Slashdot Mirror
FSF Launches "BadVista" Campaign
FrankNFurter writes to note the launch yesterday of the FSF's BadVista campaign against Microsoft's new operating system. BadVista's aim is to inform users about the alleged harms inflicted by Vista on the user and about free software alternatives. Quoting program administrator John Sullivan: "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care."
...they included some of these shortcomings. I was expecting a good read, which RMS is usually keen to offer.
Wouldn't this campaign fall under the definition of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt??!! After all, the FSF already hates Microsoft with a passion, and this is just another axe to grind here. I doubt they actually have even seen Vista or used it to know what exactly it is.
Slashdot and its minions seems to hate Microsoft FUD, but shouldn't you people have a problem with FUD on the other side? This site has gone full throttle on the anti-Vista campaign already and it isn't even on store shelves yet. Sheesh.
-b.
Wow...
No really, this might be a new low for the FSF. I mean, really people, does this tactic ever work? Far from becoming an effective bad PR campaign it is going to further elevate consumer and user awareness of Vista.
While were at it, why aren't we bashing the hell out of Apple and it's release of Shaguar? After all, Jaguar runs on fully DRM'd, TCP'd hardware. The same cannot be said for Windows users.
Where's the "here is how you do that in Linux" part of the movement?
It's all well and good to say that Vista is a "don't upgrade" for the next twelve months -- but there are improvements in it, some of which rise to the level of intuition, and right now there's no Free way to get those improvements.
I hate negative marketing.
All the effort should be spent on advocating your advantages in a positive manner - and then you can compare yourself to the competition, you have a solution to the problem, you're not merely pointing out the bad stuff.
Negative marketing has been shown time and time again to annoy the people that catch the brunt of it - political campaigns through to Apple adverts. Maybe it will stop a few people upgrading, but it won't make them think of switching another solution unless you present that alternative solution in a wondrous halo of wonder fixing all of their issues.
How about a GoodLinux or something campaign as well?
(I didn't read the article)
...plenty of ignorant MSFT-aplogists' bitching about how the "zealots" are going "mad" about "Windows being teh suxx" and all after this campaign has been announced, but, please, care to tell me where the FSF fails to tell the truth with such nifty things as "signed drivers only", "protected audio path" an the like coming after consumers, which are being promised an overall richer and safer experience in casual computing, but are being entirely stripped of their fair use rights by these "added features" instead?
Vista - it's a trap thing, really. Break out as long as you can.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
"Proprietary" does not mean what you seem to think it means...
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
This kind of overhyped FUD campaign just makes the FSF look like a bunch of nutty hippies. People don't give a shit about losing a little bit of control over their PC. The care about features. So unless someone can offer a competitive OS that offers the features (not just technical features) that users want and on top of that offer more control over one's PC they're not going to care.
Region encoding on DVDs sucks... but does that keep people from buying DVDs... NO NO NO!
Really. :) I think the message that the site wish to send is good - don't use Vista since it limits your freedoms. OK for me. I can take care of my freedoms on my own no problem.
But the point I am making is the site is crappy. The site is ugly. It consists of bunch of long TEXTS (like anybody likes to read long texts). It should communicate better with some pictorials and clear picture of what Vista will not allow you to do.
I cringe every time RMS steps out into the scene. It's like trying to tell someone to stop beating his dog, and having PETA step out; or having one of your friends jokingly call you a fag, and having half of Gay Pride suddenly show up behind him; or groping your girlfriend, and having three women from NOW jump up from the next table and tell you how much of an asshole you are and start yelling out into the whole restaurant how guys are all pigs.
RMS is the definition of a modern politician. His campaigns are "XXX IS TRASH BECAUSE IT RAPES YOU OF YOUR FREEDOMS AND KICKS YOUR DOG AND TOUCHES YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER DON'T EVER TOUCH XXX BECAUSE IT WILL CHAIN YOU TO YOUR CHAIR AND GLUE YOUR EYES OPEN AND MAKE YOU GIVE YOUR SOUL TO THE BIG GIANT HEAD!!!!!!!111111111" I'm sick and tired of him, and his GPL (LGPL is a great general purpose license), and his bullshit. The only time he says something nice is when XXX becomes GPL XXX; if you want free marketing, start your new product closed source and get RMS to shriek at you, then open source it so he gives you tons of free positive press for 5 weeks.
