Slashdot Mirror
MS To Limit Security Fixes to Legal Copies of Windows
rufey writes "An Associated Press artcile on MSNBC is reporting that Microsoft is going to start restricting access to security updates from pirated copies of its Windows operating systems. Starting in mid 2005, if you have a pirated copy of Windows, the only way to obtain security updates will be through the automatic updates mechanism. And even that method may be restricted at a future date. The article is light on details about what versions of Windows this will affect. Parts of the system to check for a valid copy of Windows is already used when downloading software (such as Media Player) from Microsoft - except that validation is currently optional." EnderWigginsXenocide points out Reuters' version of the story.
Do they mean corporate edition? :)
what happens? You'll get a lot more spam.
basically that's it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
...exactly how does MS plan to check piracy? What conditions are being checked? What files? In other words, how do they know? (mine's a corporate license that was given to me...hopefully it's not a hack, but who knows)
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
MS's new authentication and registration techniques do work on the small scale, your average person who does have the technical know-how to just copy the Win98 cd doesn't usually have the know how to find the crack for systems like WinXP that need to be "activated" i know alot of family/friends who used to just copy software but have bought XP cuz its "pirate proof".
Many people pirate Windows, for many reasons. Cost, availability, etc.
But imagine now if it's becomes a nuisance to crack everypart of the OS which phones home. People will go elsewhere... legal perhaps.... but what about the people who wont pay.
With Linux now coming of age, it seems about right that a significant market share would now drift in the direction of OpenSource operating systems.
Why should they be expected to support copies of Windows that people didn't pay for? Sure, this is an issue of customer support. But then, the people with 'pirated' copies of Windows aren't Microsoft's customers.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Talk about using your worst problem to your advantage. Now security holes sell windows. It's amazing what a monopoly can do isn't it?
If/When windows-update denies pirated versons of windows, people with pirated versons, who can't get security updates can risk having their machines turned into spam zombies.
And then every one on the internet will have a problem when the net is flooded with spam from unpatched zombies.
Or we can hope that people will switch to something some people consider a better OS when they no longer get updates from MS.
When i Moderate something -1 Flamebait, why do i not get another modpoint?
5--1 = 6
Awsome simply awsome the tighter they make their licensing the quicker the uptake for Linux. Hell I don't really know anyone other than some companies that buy legitimate copies of windows. Hopefully they will put a check in Office that will not let you run on a pirated system as well.
Short term revenue gain, long term loss.
Got Code?
How many more people would start taking a hard look at FOSS if they couldn't get their 'free' MS products?
They can still get their "free" MS products. They will continue to get their "free" MS products. Those people will just not update their systems through Windows Update. I imagine that plenty of people that paid for Windows in some form or another still don't bother to update their systems because they don't know or don't care to know.
All this is going to do is create an even more dangerous computing environment on the Internet and give more and more backing to "trusted computing".
Oh look, see, everyone pirates and the pirates are causing all the worms to propagate! Look! DRM will stop that!
Assuming that MS tinker with automatic Windows update so that it detects illegal installs when a user tries Widnows Update on a pirated copy, I can't see how this system is going to work.
At the moment, any user of Windows (legal or illegal) can MANUALLY find the system administrator patches easily on Microsoft's website.
Unless MS manage to work a pirate copy checking system into each and every one of their system patches, this system will be easily broken. (and even then pirates may distribute cracked patches)
My main beef with MS is that I paid for XP, but reinstalling the system just to fix it means that I have to play their stupid online registration game - which only gives me so many lives before "Game over"
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Seriously. This is how many family members are.
.
They ALL pirate Windows. (I'm the only geek in the family, too).
Linux is not acceptible, because: It doesn't look the same, it's not secure, it doesn't have office, it doesn't play games, it can't possibly be secure (cause its free).
Regardless of my counter arguments to ANY of these, they continue using Windows.
Except, now, that I have told them that they will either have to go out and purchase new computers (with new Windows licenses), or purchase Windows licenses (or be pwned by script kiddies), or switch to Linux.
Guess which one they choose?
The Free One. . . . . .
