Slashdot Mirror
Windows Genuine Advantage Makes Few Friends
With a reminder to "not get silly here," ocbwilg joins several others in casting doubt on the source of the rumor about a mass turn-off:
"A 'front-line tech-support drone' who gets paid $12 an hour to read the support script is somehow going to know what sort of top-secret plans Microsoft has for the next six months? I highly doubt it. It sounds more like the sort of thing that a help desk drone would say to try to persuade a clueless computer user to do things their way.Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from 'Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates' to 'I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it.' Especially not in the span of 6 months."
Along the same lines, another reader asks "Why are we making all this fuss over what could just be a rumor unwittingly spread by a clueless help desk worker? Since when did help-desk techs become privy to future, unannounced plans for a company, let alone ones as sensitive as this one?"
Besides the dubious source, the sheer scale of such an action convinces reader Willith that it's not going to happen — he promises to eat his hat if it does:"The thing to look it is how this might affect legitimate corporate versions of XP — and by that, I mean VLK versions actually being used in an enterprise setting.The company for which I work has more than 100,000 copies of XP running in offices on six continents, participating in one of the largest Active Directory installations in the world. Every system's load is tightly controlled and managed, and I can tell you that there are no copies of WGA anywhere on any of those desktops (I've seen the SMS reports). Nor will there ever be.
People say to 'vote with your dollars,' but your dollars, and my dollars, don't matter. Large corporate dollars matter — like the kind of dollars that can outfit a company's world-wide IT needs. WGA has no place on a configuration-controlled and managed enterprise desktop, and MS would never risk upsetting their real customers — corporate Windows & Office sales — to emplace something like this."
Working machines matter to smaller users, too, though, and Kremit mentions reports spotted online of "Dell desktops, valid CDs, and other licensed systems having problems with WGA," writing "When these systems stop working, people are going to flip. To them, this will be akin to the computer crashing and taking their data along with it."
Other readers had some specific gripes about the way WGA currently misfires in their own experience; Jnaujok maintains that it hasn't worked well for him:
"What about my two perfectly legitimately licensed machines at home that fail the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' test every time they update WGA? Considering that one of them is my copy of Advanced Server 2003, I won't be exactly happy when it gets killed this fall. (Hey, I just use it for the mail server program because I can't stand sendmail.)And I'm just a little bitty guy with one server running. What happens when this hits some company's server farm and they all shut down? How much liability is Microsoft going to have when that happens?
And every time they 'fix' my copy after the new WGA comes out, I have to make manual registry changes. Can you imagine having to do that on a 500 machine server farm?"
Not everyone objects to the idea of harsher treatment for unlicensed copies of Windows; several readers welcomed the idea of more active license revocation by Microsoft as beneficial to the world of free software; WhiteWolf666 described a turn in that direction on Microsoft's part as a "solution to the Linux pricing problem," writing
"35 percent of PC software is pirated. I'm guessing that Windows XP is highly represented in that group (of pirated software; i.e. at least 30% of worldwide Windows installs are not legal). If even 10% of that user base decides to switch to Linux rather than pay the Windows tax, it'll be a substantial marketshare boost.Reader soren42 lays out what this might mean: "If you suddenly force all the non-legal users off your platform, you're forcing them to use something else. Which means, in turn, more demand for OpenOffice, games on Linux, GAIM, ad infinitum — until there is a more, better, complete Linux end-user software stack to seriously compete with Windows."And the remaining 90%? They might decide that the MSRP cost of Windows is too close to the MSRP of a brand-new dual-core Mac.
I'm thrilled. MS has ridden on piracy marketshare for far too long. I hope they do every thing they possibly can to stamp out software piracy, and I hope they succeed."
Other readers share that sentiment, with a twist: on the basis that remote turn-off really is in the near future of Windows, some, like reader ewhac, say they're through with Microsoft: "I just built a brand new machine, primarily for gaming. Oblivion has been fairly sweet. But it looks like I won't be playing those games anymore — not unless the entire game industry decides to support Linux. ... This is morally and ethically reprehensible, and Microsoft knows it, and apparently doesn't care. Well, I do care. I do not, and shall not, grant consent to Microsoft to remotely snoop on my machine, regardless of their ostensible reasons. If my copy of Windows stops functioning as a result, I will take that as a maliciously incorporated product defect, and respond accordingly."
Most people won't be doing the same, in the eyes of RightSaidFred99, who scoffs "Give me a break, people won't be moving to Linux. They'll find a hack for Windows, they'll buy Windows, or more than likely they'll just buy a new PC that comes with Windows legally bundled. Nobody is moving to Linux because the games aren't there, the thousands of cheesy little Windows applications people love aren't there, it's different (read: scary), and it's a pain in the ass for most joe schmoes to install."
