Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA

nachoboy writes "After the fiasco surrounding the overly intrusive EULA for Windows 2000 SP3, it seems Microsoft has backed down a bit with the upcoming release of SP4. The section concerning automatic updates now states simply "You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them." The EULA then proceeds to list the five services liable to connect to the internet without explicit confirmation. A reference copy of the SP4 EULA may be found here. We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP."

Comments

Too little, too late...

[krray]

This may be too little too late for us. With the release of SP3 for Windows 2000 "Professional" we went to a "code freeze" with Microsoft Windows (among other things).

With this SP we also decided it was time to completely ditch them from operations and have been rolling out Linux and Mac OS.X workstations as existing systems reached their EOL.

Fortunately we may actually use SP4 for the existing Windows boxes (about 35% left now) -- but our budget for Microsoft products has been placed at -0- per the board of directors.

Too little, too late... (fp :)

Re:Too little, too late...

[Ishin]

No offense, but this kind of statement really hard to believe when the company name isn't given for verification. Not that it's impossible or a bad idea, but I'm guessing more like improbable for a 'board of directors' for any company that's realistically large enough to have a true 'board of directors' to recognize the inherent dangers of their software eula's at this point in history. Even though some companies understand M$ is trying to position their poisoned dagger under the company's metaphorical ribcage for the best position to hold the company hostage, the company is attempting to do the same thing to any of their clients in any cases possible. Thus they at least understand M$'s position, whereas most of these out of touch old men don't understand the true position of free software. Summed up, most companies distrust M$, but distrust open source even more. (even if it's completely unfounded, you're not dealing with rational thinking, you're dealing with people that are fed and driven by greed, and free software runs totally askew of their ideals)

Re:Too little, too late...

[krray]

It didn't take us two years to decide Windows is full of security holes and problems. I personally knew that with Windows 95 (never deployed here -- stuck with WFW3.11).

The remains Windows boxes are primarily used for AutoCAD work. I've yet to come across a product that comes close to what we would expect for other platforms -- the exception being a outside-our-needs $40K package.

Those remaining Windows boxes have long ago been on a segmented private subnet with NO ACCESS what-so-ever to the Internet for obvious security reasons.

Frankly -- I don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world does (to a point -- we still need to share data). The "TCO" for Windows is a hell of a lot higher than Microsoft would like you to think it is. A whole LOT.

Even when Windows was the #1 desktop on our network there has never been one (1) virus infection or outbreak. Of course Outlook and Explorer were banned from day one (which helped :).

I'm still amazed by the Windows weenies out there -- isn't it interesting that a guy like me doesn't like Windows? 20 years experience "in the business", multiple computer science degrees along with accounting and business management for that matter... I like Netware, BSD, Solaris, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, and OS X among others -- it's just so obviously how fundamentally flawed Windows is.

But I'm sure I don't know shit or what I'm talking about. Yeah, that's it.
Too funny.

Re:Too little, too late...

[GreyyGuy]

Yeah, because anyone posting internal company directions would really love to have a whole bunch of /.'ers come in and ask "are you really doing this?" to their boss or PR group.

If government officials can look at open source and see value, why is it so hard for your to believe that a company's board of directors (some of whom might have been stung by MS's license audits with their other companies) would like to get away from paying money to MS?

Re:Too little, too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if windows updates itself and it's components. Then I don't have to bother and my guess is that 95% of all people complaining about this are nervous wrecks running cracked windows versions...

Re:Too little, too late...

[msoftsucks]

Half the time when M$crap installs automatic updates it breaks something. Look at how often M$ has to recall a patch or service pack. Their products and processes are flawed. I cannot rely on the fact that when I come in the morning that my machine will function like the day before. Businesses need for their machines to reliably function from day to day. M$ doesn't give a rat's ass about the general user. They care only about their image. When was the last time you heard that one of IBM's patches for their mainframes had to be recalled? It doesn't happen. IBM has products that were develeped properly and has the processes to make sure that a patch won't have unintended consequenses.

I am an independent consultant, and have been making my living riping out failed M$crap and replacing it with Linux. This has certaintly picked up after M$ released their licensing extortion schemes. The amount of clients I have that are even considering Windows Server 2003 can be counted on one hand. Usually when I explain to them the pros and cons of going with M$, they quickly reconsider. The next question they ask is if I have any other clients that have converted to Linux that are happy. After they talk to them, its usually an immediate go-ahead.

Re:Too little, too late...

[cristofer8]

I really don't think that MS put the original clause in the EULA so that they could spy on your computer or download evil top secret DRM goblins into your computer while you sleep. I think that it referred to exactly what it did: downloading updates from winupdate in the background, and was just worded poorly. Since some (a few slashdotters) complained, they changed it to terms that, for their purposes, mean the exact same thing, but don't piss off all 50 slashdotters who actually paid for their copy of windows.

Re:Too little, too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it may have seemed to MS that it was a good idea, but many institutions such as hospitals strictly control what is on their computers, and the EULA made it legally impossible for them to use SP3.

Re:Too little, too late...

[deaddrunk]

Or "I don't like Windows based on comparison with half a dozen alternatives that I have used on a regular basis (i.e. not merely a home Linux network that you can connect Windows boxes to) and therefore in my professional opinion Windows is a mess"

Or is that too difficult to understand Mr. Troll?

Re:Too little, too late...

[Locutus]

Isn't this how it's done in the "real world" too? I've heard that an editor was told by Microsoft to have an article edited such that OS/2 was mentioned OFF the first page( ie, buried ). I've seen Ziff-Davis post articles at "strategic" times of the day. Articles which "dis'ed" MS Windows or showed favorable to alternatives usually were posted late in the day and quickly moved off the main page.

I won't even get into how "independant" research seems to show exactly what the financing party wants it to show.

It sounds like you need to go to MS-ZiffDavis, etc, and read reports from DataGuess to get YOUR idea of "real" news. ;)

LoB

Re:Too little, too late...

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Pardon me, but where do you work? As a Mac Pro, I'm always interested in hearing about what MacCentral used to call "Forward Migration".

Feel free to respond to me "offlist" if you prefer; email is above.

Re:Too little, too late...

[errxn]

Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.

Like, uhh, not using Hotmail for your email account, f'rinstance?

Re:Too little, too late...

[Politburo]

Well it's not really that I have a problem with his opinion, just the way he says it. If he had said what you did, I'd have had no problem.

I bet SCO is behind this...

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow.

Wow

[Cackmobile]

To all the people who say what can we do; Here is a perfect example of the power of the people. We the consumers hold the power. We can stand up and fight corporate greed. From here we need to demand better software with less bugs.

I hate posting about M$. Last time i got modded to Flamebait. DOH!!!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate posting about M$. Last time i got modded to Flamebait. DOH!!!

Apparently you aren't the only person who hates your postings about Microsoft, then.

Re:Wow

[muffen]

I agree, this is a case of Microsoft actually listening. However, the reason can be discussed. I believe that they "listened", because it made no difference to them. It was more a case of miswording the EULA than actually wanting to add patches people wouldn't agree with. Ofcourse, this is just what I believe.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand Microsoft's tactic. They ALWAYS did the same thing:

1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.

This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.

Re:Wow

[danheskett]

That seems exactly plausible.

MS can already put anything they want on your machine because the software is closed source. The ability to do it automatically is pretty trivial actually in the bigger picture.

The last EULA was almost certainly poorly choosen. That's all. They wanted the legal right to update your machine assuming you choose to use the feature. IE, they dont want lawsuits if people enable auto-updating and then find that something or some 3rd party app didnt work.

Speculation, but this pretty much confirms that the SP3 service pack was just a bit poorly done.

Re:Wow

[teamhasnoi]

A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.

Stand up and fight as a citizen.

Re:Wow

[Karhgath]

Posted this as AC previously as an error. Sorry.

I don't think you understand Microsoft's tactic. They ALWAYS did the same thing:

1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.

This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.

Re:Wow

[TopShelf]

While this may be a bit overstated, it does seem like MS is paying more attention to customer feedback these days. Note the changes made to mollify small and medium-sized businesses related to software licenses, and the recent price cuts made to Office and SQL Server's Developer Edition. The recent controversy about the extreme measures they are taking to compete with Linux in the enterprise also points to a company that is feeling pressure to preserve its customer base. That's an entirely different posture than boldly taking on new areas and expanding market share. The next couple years (as the economy strengthens and IT spending resumes) should prove very interesting indeed...

Re:Wow

[Cackmobile]

Thats a bit harsh!!!

Re:Wow

[devnullkac]

I don't know how much the "power of the people" had to do with this. I suspect it was simply one form of corporate greed fighting off another. The people are bystanders as usual, but this time the piñata threw some candy our way, too.

Re:Wow

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Hmm, why is this post not marked 'redundant' ?

Re:Wow

[Tackhead]

> A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.

As a citizen, I have no power. I couldn't convince him - not even me and a thousand of my friends - to vote one way or the other on a piece of legislation to curb Microsoft's behavior. Legisliation, incidentally, that was probably drafted by lobbyists for Microsoft.

As a consumer, I have plenty of power. When I ask a vendor to sell me that system without an OS, or to sell it to me without a hard drive, they can either sell it to me on my terms, or I'll turn around and take my purchase to a vendor who will.

Re:Wow

[pVoid]

I think you are watching too many x-files.