If you have to evaluate the pro/cons of switching Operating Systems, the price of Linux makes a whole lot of sense. Even if you decide to pay for some additional pieces of useful software, like Codeweaver's Crossover Office, or Transgaming's Wine (Cedega).
Of course, the snobs in the family are considering a move to OS X (probably cause I was showing off my newish 12" powerbook), but thats another story.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Althought I hate to give Microsoft any credit at all, I can't really say that, in theory, Microsoft is out of their right to do this. However, with the new Media Player, I have a real legitimate copy of Windows XP, and it was still unable to verify the authenticity of my software. Being optional, of course, I ignored it, but if that 100% legitimate copy stops working some day because Microsoft can't verify its authenticity, what then? Call Microsoft and tell them? I'm sure I don't have the receipt for a copy that I bought 3 years ago. Is Microsoft going to take my word for it that it's legit? What if it happens on a Sunday night before Christmas? Are they going to have operators standing by to get me working again?
I sure hope they think this policy out before implementing it. As a sysadmin of a small business network, I sure as hell hope that nothing goes wrong with our volume licensed copies.
In the immortal works of Han Solo, "I have a really bad feeling about this..."
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
If anything, it might nudge some people to a Mac. Apple has the brand recognition, and you can buy "For Macintosh OS X" software in stores. In other words, they know what they're getting with a Mac.
With Linux, on the other hand, most people wouldn't have any idea whether or not they would be able to use the software they want, let alone how to get it even if it did exist for Linux.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
As long as "work" won't mind losing one of their five activations. Unlike previous versions of Windows, the MSDN copies of XP are only valid for a limited number of installs, and you have to use your MSDN account ID to get the serial numbers from MS.
And hey, as long as you're using stuff from work, why not just take your printer home, too? They'll never miss it.
Or you could go here and get it even cheaper than 150 smackers. (and yes they are legit) http://www.salesintl.com/store.asp
I remember reading a Crypto-Gram article on this a while back. Here's some great, relevant commentary from Schneier. The original link is http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0406.html#4.
The security of your computer and your network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks. It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network. If everybody else doesn't maintain their security, we're all more vulnerable to attack. When there are lots of insecure computers connected to the Internet, worms spread faster and more extensively, distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch, and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail. The more insecure the average computer on the Internet is, the more insecure your computer is.
It's like malaria: everyone is safer when we all work together to drain the swamps and increase the level of hygiene in our community.
This is the backdrop from which to understand Microsoft's Windows XP security upgrade: Service Pack 2. SP2 is a major security upgrade. It includes features like Windows Firewall, an enhanced personal firewall that is turned on by default, and a better automatic patching feature. It includes a bunch of small security improvements. It makes Windows XP more secure.
In early May, stories were written saying that Microsoft would make this upgrade available to all XP users, both licensed and unlicensed. To me, this was a very smart move on Microsoft's part. Think about all the ways it benefits Microsoft. One, its licensed users are more secure. Two, its licensed users are happier. Three, worms that attack Microsoft products are less virulent, which means Microsoft doesn't look as bad in the press. Microsoft wins, Microsoft's customers win, the Internet wins. It's the kind of marketing move that businessmen write best-selling books about.
Sadly, the press was wrong. Soon after, Microsoft said the initial comments were wrong, and that SP2 would not run on pirated copies of XP. Those copies would not be upgradeable, and would remain insecure. Only legal copies of the software could be secured.
This is the wrong decision, for all the same reasons that the opposite decision was the correct one.
Of course, Microsoft is within its rights to deny service to those who have pirated its products. It makes sense for them to make sure performance or feature upgrades do not run on pirated software. They want to deny people who haven't paid for Microsoft products the benefit of them, and entice them to become licensed users. But security upgrades are different. Microsoft is harming its licensed users by denying security to its unlicensed users.
This decision, more than anything else Microsoft has said or done in the last few years, proves to me that security is not the first priority of the company. Here was a chance to do the right thing: to put security ahead of profits. Here was a chance to look good in the press, and improve security for all their users worldwide. Microsoft claims that improving security is the most important thing, but their actions prove otherwise.