Large corporations running Windows are in a more delicate position. Reader lynx_user_abroad doubts that many corporate users are likely to go seek out either free or illegal alternatives to updated Windows licenses. To the suggestion that many users would do just that, he writes"In a contest between you and them, I'd suspect Microsoft is in the better position to understand the nature of the addiction they have created. And I'd feel safe saying that even if you yourself had succeeded in completely breaking your addiction to Windows, which I suspect you haven't.Most people, most businesses are so hopelessly addicted to Windows that they literally can't even conceptualize their own survival without it. I'm always amused when I read the latest rant about a Windows vulnerability on an IE-only site, or read about some program manager publishing their 'Linux Strategy' document as a PowerPoint chart.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Office documents the average business has, or the potential millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and business intelligence those documents represent. Now, even if they have the skill and determination to propose leaving Windows behind, think of the complexity of dealing with a customer base which might not be as skilled, or determined."
Several readers say WGA's phone-home capability doesn't affect the users who Microsoft would be expected to target, anyhow. GenericJoe says "Forget that," writing "I am a legitimate user of Windows. I know I am, because I bought a licensed copy from a reputable dealer. Thus, I figure, I don't need the WGA to tell me if I have a legitimate copy. I do have a legitimate copy. ...And Microsoft doesn't get to know anything else about anything I do, or affect me. The idea that I can be held hostage because I don't want to trust software from Microsoft. Well, that's kind of crazy."
Reader riptide_dot offers similar sentiments, asking "What if I did pay for [Windows] and I don't want the WGA software installed? I'm not allowed to use the software I paid for because I don't want to add on to it? That's like selling me a car and telling me that if I refuse to put a spoiler on the back that I won't be allowed to drive it."
As to actually unauthorized users, Akaihiryuu asserts that
Based on the common-sense arguments made above, unless Microsoft manages to not only flatten wrinkles in WGA as it currently operates, but also convince more users that check-ins with Redmond are close enough to their best interest to be worth accepting, mass turn-offs for Windows XP users seem unlikely. Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:"[P]eople who knowingly run illegal copies of Windows won't be affected by this in the slightest. These people have been cracking WGA since it came out, first with Javascript, then later with cracked DLLs. I'm sure there will be a crack for this within 24 hours of it being released (there always has been in the past), and these people will able to get it very easily. The only people that this will affect are
- People who think they have a legal copy of Windows but really don't because whoever they bought it from screwed them, and
- People with legal copies who either don't want to run WGA for some reason, or
- People with legal copies who run WGA and it mistakenly identifies their machine as 'not legit.'"
Doesn't this just ring of the "...more you tighten your grip the more will slip through your fingers..." paraphrased quote. The more of a pain in the ass it is to register and keep track and pay and pay and pay will give more and more people the motivation to move to Linux or other free alternative.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Very little, if any. The EULA is worded in such a way that they could be entitled to do anything, but generally speaking, the clauses they'd rely on tend not to hold up all that well.
There's no way they'd risk it even if their EULCYA did give them permission.
Problem is (for microsoft) even if you as a user agree to such an thing, you still have legal recourse. If they try to pull that bullshit about the EULA, the judge will laugh them out of court. "You can't sue us" clauses are purely there to discourage people too stupid to realize that, in the USA at least, YOU CAN ALWAYS SUE. You may not win, but if Microsoft really started doing this, they'd probably lose a big Class Action lawsuit, unfortunately probably not big enough(In my opinion such a ruling, in order to actually fulfill its purpse would have to award a. cash, and b. be in the multi-billion dollar range. Fining Microsft millions does nothing, if governments really wanted to have an effect, they need to lay down a $20billion or so fine. that would make a difference), but they'd still get a court order to stop in all probability.
Isn't this what windows activation was supposed to be for??
Go away. Not everyone of us have the time or the heart to read 800+ comments. Slashback offers a quick way for me to see what other thinks. I don't care about ad impressions: I only want insightful comments; If doing so increases a website's ad impressions, so be it.
Even assuming for a moment that Microsoft was able to identify with 100% accuracy any machine that was running an illegal copy of Windows, and with no false-positives, I still don't think that it would be in their best interst to shut down illegal copies of Windows.
Regardless of what your favorite Operating System is, there is no doubt that Windows largest competitive advantage at the moment is it's popularity. Whether or not you think Windows is better or equal to Linux or *BSD or any other OS in any technical way, the biggest reason that people run Windows is because everyone else runs Windows, and the programs they want to use are written for Windows.