Why can't we have someone out to show how great Open Source Software is? Talk about what Ubuntu Linux offers, what RedHat and Novel can do for you, what people like about Debian and Gentoo enough to make them use those over more sophisticated derivatives (like Ubuntu), and the various applications. Don't come out here spewing about how everything else is crap, because ONLY the fanatics care; anyone else either wishes you weren't representing them, doesn't care because they're already using OSS and never actually listen to you talk, or uses something else and doesn't quite get why you're such a nutball over this "DRM" and "proprietary freedom restrictions" crap.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'm not a dedicated MicroSoft hater, but I do miss the days when I gave my computer "commands" not "suggestions". Nothing is quite so aggrivating as hidden directories and being told that I cannot delete something.
We are all just people.
"This is probably going to be a massive "M$ IS TEH SUX" and "Windoze crashes every five minutes, use Linux instead" religious FUD campaign, except that now it will be officially sanctioned by the FSF."
You should look at the link before posting. The site is based on criticism of DRM-type restrictions.
"Be careful what you wish for, Moglen, Stallman et.al. You just might get it."
The right to freely use the computer I own? Oh, what a horrible, horrible possibility!
This is not specifically directed at you as I've seen this many times before but I'm tired of people being so narrow-minded as to think that anyone who disagrees with them must be a paid shill or astroturfer. As hard as it may be to believe some people just honestly don't agree with you on everything.
Is the FSF seriously backing a "distro" that's just Ubuntu with the logos and useful software taken out and calling it gNewSense (which sounds a /lot/ like gNuisance)? One that requires 35GB of HD space to create and install? Yes, this is a great way to get people to avoid Vista!
I'm not trolling... It is seriously unfortunate that they do not make more realistic recommendations that people might actually consider.
I think that depends on whether or not the claims the FSF is making are true. FUD is caused by the unknown. So if the arguments presented by the FSF are unsubstantiated or nebulous, then I would agree with you.
On the other hand, if they present a clear description of what Vista does and does not do, it seems to me they are only providing people with the information they need to make an informed choice. Given the benefits of a new upgrade cycle to Microsoft and much of the computer industry, negative information is hardly likely to be broadcast widely.
According to the article, They mention the Treacherous Computing nature of the OS and that the Genuine checks cause problems with upgrades. Though more details would be helpful.
Eventually MS and others pushing [Un]Trusted Computing and Digital Restrictions Management will find out that the strangle grip is not the best way to hold and attract costumers.
I like linux and prefer it over windows. And i'm not a microsoft fan either. but i must say that i don't like the sound of this particular FSF project. if you have a product (Linux) you should spend your time promoting it and enhancing it. not trying to degrade you'r competitors product (no matter how truthful it might be).
I find the user experience on all these platforms to be greatly wanting! In addition, all user software I have seen on these platforms still sucks big time!
With each new update, M$ is going to continue to release more and more restrictions in their OS,
to the point that before users know it, they end up wrapped in a virtual straightjacket.
Of course, if they tried to do it all at once there would be a huge outcry, but add it in
S__L__O__W__L__Y.........
- Don't exaggerate stuff. Period.
when you were accussing somone who held an opinion different from your own of being a paid shill. Do you think that it's the norm for people who support Microsoft to be astroturfers. Me, I think it's an astroturfer would be a rather extreme example of a Microsoft supporter and hardly the norm.Has he used the RC? I'm finding it a huge upgrade on just about every front. A welcome improvement that will increase my productivity. Of course I'm going to need to upgrade my system to get the most out of it, but I was planning on doing that in February anyway.
This is nothing more than a giant pile of FUD. Accountability in drivers is a huge upgrade, not some soul sucking attempt to steal your humanity. Besides... since when did 'freedom' apply to our computers and operating systems. What's next? My office chair needs the freedom to vote? If I double click on it, it does the job I want it to do, I don't care if Stalin programmed it and titled it "3D Studio Max for the advancement of the Social Utopia and down fall of Democracy." It works it works. Vista works very well. Windows XP hasn't let me down yet, and I'm looking forward to some new glitz and sparkle.
My cameras are black boxes, my lights are black boxes, my chroma paint is top secret, I eat proprietary cereal, my car's design is patented, my apartment design is owned by another company, I can't even paint my walls without permission. but wait... my Operating System... THAT's a holy grail of democracy and freedom. I use almost 0 Open Source software day in and day out, because in my field, it's all worthless except for linux. Gimp? Pfff... yeah why don't I just use MS Paint?
If the author drives an open source car, lives in an open source house, uses only open source hardware, only eats food from freely available recipes and sleeps on a mattress with a freely available design I'll give a shit.
