the hell up abpout this one'. My Win98 machine has been bugging me to update IE6 to patch some of it's mny security holes every day for weeks.
I don't have IE6. I don't want IE6. So far as I can see there is no way to tell M$ this.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
An obvious solution - suggested in other comments - is to configure your firewall to prevent your computer from connecting to Microsoft. But Microsoft have a plan for that: UPnP. Universal Plug'n'Play is a protocol supported by an increasing number of "broadband routers" that allows applications to punch holes in your firewall by installing NAT rules. This is attractive for things like chat and video conferencing programs, but it will also allow Microsoft to override any rules you have to prevent unauthorized connections.
Though UPnP works by sending SOAP messages to a small web-server in the router (also used for user configuration), on my router (Alcatel ST510 v4) it bypasses the password protection that you can set for user access to the web server.
that before-hand. Linking your professional interests with a single entity is a dangerous move.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
You are an idiot. In our organisation automatic updates run - from the central SUS server that MS provides for free, and where the Admins can control which patches get installed.
My mom phones me weekly yapping about some new virus that has slipped into her computer.
... in fact she loves the fact that it is quick and stable, unlike the much more expensive machine she uses at work, which is down for software repairs quite frequently.
... unlike Windows, it does not change its behavior for no apparent reason, nor does it break mysteriously simply because you've added a new piece of software.
My mom has been running Debian for almost two years, and aside from a few calls early on of the "how do I do X under Linux" type, I haven't had to field any calls at all (none within the last year. None). Indeed, I havent had to fix her computer once since I installed it nearly two years ago.
Not once.
Now that Applix has grown a little staid, I'm probably going to upgrade her to Gentoo 1.4 when it is released, with Open Office.
She works with Microsoft every day at work, and has been agitating her employer to let her use GNU/Linux instead. My mom, who, like yours, is 50+.
However, even if her employer doesn't let her switch, she has no trouble importing and exporting to Microsoft Word and Excel formats using her GNU/Linux box
Most especially, she likes not having to worry about the latest Klez worm or misc. virus, something that is steadilly stressing out all her friends.
My mother, who is computer competent but certainly not computer savvy, has become a stronger propoent of Linux and free software than I have. All the Microsoft-funded astroturfers keep harping about how the consumers wants this or that slick or shiny feature, when in truth all of the computer illiterate and computer competent (but not necessarilly savvy) people I've exposed to GNU/Linux haven't ever wanted to go back. Why?
Because in truth people don't care all that much about shiny feature X or slick feature Y, they care far more about stability, predictability, and the ability to simply get their work done. And that is where GNU/Linux truly excells
What is interesting is how few people realize they have a viable choice, and once they do realize it, how many (of the people I know, at least, of various walks of life) end up dumping Windows like a bad habit.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Email 'em and refer them to the article, ask what their take on it is.
And if your bank is a big coorporation that doesn't care about one email from one customer, find a new bank. Or better, a credit union.
--Sean
Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot.
The climate that created microsoft was one of ignorance about computers among the various business managers. The cry was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Microsoft built on IBM's reputation.
Going to the much more technically knowledgable business people today and opening them up to vast leagal liabilities for using MS software is going to force these businesses to do something drastic. That something drastic is to find another OS.
Legal liability in this lawsuit crazy era is something that CEO's and management understands because they pay a lot of money to their lawyers to make them understand. And if Jack Lawyer says if you buy MS you could go to jail or be sued out of business for violating the law; Joe CEO is gonna tell the boys and girls to FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION.
The lack of security and MS's complete evasion of responsiblity for the functioning of the updates (or even the OS) is less of a worry, but there are many who look at the security of the data that runs the business who are not going to allow Automatic updates from MS or some unknown "Agent." Businessess have lawyers to help them protect their IP and if that IP is going out the gates of the Automatic Update, then guess what is going to happen.
Most business types are risk averse and a little bit of FUD will get MS out of the important areas. (Sure we can use MS, but then we'll have to let them look at our data. Nope, they don't sign secrecy agreements to protect our data from this process. Oh yeah, we have to let any "agent" that they hire into our computers as well.)
Hospitals and the medical field goes first, then banks.
