Slashdot Mirror
Professor Michael Geist on Vista's Fine Print
Russell McOrmond writes "With Microsoft's Vista set to hit stores tomorrow, Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the legal and technical fine print behind the operating system upgrade. The article notes that in the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user. If you are a Canadian and think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party (whether virus authors or the manufacturer/maker), then please sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights."
.... are former Windows users running to the Apple Store to buy a Mac.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
How about you just don't buy it?
Global warming is a cube.
There is still a lot of debate on whether EULA's and click through agreements are completely binding. I won't get into all of the arguments on both sides, but I believe that companies are afraid to really go after anyone for breaking the asnine portions of these agreements because a court might rule that these documents are not binding contracts. They are handy for threatening people in certain situations, with cease and desist letters, and for making corporate users wary about potential law suits, thus restricting their usage and options. Of course, a court could hold that they are completely binding, and then the software companies would be free to attack an breach. So each side seems to be in an uneasy truce.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
I wonder if they included the blue-screen-of-death feature that I've enjoyed for such a long time.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
Vista license makes many restrictions on a 'per copy per install' basis and often does *not* transfer the burden of responsibility for enforcing those onto the licensee. Thus, even if you own Vista you are not under most of the terms of the license when using another person's Vista computer and they are also not responsible for seeing that you live up to the terms they agreed to. So things like reverse engineering, using 'too many' file/print services at once, etc are okay as long as you do them on another person's copy of Vista.
Microsoft does this because they don't want legal departments to advise not agreeing to a license that would put enforcement onus on the licensee (for any person accessing the system) esp due to spyware/adware problems. They do 'per copy per install' basis to simplify the license and make it easier to sell new licenses for new computers. But it opens up some huge holes in enforcement of the terms.
Thankyou. I regain a bit of faith in the world when mass media says stuff like this. What a pity it's in Canada. (No offense to Canadians, but it's the US where change needs to happen). But ... yeah I am sick of reading narrow-minded articles praising Vista. This article, while short, tells a much fuller story. Cheers!
Wow, this Windows Defender(TM) seems like a piece of work. It can delete any piece of software it wants. firefox.exe, for example. (Come on, with all the security holes, it's practically spyware!)
TPM modules aren't inherently bad. It's how they are used that makes the difference. If the owner of the computer is in charge of the module, they are a powerful tool. If someone else is, then it's a problem.
Don't buy Vista, talk people out of buying it, and when they get a new computer insist on XP or Linux. (I would say Apple but they aren't much better)
If it doesn't sell corporations won't try to do this.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
the 'upgrade' version of Vista too (see other /. post)
Been using windows since dos days, but I guess it's finally time to join the *nix crowd when next time comes to upgrade.
There needs to be a federal law that requires citizens to hire a lawyer before purchasing an operating system.
Is it just me, or is there a complete lack of any kind of buzz around Vista?
A search on Google News (UK) brings up loads of articles with negative titles "Buying Vista? Get a guarantee", "Windows Vista: Where Is The Wow?", "Windows Vista: the best reason to buy a Mac?", "Windows Vista disappoints, so get a Mac". And that's just in the first half of the results.
It really is quite amazing for a product that Microsoft has spend billions and many years to develop.
Of course the sad thing is that, because of its strangle hold on the market, it will still make billions and will be able to declare the launch a success.
And here I thought that Vista would be a technical security risk. Heh, little did I know that MS would do something idiotic like this to go with the lot. I'd be strongly dissuading ANYONE who was my client to go do this "upgrade" because of this alone (never mind the potential and REAL security risks that the OS seems to have...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Yup. Don't run from Windows to Mac. The only reason why Windows has everyone up in arms is because it's so popular. Run to Linux to save your soul. (Well, I was considering getting a Mac, but the TPM thing scared me safely back to Linux).
Vista will apparently enforce the EULA and DRM by 'reducing its functionality'. In other words, Microsoft can make your computer quit working. The part of the EULA that gets my goat says you can not work around the technical limitations imposed by Vista.
The EULA states that MS may remove components or install components to ensure the copyright controls are secure.
That I don't agree to it doesn't mean the software won't actually DO this.
So do I take MS to court? I suspect the court wouldn't see it and pass it off as a fait accompli (you should have disagreed). However, I don't think the courts will look BEFORE you agree.
And even if the court agreed with you, what could MS do to stop it? Mark your card? Give you a refund?