SP2 is an important security upgrade to Windows XP, and I hope it is widely installed among licensed XP users. I also hope it is quickly pirated, so unlicensed XP users can also install it. In order for me to remain secure on the Internet, I need everyone to become more secure. And the more people who install SP2, the more we all benefit.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
It's funny how Microsoft seems to want people to take them seriously when they talk about pirating their stuff, yet pretty much rip off their customers any time they can. System dies and you want to transfer the license? Sorry! You have to buy it again! Why? You paid for it once, now on a system that will no longer function. Provided that you don't repair the old system and bring it online, what valid reason other than "we want more of your money" do they have for such restrictions? What makes them believe they have the authority to make such restrictions in the first place?
Well, that's all well and good for folks who use WinXP and have $150.00 to spare. How about folks who LIKE using Win2k but have lost their original disk and reinstalled using a friend's key instead of being forced to pay $150-300 for a new copy of software they already owned? Or people who are still using WinME and Win98 who patch what they can from the dribbles off MS table (and they use WinME or Win98 and haven't upgraded because *GASP* those versions of Windows do what they need them to do and they don't want to pay another MS tax to upgrade)? The answer isn't as simple as dish out $150 bucks for XP (or 2k if you can find it) for a new key - there are lots of people who can't afford this (legitimate owner of the software or not).
Now all those people who can't afford, won't buy, and don't have "automatic screwup my computer" turned on on their computers will just ADD to the internet spam and increase the S/N ratio of crap that's already out there. Yeah, that's just frigging great... more zombies, spambots, haxxored boxes, and virus spewing PCs.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Well it means that a large chunk of machiens will remain open to those who wish to install bot-nets on them and DDoS whoever annoys them on IRC.
I think they'd probably have done a lot better if the next version of DirectX can't install on a illegal version of windows, people generally don't give much of a damn if they can't get security patches, if they can't get the latest game to work however the'll be pissed.
At this rate, I'll be jumping ship to a Mac Mini any day now just to get spun up.
What's holding you back? Go for it! Just remember to get the 512M upgrade - Apple should be ashamed for even offering a 256M option.
Hi,
It's not a question of whether it's "right" or not. Fact is that there is a tremendous number of pirated Windows copies out there. These will be far more vulnerable than they are now; the result of this will initially be to hurt their owners, but in the end, everyone suffers due to an explosion of botnets/DDoS/spam gateways, etc. etc. etc.
I am even inclined to believe that even semi-clued kiddies will not be unduly affected by this because, as another poster pointed out, obtaining an illicit collection of updates probably won't be tremendously difficult.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
MS should look into making a reduced "Gamers" edition of Windows.
:)
They have two: Xbox and XP Home. They even bundle a computer with the Xbox version.
I say it's good.
You're obviously not in IT... if you were you'd be screaming. Restricted security updates means more virus seeds and faster virus distribution.
Funny, my receipt from the store doesn't have the word "lease" on it anywhere. It was a sale.
Separate downloads will always be available because corporate users generally do not use Windows Update for their workstations and servers. They have to download separate patches so they can be fully tested, then distribute it themselves. Whether or not these downloads will be available to everyone on their website is unknown. But the article only says this license check "also" will be used for Windows Update, not Windows Update exclusively.
There's no way they'll alienate all of their corporate customers. Updates will still be available as separate downloads or on CD.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm not sure what you are asking for. I'll give answers to both possibilities. I must say, though, either you are poorly informed, or a troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I am usually poorly informed as well. BTW: This is about SuSE. Why? Because I think its the currently slickest linux Distro. I've used Windows/Mandrake/Debian/Knoppix/Redhat (old)/Fedora/Slack.
.) Don't take this well written guide as an indication that installation is complicated. Its not. Try it. It's much easier than a Windows install. The guide is there so that you can understand the process, if you'd like to. The User/Administration book is good, too. Covers many pieces of software that come with SuSE, such as OpenOffice.org, or the Gimp. Perhaps ~400 pages of documentation, but it feels like reading a very good quality textbook (with the occasionaly grammatical error.
I prefer SuSE. Oh, and updates are cake. The included auto-updater asks if you like to turn on auto-updates, and if not, would you please regularly run the updater.
A: Install for the OS.