"""
the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does
"""
So, who's opinion is this? B/c I know that my parents and any "normal" person that I've run into couldn't care less about ultimate control over there computer aside from being able to install M$ Word, etc and run a few games on it like MahJong. Since I do believe that Vista will allow this, I really don't think that any other freedom that might be limited will even be noticed.
So, how important is this to the average user?
On the flip side, those that need and/or want to have total control over what there computer does are probably already running a Linux/BSD/etc. That or they know how to bend windows to meet there needs.
All this campaign will do is further confuse an already very confusing issue for the average user.
Actually, the campaign's agenda is to promote software freedom. Microsoft Windows doesn't do that, regardless of version. That OS is nothing but non-free software. gNewSense GNU/Linux does that because that OS is nothing but free software.
Also they wouldn't call "Linux" an OS when it's a kernel, denying themselves credit for their own OS project called GNU.
Digital Citizen
I am sympathetic to the FSF's objectives here, but judging by the reaction here on Slashdot this isn't the way to go about it. It's pretty clear what the benefits of a well-funded PR machine are. If they'd done a couple of focus groups or surveys, this might have been shut down pretty quickly, or modified so it didn't irritate people so much. But I doubt they can afford to do that.
On the other hand, maybe the Slashdot crowd is a special case. We have advocates of free software, for whom software freedom is a political issue. We also have technical pragmatists who argue that software should be chosen solely on its technical merit and politics has no place (which is, of course, a political position). We see this campaign in political terms. Joe consumer, on the other hand, with no attachment one way or the other, may simple see this as new and potentially useful information.
Regardless, it seems to me that alienating your natural supporters is not a good approach unless there's the potential for significant gains. I guess have to see what happens.
Vista is Bad. Use Linux. Use GPL software.
Forget Linux, I'm waiting for GNU/HURD. Any day now...
No, because it's not fear, we're all certain of what Vista will include (many have already seen versions of it, including the version that will be distributed to millions of users), and therefore there's no doubt as to what Microsoft Windows Vista will do to a user's software freedom.
You talk about Microsoft and the FSF as if they're equivalent yet they're not. One has a history of locking-in users to software they can't run, inspect, share, or modify anytime they want for any reason. The other promotes those very freedoms.
What you really don't like is that talk of software freedom reframes the debate away from what Microsoft can compete on. Microsoft, despite having a budget so many orders of magnitude greater than the FSF, chooses not to deliver software freedom to its users. Therefore, advocates for software freedom reject what Microsoft distributes and they warn others of what's in store should they choose to use non-free OSes including Microsoft Windows Vista.
Digital Citizen
4. Driver Support
Vista includes thousands of drivers, but most have been created directly by Microsoft. Many hardware manufacturers do not yet have drivers available for Vista.
This is not Vista-specific, same thing happened in e.g. Windows 2000. Or Windows 95. Or other significant upgrades. Trust me, this will become less of an issue or "bad thing" in 2007, and then, once again, competing operating systems are likely to be worse off in the driver area. Unfortunately. The most common OS developer tend to get the best drivers because driver developers likes making profit from supporting the most common operating systems.
And of course MS made most built-in drivers. They always do in the shipping versions of large OS upgrades. If third party devs aren't done in time, MS will ship reduced functionality to give the user at least something to work with until the real driver is done. NVIDIA, Creative Labs and more are currently developing more complete Vista drivers. You can even read up on this on their sites.
6. Memory
Vista loves RAM, but more is better. Plan on 2 Gbytes to meet real-world needs.
1 GB works here on my test install. I can run Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Office 2007, Guild Wars.
Can they be more precise about "real-world needs"? Working at rendering industry buildings in 3D Studio?
8. Activation
The need to activate the product via the Web could prove to be a time-waster during mass deployments.
That's why there are KMS servers to reduce it to only one server connecting to MS every half a year per company with 25+ installs, i.e. "mass deployments".
9. Storage Space
With Vista taking as much as 10 Gbytes of hard drive space, big and fast hard drives will be a must.
Is 10 GB making up a large part of current hard drives? I see similar sizes in competing operating systems.
10. Backup
See No. 9. Backing up desktops will take a great deal of space.
See above.
11. Urgency
Unlike Windows XP and Windows 95, there seems to be no must-have reasons behind Vista.
Was suddenly security looking like hell in Windows 9x and XP non-issues? Interesting how they're only issues when it's suitable to complain about them, otherwise not. Vista may still have its share of these issues, but it's way too early to say there are no must-have reasons behind Vista compared to earlier Windows releases. There may not be in case of trouble, but there may also be big ones. They should not make this judgment at this time as it's premature.