I think the previous EULA was worded that way so people were forced (by law) to update their machines, and not leave them unpatched for months. I think it was made that way so that Moft didn't end up with lawsuits (or bad rep) saying their machines weren't safe.

(I think ideally, they wanted all of the machines on the net to get patches as soon as they came out, so that once a bug was announced on a full disclosure list or the such, if they deemed it dangerous, they could get around to avoiding it).

But in the end, it comes down to an 'I think' versus 'you think' situation. And I think you are watching too many x-files.

(your argument of closed sourcedness is bs... have you read each and every line of source in your linux kernel? - trojan's are very easily detectable without source code, in fact they are more detectable without source code: via network analysis... if Moft were to put trojans in their updates, you would get 42 stories a day on /. about it - plus their respective duplicates)

Re:Wow

[poot_rootbeer]

A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.

Bullshit. A vote that goes into a cash register is just as powerful as one that goes into a ballot box.

Microsoft does not want to control the world. They just want to make money. Controlling the world is one strategy that would allow them to keep making money yes, but that doesn't change the company's core reason for existing.

Re:Wow

[pbryan]

What's insightful about this?

Consumers hold power collectively by choosing who to engage in consentual transactions with. Citizens hold power collectively by voting on who represents them in government.

Neither has much power individually.

Re:Wow

[motown]

There's no way to either confirm or rule out if Karhgath was in fact the anonymous coward who originally posted that text. Therefore, he shouldn't be moderated up. Sorry Karhgath! Nothing personal, but even if you were the original poster, you don't deserve these points now, since it cannot be proven. Just be more careful the next time you post something.

Re:Wow

[Karhgath]

Frankly, I don't care much anyway, I'm posting here to give info and such, not to get Karma. At first I wanted to repost it to get it above the default filter, but after I reposted it I realized most mods should browse at -1 anyway, so it was pretty much stupid to repost it, my apologies.

I was just surprised to see that I wasn't logged in, hehe, stupid adaware that deletes cookies.

Re:Wow

[danheskett]

your argument of closed sourcedness is bs... have you read each and every line of source in your linux kernel?
I don't run Linux, so no.

I am not watching too many X-Files. I think MS messed up with their EULA. They *could* put anything they want in their source code. We don't know. I am not claiming they have trojans, just that they could.

Without the source though, there is no way that you can *prove* that no "bad" code is in Windows. You simply can't. Its _not_ possible. With Linux, you can. You can prove that their is not a function that illiclitly sends data to some place it doesn't belong. With MS stuff, you can analyze traffic, you can watch things, you can try and keep your eyes open. But between encryption and the closed source nature of the software, you simply *can* not prove it.

Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[mgcsinc]

This is a nice concession by microsoft, but what of the weird restrictions on benchmarking alluded to in the older slashdot article?

'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.'

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[danheskett]

That is surprisingly common. Most software vendors of size do not allow benchmarking. Alot of it stems from purposefully bad benchmarking that is designed to skew results. Big vendors like Oracle and MS have a lot to lose from jury-rigged benchmarks skewed to give one side an advantage.

On the other hand, some software package must be slower, that's just how it works. So they have a lot to lose just on the pure facts of the matter too.

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[mgcsinc]

Video card manufacturers could do this to keep from spending half their man hours on programming their drivers to trick benchmarks. Then again, this wouldn't fly to well, would it... If there's anything worse than feew people buying your product because it benchmarks poorly, it's no one buying your product because the industry press hates you.

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[jkrise]

The parent talks about a software maker, and an illegal monopoly at that. No comparison to h/w folks here.

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"No comparison to h/w folks here."

Because that isn't what's being talked about. The core element between what Nvidia (and to a lesser extent ATI) did and the MS and Oracle is "Image". Make your product "appear" to be something it is not. The "they might makes us look bad by doing the benchmarks wrong" is a red herring because a good benchmark can be done without compromising the testing parties principles or being unfair to the tested. No need to enforce an effective ban on free speech (BTW the courts have ruled the "can't publish benchmarks" illegal, but then that's par for the course when it comes to EULA's).

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[hoeferbe]

Something I've wondered about the benchmark EULA clauses is how effective they are. The worst that can happen is that they revoke your 'license' to use that particular copy of the product.

So, let's say I go out and buy Microsoft Doodad 5.5 and it has that "no publishing benchmarks" in its EULA. Well, I've not violated that clause until I publish my benchmarks. Thus, on the day of publication, I am no longer allowed to use the Microsoft Doodad 5.5 I purchased.

So what? I guess I'm 'legally' obligated to chuck the CD and manuals into the landfill. That doesn't matter to me, as I got what I really wanted: the publication of my benchmarks. If I really wanted to keep using Microsoft Doodad 5.5, I just go out and buy another boxed set, which comes with another license (which I don't violoate).

Unless Microsoft Doodad 5.5's EULA says they can sue me for those benchmarks, all I'm loosing is the 'priveledge' of using their software. (I would argue that I only loose the 'priveledge' of using that copy of the software I purchased; I still can go out, purchase another copy, and use that.)

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[mgcsinc]

This is lovely, except that it would be argued, probably effectively, in court that your binding to that clause of the EULA extends beyond your use of the software. Then again, I'd love to see how Microsoft would substantiate any claims to damage with this clause, and hence, it would probably just insist on invalidating your license, anyway.

As if the EULA mattered

[Fefe]

Do you actually believe Microsoft only spies on you if it's written in the EULA?

Does the EULA say that the Internet Explorer reports all web domains to the MSN search engine if it can't resolve them?

Oh, so you can turn it off alright. Does that change anything?

People don't trust Microsoft, and for good reasons.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[BroncoInCalifornia]

Why would Microsoft even want to spy on us. Maybe after they tried out the spyware they noticed it was not worth the effort!

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does the EULA say that the Internet Explorer reports all web domains to the MSN search engine if it can't resolve them?"

Yeah maaaan! Microsoft - and therefore the government - now has a huge list of misspelled and non-existant website addresses! Just imagine the kind of horrific infringements of privacy that can take place now!! It doesn't bear thinking about, does it!

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[mgcsinc]

Well, for one, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would like to have a nice little document to stick to should anyone discover they're being spied on.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[A_Non_Moose]

Oh, so you can turn it off alright. Does that change anything?

Yes, well, until the next security update, bugfix or service pack... ...hey, waitaminute....

(ever notice how the msn redirect gets put back, outlook express {I've got a kixscript to kill it} and a few other annoyances every update?)

You are correct, IMO.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[geekoid]

BUt if you can catch them now, you can take them to court for violating their Eula.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[NanoGator]

"Do you actually believe Microsoft only spies on you if it's written in the EULA?"

Do you believe that MS spies on you at all, or are they just covering their own butts for the new services they've added?

Yeah, "We at Microsoft are monitoring over 400 million people. We know what you're up to!"

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[pmz]

Yeah maaaan! Microsoft - and therefore the government - now has a huge list of misspelled and non-existant website addresses!

They also have your IP address, time of day, frequency of Internet use, possibly your location (via traceroute), and what kinds of websites you are looking for. Based on the websites, they can even infer your age group, sex, and "secret habits".

Don't forget that it is unknowable what kinds of IE backdoors are in place to look at your portfolio of cookies, browser history, browser cache, and preferences settings.

If that isn't valuable marketing data, then just call me a goat and hose me down with grape Kool-aid.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Tackhead]

> Yeah maaaan! Microsoft - and therefore the government - now has a huge list of misspelled and non-existant website addresses! Just imagine the kind of horrific infringements of privacy that can take place now!! It doesn't bear thinking about, does it!

And if you think that's funny, you should see all the failed DNS lookups that XP's dumb-ass DNS client cached for me!

*mutters, grumbles, disables yet another useless service*

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[NeoSkandranon]

(ever notice how the msn redirect gets put back, outlook express {I've got a kixscript to kill it} and a few other annoyances every update?) ...No. I've never seen the MSN redirect come back after i kill it, short of reinstalling IE totally. Ditto to MSN Msgr

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

>They also have your IP address

Every site i`ve ever visited has my IP address.

>time of day

MY TIME OF DAY?! OH MY GOD!

>frequency of Internet use

They could just set up shop as an ISP. So could the government for that matter.

> possibly your location (via traceroute)

Now your pushing it.

>and what kinds of websites you are looking for

And, as i`ve pointed out, how good your spelling is, given that only incorrect ones go to microsoft for resolution - and then only if you have the feature enabled in the free software they`ve supplied and which you`ve chosen to use.

>Based on the websites, they can even infer your
age group, sex, and "secret habits".

Perhaps I can interest you in one of these:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[pmz]

They also have your IP address, time of day, frequency of Internet use, possibly your location (via traceroute), and what kinds of websites you are looking for. Based on the websites, they can even infer your age group, sex, and "secret habits".

Replying to myself.... I just realized that via whois lookup, they can potentially figure out who you work for and/or what ISP you use. If they have figured out those fingerprinting techniques, they might even be able to detect your LAN configuration (NAT, etc.).

All this for unintentially visiting a Microsoft website. The default msn.com IE home page achieves much of this, too, except most of the demographic data.

Geez, this is getting worse and worse...must stop thinking...

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[pmz]

Every site i`ve ever visited has my IP address.

Yes, but this thread is about the involuntary redirection to MS' websites.

MY TIME OF DAY?! OH MY GOD!