SuSE has the slickest installer I've seen, Operating System wise. From Bootup to Desktop, everything is graphical. Most hardware is auto-detecting. Hardware which includes difficult to distribute drivers, such the NVIDIA drivers, or various WLAN card drivers, are automatically pulled from the internet after first bootup (using the Auto-Updater). SuSE create a WIDE variety of packages, including all kinds of neat software like Main Actor (Non-linear video editing), and a well integrated OpenOffice.org (looks like KDE). All of this is done via a very easy click through GUI.
Excellent, incredible documentation, too, especially if you buy the box set (~$70.00). The installer book (Yes, installation has its OWN manual) covers everything from fairly easyish topics (What is Hard disk partitioning? How to I set my Windows to bootup by default? etc etc . .
Feel free to burn a copy of the CDs/DVDs from your friend, though. YaST, the only previously NON-FREE part of the installer, was freely licensed last year. Now, its legal to distribute the CDs/DVDs, as far as I know, as well as install one $70.00 copy on as many systems as you like.
B: Installing software once your OS is up and running.
As long as SuSE rpms are avaliable.
1. Download package (.rpm).
2. Click on package.
3. Dialog pops up. "This action require root access. Please type your root password".
4. Type root password.
5. Watch bar go across screen. Either YaST will say "Dependencies needed, please insert disc (1-5) of your installation discs), or "Installation Complete".
6. Done.
Many projections now release SuSE packages in addition to Debian/Fedora packages. Don't be too afraid to use a SuSE package for 9.1, most of those should work with 9.2. Anything earlier, however, will have to probably be compiled from source. Before you do this, however, MAKE SURE YOU LOOK at the installation media. I CANNOT stress how often I went through the trouble of installing something from source before I realized that although it may not be avaliable from the Sourceforge project page, a SuSE RPM with updates was avaliable on my installation media.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Because you can't dowload a patch on a fixed, or otherwise non-vulnerable (Mac, Linux box, etc.) machine to copy and install on vulnerable machines.
The only machines that can be patched this way are machines vulnerable without the patch. If a vulnerability that can be exploited in less time than the verification takes (let alone downloading the patch) you can effectively have a machine you cannot ever use on the net.
You do realizes it's possible to download software for one machine running one o.s. on a different machine running a different o.s. don't you?
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
How about folks who LIKE using Win2k but have lost their original disk and reinstalled using a friend's key instead of being forced to pay $150-300 for a new copy of software they already owned?
That does not make sense to me. If I buy a mobile phone, and somehow lose it, I cannot go to the reseller and claim a new phone simply because I "already own it". If I lose it, then it's lost and I will have to buy a new one.
Similarly, if I've lost my software key, then I've lost my proof of ownership, and I'm just as much a pirate as anybody else if I use a friend's key when installing.
No one can expect Microsoft to cover for one's own sloppiness - if you lose your key then you'll have to buy a new one. There's no "I already own this" argument to be made when you've lost it yourself.
Was there something special about win2k that prevented you from writing down your product key on a piece of paper and storing it with other pieces of important papers?
I could see using a friends disk if you lost yours but you should have been able to use your own key. There are something things that you should know are important. You save tax information, you save receipts in case something you bought is defective, you save warranty papers, why not save your product keys?
If you can't afford it don't use it. No body is forcing anyone under threats of violence to use Windows. For a while I couldn't afford Windows so I used Linux. I didn't want to do something that could leave me open to fines or arrest and mainly I wanted to do what was 'right' as defined by law. Now that I can afford it I will buy a legit copy with a legit key (that I will write down and store) and I will be okay. There will always be Have's and Have Not's in this world. Just because your a Have Not doesn't automatically make it okay for you to use a pirated copy of software.
This wont be MS fault if your using something you shouldn't be using and can't get your updates. Those still using 98 legitimately is a different topic.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Now we can look forward to never updating our systems simply because it will take 3 days to download the patch.
This space for rent
If the bank falls for your sob story and coughs up another twenty, they're out twenty bucks. If MS hands over your key, they aren't out anything except maybe some support time, and they've earned customer goodwill besides!