12. Learning Curve
Vista is just different enough from XP that technicians and users will need training.
Did this stop KDE's first release? Gnome's? Windows 3.0? Windows 95?
Do this author think Windows XP's UI therefore is excellent?
What is the problem exactly, or is the author only stating the blindingly obvious?
13. Cost
Moving to Vista can prove to be expensive when one considers the price of the OS, the cost of hardware upgrades and the cost of migration.
Yes, moving to new OS's tend to cost a lot. That's why we're still running even Windows 2000 at places.
And again, I'm not sure of what hardware upgrades they're talking of.
Memory = see above, graphics cards = similar to in XP if you don't need the Aero eye candy which I can't see too many companies really hungering for.
19. Installation
Can take hours on some systems. Upgrades are even slower.
However, note how they conveniently fail to compare to other operating systems, Microsoft's or others.
I'm sure I can find hardware where a full install of Mandriva will take "hours" on as well.
On my 4 year old hardware, Vista install took ~25 mins.
21. 50 Million Lines Of Code
Even with the five years of development and long beta test period that went into Vis
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I dunno, for me the most important thing about owning a computer is productivity - to be able to do the tasks I want to do. I could migrate to a non-proprietary system, but I would not benefit if it had fewer applications that I find useful. I can't write my own high-level applications. Nor do the Open Source and Free alternatives meet my needs yet. Of course, control is nice, but my proprietary OS (MacOS) gives me more control than I actually use, in addition to great applications. If it stopped me from working with those apps, or locked up the media I used, then it would be an issue.
An analogy might be automatic transmission on a car, or electronic systems in a car. It gives less control and serviceability - but most users find the benefits of automatic transmission and electronics to be worth it. I could buy an old Chevy that I could fix myself - but then I would suffer many drawbacks in actually using the vehicle. Or games consoles - they are not as customizable as a PC system, but most people just want to play games, and a console makes this goal a lot easier to accomplish.
It's rather annoying when people assume what the most important thing is to me.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I must of entered the twilight zone..
I never thought I'd see so many rabid slashdotters ATTACKING the FSF and DEFENDING Microsoft.
It's the beginning of the end!!!
This page says something about the nature of Vista. It shows the six privilege levels:
The owner of the computer, even with root ("Administrator") status, can have at most only the third privilege level.
Are you content to be only a tenant in a system where someone else retains ultimate control? If you prefer to own your own copy of an OS, you will have to choose free software over Vista.
Yeah, I invite my friends over to show off how much control I have over it.
this is just asinine. The most important aspect of ME owning and using a computer is that it does something useful for me. (like letting me post on slashdot or look at porn) If I was interested in control, I would use a pencil and paper.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
That website is pretty low on content and for the heck of it I read the links on the right as well. The 25 shortcomings one is pretty ludicrous. You should read it.
.doc files but I don't use them so much anymore.
Most home users don't give a shit about SMB2. Most users are going to get Vista with new hardware, so their needing new hardware point is moot and really is it a shortcoming of Vista that it won't run on old hardware or is it a shortcoming of the hardware. The 2 gigs of ram to run Vista is bollocks - these guys havent even booted upto the RCs have they. He complains about a lack of driver support from the hardware manufacturer - how can you spin a hardware manufacturers problem into a shortcoming of vista?
They talk about lack of compatibility with AV products but do fail to mention a lot of things M$ is doing better with security. He actually complains that there is a learning curve with Vista - that its different enough than XP that users and technicians will need retraining - I've tried it - I don't need retraining. And whats the alternative - switch to linux - I run Debian in lab and Zenwalk at home and have run a whole bunch of other distros and I can assure you that any users that switch will need retraining there too.
By the time he gets to 20 he isn't he making grammatical sentences and he actually claims that theres bound to be bugs in 50 million lines of code and a five year beta test period - I'd agree but it isn't because theres 50 million lines of code because dear lod Linux also has a lot of lines of code. THis also sounds little better than SCO claiming well theres millions of lines of code in linux - some of it is bound to be ours.
I'm not going to go on bashing the article - its pretty obvious its biased and badly written in about 15 mins and he isn't even trying. The most valid point for me is going to be the inability of wordpad to open
Heres my list of things that are Bad with Vista
1) DRM - especially the Hollywood mandated HDCP and its Protected Video Path crap. The minute they roll this out you will see studios using HDCP because they can and if you don't have a brand spanking new monitor then there is a nice little ICT to drop your content straight back down to 480p and good riddance - now if I just bought HD content and have hardware perfectly capable of running it without needing an upgrade except to satisfy the Hollywood moguls then I damned well expect it to run and don't like being shafted. Even if movie studios do decide not to enforce ICT until 2012 (bollocks they will do it in a couple of years because they can)
2) UAC - this is a great idea in principle but the last I checked in implementation it was too goddamn annoying and I'm sure most people will just turn it off.