They cant compete on price with free while charging for Windows, and they can't compete technologically right now with Linux because when it comes down to it: A: Linux and Windows have their own respective strenghts- but in the hands of a competent user/administrator, neither is vastly superior to the other, and B: Anyone who is computer literate enough to be pursuaded by technical arguments already knows this- or at least will recgonize marketing BS, and anyone who isn't will ignore it anyway because they don't understand it.
If they eliminate the possibility of using Windows for free, then they are going to start losing users to Linux, BSD or Mac. The more users they lose, the less advantage they have because "everyone uses it" which will drive more people into looking at alternatives.
Like many relatively expensive proprietary applications, the success of Windows is based largely on the fact that it can be pirated. Making it impossible or even reasonably difficult to do so will result in people looking at alternatives. For most people, software has no inherent value, so people make a decision based off what is cheapest and what everyone else uses.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Yeah, I can blame them for it. It's going to have 0 effect on the people they are supposedly trying to stop. Even if it does somehow hamper that "real pirates" for lack of a better way to say it, those people aren't going to go out and pay for windows, they're going to pirate something else or use something that is legally free. So it's most likely not going to harm the people they claim it's intended to and it's not going to get them paid for the majority of pirated copies of Windows. It will, and does, at least in a small way affect the privacy of legal windows users and if the WGA required deal turns out to be true, steps on privacy even moreso and potentially costs legal, valid, users extra money.
So, no benefit to MS, no benefit to valid users, no harm to pirates, potential harm to valid users. Yeah, I can blame them.
You think slashdot gets $$ per post? I imagine the number of readers is more important than posters, don't you? 800 posts is 800 extra impressions, which is a drop in the fricken' bucket compared to the number of visitors per day. Maybe the editors are actually trying to perform some kind of editorial service?
Pretty much anything the editors do here, some bozo is gonna complain.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
While it can be debated whether such an action by Microsoft would spur the mass adoption of non-Windows operating systems, one thing is clear: the number of bots/potential bots will go down, possibly dramataically. I mean, how many computers out there are suspected of running illegitimate copies of Windows? I mean, the low end would say at least 10%, though a more reasonable picture would probably be much higher.
Considering that Windows (particularly XP, but any version, really) is so aggressively attacked by rootkits, trojan horses, and other kinds of malware that are used to create botnets, one could assume that by eliminating, say 35% of the Windows installed base, the number of bots would go down by about the same, provided that the people running pirated copies of Windows are representative of the entire set of Windows users.
This, of course, means that there will, for a time, be 35% less spam, spyware, and other shit being spewed over the Internet, again keeping with the same assumption. Of course, 35% is a number I just pulled out of my ass and could be substituted with any percentage. I honestly don't know about the number of pirated Windows copies that are in circulation. However, I know the number is significant, and the elimination of these computers from the Internet will probably be a good thing.
As for pirated copies of Windows that aren't connected to the Internet, well, they're not going to get shut down, but they're also nut pumping out any of the crap, either.
However, this option assumes that Microsoft is willing to go all nuclear on its user base, which I doubt. It certainly would not be good business sense to drive your current user base to use the competition, even if they're pirating your product. Furthermore, doing so is also bad corperate karma (yeah, companies have karma, too) and terrible PR. No ammount of money can rebuild a reputation for a company if its actions now mean that little Johnny can't do his homework because his computer got nuked by Microsoft's death ray.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
If I've purchased a legitimate copy, and I installed it with a license agreement prior to the release of WGA, by what legal authority can Microsoft disable my operating system?
Executive authority. The current US administration has effectively given them a get-out-of-jail-free card, by telling the DoJ not to spend money on prosecuting Microsoft. Civil suits they can simply outspend, by dragging the lawsuit out so long that nobody but another megacorp can afford to finish it - and other megacorps are always willing to settle for cash or cash-equivalents.
There're are tons of things:
Maybe all future updates will require WGA to be installed.
Maybe all future downloads of any sort will require WGA to be installed.
Maybe they just will stop offering tech support unless you have WGA installed.
Ok, just 3 off the top of my head, but I'm sure more could be arrived at.
but as stack software learned, suing Microsoft is really, really dangerous
Dude, Stac won.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Maybe because those geeks who may have had a motivation to check M$ were the ones who already moved to a superior plataform. And those who were using windows, were not motivated enough.
Seriously, how would it even be possible to 'turn off' every XP machine that isn't running WGA?
You would either need to have something on the machines that 'calls home' -- which would surely have been noticed by now -- or you would have to somehow connect to every machine.
What if you have an XP machine that has no internet connection and therefore no WGA? What happens to those?