GTRacer
- DRM still sucks...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Indeed, unfortunately - practically all of my gaming is done online. NWN, BF42/DC/BF1918, WoW...true a properly firewalled network should not be vulnerable, and I do have a stand alone 'nix firewall box running interference to my network, but I recently built a new gaming box. When the time came for the OS, whether to purchase or pirate, I figured this time, why not spend the dough and do it properly, and not roll the dice on the OS when I had taken the time to do everything else right on the new system.
The other reason? Meebe I'm just getting older, but I figured that MS did provide me with the OS so I can play my favorite games and relax when I get home. I use OO, even on Windows, so an office suite is taken care of. I donate money to open source projects that I use, why not to the vendor of my OS? (let the flames on that last comment begin wheee!)
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
I don't care if it's a legal or illegal zombie spaming me into the ground. MS fucked up and MS should do something about it.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
This is just a ruse to get folks to pay less attention to the fact that the MS OS is generally less secure for most people than it should be...
No it's not....it's about a company being forced to deal with a catch-22 system. If there were no "pirated" copies of Windows out there, it wouldn't be a problem. If there weren't people too damn cheap to pay for a copy, there wouldn't be a problem. Security updates are important...Personally, I think MS should find a way to automatically shutdown any pirated copy of Windows - after all, if you didn't pay for it, you don't deserve to use it - you won't lose your data, just your ability to access it from the pirated environment.
Now I'll await all the people who reply to this saying "if they don't patch all Windows systems out there, the chaos will be hell on the net" - to that I say "Well, had they bought their copy of Windows and not pirated it because they are too cheap to buy a piece of software that they are using than isn't free, then that's their own damn problem". Oh, and don't come and say "Well, is Windows didn't have so many security holes, maybe more people would buy it"...Those folks who use a flavor of Linux should know there's just as many, if not more, security holes and whatnot in Linux - just that not as many people really care about Linux for exploiting.
I'm sure they work great "IF" you can get hardware accelerated open GL support to work properly.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
if you have a pirated copy of Windows, the only way to obtain security updates will be through the automatic updates mechanism. And even that method may be restricted at a future date
For those of you who don't use a Windows machine, you should know that the "automatic updates mechanism" is the way that legitimate and illegitimate users of Windows obtain their security fixes, the way they always have, and the way they likely always will. This article is talking about Microsoft AntiSpyware - the product which they acquired by purchasing GIANTCompany.com. Microsoft has made it Very Clear that they are going to always allow users with pirated copies of Windows to download security fixes. This article says nothing to indicate that users with illegal copies of Windows have any further restriction in downloading security fixes, nor that they will not be able to do so in the future.
The only 'security fixes' referred to in this article, are those performed by Microsoft AntiSpyware. This has nothing to do with their OS, browser, and other product security fixes / patches.
Come on Slashdot! Get the story right!
M$ may not be dumb . but they are not that smart either. Basically they charge so much for a legitimate copy of Windows that most people are forced to pirate. Windows XP home edition costs over $200 boxed ..
... to deny access to software updates completely would be a public relations disaster and sink the company back into the almost constant negative mainstream press that has haunted them for the last 2-3 years. What they are doing today is more about the message, not action.
As a result, 40% of Windows installations are pirated (could be even higher in some countries)
Furthermore their monopoly is dependent on pirated software, so it is probably in their best interest not to ruffle the pirate feathers too much. These are not loyal customers and could at any moment jump ship given an alternative. Thats what Linux is banking on.
That does not make sense to me. If I buy a mobile phone, and somehow lose it, I cannot go to the reseller and claim a new phone simply because I "already own it". If I lose it, then it's lost and I will have to buy a new one.
Similarly, if I've lost my software key, then I've lost my proof of ownership, and I'm just as much a pirate as anybody else if I use a friend's key when installing.
No one can expect Microsoft to cover for one's own sloppiness - if you lose your key then you'll have to buy a new one. There's no "I already own this" argument to be made when you've lost it yourself.
First, as the other poster mentioned, a mobile phone is a physical entity that costs something to manufacture, and therefore costs a lot to replace. Therefore, reasonably, the manufacturer shouldn't have to pay for your sloppiness. However, a logical entity such as a software key costs NOTHING to replace, and software costs VIRTUALLY NOTHING to copy.
Second, you own that cell phone that you purchased. It's yours. But you DO NOT OWN SOFTWARE. You own a license to use that softare. And the key is not that license! The key is simply proof of the license, and losing the key does not equal losing the license that you own.