I used to have an issue with the limited license transfers but they've taken care of that one (not if you get your Vista from an OEM in which case you get what you paid for imho) I had no driver issues. If I did I don't think I'd be blaming MS and rather my shitty hardware manufacturer.
Thats it. Thats my list of woes with Vista. Now I'm not going to add my list of things that are bad with MS....
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Most of the 'shortcomings' listed in the article are either purely speculative or worse, revealing that the author lacks insight. Just to pick a few examples:
Purely speculative.
More guesswork.
Hardly relevant, any hard drive sold within the last few years will allow > 100GB.
No, do not back up the full installation, only your personal data.
That hardly qualifies as a shortcoming... to anyone but MS of course.
These are not issues specific to Vista. A platform switch will always be a costly affair (the cost of retraining your staff is several orders of magnitude greater than anything else).
And so it drags on... It might very well be that some of the issues raised are indeed actual problems, but as the article stands it's mostly FUD.
WHAT THE FUCK? It's an overall regression when I go to install some software to find that I've got to spend half a day downloading updated (or in some cases older) libraries to have along side the existing versions which different software needs then fuck about with a .config file I altered in the first place to get my computer working the way I wanted to because this new program doesn't quite like the way I've decided I want to have control over my computer.
Sound familiar? It should. Welcome to Linux in 2006. Still having these backwards issues long after Windows did away with them a decade ago.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
The answer in the consumer market will be "Hell, Yes." No one there wants to deal with the internals of the machine on anything but the most superficial level.
That leaves a question:
If a human user can only get up to "high," who can get the privileges of "system" or "trusted installer"?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
An issue that has received little to no press is Vista's environmental impact. If Microsoft succeeds in convincing users to upgrade to powerful graphics cards to handle its new Aero user interface, power consumption will dramatically increase on hundreds of millions of computers around the planet.
It is ironic that the Gates foundation has been performing such good works in Africa while at the same time, Microsoft is on the verge of releasing a disastrous contribution to global warming.
Also, #18:
Funny, some might have said the same thing in WinXP, until they realized there is a classic view. Vista also has this classic view.
And, #25:
Are they serious? Who the hell uses WordPad to open
#8:
I suppose the author of the article missed the article on their own website about key management servers, and also on the Microsoft support website, which states:
Last but not least, #6:
No... just, no. Vista does use more RAM than WinXP, but why do you think that is? That's right, Aero and the Windows Sidebar. Between those two, I'm using a whopping 48 megs of RAM. You can always turn them off if your system is strapped for RAM. Right now my system is sitting at 696MB usage, which might seem like a lot, until you read that 452MB of that is for cache. So, I'm really only using 244MB.
"Seems to me people are flocking to be 'a tenant in a system where someone else retains ultimate control'."
Just because there are not free alternatives for everything, yet, or that some people will choose to give up their freedoms for extra features does NOT mean that the FSF fighting for freedom or trying to inform people isn't a worthy cause.
So let the other people 'flock' towards systems where others are in control, if they do not put a premium on their freedom then that is their choice - the best anyone can do is try to inform people of the short comings of non-free software, and the alternatives, which is exactly what BadVista is doing.
OSS people focusing on something they don't like and missing the big picture. As the parent noted, you are in NO WAY REQUIRED to use Vista's DRM. You can still play your MP3s, LAME still runs fine, Winamp still runs fine. You can do as you've always done in XP. They'll be new DRM'd music and stores with it, which you are free to ignore. I'll repeat again: This changes nothing with what you have already.
So yes, Vista's DRM support does give you more choices. You have the choice to get access to the restricted material, if you want. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's available. However you can also use all the content you have in the past, no problem. You do not have that option in an OS that doesn't support the DRM, the restricted media just won't work. Now you probably don't care, but you can't pretend like yo have more freedom because the user of the DRM enabled Vista system has the freedom to use what you do AND the restricted content.
I know that some people would like to believe that the big, bad MS is going to go and lock down everything on your system and encrypt your MP3s in your sleep but really, I've used Vista, nothing changes. Your unprotected media works as it always has. The DRM isn't a useful new feature, but it doesn't hurt, you cna just ignore it.