Totally valid marketing data. Not necessarily evil, but it is real.

Now your pushing it.

Not really. The router IP addresses in traceroute often resolve into location-specific hostnames. Also, the owner of your IP address block can be location specific or company specific.

This is also valuable marketing data. ...and then only if you have the feature enabled in the free software they`ve supplied and which you`ve chosen to use.

?? How many people "choose" Internet Explorer? IE is a cash cow of data valuable for marketing purposes and even strategic purposes.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Artemis P. Fonswick]

God forbid people do marketing research on your info! Oh no! Whatever will we do?!

If this shit goes into a database it just becomes another dot on a graph. There isn't some guy sitting at the MSN office saying "Hey look! pmz is looking at deep anal porn at 3 AM again! Let's go to his house and rape his mom!"

I've said it before and I have a feeling I'll be saying it until I'm lying in my grave...Nobody cares about you! They're not sitting in your closet watching you surf the internet in your spiderman underoos. You still have your precious privacy!!

Now what? You don't want to be a target of some ad campaign?? I only wish I was targeted more instead of being bombarded with those fucking X10 camera ads everytime I go to a webpage or tampon commercials everytime I turn on the TV.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

ipconfig /flushdns

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[nexex]

add that herpes ad to that list. See Having an STD is Fun! man that guy is in for a big surprise when he unwraps his present...

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[IthnkImParanoid]

If this shit goes into a database it just becomes another dot on a graph

1) Run for national office, or start your own company, or do something high profile that makes enemies.
2) Said enemies bribe your past ISP's or websites you registered with for your IP.
3) Said enemies bribe Microsoft (or whoever else read your cookies, really) with legislation/corporate deals for information collected from those IP's. Just for a week or a month to see your overall habits.
4) Oops, you accidentally clicked on a tubgirl link, a goatse.cx link (man, cutting back on coffee sucks), and visited rotten.com. You are now a psychopathic homosexual fecalfeliac.

Granted, probably no one will ever care about you or me enough to do the above, but the information is still there. How long before we see politicians' web activity dissected by the media? Although, they'll have to learn to use their computers first.

great

[Boromir son of Faram]

I'm glad to hear this, as SP3 wrecked havoc on my machine at work. Apparently Windows Upbreak decided to update a bunch of stuff that required the new video driver before it updated the video driver itself. So I had to boot into Safe Mode and do a bunch of voodoo at 640x480 to make things work again.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Windows Upbreak decided to update a bunch of stuff that required the new video driver before it updated the video driver itself.

Apparently you never looked at Windows Update enough to realize that you can control the order of the installation. Want to do driver updates first? No problem. Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.

Re:great

[drwtsn32]

Bullshit. Windows Update never "decides" to install drivers. The only thing WU ever installs or selects by itself are critical updates, which never include drivers.

Re:great

[RealityMogul]

SP3 killed my machine. Here's a tip, don't play minesweeper while waiting for the service pack to install, you won't be able to boot again.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't WU be smart enough to automatically order updates according to dependency? Even Debian's apt is smart enough to do this, so I'd expect MS to be able to figure this out.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you never looked at Windows Update enough to realize that you can control the order of the installation. Want to do driver updates first? No problem. Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.

So what if doing the driver updates first causes a problem (with, say, DirectX)?

You can't know in advance which order to apply the patches to avoid problems. That's the problem. :) Dependancy checking might solve this problem, but it ain't there yet.

Re:great

[Jucius Maximus]

"I'm glad to hear this, as SP3 wrecked havoc on my machine at work. Apparently Windows Upbreak decided to update a bunch of stuff that required the new video driver before it updated the video driver itself."

Never use drivers from Windows Update. I have never seen a case where an 'updated' driver from Windows Update did not cause some problem with the system! I've had their sound card drivers hose the sound, mouse drivers reduce the functionality of the mouse, video drivers cause havoc that needs safe mode and network drivers cause problems where the machine looses all network access during large file transfers.

NEVER trust the drivers from Windows Update.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

No,the point of Windows Update is that you aren't supposed to have to think about it. Joe User doesn't need to understand why the video driver has to be updated first, and in fact Update is supposed to enforce proper ordering. Isn't one of the big arguments against my grandmother using linux that she couldn't possibly understand all those fine details? Oh, but when we are talking about Windows it's different? At least with RPMs and similar systems I get told that there are missing dependencies. My first notification with Update is usually a failure to boot after the install. Wheee!

Re:great

[jpmorgan]

Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:great

[Duhavid]

I work at a small ( about 5 devs ) company, and one of the projects I have worked on was a facility to update the code OTA. We recognized that we would need to be able to deal with the concept of prerequisites ( dont install B unless A is present ). And we did it.

Forgoing all the above,
Why should the end user be responsible for parsing the prereqs and figuring out what goes first? Why should you have to control the order?

A big "world class" software developement organization, full of "the best" people couldnt do better?

I'm as tired of the "microsoft can do no wrong" as I am of the "microsoft can do no right".

Re:great

[BandwidthHog]

Wow. I can never get modded up with the YNHAY? replies. I bow down before thee...

the catch is....

[eegad]

The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable.

Re:the catch is....

[praedor]

You could link your 2000/XP box to a linux firewall and set iptables to drop any and all traffic concerning certain M$ spyware/snooping/DRM crap. Prevent media player from sending anything to M$ to get around that snooping/IP police force nonsense they add.

Block the ports that M$ tries to use, block offensive traffic. Screw the EULA.

Re:the catch is....

[jeffasselin]

Not a good idea. Especially if the cable is plugged in and the system is running. Not for your possible death, oh no, anyone stupid enough to do that merits his fate as a possible Darwin Award winner, but for the poor system that might have had Linux installed on it and gotten a new life...

Re:the catch is....

[Jucius Maximus]

"The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable."

I hope your scissors have rubber hand-grips!

Re:the catch is....

[ncc74656]

Prevent media player from sending anything to M$ to get around that snooping/IP police force nonsense they add.

Better yet, use Windows Media Player 6.4. Even after you "upgrade" to later versions, it's still there...even on this WinXP SP1 box I'm using right now. It plays all of the same stuff that the later versions play (at least I haven't found anything that wouldn't play), the interface is much less obnoxious, and it doesn't "phone home" every time you start it up. You should be able to find it as c:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\mplayer2.exe. Use right-click and "Open With..." to associate media files with it instead of wmplayer.exe.

Re:the catch is....

[funkdancer]

Yay, thanks for that link! I have WMPlayer 9 installed, but find it a huge annoyance that when I want to play movie files my music playlist is ditched. Only having ONE instance of WMPlayer9 sucks big time, M$-style.

Now I'll just kick open this little gem whenever I wanna play some hot Terminator 3 teaser or something next time instead.

Legalese

[truthsearch]

You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.

Haha... Yes, I consent to the operation of features I bought and left on. I don't consent to those I turn off or don't use. But could I consent to the actions of those I turn off? If I don't operate them can I give permission for them to operate? This is such a wacky sentence it's funny. I give permission for the features which are turned on to operate and don't give permission to those which are turned off to operate. I know it's legal mumbo-jumbo, but could this statement ever not be true?

consent: 2. To indicate or express a willingness; to yield to guidance, persuasion, or necessity; to give assent or approval; to comply.

Re:Legalese

[ch-chuck]

It appears to be the old saying "silence gives consent". If nobody complains it's must be ok. I've been admiring the line on the HP support page: " using this site means you agree to its terms"

Re:Legalese

[poot_rootbeer]

You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.

This statement is not as idiotic as some posters are interpreting it as being.

It's basically saying that the onus is on the customer if they wish to opt out of operating certain features. Let's say the service pack contains an "automatic windows update" service that runs once a night and automatically downloads and installs the latest system patches.

By installing the service pack, you're under no obligation to run that service. You can take it out of the list of active services if you want. What you CAN'T do, the line of thinking goes, is leave it running and then sue Microsoft on the grounds that you don't want it to be running. It's you job to hit the off switch, not theirs.

(IANAL and who knows whether such a EULA is enforceable anyway)

Re:Legalese

[Z0mb1eman]

Err...

You could turn a feature off and have it still working (or start working again) without your consent. That sentence seems to imply that you have the right to expect that not to happen, which I thought was one of the main issues with Microsoft bundling unwated features and shoving them down your throat with Service Packs. So if that's the correct interpretation, it seems to me like a Good Thing.

If anything, I'd say that sentence is as far from legalese as anything - it's vague enough that it can be interpreted any number of ways; legalese may be dry and boring, but it at least attempts to be as precise as possible.

EULAs are a PITA

[wiggys]

I wonder how many people who actually bother to read the licence agreement (15%?) actually understand it (5%?).

I know I don't... I just go with the sheeple principle which goes something like this:

Windows is a very popular product, sold around the world to millions of people. They all seem happy with the licence agreement therefore I'll go along with them. Safety in numbers.

That is all.

Re:EULAs are a PITA

[Obfuscant]

I wonder how many people who actually bother to read the licence agreement (15%?) actually understand it (5%?).

Well, I'm one of the 5 percent.

I got to the bottom of the copy of the EULA and found it was written in French. I don't read French. I'm assuming that the statement "Si le logiciel vous a été concédé sous licence par Microsoft ou l'une de ses filiales à 100 %, ..." means something like "I promise Microsoft 100% of my future income...".

I wonder how many people never read all the way to the bottom to see that they've agreed to something they can't read?