Basically, whether you have the right to use software when you've lost the piece of paper that says "you have a right to use this software" has *nothing* to do with whether you have the right to a new free phone if you lose your old one. The analogy is horribly flawed.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Well, I can see this working two ways...
1) People will get infected with worms, trojans, etc because of Windows security flaws. Because they can't update anymore (potentially), they'll run out and buy a legit copy of windows for $150-$200.
or
2) People will get infected with worms, trojans, etc because of Windows security flaws. They'll say "who cares if my box sends spam or transmits worms, I'm not spending a dime" and just let their box be infected so long as they can keep using it. Spammers and such will love this, and create worms that are purposefully non-destructive and simply allow for remote DoS attacks, email spamming, etc.
I bet on #2...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I personally do not welcome the day when 50'000 windows pcs will start hammering my openbsd/linux servers. Denying patches from 40-90% of ALL installed windows boxes is insane. MS is making a huge mistake with this, if he denies access to security patches. Those users are not only a danger to themselves, but to EVERYONE ELSE too. I mean, when a script kiddy can build up 10-50k of infected windows boxes in a few months, what stops him from using them? Helping the bad guys by making more boxes vulnerable is not the solution. Yeah, you can say that they can still Autoupdate, but denying people using illegal copies who are quite tech-savvy from security patches WILL leave more boxes vulnerable. I wish this would be the push for some people to switch to alternative operating systems, but this is never going to be entirely true.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
There certainly are a lot of pissed of Windows pirates here.
Just an observation....
Others have already pointed out the obvious holes in your analogy. Allow me to point out some non-obvious ones.
If you lost your phone, would you also have to sign up for a new contract? By your analogy, you would also lose your phone service, and would have to get a new number, new account, sign a new contract, etc.
If I truly do own that key, then I should be able to sell it. In turn, whoever I sell it to should be able to sell it, and so on. That is not the case however.
If you lose your proof of ownership (that would be the official hologram on the actual certificate that contains your key), do you lose all rights to that software? If you write down your key, then lose your hologram card, are you a pirate? You don't have the "proof" of ownership anymore.
Has it sunk in yet that digital works are not the same as physical works? The same rules cannot apply. That is why legally, copyright violations are not the same as stealing. They are different things, with different rules under the law.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I've got a feeling if they actually attempt this, the courts will step in:
1. Companies extreme power in the industry could cause national security issues.
2. Public safety/greater good (software failure could cause criticial system failure).
3. Liability of future exploits that take advantage of these unpatched systems.
I don't think the US, in this paranoid time would allow this to take place. At least not in the court system.
Microsoft's only recourse against pirated software is legal. They need to face that. What Microsoft needs to do is use their political swing to encourage congress to adopt stricter laws and enforcement policies for pirated software. THe software industry is a large industry in the US. It not only powers our country, but employs signifigant sums of people. It's in their interest to ensure that profit isn't undermined by piracy.
Slashdot is an amazingly popular site, and still only represents a microscopic fraction of people involved in theindusty.
That is showing its age. The only ashtrays at my job are the curb in front of the building.