And so far MS's marketing is sucking really bad from what I've seen.
Tried to open Office 2007 and got a message about a license key and if I wanted to enter it. I clicked "No," and the entire screen went black and wouldn't come back up.
I shook my head and laughed as I walked away.
something happened to my message...
I meant to explain that I was browsing at Best Buy and tried out their main display computer running Vista. It was set up at the end of an aisle with signs and speakers proclaiming what a great step up Vista was.
I guess I need a marketing department of my own to vet my posts before I click submit.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/
Read the entire article this time, because you clearly didn't understand the executive summary.
STOP SPREADING FUD.
Well, Microsoft Corp. owns Microsoft Windows Vista, and by extension your computer (*), so, what's the point ?
</sarcasm>
(*) I mean, are you a computer user or a Microsoft OS end-user bound by license terms ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
it matters not what the Vista licensing is. those that are going to get it are going to get it regardless of the license.
oh no, it's bad for consumers? but wait, it's good for consumers? you know what?
it just doesn't matter, it's what MS is providing.
deal with it and quit the endless WHINING
as I once heard Peter Tosh say "Lie with Dogs, wake with Fleas"
there are other options. no one forced anyone to buy those lousy Ford Pintos. but we know how that story ends too
If you bought something (or a copy of something) you have rights under statutory law, no need to muddy the water with doublespeak. Who's side are these petitioners on?
"you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
That's absolutely stunning. I wonder exactly how broadly that could be interpreted?
If I buy any kind of third-party utility... antivirus software, backup software, a defragmenter... isn't that "working around" technical limiations in the software Microsoft provides? Isn't Firefox arguable a "workaround" for technical limitations in Internet Explorer?
It's about time to stop calling it a "personal computer" and start calling it a "Microsoft corporate computer."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Anyway, no matter how much it sucks, Vista doesn't steal your computer, and as such you don't need lawmakers or law enforcement to protect you. Download and burn an Ubuntu CD, and off you go.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
So if I buy a mac, how does the DRM affect me? Do I have to worry about my computer becoming unusable if I change hardware? Do I have to worry about re-registering? Do I have to worry about registering in the first place? The answers are, of course, no, no, and no. So is there a chance Apple will delete software off of my computer without my permission as MS's built in security will? No. So what, exactly, is the issue? There is a chip with an encryption key on it in the box? Okay, so why should I care? I'm a pragmatist. If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care. Apple does put DRM on their music files, they sell, but I generally don't buy from them. I did buy a few songs once that I could not find elsewhere, but I legally stripped the DRM off with a freeware program and backed them up as a regular audio CD with no DRM. What's the problem?
I use Windows and OS X and Linux on the desktop. Currently I favor OS X because it gives me the best feature set for general tasks. If Apple starts implementing DRM in such a way as to inconvenience me, I'll migrate to something else. I'm not going to do so, however, unless the DRM does inconvenience me. I'm not being shortsighted either. Any use that prevents me from being able to move platforms would probably tip the balance away from Apple, as I value portability.
The only real restriction I've seen Apple implement with encryption is locking their software to their hardware (any Apple hardware not a specific machine). Since Apple only licenses their software to run on their platform the only people this inconveniences are people who plan to use the software but break the license, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for complaint. Would I prefer it if OS X would run on any hardware? Sure, it would be a great feature. The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore. The traditional strategy for dealing with such a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply, which Apple has done. Breaking that chain before MS is stopped from their criminal monopoly abuse is not a real option for Apple, so I don't blame them at all for only licensing their OS for their hardware.
Our company did last year, cities of Vienna and Munich did, French parliament did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why support the Microsoft monopoly by paying ridiculous prices for bug ridden software with DRM restrictions, when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Knowing everything I know now, I only regret that we did not migrate to GNU/Linux sooner.
This is why the kilt was invented. I had porridge this morning, steaming oats in, steaming oats out.
Just wait, they have hired LeBron James, will he promote vista?
I mean look at their generous FairPlay licensing program!
Yes, look at it. Its dominance is forcing the record labels to consider abandoning DRM altogether (see prior Slashdot article). And it's from a company who said early on that they weren't a fan of DRM and has refused to license it.
Let's put it this way - less DRM means more iPods sold. The iTMS is just infrastructure to sell iPods, not a massive source of revenue. And they could make good money licensing FairPlay.
Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but this seems to be the way things are playing out.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is there anything in the law that prevents me and my brother from collaborating to make a test case? For instance, I make a piece of software ("Hello, World!") with an unreasonable shrink-wrap EULA, then sue him (who's in cahoots with me) for breaching it. Can we more or less lead a judge to make a ruling on the issue?
Ok Ok Ok, we get the point. Some people don't like the new version of Windows. IS anyone going to be swayed at this point? I'll be happily buying Vista, I haven't read anything about it that convinces me that it will strangle my kittens in the middle of the night, or spontaneously blow up my house. I've always preferred the newest copy of windows over the old one, and plan on buying a new PC anyway. I don't use itunes to buy mp3s, and I don't watch HD video on my PC, so I'm not bothered by all the DRM stuff. it would be nice to get 1 or 2 non-vista bashing articles a day on /, or (heaven forbid) an unbiased article on the new O/s that will be on 95% of peoples desktops.
I'd have to comment on TFA and excerpt that, while yes you pay money to receive an operating system from MS, you technically do not own it, and this is legally agreed upon when you accept the EULA after you purchase Windows. The operating system is licensed to you, and this is the MS business model. It doesn't make sense trying to petition a change in MS's successful (sales) business model, nobody in Corporate America would that, in fact it is against the corporate company charter. If you read the fine print of the EULA (I have, btw), MS would refund you the full price of their OS (e.g. license) if you do not agree to the EULA. They aren't forcing you to accept their license as this would be illegal. They are plenty on alternatives other than MS to use as an operating system. In closing: You don't purchase an OS from Microsoft you purchase a LOSS (licensed operating system scheme)
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
Hm. I wonder what this writer would say to the "intellectual property" owner who claims the same "right" with regards to his copyrighted music or software?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
What is the preferred MS alternative to using startup for something you need to run as root on login? I can think of a few ways to do it on nix.
...that the petition is the PITR petition?
I wonder how much user freedom Pitr would want people to have once he takes over Google...
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.
Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.
This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."
Digital Copyright Canada forum
When you pay money, weather it's a purchase, rental or contract, you are informed what you are buying and how long you are going to have use of it. With a purchase, you generally have at least a month to return it if it doesn't work, more time to get it repaired under warranty and thereafter you can fix it yourself.
I have no idea what Microsoft is selling when you buy a "Windows Vista Box". They are saying they can change or cancel functionality of the product at any time, even one day after purchase, and without a notice. Even if its a rental, they have to give a 30 day notice and then refund prorated rent fee. Contracts that ask for money without the other party having any obligations are generally considered illegal - see consumer scums and pyramid schemes.
I hope Windows Home sales are eventually ruled illegal as well, with Microsoft made to at least refund money if it messes up user's machine with Windows Genuine Check or content blurring. As for business additions, businesses that fall for that deserve what they get. Realistically, sensible companies can settle for a 5 year rental with partial refunds if functionality is interrupted.
Wow, he was pretty unspecific there about what he was talking about.
:-p
Maybe it's about the HD Content Protection tech again which we've seen stories on here at Slashdot ad nauseum by now. Why is the editors even still approving this stuff? We'll soon enough know ever Slashdot members' stance on the matter.
Anyway... I agree DRM is stupid, but shouldn't these guys be barking at the paranoid media companies trying to enforce that junk, not Microsoft? Vista provides merely an implementation of the HDCP standards that are being pushed out. As long as these guys whines at Vista, nothing will change, because Microsoft will always be the kind of guys that wants to at least provide their users the option to use protected media if they really, really want to. (you aren't required to, and you're free to pirate DRM-less stuff and play it back on Vista perfectly fine) It's like he thinks Microsoft thought it was a good idea to arbitrarily limit users in how they can view protected media. In that case, he needs to provide a major part of his article giving convincing conspiracy-free details on how Microsoft would exactly profit from that. Please... Wake up and smell the fresh MPAA air. MS may be huge and bad and all, but isn't it obvious who's pulling the strings here? There's more than one behemoth developing Vista at play here.
And when you've got a more balanced view on the situation, maybe it's even possible to realize that Vista can play free media as freely and unrestricted as OS X or Linux, and actually see that Vista only provides the option to playback DRM'ed content, just like OS X provides the option to playback FairPlay stuff, or Linux provides you the option to install non-free libraries with truly draconian licenses that would make baby Gates cry. Is this the operating systems' faults?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That sounds a little over blown. Max video bitrate is 40 Mbps (or is it MBytes/s?). So every million bits or so you check to make sure all is on the up and up. This doesn't sound very computationally intensive. Am I missing something?