Re:EULAs are a PITA

[bzipitidoo]

No need.

Doesn't matter what the EULA says. There are all kinds of reasons why they're not valid. There's the "shrinkwrap" issue: "you have already agreed", they declare, before you can open the package and read the terms. There are often clauses that insist you've given up various rights that cannot be given up. They are unnecessarily long-- so much so it's obvious they're hoping reader fatigue lets them slip extra details in there without the readers noticing.

Even when a EULA just might possibly be valid, it is unenforceable.

EULAs are a lot of FUD. It makes a mockery of legal traditions. Laws should be as simple as possible so everyone can know and understand them. The US Constitution is very respectable. A considerable amount of the Constitution is devoted to detailing the ways the government (and by extension, the powerful) may NOT abuse their position. State legislatures understand people have the option to vote with their feet, and this tends to both restrain them and encourage experimentation. So state laws are largely respectable-- most of the time, we can honestly see if a legal idea works. Sadly, there are plenty of exceptions with many "laws" (by which I mean decrees that are so obviously flawed and biased they should never have made it thru the legislative process and been dignified with the term "law") enacted to benefit some narrow interest at the expense of everyone else (DMCA, UTICA, Sonny Bono copyright extension, etc.) Flawed though the laws are, most are still seen as good faith attempts to address an issue or fix a problem. Most people are willing to wait on changes to (hopefully) make things better-- to work with the system, not abandon it as a hopeless mess and have a revolution to tear it down and start over.

Is there a EULA that garners this kind of respect? I don't think so. If EULAs had any teeth, there might well be a revolution because the impositions of the average EULA are unreasonable and, perhaps, unfixable with anything less dramatic than a revolution. The 55 MPH speed limit and Nixon did a lot a damage to the law and govt's respectability. (That, btw isn't necessarily a bad thing, having people constantly question the law.) Writers of EULAs are shamelessly exploiting what remaining respect we have for the law. There are laws against impersonating a police officer. These EULAs impersonate laws. Maybe a bad EULA ought to subject the authors to the same sort of penalties a person would get for pretending to be a police officer.

Not a big deal?

[Sheetrock]

Most people I know using Windows 2000 just blow past their EULAs without reading them. What was so onerous? I didn't think it was out of the ordinary for Media Player to fetch new DRM information with codec updates if the old DRM was cracked, and really didn't care because I hardly use it (I prefer RealOne's encoding.)

My virus scanner updates itself without my knowledge, as does my weather bar and e-mail client. How do I know they aren't doing nefarious things? But in the end, they make for a more convenient product.

Re:Not a big deal?

[Mr_Silver]

Most people I know using Windows 2000 just blow past their EULAs without reading them. What was so onerous? I didn't think it was out of the ordinary for Media Player to fetch new DRM information with codec updates if the old DRM was cracked, and really didn't care because I hardly use it (I prefer RealOne's encoding.)

I installed Service Pack 3 a couple of weeks ago on a new PC and didn't see any EULA at all. I didn't do anything special either.

Re:Not a big deal?

[geekoid]

Perhaps you should take advice from your own sig?

Re:Not a big deal?

[symbolset]

Wow. Does your virus scanner have the ability to capture the output of your WebCam, encrypt it and transmit it to unknown parties transparently? Apparently not only is DRM-enabled windows capable of this, but but your entry into a chain of auto-accepted EULA updates makes it possibly legal. Do they want to watch you type in your jammies? Probably not, but for some of us entering into a chain of unlimited consent has had unpleasant consequences in the past.

Re:Not a big deal?

[Patersmith]

This weather bar?

Re:Not a big deal?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

My virus scanner updates itself without my knowledge, as does my weather bar and e-mail client. How do I know they aren't doing nefarious things?

They just might be doing nefarious things. And if you discovered that your weather bar was logging your keystrokes to an unknown location, you'd ditch it. But when the key logger is built into the OS, you're kinda stuck.

Re:Does Microsoft still support Win2K??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello. It's called "Windows 2003".

Fear not!

[jkrise]

You will be liberated with Service Pack 5. Until then, use SCO.

Not as good as it seems

[.Bruce Perens]

You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[bjorng]

You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.

Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. (IANAL, though.)

Re:Not as good as it seems

[sheldon]

"Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. "

It depends on how you obtained the product. Volume Licensing users automatically have this right.. (search for downgrade)

Retail purchasers are supposed to ask for permission.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[sheldon]

Wow, talk about FUD city.

I'd love to hear you legal explanation for how my downloading SP4 and agreeing to a click-through EULA for SP4 suddenly causes me to also be aggreeing to a click-through EULA for 3 prior service packs, despite the fact that I did not download or install those.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[nachoboy]

I believe you may be confusing the content of the updates with the legal agreement associated with it. The scenario I imagine is creating a slipstream installation of Windows 2000 SP4. When I slipstream the SP4 update, I am provided with all the current fixes, in the form of the most recent binaries. However, the only EULA I am agreeing to is the SP4 EULA referenced above. The EULA's for previous SP's are *not* included. Then when I install the Windows 2000 SP4 product on any computer, I agree to the original Windows 2000 EULA. At no time does the prohibitive SP3 EULA manifest itself, and I can find nothing in the agreement that states that I am bound to previous, not-included EULA's.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[Yankovic]

This is incorrect. More recent licenses (such as the one on SP4) supercede previous agreements. This section from the EULA clearly identifies this:

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) and the CAL or TS CAL (if applicable) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[The Bungi]

Oh, look. Another impersonating troll. Never mind the dot preceding your user name - I doubt Perens would have such detailed information regarding a Windows license. You sound like you actually use Windows.

Unfortunately some moderators still fall for this kind of thing.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[0xA]

You can downgrade on OEM or bluk license products. If you have a retail or retail license pack product you have to enrol in software assurance before you can downgrade.

You guys need to look again. I don't have a link handy but I do have two Word docs that explain it.

so would SP4 meet HIPAA guidelines?

[clarkc3]

I remember there was a discusion about SP3 and where I worked that was one of the main reasons we held off installing it on our machines

Re:so would SP4 meet HIPAA guidelines?

[fudgefactor7]

It already is HIPAA compliant, that's been addressed. It's ok.

No, really, it is!

Retroactively?

[ptaff]

Is the agreement on SP4 only touching the technology modified by this service pack?

If I agreed on SP3, can a further SP change my rights?

I mean, I already said yes to all that invasive stuff.

Seems like a PR-move for me.

I figured that's what they initially meant anyways

[fudgefactor7]

I mean, MS may be friggin' in the riggin', but the way SP3's EULA was writen was a bit vague...so I assumed (privacy and the law bein gon my mind) that this is what they meant in the first place but didn't bother to express it very well. Either way, I'm pleased.

Re:Mod me redundant...

[aborchers]

I use XP sporadically because my job sometimes requires me to because my clients do. In the past year, I'd estimate I've used it about 10% of the time.

This may help in the future

[teamhasnoi]

Removing evil from 2000/XP.

I can't wait til this is done, as I use 98lite for the pentium 233 here at work.

Speedy goodness, and I feel a bit better about the saftey of my midget porn.

Does this have anything to do with SP4? I don't know. I just wonder what SP4 will break.

Re:This may help in the future

[HopeUnknown]

Removing evil from 2000/XP.

You can't remove evil from Windows, it's a feature of the Operating System. Kinda like Internet Explorer.

Re:This may help in the future

[Jack Comics]

XP Lite is complete and total vaporware. It's been promised for *years* now, and absolutely nothing new has been said or seen about it since it was originally announced in 2001.

The project probably turned out to be bigger than the software coders could chew, as removing the crud from 9x is a far easier task than removing it from 2000 & XP.

In other words, expect XP Lite to be released the same day as Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:This may help in the future

[vegetablespork]

Yep. I bought 98Lite, and it's the shiznit. But XP Lite isn't likely to ever see the light of day. Be nice if he'd just admit it.

Re:This may help in the future

[swv3752]

Well, that is supposed to be before Doom III, so maybe this year, right? :)

Re:This may help in the future

[eMilkshake]

Heh, go out and buy yourself a copy of XPe Project Builder (only about $1,000). Then you can do all of what's described as well as have access to patches, fixes, and service packs!

Or, plunk down $2.50 and get the eval version from MS and just reload every 120 days (you're reinstalling Windows 4 times a year anyway, right?).

I have a Windows XPe image with IE that works pretty well at only 125 MB.

Re:This may help in the future

[taernim]

Some interesting contents in there.
"Macromedia Flash"

How exactly is that a Microsoft product?
Much less one you can pass off as being their fault? Want to blame someone, blame Macromedia...

Migrating from Linux to XP

[dfn5]

We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP.

Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.

Re:Migrating from Linux to XP

[clonebarkins]

Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.

Windows XP costs money? Where did you download it from?

Re:Migrating from Linux to XP

[_xeno_]

I installed it from a SMB share, so you could try that. Mind you, I installed it the campus license agreement software share. You might not have one so conviently located with a valid username and password. So, yes, you can avoid burning it to a CD and install it from a remote network connection.

Of course, when it tries to activate with the license server, you may run into problems if you don't have a valid license...