I read articles like this and I think how it will affect legit users more than hackers/pirates/'thieves of IP'. Almost every time a large corporation puts out some blanket policy to 'stop theft' or 'create security' it hits the average user hardest. Most average users don't worry about patches that much to begin with...why? In the case of MS who tells them just turn on Automatic Updates and forget about it....then their machine crashes due to some update. Now they call the vendor for help(Dell, Gateway, etc). The technically challenged(or even sometimes somewhat technical user) is dragged through support calls for just following procedure. Now, bulk licensed copies, like those at the University I work...how do those get validated? There is no doubt that employees take home copies of slipstreamed WinXpSp2 and the University bulk license and use it. So, this is a legit license. The user may be using it improperly, but it is a legit key. What about the 'hardware checking' in XP? For example: A user changes out video card because they like to game, could take advantage of upgrade, but are not really that technical. Changing hardware like a video is rather simple these days...go to Best Buy or some store, buy the card, install the drivers...bing...done! Right? No. With the introduction of XP a user can in cases have their license questioned by MS for simply changing hardware in their machine; this can cause support calls, down times, and general headaches for something that is a users right to do. Continuing on with example... A message comes up after driver install to reboot. Being the 'good user' the installer follows directions. Machine comes back up. Hardware is all valid, the O/S license is valid...but....XP won't let user continue...call MS...get new key....your system has changed......geez! This simple example isn't anything that unusual. I've seen it happen multiple times. Just off the cuff....If Windows were to cost $50 for annual subscription(in America or any country where that price is 'fair') an an individual wasn't going to have their key revolked for hardware changes, didn't have to keep proving to the company they have a legit key, and could generally DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR STUFF I'd say discrete license checks would be fair. As it is, users seem to feel the need to update their ENTIRE machine every 2 years due to a sort of odd marketing training by hardware vendors and MS that their machine no longer cuts it....very flawed...and possibly expensive for many average users or even corporations. Other posts have already said this but....I too can do EVERYTHING I need on a Linux, Mac, or maybe even the new Amiga machines soon....except Gaming. If gaming ever moves to another platform with the support level that exists on Windows, I'm gone. That said, the average user doesn't use their machine beyond say 10% percent of its potential, yet continually upgrade to better hardware to support new O/S every two years(Longhorn delays are the exception). Why? I have a computer to run apps, video/audio editing, gaming, word processing, email, chat, etc. Why should the O/S get in my way? The purpose of ANY O/S is to shut up and let users get whatever it is they need done. To wrap up, I see this as desperation by MS. It is alarming to see the U.S. stuck with lousy licensing models while other countries wise up and demand better. I really don't care who does it at this point....Linux, Apple, Be O/S, Amiga4.x, SUN, etc. There really needs to be the competition in O/S realm to accomplish for users in software that AMD did for hardware. When Corporations are FORCED to compete, everybody wins. Nuff said.
I don't see anything wrong with your train of thought. I have also bought a copy of WinXP for gaming purposes. I run two boxes on a KVM at my desk... the WinXP box is only used gaming, and VPN to work when I have to work on Win code.
Like you, I also donate to OSS projects that I like, and in a much larger amount than the $150ish I paid for my WinXP.
I haven't bought/don't use any other MS products at home, and really don't plan to. If, for some reason I do, I'll pay for that as well.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
If MS hands over your key, they aren't out anything except maybe some support time, and they've earned customer goodwill besides!
But Microsoft doesn't run on customer good will. They run on money, like most companies. If you get a free copy of the program, that is $XXX less they bring in.
I don't care how much money Microsoft is making. Breaking a license by not paying for commercial software is wrong. What if someone said, shit, I want to use Linux in my commercial project, but I'm not giving away my source mods. I'll just break the GPL, because after all, we're talking tangible vs. intagible property, and the makers of Linux "aren't out anything except maybe some support time, and they've earned customer goodwill besides!"
You can try to justify it in your mind, but it's still wrong. I have more respect for the wankers that have the balls to come right out and say, hey, I know this is wrong, but I am going to steal* this software instead of pay for it.
*Yes I understand in most cases we're talking about copyright infringement, but the fact is you are taking something which does not belong to you because you have not paid for it.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
What an excellent way to shift the blame.
"Well, there wouldn't be so many worms and exploits out there if it wasn't for those damned pirates."
"Sorry dear customer, due to all those evil pirates, you got infected by a worm."
"It wasn't our software, it was the pirates."
For your Mom, the Mac is ready to replace Windows.
For people more knowledgeable and wanting to be on the cheap, Linux is ready to replace windows on hardware they already have.
It's a killer two-pronged attack. And I agree with the parent that the harder you actually make something to pirate, the more people you will shove into legitimate sofwtare - some of it will be replacing pirated copies with legal ones, but other instances will be customers jumping ship to cheaper or easier solutions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...But I totally agree.
The analogy is horribly flawed.
Yes. I have heard that stupid property analogy over and over, and it simply does not apply.
Of course, if we were all logicians, we would already know that "argument by analogy" is a classic logical fallacy. That, however, is beside the point...since this particular analogy is also so inappropriate.
