Slashdot Mirror
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."
For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.
Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".
you had me at #!
-b.
Or, I could just not purchase Vista and not have to worry about it.
Problem solved!
bork bork bork!
is this water getting toasty, or what?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've seen this on a lot of non-open source software, not just windows. Even free-as-in-beer non-open-source stuff. Just something to consider. By pointing out Windows as some kind of oddball case, it just tells me they don't read most of their EULAs
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I'd be willing to bet that it would never get this far and MS would just take care of it. They wouldn't be afraid of someone suing them over a license. That's petty to them. Maybe if a company sued because their software was legal and got a false positive on being illegal and it caused down time, now that's something to sue about. It's a shame that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers enough to make sure things like this wouldn't happen.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I guess "Microsoft deactivated my Windows license last night, I couldn't finish my paper." will become a common and valid excuse.
I wonder about the software functions which are there to enforce these bits of the EULA. How secureare they? How easy do you suppose it will eventually become for anyone to point a script at a Vista box owned by someone they don't like, and send instructions for the box to shut down with extreme prejudice and turn the user's data into chunky salsa?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I have learned some valuable lessons regarding my data. I keep all my stuff on my external drives. Hope it will not be affected in case I decide to use Vista.
and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee.
I thought the new vogue in EULAs nowaways was a clause stating that by using the software, you give up the right to any litigation?
Same here. Does anyone want to start an official boycott or anything? No Vista or Office 2007 until Microsoft gets rid of some of these anti-consumer "features"?
Ballmer can bite me.
I believe he would rather squirt you a picture of his kids.
This is why I use my Linux box more and more every day. By the time M$ requires the Vista upgrade, I won't need it anymore. Besides, AIGLX, XGL and Beryl are so much cooler than Aero.
Check out Sabayon
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain. But so are pirated copies of windows sold as being legit. Which is what this is trying to stop. Yes there will be cracks and work arounds, there allways are. But if your mom buys a computer from the corner store, this will check to make sure that its legit. Microsoft can not remove your access to the files unless they're doing on the fly encryption. They also have no reason to do that. Much like the XP activation, in the case of an illiegal copy Microsoft has been very good about working with the end user to find a resolution.
Bottom line, if you dont like it dont use it. For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there. People dont want to have to understand how the computer works, they just want to download software and have it do its thing without sending porn spam to half the country. If things like this worry you or you think they're not needed. Then perhaps Windows is not the right OS for you.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I see having two (three) computers going forward.
1) A linux box that I use for important data - tax records, personal documents, any think like mp3's, etc.
2) A windows box that I use for entertainment (certain games) and at large companies. Since computers have been powerful enough for home use since about 2000, I can't see paying more than $499 for this and then $200 for a video card. The hardware would cost me $400 to scratch build (and $200 for the card) so I guess the OEM is splitting the $99 with Microsoft. Going forward, i'm less and less likely to use Windows computers for anything important. I'm too concerned about snooping, losing access to my own data, etc.
3) And a console for pure gaming on my big screen TV.
---
To reach this point, I've converted about 99% of my software to java, open-source applications.
Openoffice
Audacity
Gimp
Azureus
Firefox
and a few other minor programs.
I have two documents that I have to use Word for. I'm considering splitting them down into smaller documents.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
What happens when somebody in the Redmond Bunker mistypes something and deactivates Sally Jones instead of Wally Jones? Or what if some enterprising young hothead cracks his way into the validation servers and starts deactivating people at random? What if they go out of business? What happens to my data then?
I won't allow some company in some foreign country to control whether I have access to my data or not.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.
(Personally, I don't think it would be good for anyone if they did.)
you had me at #!
I use Linux where I can, and where I can't I try to use OSX rather than Windows. Still, there are times where I have to use Windows. I have no choice.
In the end, I'm not on a quest to end closed-source software, or even get rid of Microsoft. I just want Microsoft to stop doing crappy things to hurt their own customers, and if they won't, then I think their customers should organize a formal boycott. We should make an example out of them for other software companies to see: Pull something like this activation/WGA crap, and your customers won't put up with it. Microsoft isn't the only offender, and all the activation, forced registration, dongles, etc. in the software industry is ridiculous. It hurts customers, but real pirates just find a way to circumvent these restrictions.
I'd like to start a website where people can voice their annoyance, sign a petition, see others' opinions, and generally organize a formal boycott. I'm sure lots of tech-savvy Windows users will not be upgrading anyway, but I think it's important to send a message to Microsoft as to why. However, I'm sure that there's someone out there who is more militant and web/tech savvy than I am, who'd do a better job setting it up.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Than this for years. The problem with licensing software is that eventually the customer will under the license they areee to have no rights at all. Most online games already have the right to take your money and give you nothing in return. Many online games already do that "take your money and good-bye" on a whim. See the latest rounds of bannings from World of Warcraft as an example. I'm sure some of those people were innocent and had just forked over $175 for a six month subscription. "No refunds and no software because we can." - the future of software licensing.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Meanwhile, you're still paying money to businesses who are putting their resources towards efforts to make your life harder, rather than efforts to make your life easier. For every "fix" or "work-around", you're still exerting extra effort where you just shouldn't need to. You're making your software buggier, and your music lower-quality for what it essentially 0 net-gain for anyone. And by buying the products that do this, you're sending the message to these companies that it is acceptable behavior, and that their efforts are good.
If you buy Vista, even if you crack it, you're telling Microsoft that their product is good. Buy pirating it and cracking it, you're telling them that their product is good, but that their "piracy protection" isn't good enough, and that they should put more resources on that front. But the only way to tell them that these "features" are unacceptable is to refuse to buy it or use it. And what will you have lost anyway, by not using Vista? What does Vista actually give you that Windows XP doesn't? Incompatibility and the need to buy new versions of the software you've already bought.
If Microsoft isn't servicing your needs, then you need to let them know. Even if we all simply refuse to buy it, Microsoft will claim that the reason Vista isn't selling is due to piracy, and their lobbyists will put forth a case that this means we need more restrictive laws on software use. It's important that, instead, we make a public case that Vista is not a good product.
What you should do instead is start a campaign to educate whomever is in charge of making platform decisions at companies/schools/governments.
What you're talking about would still be a "boycott". I am, in fact, the decision-maker for an IT department, and I can tell you that I am not going to be upgrading to Vista anytime soon. I've talked to some of my peers (in other companies), and they aren't exactly eager to upgrade, either. When I suggest a "formal" boycott, I'm saying that instead of just not-buying Vista, we could publicly talk about why we aren't buying it, in order to spread the word and raise awareness of these issues. The truth is, your Directors of [whatever] and Chief [whatever] Officers aren't all PHBs who make arbitrary decisions. However, many of them aren't reading obscure Slashdot postings, and if general public awareness is very low, they might not be aware. They aren't hearing about it on the news, and Microsoft has their marketing people out in force. I believe that this is one instance where fear, uncertainty, and doubt is valid.