If there was ever a clear, concise, demonstration that MS is still acting like an unrepentant monopoly, then this is it. No serious business in a competitive market would require its current customers to chose between violating Federal Laws and Regulations or violating a software liscence. The fact that this choice is being forced upon those customers to PROTECT Microsoft's interest in preventing piracy of its software is a crystal clear indication of Microsoft's nature.
Microsoft NEEDS to be busted into a billion little companies. But, I guess that they'll have to do that to themselves.
No, I don't hate Microsoft, I happen to like Office. I just don't like the monopoly: bad service, poor quality, and god only knows how many lost manhours arguing with windows.
Creatively spelled words are copyrighted (2002) May be used without persimmons.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
example.org - powered by Linux!
When it comes to $$$, Msft will be the first to change the licensing to meet whatever the big buyers want. Getting their lawyers to change the license language is not a problem. But it is a double bind for a company / industry that historically relies on release now / patch later, if customers don't do their part and check for, get, and apply updates (as with 'code red'). If anything, the license language can easily be narrowed to specify that Msft will collect information about, say, 'versions of Msft products only', altho some might not like the idea of a remote entity unilaterially accessing it's own property in a private institution. It always comes back to Msft saying, 'Trust us! Leave the deatils to us and we'll do the right thing'. Certainly, Msft knows that, with such a sensitive issue, getting caught with private information they shouldn't have would be disasterous public relations wise, however they've consistently shown the attitude that 'anything is legal as long as you don't get caught'. Usually, the point to start worrying is when Msft decides to enter a market, leverage their desktop os monopoly*, and compete with those who are now customers. At that point, the customers who made the mistake of trusting Msft are raped and assimilated or otherwise unethically delt with, rode over roughshod, all in the name of free market unfettererd business competition, which will always get them a bye in politics and the courts, profits and jobs trump rules and regulations every time.
* if you don't like the term 'monopoly', think 'customers so locked into Msft technology that conversion to anything else is prohibitively and runiously expensive'.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Is nobody else capable to talk about the ability to point the EVIL "Windows Update" feature to YOUR OWN Windows Update server?? This short-circuits the "EVIL EMPIRE" from touching your computer, while instead giving you FULL CONTROL of what is deployed. And it does it in a very network-friendly "dribble" approach, rather than full-on 100 megabit draw from thousands of clients. It's effective and it works.
If we assume that some users what to have this autoupdate feature available, and there are a lot of them out there unfortunatly, doesn't MS have to include this verbage in their license? I mentioned the new language to my Uncle and I said how frightening it was. He replied that MS probably had to do it in order to run the autoupdates at all to avoid being sued by someone who turned auto update on and then got mad when a patch broke his box. While I don't like it, it does seem to be something neccesary to provide the auto update functionality.
Thoughts?
Nate Baxley
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Given that Microsoft has a fair amount of cash on hand, I think the banks could do well to change their EULA for money that Microsoft thinks they have on deposit at the bank.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
From the article...
Warby is considering shifting his servers to another operating system like Novell or Linux, if Microsoft doesn't change its policy.
Servers are one thing desktops are another matter entirely. I wonder what OS is running on their desktops? In Canada, we have many financial institutions still running on OS/2 (I shit you not!).
Now I know that they won't be running Novell on their desktops and if their apps are Win32 then they better hope that WINE supports their apps if they are going to switch horses to Linux - otherwise it will be a big rewrite and a significant expense. But then again they certainly have the money...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Just seems rather odd, doesn't it?
/. would never do something that hypocritical, right? I mean promoting FUD about Windows to further some weird Linux agenda.
All these articles from journalists complaining about Windows EULA, and quoting people at hospitals, financial institutions and so forth and asking them if they are afraid. But not once do they ever actually quote a lawyer who can interpret the real legal language.
I work for a Fortune 30 company, we're moving to XP. We're also a financial institution. Our lawyers looked over the licensing and saw nothing to be concerned with.
I've spoken to other people in this industry who are in the same situation.
It almost seems like the media is trying to promote FUD concerning Windows. Of course we all know that
Ok, now hear me out on this one.
Maybe, just maybe... the EULA doesn't violate the banking laws.
WHAT!? Shocking, I know, that's not what you've been told by the anti-MS hoards on slashdot. But reading through the EULA it doesn't appear to give Microsoft any rights to transmit private information. All it talks about is the versioning of the OS and components.