(Then there's the rant about how 5 months later WinXP decided that the new harddrive definately indicated I was a pirate and locked me out of my computer, forcing me to fork over $200 for an XP Pro upgrade. The Pro version was needed for various network-related utilities required for my job. Too bad I also play games on it, negating it as being a buisness expense. Growl. Too bad I hate the Linux desktop experience far more than the Windows experience, so don't go that route with me. Maybe in a few years, when I can play Warcraft III and C&C Generals along with UT2K3... Oh, and throw WINE at me, and I'll whine right back.)

Re:Migrating from Linux to XP

[Pfhreakaz0id]

You are following the letter of the law, not the spirit. If XP home would have sufficed, but you needed XP pro's features for business use, write off the cost of the upgrade.

Copyright?

[truthsearch]

Out of curiosity, isn't the EULA automatically protected under copyright law like everything else? Even without a copyright statement attached to it I'm not sure anyone is allowed to reproduce it without permission. I think it would have to explicitly give permission in the doc.

Re:Copyright?

[Rude Turnip]

Everything has an assumed copyright, but you can still use excerpts for discussions, educational purposes, journalistic purposes, etc. Just as long as you don't go copying something in its entirety for the sake of copying.

Re:Copyright?

[clonebarkins]

Out of curiosity, isn't the EULA automatically protected under copyright law like everything else? Even without a copyright statement attached to it I'm not sure anyone is allowed to reproduce it without permission. I think it would have to explicitly give permission in the doc.

No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.

Re:Copyright?

[pmz]

No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.

Only if they constitute a real contract. Thus, the old debate over the enforcability of EULAs continues...

Re:Copyright?

[clonebarkins]

Only if they constitute a real contract. Thus, the old debate over the enforcability of EULAs continues...

So all we have to do is get Microsoft to claim copyright over their EULAs, which would then negate them as legitimate binding contracts.... Now, how do we accomplish that!

This is nice

[pulse2600]

I seriously believe that this is the result of constant pressure and bad PR Microsoft has been getting from techies like us. Even powerful, monopolistic companies like Microsoft must respond to the dissent of the public. We must continue to discuss our grievances while educating techies and non-techies alike about how things like EULAs and buggy software can affect our lives. This is the only way companies will be forced to make better products and treat their customers better.

Re:Does Microsoft still support Win2K??

[MtViewGuy]

According to Microsoft's position, they will officially support Windows 2000 Professional/Server right through the end of 2005.

This means they will still have the signed driver program and WHQL certification program in place for the next 30 months. I expect Microsoft to offer at least up to Service Pack 6 for Win2K before the official support program ends at the end of 2005.

Besides, Windows 2000 Professional is a very nice OS, with very good stability and decent security if you apply all the proper security patches (something that should be done on all operating systems on a regular basis).

Does this really matter?

[AstroDrabb]

Does it matter that MS has changed the wording around in their EULA for win2k? They are still going to try to force their will upon you. Look at the Media player 9 EULA. It gives M$ the right to remove "content" they beleive to be violating a copyright holder. Just when did M$ get the damn power to be police of the world? Where was I when that power was granted? There is no need for any of this garbage. There are laws to protect copyrights, let the copyright holders use the legal system just like the rest of us have to. Just don't give in to the MS FUD or the MS monoply.

Re:Does this really matter?

[rsax]

Just when did M$ get the damn power to be police of the world? Where was I when that power was granted?

Evidently you haven't been reading the EULA's thoroughly enough. Tsk tsk.

Liability

[jabbadabbadoo]

"..., IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS
SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ..."

What a cumbersome way of saying NO LIABILITY.

(the text you're reading now is just to fool /.'s lameness filter which claims that I'm yelling due to CAPS - well, actually it's Microsoft who's yelling.)

Re:Liability

[Reziac]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why just about all license documents have that chunk about legal liability etc. in all caps??

It's not just software; it's the same with warranty notices, fibre content notices, and everything else that deems it necessary to include a NO LIABILITY clause. They ALL shout!

Re:Liability

[jonblaze]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why just about all license documents have that chunk about legal liability etc. in all caps??

because a lot of jurisdictions require such notices to be conspicuous.

Re:Liability

[Reziac]

Ah... I guess "shouting" is the plaintext legal equivalent of "being conspicuous".

Next it'll be in red and yellow blinkenlights. ;)

ok, so i just have to turn it off..

[Anonymous Coward]

great, i can do that. god knows i've turned off that network popup messanger a few dozen times. some reason though 'stop' and 'disable' don't stick. after a week or 2 they are back on. so if i don't turn of the hidden 'turn service back on' service, does that mean i'm consenting to the ones it turns back on? and does that include the ones sp5 will turn back on?

Re:ok, so i just have to turn it off..

[Technician]

I'm familiar with that problem. I think they get a good subsidy from AOL. I don't know how often I've had to boot the signup icon off my desktop. I wish there was a software do not call (install) that I could set somewhere that would stop the hitchhikers. X-10 pop ups on the web and AOL hitchhiking OS'es and applications to the desktop. Egads, enough already.

The more I learn IP chains for the web problems and open source for killing hitchhikers, the more I prefer open source software. The cruft is better filtered.

passing the buck....

[oliverthered]

I should imagine that Microsoft's legal people thought that the original clause may make Microsoft liable for any security vulnerabilities in components that connect to the internet without consent.
The new clause tells the user that the feature can be disabled, passing all responsibility from Microsoft to the user.

Re:Mod me redundant...

[aborchers]

Heh heh. Cool. Wonder if it would have worked so well if I'd made the subject "Mod me Interesting"?

Who is .Bruce Perens?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how did you get the people who did your birth certificate to put the dot there?

Interesting, interesting...

[MsGeek]

They are backing down on the "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" EULA. Good. I'm impressed. This means that I can actually update my last lone Windows box. Right now, basically I have my Windows machine isolated from the Internet because of the security issues.

I still think that eventually MS will have to come out and admit that there are fundamental flaws at the heart of their security infrastructure, and basically make the same admission they made about NT4 about all their NT codebase OSes. But it's good that the patches are now available without having to bend and spread too far.

Someone mentioned the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in another post. I suspect that is the motivation behind the EULA change. With all those health insurance companies, doctors offices and hospitals screaming bloody murder about SP3 leaving them open for citation under HIPAA, they had to do this.

Certainly consumer outrage isn't the issue. That has never motivated MS before.

Re:Interesting, interesting...

[msoftsucks]

SP4 is not HIPAA compliant. I am going through this with one of my clients. The lawyers that I'm working with are telling me that because service packs include previous service packs, agreeing to SP4 means that you also agree to SP3 legal terms. In order for SP4 to be HIPAA compliant it must specifically revoke any HIPAA onerous terms in SP3. SP4 doesn't do this. Basically the law takes from SP3 things that are not dealt with in SP4. IANAL but this is what the client's lawyers have come up with. My client is now stuck and is in the planning stages of ripping out Win2K and replacing it with Linux.

Re:Interesting, interesting...

[MsGeek]

OK, I was mistaken. The HIPAA problems still remain, SP3's crap is still in force, even if you install SP4 over SP2. Forget I said what I just said. Move along, nothing to see here.

Did they remove the "lose your soul" clause?

[Nova Express]

Have they taken out that clause that states "By opening the shrinkwrap on this Microsoft product, you agree to assign to Microsoft, in perpetuity, your immortal soul. You also agree that Microsoft may sell, sublicense, or reassign your soul to any third party, including but not limited to individuals, other corporations, government entities, demons, spirits and other supernatural beings, God and/or Satan, and any other powers or dominions, at Microsoft's sole discretion."?

Man, I always hated that clause, but at least they took out the bit about your firstborn child...

Re:Did they remove the "lose your soul" clause?

[DrWho520]

No more first born son clause! Yup, now you only have to give them his head...or testicles.

Re:Mod me redundant...

[muffen]

I use XP like that too (for work when required)... I just wouldn't install it on my own computer (even for a MS OS, XP IMHO is extremly bad), which is what I thought you did.

Stupid Legal Bull....

[clonebarkins]

"You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them."

That's about as effective as saying:

• You agree to have sex with me unless you say no.
• You agree to drink this soda, unless you set the cup down.
• You agree to bend over and let me anally violate you unless you have objections.

Re:Stupid Legal Bull....

[TheAwfulTruth]

Yes, isn't it rediculous? There was nothing wrong with the old wording. People freaked out over nothing, forcing MS to put new wording it that is completely stupid. Well I guess it now matches the brain power of the people that complained... It's why every car ad has to have "Professional driver on closed course, do not try this yourself" on it. Apparently no one is smart enough to think for themselves any more (That or have completely given up responsibility for their own actions. "I saw it on TV so I thought it was legal!")

Makes me sad.

Re:Stupid Legal Bull....

[catenos]

That's about as effective as saying:

* You agree to have sex with me unless you say no.
* You agree to drink this soda, unless you set the cup down.
* You agree to bend over and let me anally violate you unless you have objections.

That's quite correct (at least as good as such analogies can be). I am surprised that you came up with those correctly, but did not notice the point.

E.g. the second: If you agree to the EULA, I just forced you to set down the cup down, if you don't want to drink it, you may not hold a cup of soda for any other purpose anymore.

Or in more general terms, the EULA changes an agreement from an active to a passive one. There are a lot of cases where legal systems assume that lack of explicit consent equals no consent. (Of course, there are usually as much cases, where explicit consent is not required.)

The EULA changes that lack of explicit consent, means consent, anyhow, and you need to say no explicitly. This may be a big change in liability, depending on the issue.