This type of thing is why I'm all for Vista. The more Microsoft tries to lock down the computer, the more frustrating it is for the end users, and the more people will flock to OSS, and the greater market share may make it profitable for someone to figure out why the sound on my Ubuntu box is about half as loud as it should be. I'm not smart enough, but dammit if more people are involved in the market someone will figure it out for me. So bring on the DRM and trusted computing and locked-down everything, only not for me. Keep screwing those other guys so Linux will get more users and developers and I get more help with the piddly annoying things like that damned sound issue.
The owner of the computer, even with root ("Administrator") status, can have at most only the third privilege level.
This is pure crap... Anyone with 2 brain cells has heard of UAC, even if why people hate it. The baseline is, running as administrator, you can elevate all the way to the top, this is trusted installer, and what the UAC prompt is all about.
As default, administrator on Vista is not like root on *nix. This is a good thing considering the level of 'knowledge' that most Windows users have about computing. So even if they leave the system running with an administrator account, the system will ask for permission to get to a higher level if a process or application requests it.
The whole post starts off via some idiot's rant about the 'potential' of Vista be 'closed source'. (Truly read what the people are saying, it isn't about Vista being crap, it is about Vista has stuff we don't know what it is and can't see the source code for.)
This is insane, Vista is a closed source OS, and not even the only one in world - there is no story here. OSX and many DVD Players are closed source as well, but that doesn't mean we have to create a conspiracy theory about how they they are phoning ET just because we can't see the source or dislike that they use a non XWindows GUI.
Your apple shop is a monopoly, and we know monopolies reduce freedom. If freedom is the ability to satisfy wants, e.g. by choosing what to buy (a very narrow definition of freedom, but it's one you apply here) - then paying more for apples reduces your freedom to satisfy other wants.
You say, "Don't complain unless you can tell me how to fix the thing." We know one way to fix the thing: introduce choice. That's what free software is doing. That's why we need to support it and make it better, not simply say, "it doesn't do X today, so I don't even want to know." For some people, it's a practical choice. That's why Microsoft is afraid of free software.
But there's a wider issue here, and it's the reason I really care. Speech is freedom, but it isn't just a matter of choice: it's generative. It involves creating something original. In a world where computers have become central to communication, free speech depends on software. If that software is not free, there's a real danger to speech.
I'm a brilliant musician, but nobody knows. I want to share my music - but music players delete it after three plays. I have a video of an important political gaffe - but I can't share it all because YouTube has a 10 minute limit unless I'm certified. I have vital information about voting machine flaws - but I can't distribute it because it has the no-copy bit set. I filmed my son's first steps - but not it in high-resolution because I need a special encryption key. I tried to comment on Oedipus Rex on my blog - but the software blocked it as obscene.
This isn't the world we live in. Our freedom to speak is defended by our choice of software. But are the choices offered by proprietary software enough? When DVRs are limiting the ability to share content; when technology companies act as if Hollywood is their customer, not the people who buy their software; when Microsoft and Apple are starting to lock down what their systems can do, I don't think that they are. Because it's not enough to pick from someone else's choices: we have to be able to generate our own. That's what free software is about. I'm thrilled and proud of everyone who puts in the effort to make my freedom that much greater. You may not want that freedom. But don't tell me that's not the "domain of freedom", because I sure as hell do.
You are saying that you will OWN a computer in the midst of your living room, install a piece of software in it in order for it to work, you are going to do internet banking over it, send and receive private emails to your colleagues, family, loved ones and friends over it, preserve your private documents on it, and yet, you are o.k. with someone in a remote location having more control over it than you do ? To the extent that they can override whatever you want to do on it ?
What kind of over-trustful approach is this ? Are you living in a place where people still can sleep with their doors unlocked at night ?
Read radical news here
Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware
But I think you already miss an important point of the Open Source community and why it already blows other models away: you can go right now on the ALSA mailing list or join an IRC chat room and be able to correspond directly with developers involved in the project and find answers to your questions. You are focusing too much on the "what" rather than seeing the massive beauty that is already there in the "how".
Yes. Good examples, except one thing. I didn't buy Google, I didn't pay for the servers google is running on, I don't expect Google to bend to my will or help me work (though it does at times). An OS is supposed to be an operating system. Not a Media center / word processing / DRM providing / internet browsing magical box. I have programs that do all of that, I don't use Windows Media Center, Word Pad, IE, for them.