That's what I don't understand about these articles. Not once do they quote a lawyer to support their suppositions. Doesn't that make this article FUD? I can see no other definition for it.
What surprises me is that no one seems to think it's odd that it seems to be OK (ie legal) for Microsoft to change the EULA from what you originally agreed to in order for you to install security patches.
There has got to be something wrong with extracting a payment (ie agreement to a new license) in order to get a needed fix to an already paid for product.
I have no intention of installing sp3 for Win2k unless they change that EULA, no way am I agreeing that MS can have access to my system.
Now perhaps, if due to this fact hackers gain access to my system through a security hole that sp3 would have patched, I can sue MS for charging for a fix to a broken product. You don't see the car companies charging for the fixes when there is a problem that requires a recall, and that costs them a lot more than the service pack costs MS.
OK, I'm not sure how much of a case there really is here, but I'd sure like to see someone try!
Mike
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
If your bank is using MS - Sue Them! It's *your* data that's at risk.
I think the only way to get the point across is to go out and file proactive lawsuits. If enough people start suing banks/financial institutions/medical institutions over MS privacy issues, then it will become too expensive to continue to use(or, more likely, MS will change the EULA. Perhaps it is this sort of issue that would make EULA's illegal...)
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
I like to get a patch, test it, THEN install it.
As do I. For the buisness world, what I would like to see is the ability to redirect the auto updates feature (of both the OS update, and other software updates) to access a server of the sysadmins choice. This (and the related server side software to do this) could allow sysadmins to test the new patches from MS, agree or disagree with the liceancing, and then role out the patches across the network with relitive ease. This type of a system could also do things like make tracking the software liceancing for a large network easy or make it simple to do things like account for whats on a given system.
Oh, wait, we are talking about M$. They won't ever make it that easy for companies they plan on screw^H^H^H^H selling software assurance to.
So, let me get this straight. Easter eggs are now security threats? Whats next, a law to protect us from the evils of hidden credits or secret photos of the programmers?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
At the last place I worked, upper managment was well duped. First they were convinced to use M$ because it was cheaper and they could develop in house software for much less. Then M$ sank their claws in and started charging much more for SDKs and finally the software underneath itself. With escalating costs, upper management fired all their IT people to, "Focus on core business. We're a widget company not a software company." They were convicned that they could get all the software they needed off the shelf cheaper than they could develop it. Now they are rolling out a system that costs twice what the custom software did but will not be, well, custom.
If it were up to me, I'd have never fired the IT folks and I'd have moved onto free software. It's better to spend every penny of the original money in house for custom software than to simply give it away to another firm partnered with the bastards that screwed you so hard the last time. The custom software, while crippled by M$ inadequacies, did what they company needed it to do. The new crap, which will set the company back $10,000,000 may or may not, but the company won't be able to change a thing. Why people keep throwing good money after bad is indeed hard to fathom.
The pieces needed to replace every piece of comercial software are waiting to be used. The more common tasks, browsing, word processing, email, are already here so the vast majority of corporate desktops could be switched overnight for the cost of set up. As for 3D rendering and other less demanded stuff, did you not see that LOTR's animation code was being opened up? If the Quage engine is not good enough for you, just wait a while and you will have all you need made by your competitors. Then again, you might be out of business or working for them when you see the light.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
financial institution, but as a large one, we have an INTERNAL microsoft update server, with ONLY CORPORATE approved updates. If you take a corporate installed OS to the windows update site it will inform you that you are an enterprise customer, please contact your system admin for 'approved' updates. But just for Sh*ts and Giggles I forwarded the gist of this document to
one of the numerous lawyers hanging about...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I haven't worked in the medical industry, but I have worked in the banking industry. They are in a very similar situation regarding software. There is no window shopping. You don't get to decide what platform these programs run on. You get what your vendor makes.
These programs must often follow stringent federal guidelines and the vendors often offer 24/7 live support (and I've called my vendor at 11:30pm on Christmas Eve and there was a knowledgable tech there to help me out).
Idealsim is a fine thing, but don't let it get in the way of getting your actual work done.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
They should. The number of atrocities committed in the name of god is directly proportional to the level of influence that religion has over politics. Merely handwaving away Christian atrocities conveniently ignores this.