The only way I can see this working is if there is already a 'death clock' ticking away in every XP machine, and if it doesn't receive the command to deactivate from WGA, it disables your OS. If this is the case, I'm sure there's a lot of legal issues that need to be adressed.
Machines without WGA won't be updated, or sill be updated manually by people who likely know a little more about what they are doing than the average John Q. User, so they can't effectively issue an update to add this kill switch functionality. It has to be there already if it exists at all.
=Smidge=
However, it's very possible to leave people in the lurch in an Open Source project, just like a proprietary project
The difference being that with a proprietary project there is nothing you *CAN* do about it legally.
With Open Source, you can always be your own maintainer. Doesn't give you the ability, but at least nobody is stopping you.
So just because you 'believe' in 'copyright' you have the authority to break the law as well, and install spyware on someone's PC?
I am going to simplify what you are saying.
"I broke into your house and stole your guitar. So that gives you the right to break into my office, and burn it down." To my knowledge vigilante justice does not work too well in a court of law.
I don't know what delusional world you live in. What makes you think just because you own a copyright, and have a god complex that you have power over other people's property?
This is exactly why software patents should not exist. It makes people think they have some kind of power over others.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
If you are the only person using it, then this is your only choice. If four other people use it, you can each pay the developer to work one day a week on it. If more people use it, then you can each pay a smaller proportion (or hire more developers).
If the maintainer of a piece of closed software that you use decides to stop developing it, then you are royally screwed (technical term).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I actually think these "best comment" overviews are pretty nice. I typically lurk at Slashdot to read the articles and the best-rated comments (sort by mod level etc.) as many others do, I think. These overviews can bring up some of the awesome points that Slashdotters make on articles.
And therein, we find why Slashdot kicks Digg's ass: comments. At Slashdot, the comments are worth more than the articles. They're funny, insightful, and often times better than the article itself. Digg, on the other hand, makes me want to claw out the part of my brain that parses written language. God.
"AMAZING video of dood drivving RILLY FAST!!!!!!!"
"APLe Macs are for gays!!!!!!!!!!"
So, you know, hooray Slashdot.
Potentially, Slashdot could work in a better way of featuring the best comments instead of posting entire new articles, but in either case, I like it.
If the ads drive you up a wall, use an adblocker. Personally, I actually have found some of the things advertised to be worthwhile to me, as opposed to the "IF THIS MAKES YOU SPACK OUT, YOU'RE A WINNER!" ads.
But warranty is one of Microsofts only points of contention. No other products in the world besides software have these kinds of restrictions. I can open up my toaster and turn it into a space heater if I want to, I just void the warranty. Does the manufacturer care? Not one bit, as long as I don't ask them for a replacement due to my tinkering. In fact, they should be happy, because now if I want to make toast, I have to buy a new toaster!
If someone breaks their pirated Windows, and they call and ask for help, THEN they have the right to refuse service to them. As far as I am concerned, until they are asked to provide services, they have no right to disable any product that they don't own.
I bought it, I own it. They may own the IP, but I own the license, and I can do whatever I want with it. Breaking their EULA does not imply breaking the law.
All it takes for M$ to have the PR-blunder of a lifetime is to have one single worm out there whose perpetrators figured out how to change the Windows XP serial number. Right now it would already be pretty annoying if such code were introduced into the fast-spreading worms (WGA notifications for everybody !), if they do it the day after WGA goes into kill-mode there'd be hell to pay.
(kill mode, incidentally, is the right word. Somebody somewhere is bound to have made a mistake on critical equipment; while far-fetched, just imagine some emergency service's system going down due to this during a catastropic event)
That is, of course, if this has not already happened.
They don't care about legal authority. Following the law is for users, not Microsoft. They can do what they want. Get used to it.
They largely don't exist any more because of the actions- their win is a pyhrric victory,
as was Digital Research's.
Unless you can afford the legal battle, you're almost always going to lose against someone
like Microsoft- they can abjectly outspend you in that arena without even hurting their
bottom line. Most people and organizations can't do that or even come a third of the
way there.
That's why I keep telling people that the "there's someone to sue" line is nothing but
folly- even in the case of proprietary software, there's nobody really to sue. So, if
this is the case, why are you spending all that money? A false sense of security?
Someone to blame instead of yourself when you screw things up?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Following the law is for users, not Microsoft. They can do what they want.
And I (as a UK citizen, a country in which they have an office) can sue them in the small claims court for recovery of the money I paid for my licence. It'd cost me no more than £60 to issue the claim, and if I lose I might face up to £100 in a costs award. It's worth the risk, because I think a judge wouldn't be overly sympathetic with them.