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
If you are curious what I would say, just ask.
Speaking to a group of copyright holders about this issue, Stewart Baker, Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for policy, said, "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days."
Nothing in this petition diminishes the legitimate rights of copyright holders. What it does is recognize the age-old saying, which is "Your right to swing your cane ends at my nose". IE: A copyright holders right to protect their copyright ends at my property rights.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
I'm considering refusing any requests to help anyone (friends, relatives) that uses Vista. In fact since I am not going to, and not able to, upgrade my Windows box (rarely used) to Vista I may not know about new features or methods anyway.
I'd recommend Ubuntu but it's still only 95% ready as far as I am concerned, I can't picture an aunt using it there are some difficulties to overcome especially file permissions I can't imagine how to explain that to someone who is barley comfortable with just web browsing and e-mail.
While I'm not on Microsoft's side, that little phrase does temper the idea that everything has been taken away from the user. That implies that the "feature" can be disabled. I'd prefer if the entire thing could be removed, but the fact that many of these features can be disabled is a bit of a bonus.
I understand that the next step is to include features like this that cannot be disabled, but at this point, I'm more interested in the idea of Microsoft randomly requiring revalidation or reactivation. How many people have had false negatives for validation? How often will Vista decide to reduce my functionality because it did a random check in the background and determined that Vista was somehow not Genuine(TM)?
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
The survey at codeproject shows a marked lack of enthusiasm(http://www.codeproject.com/script/surve y/detail.asp?survey=643)
and that is very MS oriented site.
This is like saying 'my box is unhackable, therefore it is the most secure ever'... because you never connected it to the Internet.
No, it's a lot more like saying, "zebras are partially white." What the hell are you babbling about? You didn't address a single point in my post and instead are just writing unrelated nonsense. Get a clue.
Umm... the whole point of TPM modules is to deny the owner full control. And even if that was not the case, that's the agenda and the intent behind this hardware. If you ignore such factors, then nothing--no artifact whatsoever--is inherently bad or good and your use of the distinction becomes vaccuous.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
I spoke with my wallet some time ago and bought a Mac. Its not perfect, but there is certainly a philosphy that the user controls the system. If you can't control it, then the system doesn't make you think you do. MS-Windows is very much 'the you don't know what you doing' philosophy. An example of this is in Excel: try pasting a file:/// into a cell and see what happens - grrr - ok this is not Windows, but it is the same company and the same school of thought.
BTW Microsoft's Mac business unit seems to live in universe separate to the rest of the company, and is actually surprisingly capabale to putting out well thought out products, which aren't hindered by the above philosophy.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The property comprising the OS isn't yours in the first instance, so it's no suprise that it comes with a set of terms and conditions that will restrict your use of that computer to the ends of profit. Proprietary OS's are evolving into retail interfaces where products and services can be sold to the user, the hardware demoted to a strategically throttled support for this exchange. Like many, I have little doubt that once the OS proprietor sees sufficient return made from these 'secondary' revenue streams (via music/video from channel partners, anti-malware applications or whatever), OS's like Vista will be given away for 'free'. Put simply, to run Windows is more akin to renting your computer than owning it. The rent can be 'paid' in many different ways, but it will always be paid. The same goes for OS X, it's just that they actually work hard to make you feel good about this exchange.
If you use a proprietary OS you can feign grief at DRM lock-in and lack of access to the raw hardware (etc etc) but you can't really be outraged or surprised. Any corporation worth its shareholders will always work hard to redirect your better judgement and profit from it. Fighting it is all very well and noble but if you want real change, for you now, stop using the bloody stuff. Complaining about DRM in Vista is like whingeing that the hotelier doesn't let your friends stay over in your hotel room. If you can't switch because the software you need, or think you need, doesn't run on an OS that actually allows you to own your stuff - your supposedly Personal Computer and what is done with/on it- or if you are afraid of the work involved in changing OS, then you've just described the transformative scope of the sacrifice. You are then clear that if you really want freedom to do what you want with your stuff, then you can vote with your courage and switch to an OS allows for this.
Signing petitions is all very well but you know full well the modern Government is, in part, an administrative body managing the interests of corporations that operate within the economic territory known as a 'State'. They only work for you and your interests up until they have your vote and as long as it doesn't threaten the big guys that have the post-democratic influence. They're not idiots. Without smelling like patchouli, if you really want change, be prepared to make the change for yourself. If you don't think you can, or don't want to, then sure, fight on..