Data does not obey the same laws of physics as property. Therefore, data is not property, should not be thought of as property, and should not be governed by the same laws as property.
Of course it CAN have governing laws, and they CAN include concepts of ownership, replication and/or use regulation, and so forth. But such concepts should be built upon an accurate understanding of how data behaves, as opposed to an understanding of how material objects behave.
Last I checked, the changes aren't automatic. The poster must have just clicked through and not read the dialog like a typical Windows user...
... are going to post something like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", or some variation of that, the fact is: most Windows users don't know much about computers or software, which is not a good thing in Windows. They rely on Windows holding their hand and let the crappy software make decisions for them.
Running Linux requires that the users learn about the os and about software, I have a friend who's 14 year old son is doing a good job of this. This means that Linux users are more intelligent, as far as software and information security goes, than most Windows users.
I have been using Linux for two years (7 machines at home; 19 machines at work) and I can do things on my Linux box that Windows couldn't even dream of doing. And, since running Linux, I have never paid money for a software application.
So, it's not that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, the truth is that most Windows users aren't ready for a real operating system. It's the users that need to change, not Linux.
That's right, Shawn, I do. And that's exactly why it bugs me. I already have enough shit like that to keep track of without adding software activation codes, dongles or backup copies of my activation files.
I don't use Linux because I can't afford Windows. I use it because I can install it where I need to without jumping through activation hoops, without keeping track of activation codes, and without worrying about being audited by BSA or MSFT trying to "help" me with automated software audits. Screw that.
Freedom is better than staying with MSFT.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I guess that would be a save bet since scenario #2 is already happening, even without the new anti-piracy measures. I've seen (licenced) windows systems where the "new updates ready to be installed" icon in the systray had been ignored for over half a year...
I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
You can't even buy their hardware without their OS on it.
Thats true. But whats your point? Who is arguing that you need to have computer sans an OS? I think the apple heads are just pointing out that XP costs approx $180 and the new, and I dare say pretty cool, Mac-mini is going for $500. For not much more you get an OS AND a computer.
Is Apple paying all you Slashdotters who post your little "time to switch" spam
Ive read quite a bit of Linux zealots in these posts claiming its time to switch to Linux. Is Linus paying for them to post those messages? Come on. Fans of Apple do not have to be paid to try to convert people to what they feel is the best OS out there.
I really like the advantage of having to play FPS games with a joypad. I also love how Half-Life 2 won't come out on a console and how Doom 3 isn't out yet 4 months after its PC release. Not to mention the huge numbers of RTS games released on consoles. And how could I forget the 150k online players of CS? Or the millions of online users of MMORPG games?
Then don't use Windows at all (and for that matter don't download music either)!!
/. Everyone says XXX sucks, but immediately goes and downloads it for free then claims they wouldn't have bought it anyways? /boggle
If you hate MS quit being a hypocrite and don't use their products. All people like you do is help their cause by giving them marketshare ammo and ammo the seek stricter copyright laws and enforcement.
I never will understand the mentality here on
From the sound of it this decision by MS could potentially cause future problems for me, unless anyone has ideas. I have multiple Windows based PCs, all with legal licenses. I live in the middle of no where. The only option I have for highspeed is sattilite access but I refuse to pay $500 + for equipment fees and then $70 a month for around 500kbps I think? Therefore I am still stuck with dial-up. Since bandwidth is limited, I have to take some extra steps to download Windows updates. I go to Windows update, see what updates I need then I manually download them one by one from microsoft.com. I do this manualybecause I can save the updates like a regular file and then install them later on the other machines. If I use automatic update I have to re-download the updates for each machine which literally takes forever. If microsoft stops letting me download the updates manually from www.microsoft.com/downloads I'm going to need another method, any ideas? I guess I could go to my nearest friend who has highspeed but thats about 20 min away and it would be impractical taking my PC everytime.
managment - "lets stop all pirated copies of windows by not allowing them to update, that'll stop them getting all those brillant new features we pack into updates! those pesky pirates will be so heart broken they will be forced to run out and buy a copy!" ...meanwhile in the real world.....
"in other news, china and most of asia is swamped with viruses, having the knock on effect that everyone else in the world get 100000000+ spam emails a day and constantly bombarded with virus activity"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....