As computer users we have slowly been giving up more and more of our computer to Microsoft and other OSes (even Mac is starting to expand). I think it's time we start saying "Fuck you" to people who over charge us so they can take our computer and run rampant on our hardware. I don't think it's time for Linux if you don't already run it. But it's time for us to remain on Windows XP. It's time to demand that DirectX 10 get ported to XP if you need it. It's time to basically stop taking shit from OSes and start demanding a better OS. Dos could give you a disk operating system for 640k, All I want a simple GUI, that all the programs now run on. Why am I sacrificing 2 gigs of memory just to my OS when it's something that should only require a couple megs if done properly. If we want to clog our systems it's our option.
That's my opinion. But i believe it's anyone else who is sick of being forced to upgrade every 3-5 years to an OS that takes at least double the processing power. Moore's law? Didn't know Moore's first name was Peter.
The funniest propaganda I've ever seen... How come there's no "It's funny. Laugh" icon?
So it can store The Microsoft Sound in all its symphonic glory with the bitrate it deserves.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
If someone else is hosting the service, sure.
Are you content to use bandwidth that's ultimately controlled by someone else (your ISP)? How about email, do you run your own email server?
Someone providing a service is completely different from someone providing a product. If i purchase a product (some software) and use it together with another product i already own (a computer), i don't want to relinquish control over any of my existing products. They are my physical property, and should be under my total control.
On the other hand, if google are providing a server hosted on the internet and allowing me to use it (either for free or by paying for it) i don't expect to have total control of it, because that's not the service being offered. If i want total control, i can buy server colocation easily enough.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I was talking about FOSS in general, but I can focus in on operating systems. Trying to be a better Windows than Windows is a losing game, on which has been lost over and over (OS/2, GeoWorks, etc.). To do that, Linux would probably have to be ten times better. To succeed, Linux needs to redefine the game - and this is what it has been doing.
When Gutenberg produced the first printing press, he felt he needed to compete with handwritten manuscripts. He put a lot of effort into producing multiple variations of each letter, producing full justification, placing dashes in the margins, and so on. The first Gutenberg Bibles are still famous for their beauty. But even then they couldn't compare to an illuminated manuscript. And what happened as print became widespread? The complex fonts, justification, and so on when out the window. Printing took over the world because it allowed for cheap copies.
Linux costs nothing. It runs on many architectures. It is compact. It is flexible and modifiable. It allows organizations to take control of their own future. It lacks the transaction costs of proprietary software (license monitoring, for example). It is based on an incredibly effective model of development and governance. These aren't just variations on what Windows or OS X are doing; they're entirely different approaches. And in many spaces they're winning: embedded devices, servers, dedicated systems. These are areas of growth. Meanwhile, it's slowly catching up on the desktop; in contrast, improvements in Windows have slowed as it appears to be reaching the limit of its development model. Remember when the Mozilla decision to toss the code and start over was a joke? It took a while, but they delivered.
For many people and organizations, Linux is a superior choice right now. Some chose it for the desktop. Not me - I'm running OS X, though I believe the day will come when I switch. As it will come for many others. For Linux, costs will only go down as quality goes up. For Windows, the opposite seems to be true. In the long term, the trends and the benefits of shared development are too overwhelming. Free software will dominate most well-understood domains - including the desktop.
...To quote the film Brewster's Millions, "None of the above."
I heartily recommend evaluating FreeBSD. For people seeking something a little less prickly than the vanilla tree, PC-BSD is also available, which adds a graphical user interface by default and a more graphically oriented form of package management, among other things.
Stallman raises some valid points with regards to how Vista users are likely to get the shaft...but what Stallman isn't likely to want you to know is that there is a third option, which means you don't have to climb aboard the FSF/Linux bandwagon either.
FreeBSD is a very solid system. The Linux binary support means you can get such things as Adobe's binary browser plugins working with it, and FreeBSD also has native binary nVidia video card drivers available, meaning that you can play World of Warcraft and all of the usual 3D games with Wine. Ports, the package management system, has makefiles for over 16,000 applications, and it's also pretty much the only package management system I've used that I consider genuinely reliable and decent.
You will possibly see some people aligned with the FSF shouting me down for writing this...Stallman doesn't want anyone using FreeBSD or the BSD license, and the reason why is because if people do, that's less people who end up seeing him as an authority figure, or who he has to use as extra bodies for his activism.
It's got to the point where to a large degree, using an operating system associated with any particular group means you're vulnerable to control by that particular group. With Microsoft, sure, you end up with DRM. With Linux, you end up with *only* the license/s Stallman wants you to use, and no other...as well as possibly getting conscripted for his activism if you become sufficiently close with the FSF.