Typical Apple fanboy tortured logic. So if Microsoft wrote a EULA that said you could only use this copy of Vista with the current computer, had to buy any hardware upgrades through Microsoft, and needed to buy a new copy of Vista with any new computer you bought, you'd be happy? How exactly does Microsoft's DRM give you *less* rights than Apple's DRM?!
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Toms Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista / just published extensive Vista Enterprise benchmarks, comparing them to XP Pro.
The result:
At best, the computer won't run any slower.
At worst, it will run software abysmally slow or not at all. OpenGL support seems nonexistant, judging from the horrendous drop in performance in UT2004 (>30% drop) and the rendering of 3D/CAD/CAE software unusable (80-90% drops in performance).
This is idiotic on Microsoft's part. Now businesses will be even more opposed to upgrading to Vista, since either they're going to have to stop using their engineering/graphics software (at least until vendors work on their Vista support) or they're going to have to split their computer infrastructure and support both XP and Vista, while seeing, at beast, negligible gains under Vista.
Businesses are not going to be sold on the promise of Aero glass, especially not when Vista's recommended system requirements are so high, relative to those for XP (I have a P2 450 with 384MB of RAM running XP Home passably, it certainly won't be able to run Vista).
So if Microsoft wrote a EULA that said you could only use this copy of Vista with the current computer, had to buy any hardware upgrades through Microsoft, and needed to buy a new copy of Vista with any new computer you bought, you'd be happy?
Umm, they do that already and it isn't about being happy, it is about being ethical and not causing me any issues. I have my copy of Windows (XP) installed in a VM so changing hardware is not a big deal.
How exactly does Microsoft's DRM give you *less* rights than Apple's DRM?!
We're not talking about DRM specifically, but with issues relating to Vista including problems with having to constantly mess with a registration system that may make my computer stop working, problems with backups and restoring the computer without multiple CDs, and problems with software installed that can arbitrarily delete software I installed without my permission. All these problems are unique to Windows. All of them are potential problems for me. None of them are a problem with OS X.
Those are the options. And they all suck.
This is an opportunity for somebody. Probably somebody in China.
I know the pundits like to bang on Microsoft, but it seems that with all the stuff MS is doing to their customers with the DRM stuff, how they handle upgrades, the fact that Vista is just warmed-over XP, etc, that Microsoft has really overstepped the bounds on this one.
;-)
Makes you want to snap up a bunch of copies of XP as an investment.
Seriously, I wonder if there will be more of a move to Linux and to Apple now that MS has decided to forego any lube at all as they fold their customers over.
I loaded it on a twin dual core with 4 gig of ram.
It booted slower than 2k pro
It would not allow me to install sybase (vista said it was a virus)
I could not run Office 2000 on it. I would just crash if it opened at all
I was unable to load my custom written backup software, it did not have a valid certificate
( i wrote the software )
I unloaded vista and put 2k back on it
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Even if it's not legally binding, the EULA still speaks volumes about what Microsoft would rather you do and/or NOT do with *your* computer.
I switched a while ago, and I regret not doing it sooner.
Dude, that's like saying that the whole point of door locks is to deny the owner the access to his own house. Granted, TPM is completely useless for most applications; granted, it should NOT be implemented in the commodity hardware for the reasons hinted at in your post; but from the technical point of view, if you have the keys then you can re-sign your binaries and you DO have full control over your system.
I remember a few years ago, when XP first began phoning home for automatic updates. Some guy at a bank figured out it was actually *illegal to have such software on a bank computer. Federal law, IIRC. Speaking of IIRC, does this sound familiar? Anyone remember the guy's name, or how it turned out?