That said, I cannot tell whether it is a big change for the issue at hand, because I am not familiar with US law (and what 'defaults' there are for the cases the EULA covers).

Read up on Corporations...

[cnelzie]

Any corporation, no matter how large or small has a Board of Directors. The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders.

In the case of a really small company with only a few shareholders, those shareholders (if even only 2 or 3 people) will typically make up the board.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[wfberg]

Any corporation, no matter how large or small has a Board of Directors. The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders.

But not all businesses are corporations. Don't discount sole proprietors, partnerships and limited liability companies, non-profit organisations, as well as foreign businesses doing business in the US, or indeed elsewhere (the original poster didn't state which country he's in).

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[cellocgw]

Any corporation, no matter how large or small has a Board of Directors. The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders.

Uh-huh. Name me one company w/ over 50 million gross sales whose shareholders actually have a say in the Board of Directors. Typically a commanding percentage of the stock is held by a very few players and they hand-pick the board. Even trying to mount a proxy vote for an alternate candidate is beyond the financialand organizational means of the small shareholders.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[HiThere]

I believe that the corp. must have a board of directors, but that said board, for a sufficiently small corp, may be limited to the required officers. Generally the people who set things up arrange things so that the person selected as the president can count on any reasonable vote coming out the way that is desired (by the president).

A lot of the details are spelled out in the articles of incorporation. I've only been on the edge of a couple of *really small* incorporations, so I don't really know the details, but that's my general impression.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[Reziac]

"The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders."

Actually, that's not how it works. What happens is that whenever there's a vacancy, the existing Board of Directors nominates a candidate. Then the board issues voting materials (an info packet and a ballot) to shareholders, where you can either vote for the candidate, against the candidate, or in some cases abstain.

Now, these ballots are interesting in that FAILURE to vote usually means that your ballot is DEFAULTED to a vote FOR whatever the BoD has *already recommended* (and in 33 years of owning stock, I've never seen one that recommended a vote against any prospective or seated Board member). With such ballots, if you don't vote, it does NOT become a null vote; if you want to abstain, you have to specifically vote that way and return the ballot.

This is the procedure for seating new members, for reconfirming old members which is normally done every few years, routine issues like confirming selection of an auditing firm, and issues placed on the table by stockholders (which in my observation are uniformly nutty and are uniformly recommended against by every BoD).

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[tdelaney]

MIM here in Australia is currently the target of a takeover bid.

I'm not sure of the details, but from my reading it appears that every shareholder who holds more than 20 shares (approx AU$32) has exactly one vote in both the takeover bid and for the Board of Directors.

If that's correct, there's an example for you.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[cellocgw]

I'm not sure of the details, but from my reading it appears that every shareholder who holds more than 20 shares (approx AU$32) has exactly one vote in both the takeover bid and for the Board of Directors.

It looks good on paper. I have similar voting rights with my few shares of United Technologies Corp. stock (NYSE:UTX). However, even if I got all my friends together and we all withheld votes for one of the Board candidates, our votes would be lost in the noise. And my main point was that it's essentially impossible to nominate and elect an opposing candidate to the Board. At the risk of getting mega-modded down as lame :-), it's like the old Soviet Union: you can vote for Stalin or you can vote for Stalin.

Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw

[donutello]

If you're not capable of knee-jerk opinions based on strong prejudices you don't belong here. This is Slashdot. Please take your well thought out opinions and go elsewhere.

I'm impressed

[UnknowingFool]

that someone actually had the patience and will to read the whole EULA. I felt my strength slipping after the 5th paragraph. Also I kept hearing:
"Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
. . ."

Using enabler to get around clicking YES

[liposuction]

Does using an enabler to get around agreeing to the EULA, but still installing the software update, violate the DMCA? I want the updates to their fragile products, but also don't need support.

you know

[SweetAndSourJesus]

You can just pull on the end that's stuck in the wall. Comes right out.

Ah, modern conveniences.

Hannibal Lectar: "Love the title"

[A_Non_Moose]

Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA

Yes, but did it hurt when they did?

Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw

[sheldon]

You mean you wouldn't complain about us not using a new rope when we hang you for Blaspheme for going against the slashbot mob mentality?

Amazing! You obviously don't belong here.

let's check that assumption. Yep, that's valid.

[Erris]

You claim, " The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable." That might be right. Let's look at the "features", shall we?

• Windows Updater - they could make this the only way to keep your computer running. They did say they wanted to "obsolete" their administrators.
• Web Content Features - totally confusing about what's activated by default, but this has the potential to make the web unveiwable.
• Digital Certificates. Something called, "Auto Root" seems to be required for your computer to be trusted by Microsoft. Not using it may break all encryption schemes. Fully buzzword complient.
• Windows Media Digital Rights Management. - If you play "secure content", Microsoft wants to know about it and put all sorts of third party files on your computer. It's so complicated sounding I doubt they will keep their promise of you being able to listen to or watch anyhing without them knowing. It's strange they would care, as they have been proven to.
• Windows Media Player - content again! It wants to check for "codecs" that you might not have. As if! So, how much do you want to bet that the only way to get these magical codecs, you have to use all of the above "features".

If Microsoft actually did what it says, you would not have to turn your computer off to keep it from spying on you, but you would not be able to listen to music, bank, check school and government records, watch movies or just about anything. Of course, M$ is a dishonest company, so we can imagine it will store all the information until you say, "uncle root me!", and then send it all up.

This is a natural continuation of M$ practices. They already kept lists of songs and movies, now they will have your explicit permision to collect them. No, they did not really tell you what they were going to collect, they just told you that the features will have to talk to work. We can imagine they will say whatever M$ wants them to.

Re:Mod me redundant...

[aborchers]

Funny you should remark XP is extremely bad even for MS. Other than some odd UI fluff, I find it to be their best to date (stable as 2K and preferable from a user perspective wrt hardware support, games, etc). The only major problem I have with it is the predatory licensing and bait-and-switch tactics of changing the rules in order to accept security patches.

MY eula

[Anonymous Coward]

"By taking my money, you agree that the copy of the software I paid for is mine to do whatever the hell I want to with. I bought it, it's mine. You cannot place a piece pf paper in a car's glove box saying that by starting the car I give up certain rights and then sell it to me and expect that piece of paper to be any kind of an agreement. I bought the copy of the software, that copy is mine. Go fuck yourselves."

-mcgrew

Encouraging

[porkface]

I will say "this is good" rather than "too little too late". You've got to encourage this kind of turnaround from the world's most pervasive software company.

Unless you're an OSS zealot who hopes MS's bad behavior will be their downfall.

Who cares about MS License Agreements?

[HermanAB]

In many (most?) states, it is a sale, not a license, so the EULA is moot.

Re:Who cares about MS License Agreements?

[mhifoe]

Is there anywhere in the world where an EULA such as this would actually be enforceable?

Most EULA's start by claiming that the software is provided with no warranty. In most of Europe this is not permitted, something must be fit for the purpose.
Claiming that it's a licence and not a sale doesn't help either, many countries treat anything that is sold as a product as a normal sale and subject to normal laws on purchasing.

Has anyone ever actually read an EULA anyway?

No no no, all wrong..

[Joe U]

No, it's Erik Njorl, son of Frothgar, brother of Hangnor at the home of Thorvald Nlodvisson, the son of Gudleif, half brother of Thorgier, the priest of Ljosa water, who took to wife Thurunn, the mother of Thorkel Braggart, the slayer of Cudround the powerful, who knew Howal, son of Geernon, son of Erik from Valdalesc, son of Arval Gristlebeard, son of Harken, who killed Bjortguaard in Sochnadale in Norway over Cudreed, daughter of Thorkel Long, the son of Kettle-Trout, the half son of Harviyoun Half-troll, father of Ingbare the Brave, who with Isenbert of Gottenberg the daughter of Hangbard the Fierce...

Or do I have the wrong Islandic saga again?

Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw

[fudgefactor7]

"You mean you wouldn't complain about us not using a new rope when we hang you..."

No more than Tim McVeigh did when they gave him a flu shot on death row....

Uh-huh

[kiwimate]

Posted Anonymous Coward

Makes me feel very comfortable insofar as the veracity of the rest of your post is concerned.

Do post some more details...for example:

* What is your core "real business"?
* How big is your company?
* How big is your network?
* How long has your company been established?

You get the gist...really, just some sort of detail that, say, might lead me to believe this is anything other than a rather poor troll.

I love 2a, by the way. How did you present your offer to Microsoft? (Was it a formal business proposition, or an open letter posted on the local "MS-SUX" mailing list?) To whom did you present it? What were they supposed to get out of it? (My goodness, I'm just shocked that Microsoft wasn't falling over itself to take up your little proposal involving a whopping ten -- count 'em! -- workstations.) To whom did you present the same Linux-server-based contract?

(And it still gets modded up as Interesting. Good ol' Slashdot...)

I was talking about Corporations...

[cnelzie]

...not sole proprieterships and partnerships and the rest you mentioned. Your point is oddly out of place, even though being slightly on the topic of this thread...

Re:I was talking about Corporations...

[wfberg]

The point is, not every business chooses to be a Corporation. In fact, LLCs, partnerships etc. are much more suited to smaller companies. Very small companies will not choose to incorporate, and not have a board of directors. So, "corporations come in every size" isn't quite true (one-man corporations?); most corporations are mediumsized to large companies, not tiny outfits.