The important part is the fact that both religions generate the same end result in similar circumstances. This is quite relevant to very broad public policy issues (IOW, church-state separation).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you are a Methodist, that it is highly unlikely that you know squat about the bible. Being familiar with a self-serving Xian translation is not knowing the Bible.
Unless you can comment on the original Hebrew, in it's historical and cultural context, you are doing nothing more than engaging in trickery.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
God commanded others to kill in his name. Was that one of the commandments; to kill in his name? No, therefore it is a sin.
The Commandment given to Moses was "thou shalt not murder." There are, however, many instances when God told His people to kill; for example, someone who committed adultry. Also, it is written that the blood of a murderer shall be spilled by human hands.
Another responder was correct when he said that as gentiles, we live under a new covenant. Jesus, however, reiterated 9 of the ten commandments; all except the keeping of the Sabath. He also gave a new commandment, "love one another as I have loved you." Finally, He said that the greates commandment was tolove the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Thomas Galvin
Hrm, my Windows experience lasted a little longer than 2 hours, but still not very long (especially given how little I used it). I started out dual-booting (keeping Windows for games), but within a year, I'd had to reinstall Windows twice, and when it completely fell apart for the third time, I gave up on it, and reformatted the Windows partition to /usr/local. OTOH, my Linux desktop has been running flawlessly since 1997. I use Debian, and the only time I've ever reinstalled was when I replaced the entire computer! :)
:)
I don't love Windows, I wouldn't use it on a bet as a firewall/webserver/devbox, and my god, the desktop experience stinks!
Don't forget the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew...
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
"Coming into a server"?!
I expected some INTELLIGENT commentary
Well, he was probably afraid of being quoted in the paper saying "Microsoft HACKING into my server."
Hell that's grounds for a BSA audit right there.
Add a pass of Ad-Aware and you'll get a good picture of how I made the money to pay for my first year university books. If it's a family and they have kids, Ad-aware always turns up a bunch of sextracker cookies along with bonzi buddy, gator, cydoor, etc. I wonder how ethical it is to benefit from the ignorance of other people about the dangers malware/spyware/trojans/etc?
Hmm... On this note, with Darwin being open sourced, how feasible is it to port Darwin to x86(probably fairly easy as far as OS ports go) and then provide an emulation layer to translate between the Mac hardware that the rest of OSX expects and the x86 it is actually running on? I imagine a dedicated team could do this in a few months... And within a year or so it would be ready for everyday use. This is pure speculation, I do know much of the BSD code darwin is based on already runs on x86, I just don't know how tough emulation would be for the non BSD derived portions of the OS.
> No slower than redhat maybe, with its convoluted init scripts..
When I was using Windows primarily, and just booting to Linux for
experimentation and learning purposes, the long boot time bothered
me a little, but I shrugged and said, "it's not that much longer
than Windows". After I gave up Pegasus Mail (for Gnus), I started
using my Mandrake/Linux/Gnome system for regular work and discovered
that I didn't need to boot into Windows anymore... I no longer
care about the boot time; it could be twenty minutes, because I
almost never have to do it anymore.
FWIW, I'm not a Linux advocate per se[1], and I understand that
WinXP has longer uptimes than Win95. I'm just explaining why
reboot time doesn't matter in some contexts. I suspect in a
financial institution such as a bank, they'd just leave everything
on all the time probably, so reboot time would be mostly a non-issue.
[1] Rather than any specific OS, I advocate cross-platform tech
(Gecko, OpenOffice, and the like), and argue for quality.
Linux, for example, really needs to implement automatic file
versioning, like VMS has and like ITS had. It's shameful that
Linux lacks this feature. (Of course, several other major
OSes don't have it either, but nevertheless Linux should.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
What nonsense! The building blocks for making any free program are available, but that's beside the point when the company already has the program made and could free it. Well designed software, free or comercial, can be tailored to any facility. The time spent fitting a generic piece of comercial software is wasted when you already have your own inhouse program or a piece of free software you know you can always get back. Industry people trust industry people before they trust some silly software comapny that lacks a working clue. The benifits to opening that code far outweigh the costs.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1) This already exists.
and
2) For the love of all that's holy, please learn how to spell "roll".
Jouster