The only solution I've been able to find is to seek an operating system which isn't affiliated with any particular group...or at least controlling agenda. FreeBSD is one, and is probably the most mature that I've been able to find...but there are a few others, for people who want to investigate those. That however is what we need...an operating system, without economic, political, or technological control. Microsoft want economic and technological control of people...Richard Stallman wants political control of people. The reason why I don't find the offerings of either of those two camps appealing is because I value self-determination...the ability to make my own choices.
UAC can elevate programs from normal user permissions to admin permissions. Getting system permissions will require messing around with some ACLs,
This is FLAT OUT WRONG...
Yes UAC will elevate a normal user to Admin if needed, it will also elevate an admin or normal user to 'trusted installer' which is above 'system'.
If an admin couldn't push past the 3rd tier of access as the post suggests, then no one could ever install an application on the system.
An admin CAN push to the top level of access and even have control over System, that is how you kill SYSTEM processes, etc.
An admin can do anything on the system, but certain areas are going to require a security jump to allow them to do it, that is why even running as Administrator on a system, you will get the UAC prompt if you want higher priveledges.
Admins are NOT locked to the third level of security as the article and parent post suggests.
Go look this stuff up, I am so tired of the uninformed me too posts.
The only process I'm aware of that runs as trusted installer is, as you might expect, the Windows installer.
PS Windows Installer is not the only process capable of pushing to trusted installer level of access. A 1991 VB 3.0 setup application can request trusted installer just like a 2006 Windows MSI Install script can.
Did you miss the umpteen stories about PatchGuard and the various anti-virus companies complaining and Vista DRM systems and the one about some security researcher finding a way to break the driver security model?
Every single story comes down to the same fundamental point... Vista is designed to be secure against the owner.
What you said about User Account Control (UAC) is totally wrong. User Account Control ONLY elevates you to hand-cuffed-Admin level. You are still locked out of System level. It is impossible for you to install third-party anti-virus software because you are NEVER permited system level access. This is the exact reason for all of the stories about the security companies being pissed at the anti-competitive lockout. Even using User Account Control it is IMPOSSIBLE for an owner to reach the System level access he needs to install security software.
You have SO many things mixed up...
First you go off about DRM and then the 64bit driver security, which doesn't even apply to the 32bit versions, then you go off on UAC and how it is somehow related to the Symantec and McAfee complaints.
You need to get this information straight.
Vista x32 - there is no 'signed' driver requirement. Vista x64 - there is a 'signed' driver requirement - meaning that developers must have their driver signed if it RUNS BELOW user mode on Vista x64. User Mode Drivers are NOT affected.
UAC CAN push the Administrator User all the way to the top of the security chain. This is how admins kill processes, install applications, and can even modify Windows files if they truly are stupid enough to do so. There is NOTHING in Vista that prevents a person from DOING ANYTHING TO THE OS at an Admin level if the administrator is stupid enough to elevate themselves.
The UAC is more in place to prevent 'automated' priviledge elevation, in other words, the user/administator has to specifically CLICK on the UAC prompts, and these cannot be circumvented with keyboard or mouse hooks. So a REAL person has to authorize any elevation.
The part McAfee and Symantec COMPLAIN over in Vista, is that MS created a unified API and security center for Vista for 3rd parties to plug in their anti-virus software for monitoring by the system. THIS PISSED OFF McAfee and Symantec, as they don't just sell anti-virus software, they sell 'security' systems that take over the firewall, the network stack, etc etc...
This is also why their products SUCK, as they are touching parts of the OS no Software vendor should EVER have that much control over. It is also why you didn't see companies that sell ONLY anti-virus software and not 'security suites' complain or even CARE, as they can fully integrate as they always have with Vista, and now there are even stanrdard APIs they can use to report back to the system and get access to information on things they need to. This is a good thing for a 'real' anti-virus company, and not a company what wants to replace everything and turn off the Vista security center.
People like you can complain that Vista secures against the owner, but it is the same fools that bitched that WindowsXP didn't enforce the NT security model far enough and why Windows was left so wide open. A Vista owner can replace anything on their system, hell even boot into the new mini-boot PE mode of Vista and then access your HD and change everything you want.
You can even slimstream the Vista install, all with MS tools to add ANY feature and remove ANY feature from the OS and EVEN replace system files that would make Vista not even run.
This is ALL IN A USER'S CONTROL, just as it was in previous versions of Windows; however, with Vista, from inside Vista, processes do not automatically get root level rights to run crazy on your computer.
Now why don't you write us a great post on how closed OSX is, and why it sucks. Heck even maybe a post on the new Sony 7.1 receivers and how they are closed source and as far as we know they are emailing the pentagon about ever