Re:I was talking about Corporations...

[cnelzie]

Limited Liability Corporations are well... Corporations... They combine the benefits of both sole proprietership/partnerships with the good stuff of corporate structures.

There is almost no reason to have a partnership or sole proprietership with the existence of LLCs and S-Corps structures. The protections they provide are incredibly important.

You can have One-Man Corporations and depending upon the type of business it may behoove you to do so. For instance, if you own many properties as rentals, as a sole proprieter if one of those tenants gets hurt, he/she could sue you and you could lose EVERYTHING, even your own home/car and personal savings.

With an LLC or S-Corp, you will not be held personally responsible, even though you are the sole-owner/share holder of the corporation. Sure, the company would be dead, but you would still have ALL of your personal belongings.

It would show extreme negligence to put yourself into a situation where you could lose everything save the clothes on your back. Having an S-Corp or LLC shows EXTREME prudence on your part.

Release Date

[SuperDave913]

Does anyone know what the release date for SP4 is supposed to be? Are there any known "gottcha's"?

Uhm, official SP4 EULA?!

[delus10n0]

How is this official? It's not even on Microsoft's website. Sheesh.

I think I'm going to make-up an SP5 EULA and post it on my site, and then submit it as a Slashdot story. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Re:Uhm, official SP4 EULA?!

[LittleGuy]

How is this official? It's not even on Microsoft's website. Sheesh.

I agree. Does anyone *else* have an actual Beta version SP4 that has a EULA to compare?

Or we just Beta-testing reactions to a EULA?

Double sheesh.

Re:Does Microsoft still support Win2K??

[red floyd]

with very good stability and decent security if you apply all the proper security patches

Assuming you agree with the new licensing terms they throw into the security patches (see SP3 for details).

Specified plan does not work!

[JCMay]

Step 5 is an unconditional jump, so steps six and seven never get executed!

This can't posibly be Microsoft's MO-- there's no way to get to the profit!

Thank God! (Re:Too little, too late...)

[mousse-man]

My company switched away from MS on the server side, and now we're getting MacOS and Linux for the desktops (yep, not gone completely Linux - the crowd needs MS Office and PhotoShop). So far, I haven't had to rebuild a desktop system because something broke so completely I couldn't fix it, and thanks to NIS+, mostly everything has been tidied up.

Windows Media Player 9 alters my files?

[eMartin]

I installed WMP 9 the other day, and the first thing I did was go through the settings to turn off all the "features" that I don't need.

One thing that I found interesting though, is that I unchecked the "Update my music files (WMA and MP3 files) by retrieving missing media information from the Internet" (which has an accompanying help link that explains that it would be used to add information to both the media library database and tags within the actual files), yet all the files that I played in WMP were actually still modified. Their modification dates and file sizes changed.

Now that is enough for me to decide not to use their software for playing my music, because the way that I see it, any info that is used by the media library (such as song ratings, number of times played, etc.) belongs in the separate database that it uses, and my files should not be changed unless I click a "save" or "apply" button somewhere.

So does anyone know what is being added to these files by WMP? I don't like the idea that it is changing my files just to add some stupid "This audio file was played by Windows Media Player" tag.

Re:Windows Media Player 9 alters my files?

[Xytras]

I installed WMP 9 the other day

A Question springs to mind, WHY?

Re:Mod me redundant...

[muffen]

....HAHHORHOA!!! M$ SUX0RZ!!!
Followed by:
your opinion is shit.
Thanks man... your post made me see the entire world in a new way... your opinion is shit. must be the best argument I have ever heard.

But maybe if you've spent more than 10% of your time using it you would realize that.

I guess I'm going blind, as I fail to see where in my post I say that I use XP 10% of my time.

I don't normally enter these shit-throwing competitions, but I was a little bored at work today :)

What about the DRM Clause? Still awful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under this clause, they can:

1) Record what you're using their and 3rd party
software for

2) Remotely retrieve this information

3) Remotely disable features of your computer

If that isn't intrusive, then what is?

d. Windows Media Digital Rights Management.
Content providers are using the digital rights management
technology for Windows Media contained in this Software
("WM-DRM") to protect the integrity of their content
("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property,
including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated.
Portions of this Software and third party applications such
as media players use WM-DRM to play Secure Content
("WM-DRM Software"). If the WM-DRM Software's security
has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure
Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke
the WM-DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or
play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the
WM-DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content.
A list of revoked WM-DRM Software is sent to your
computer whenever you download a license for Secure
Content from the Internet. Microsoft may, in
conjunction with such license, also download
revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of
Secure Content Owners. Secure Content Owners
may also require you to upgrade some of the WM-DRM
components in this Software ("WM-DRM Upgrades") before
accessing their content. When you attempt to play
such content, WM-DRM Software built by Microsoft
will notify you that a WM-DRM Upgrade is required
and then ask for your consent before the WM-DRM
Upgrade is downloaded. WM-DRM Software built
by third parties may do the same. If you decline
the upgrade, you will not be able to access content
that requires the WM-DRM Upgrade; however, you will
still be able to access unprotected content and
Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.
WM-DRM features that access the Internet, such
as acquiring new licenses and/or performing a
required WM-DRM Upgrade, can be switched off. When
these features are switched off, you will still be able
to play Secure Content if you have a valid license for
such content already stored on your computer.

Re:What about the DRM Clause? Still awful!

[unDiWahn]

"1) Record what you're using their and 3rd party
software for"

I didn't see any reference to that in the clip you posted. The closest segment was "Microsoft may, in
conjunction with such license, also download
revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of
Secure Content Owners. " which is simply Microsoft 'turning off' any software you've cracked -- " If the WM-DRM Software's security
has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure
Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke
the WM-DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or
play Secure Content."

Ok, 2) falls under the same catagory.

"3) Remotely disable features of your computer"

Only features that companies select to be disabled. And, specifically, only DRM enabled software for DRM content -- which does not prevent you from from using non-DRM content either.

Actually, the clip you posted was a relieving read -- Microsoft's EULA for DRM is mostly non-invasive. It says nothing about accessing content on your computer, and specifies that DRM information will only be transfered when you request a DRM licence. Seems fair to me.

The GPL is

[jpmorgan]

The GPL claims to be copyright protected.

Disclosing URLs IS dangerous

[arth1]

It's not that easy to dismiss.

Example: A VPN user enters https://user@password:internalserver.company.com
However, the VPN line has gone down and the user happens to be on the Internet, where internalserver.company.com doesn't resolve. Or the local DNS server might have a temporary hiccup. Or a variety of other reasons might cause the lookup to fail.
IE then proceeds to send the URL to the search engine of choice. NOT good.

Re:Disclosing URLs IS dangerous

[dead sun]

I think the moral of the story is don't be a lazy idiot and type your username and password into the address bar of IE. Type the url with your username and no password and let it prompt you upon resolution of the address. There, now you're that much safer!

On the other hand, there's really no need to submit what you just typed to MSN's crappy search engine. There's no need to do anything with the data, just let it sit. If MS wanted to enhance the user's experience without intruding in any manner they could make the no page available default error page look a little prettier in IE and point them at a search engine or two, without the attempted url plugged in already. It'd be an extra click, but no intrusion. It at least makes me wonder why they need to drive traffic to their search engine thing.

real business is not an AC...

[Archfeld]

Err 18 to 22 million is small time money as far as 'real business' is concerned. Don't get me wrong I am happy to see linux get a bigger market share and a foothold in business, but we do 18-22 million about every 60 minutes (projected year end revenues run in the 100 billions), and NO LINUX support vendor will come close to matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel and equipment support. I hope things keep growing so that maybe someday it will happen but for now REAL BUSINESS, ie fortune 500 and better are NOT running their back offices on LINUX OR OSX, and as a former unix admin the thought of the general (L)user community having a unix/linux desktop terrifies me.
With the release of 2003 for priemier customers the performance gap is going to grow. I hope that Linus going to work full time on the kernel for a year will help close the gap on high end scalability.
On a side note we did tell SendMail where to go and are now moving to an OSS setup :)

Re:real business is not an AC...

[EnderWiggnz]

>and NO LINUX support vendor will come close to
>matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel
>and equipment support.

last i checked, IBM spewed a lot of linux support.

Re:real business is not an AC...

[shaitand]

"NO LINUX support vendor will come close to matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel and equipment support."

ummm you DO realize IBM IS A LINUX VENDOR don't you?

Aprox. 6 months ago my wife's ex husband asked me a little bit about Linux. He advised me that IBM was truely planning to eventually phase out EVERYTHING and go all Linux and wanted my input (he is an IBM exec, was a programmer long ago, not 100% sure what he does now other than that it is a 12 word title, literally, and he makes 7 figures). Now I hate the sob and he hates me, but I respect that he might have a handle on IBM business strategy.

Pixar is publicly traded

[kels]

there's no reason a corp. can't stay private -- I believe Pixar is one of those

PIXR

Meaningless

[TomRC]

This is meaningless. Of the millions who use Windows, very few will read the EULA closely enough to realize that there are spy services running, let alone know how to disable them.

Nothing real will come of this until there is a real and major abuse by MS, and the story is picked up by the major media. Then there'll be congressional hearings and 'something will be done' - most likely something useless.

now it's sun's turn: java 1.4.1+ has same problem

[Khopesh]

JDK-1.4.1 License, note Supplemental License Terms 5 and 6:

5. Notice of Automatic Software Updates from Sun. You acknowledge that the Software may automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept updated terms and conditions for installation. If additional terms and conditions are not presented on installation, the Software Updates will be considered part of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement

6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. ...

Java for Mozilla will require this!
that's right, mozilla 1.4final and up will need java 1.4.2+ (due to gcc3.2.x),
which means you need to agree to those terms if you want java. see mozilla bug 204236,
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204236
(bugzilla blocks direct links from slashdot; you'll have to copy & paste.)

Change Internet Exploder's Proxy

[llordsmiff]

Change the proxy in Internet Exploder to "127.0.0.1". Keeps lots of spyware (any Exploder based spyware) from accessing the net.

Shirttail urls

[symbolset]

With a list of the most commonly misspelled URLS that don't resolve one could create sites born with much traffic. Advertising dollars follow traffic. Requiring every user of your software to contribute this valuable data without compensation is not fair.

Microsoft starts to see the light, perhaps?

[djlowe]

Obligatory note: IANAL

It appears to me that Microsoft's EULA's (which may or may not be enforcable) are an ongoing attempt to continue their control over the desktop, at the very least, via untested legalese, in the face of increasing competition, of which Open Source and, more importantly, Linux, et al, are a large part.

This, of course, is understandable (if not acceptable) - Microsoft, historically, wishes to compete solely on its terms, so as to maximize its profits and minimize competition in those areas from which they derive profit, to ensure their existence and continued profits (the latter, of course, being the definition of corporate existence in a nutshell).

The problem in the latter strategy (IMHO)is this:

Without a true test of EULAs in the courts (most especially those of the "shrink-wrap" type in any form) that supports and enforces such terms, it is, at best, a tenuous foundation upon which to base an ongoing corporate profit strategy in an ever-increasingly litigious world - at any moment there could come a legal challenge that could potentially undermine the whole structure beneath. And, even if they were to win, it would cost them money to do so - potentially, a LOT of money. If they were to lose, well...

All it would take is money (certainly, a *lot* of money - but there *are* ways to solicite the help of powerful lawfirms, as we've seen with the current SCO lawsuit): A determined effort by anti-Microsoft forces to force such a test could easily be mounted, should profit be sniffed by lawfirms sufficiently informed, capable and motivated.

Further, given Microsoft's current status as a monopoly (not in itself a bad thing), and more importantly, as a monopoly that has abused its position in the past as such and been convicted of so doing, their "backing down" on EULA issues is, I think, simply a case of them "seeing the light", and not wishing to provoke any such tests, because it is in their best interests not to do so.

Certainly, EULAs in general, in their current untested form, serve to protect their interests now (and ensure their profit), and shrink-wrap EULAs (including those from downloads) in all forms do so as well, especially when untested.

Just my opinion.

dj

Evil integrated already?

[rsborg]

You can't remove evil from Windows, it's a feature of the Operating System. Kinda like Internet Explorer.

I guess Microsoft has made good on this earlier announcement?

EULAS=contracts=not copyright

[symbolset]

Wow! That's why they made me sign an NDA that doesn't let me talk about the REAL NDA.

EULA's Everyone understands them....

[3J]

Everyone understands the EULA's. We all know that you just click on "I Agree" and the installs continue, or the updates start. Real easy. Duh. Why is the end of most MS EULA's in French? Do I agree to that too? I did click I Agree. Hmm.

Re:let's check that assumption. Yep, that's valid.

[kmilani2134]

Not only are they probably storing all of the user information, there are also numerous marketing and business reasons one could think of for doing so. The dishonesty and lack of ethics aren't going to get in the way of making a few dollars from advertisers based on the information. Besides advertising, there are probably a lot of other ways to make money off of that data.

Re:let's check that assumption. Yep, that's valid.

[jak163]

This is a very important point. IOW, they figure out ways to get your _consent_ to things that infringe on your privacy, freedom of expression, etc., by making it impossible to do basic functions of the Internet without giving that consent. They do this by making themselves the only game in town for those once-basic featues. This is the legal way of doing it. The fact that it is legal does not make it any more desirable. This has always been a shortcoming (or _contradiction_) of bourgeois democracy. Aggregations of capital work at cross purposes to political equality.

So, what should I focus on then?

[boy_afraid]

If we should get away from Windows towards anything away from this Black Hole, what should I concentrate my skills on? Linux? Should I learn C/C++? How about GTK or QT?

Too late

[flibuste]

Yup...this comes too late: just after I finished switching my 3 home boxes from Win2K to Linux... What was I doing with Overdows 2K anyway?

Or better yet...

[Kjella]

...get Media Player Classic from here. A reimplementation of WMP6.4 + some various other stuff, like DVD playing without compromising simplicity. My default media player without a doubt :)

Kjella

Re:Or better yet...

[ncc74656]

...get Media Player Classic from here.

Cool...looks like the only thing it doesn't do is convert files from one format to another (like mplayer (on Linux) does), but it looks like there's other stuff (like video capture) in there that could be useful.

Re:now it's sun's turn: java 1.4.1+ has same probl

[Cnik70]

but the automatic download of updates can be turned off in the plugin manager. I noticed that I was getting messages that the update manager had failed every morning after I installed 1.4.2 on a Win2000 PC. Simply by bringing up the plugin manager I was able to turn it off (you can even schedule it to go on at different intervals).

Get a New Lawyer

[Kalak]

IANAL, and this doesn't make SP4 compliant with anything, but look at this clause:

Your use of the Components is subject to the terms and conditions of the end user license agreement (either from Microsoft or some other entity) under which you have previously licensed the Software (the "Software EULA") and this Supplemental EULA.

Now point it out to the lawyer you're claiming you're talking to. While SP4 includes technical components of SP3, contracts cannot include items not stated in them, or specifically referred to. SP3's agreement is not referred to, so if you haven't agreed to the SP3 EULA, and SP4's EULA doesn't include a provision, then you are not bound by that provision. Contracts don't imply much of anything; they either say it, or they don't. A Common Sense reading of the clause should tell you this much.

I wouldn't take business legal advice on the subject of Microsoft (or any other business) from someone going by the handle of "msoftsucks" with a Hotmail address (hypocrite) even if they claim to be talking to a lawyer. (Or take legal advice from /. on anything for that matter.)

And if you're really talking to a lawyer and they're missing this point, get a second opinion. Lawyers are not always in agreement.

Re:Get a New Lawyer

[msoftsucks]

As a stated before.. IANAL. I am only relaying what the client's lawyers have determined for their particular situation. Everyone should talk to a lawyer about their particular situation. HIPAA imposes some severe penalties for infringement and these lawyers are taking a very conservative approach on this. The EULAs themselves have not been tested in court and there is great uncertainty. These lawyers are also taking into account UCITA which M$ is one company that is actively trying to get enacted. True, UCITA for now has been stalled, but there is a consenses that over the next couple of years some form of it will eventually pass. The executive board has lost confidence with M$'s products with what the 150%-200% increase in licensing costs, screwy licensing, constant security problems, taking over users machines etc. They paused temporarily on Win2K to assess issues with WinXP and then decide and develop a new direction.

Executives don't like uncertainty. They are not about to bet the company on MS's products because they no longer trust that M$ is interested in their success. SP4 doesn't change any of this.

Now as for my msoftsucks1@hotmail.com email address. I thought that this was a humorous way of showing my contempt at what M$ has done to the Internet and computing. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.

really....

[luckster]

you ppl are f@#$ed in the head i came here thinking that the majority of this community would be mature enough to not get into the whole windows vs *nix SHIT! but no i find the same old misinformed crap that i see everywhere else *nix is great in any flavour windows is great (preference for nt4) netware USED to be the best file/print server on the market .... my point being all os's have their place and they all have holes....yes even your precious *nix the only problem i have with windows is the company that make it......i dont like the market power they have so really......grow up the lot of ya's

When?

[porkface]

Anyone care to dish a hint at when SP4 is due?

My Statement was clearly...

[cnelzie]

About SMALL/TINY corporations. I agree with you regarding VERY large publicly traded corporation.

PersoRe:Read up on Corporations...nally, I work for a small corporation that isn't publicly traded. The shares are owned by two of the company officers, which also make up the Board of Directors.

At this corporation, I am the Chief Technology/Information/Logistics Officer with my official title being IT Manager/Buyer. No, I am not one of the shareholders and I don't know if I would want to be a shareholder either...

You've got a point, I

[Archfeld]

did mean to sound like I was lording over anyone, the tone was in response to the parent post and his attitude that his very real and important, but admittedly small piece of the business world was the end all be all, and his decision was the only correct response. I guess I just fell into the same trap :(

Linux adverting VS nuts and bolts support

[Archfeld]

I realize IBM touts Linux support, but in the REAL world, they won't give any solid SLA's unless you are using AIX. We've also got a Z/OS mainframe in here and we are testing Linux on it. I have to assume we will get some iron clad uptime agreements on that platform. I don't mean to sound as if I don't like Linux, quite the opposite, but I am forced everyday to confront envrironments where it still falls short. The gap IS getting smaller, and the thought of Linus going to work on the kernel full time is AWESOME.
As for phasing out everything but Linux, we just signed long term agreements MVS support, MVS batch is still damn hard to beat and VTAM is SECURE like nothing else.....