Seems like DRM and the other "trustworthy" shit in Vista could run into this issue too.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I think, this is mostly FUD. - Regarding "regularly" checking license I don't find this any different than current XP. XP does exactly the same when the hardware is modified sufficiently and requires reregistration in order to continue to work. - Regarding "single copy" why would anyone need more than one copy of their original Vista CD ? I don't even make single copy of my original XP CD. The restriction is maybe real, but be serious, this is not a big deal, but pure FUD. - Regarding "Defender" everybody seem to not notice little word posted by the professor - "by default". Microsoft actually does a proper social engineering here. They have learnt their lesson with the first iteration (prior to SP2) of the XP firewall, which was OFF by default. Large number of users never switched firewall ON because they had no idea what the firewall is for and how to switch it on. Defender is simply ON by default and those who don't like it can switch it OFF. The default ON will prevent large number of zombies where their owners otherwise would had no idea what the Defender is or does and would leave it in the default OFF state. By setting it to "ON" M$ prevents it. - As with every other commercial software product M$ is leasing it to the user and therefore reserves all rights not specifically listed in the agreement. This is pretty standard note regarding leasing. Lease a car and read the agreement to see that it is no different. I bet that very similar note is on the XP license. - And finally that terrible DRM. Please, give me a break. If you don't like DRM in HD or Blue Ray don't buy their disks and DRM will be completely transparent to you. DRM is strictly for those who would like to watch those disks anyway. At least they will be able to do so, unlike Linux or Mac users unless Mac puts DRM into their OS. Linux is probably going to be left in the dark since their users refuse DRM. I consider to have a choice to be a bettter solution thatn not to have a choice. Blame Holywood, not M$. And no, I do not "love" Microsoft. In fact in the few next years I will not switch to Vista but not for the reasons that professor listed, but because I don't have drivers for many devices I own, I don't want to upgrade many applications I own that might turn out to be incompatible with Vista. In a year or so, when Vista stabilizes and matures I will assess if it is worht the upgrade. JAM
You don't change hardware on a mac, you throw it away and buy a new one!
The old tower in my living room begs to differ with you. I've swapped out RAM, added NICs, added a second video card, removed the original hard drive and added in three new ones (two at a time), replaced the DVD drive with a DVD burner, and added a TV tuner. I've never had to swap out the motherboard or power supply though, unlike most of my midrange PC towers.
At work I sort of throw them away. Every couple of years work gives me a newer laptop, and I wipe the old one and pass it on to someone else in the company, like an intern :)
Therefore, as such, unlike the FSF, I wouldn't flat out try to tell anyone not to buy Vista.
However, I will simply observe that if you *do* buy and use Vista, you'll not only be giving yourself the shaft, but you'll also be providing Microsoft assistance in persuing their goal of screwing everyone else on the planet who uses a computer.
Pointing out the consequences of somebody exercising their free will to make a given choice is not the same as trying to coerce them not to make said choice. You've got every right to make the choice...just realise that in this case it isn't going to be one that helps you, or anybody else.
Irrespective of what anyone else is doing, I'm not buying it myself. I know that much.
- The protected track may be copied to any number of iPod portable music players.
- The protected track may be played on up to five (originally three) authorized computers simultaneously.
- The protected track may be copied to a standard Audio CD any number of times.
- The resulting CD has no DRM and may be ripped, encoded and played back like any other CD. However, CDs created by users do not attain first sale rights and cannot be legally leased, lent, sold or distributed to others by the creator.
- The CD audio still bears the artifacts of compression, so converting it back into a lossy format such as MP3 may aggravate the sound artifacts of encoding (see transcoding).
- A particular playlist within iTunes containing a protected track can be copied to a CD only up to seven times (originally ten times) before the playlist must be changed.
Does MS DRM work in the same way? Because I downloaded a DRM'd WMV and every single time I wanted to watch it, it had to connect to the internet to retrieve the license.Your petition sounds good on the surface, but I'd be concerned about the unintended consequences. Canada has way fewer people than the US, and that means we're considerably less important of a market. If our rules are sufficiently different that US companies have a hard time conducting business in the way that they choose to do it, many companies will just abandon the Canadian market, and we get nothing. It's already happening (although for different reasons) in the content industry...the recent TV show 'Vanished' is a good example. Global aired the show here, for a time, until Global discovered more people were watching 'Heroes' at the time, and so Global stopped airing the 'Vanished' well before the US network did. And when the US network stopped airing the show, the put the remaining episodes up on the web for people to stream and watch online...but not for Canadians. I don't like DRM, but I also don't like draconian laws in either direction, and I don't want to end up with a dearth of content available because our own laws have made it too inconvenient for the content producers to provide it to us.
Worse still would be giving the corporations an excuse for their propaganda..."Sorry, we won't be releasing any titles in HQ-RVD in Canada...the restrictions required to comply with Canadian law would require us to remove our rights management technology, which would leave us vulnerable to American piracy, as the Canadian format discs could be easily smuggled into the US."
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
He did make a point. He reminded us of one of the freedoms that Apple denies users. You can't upgrade hardware on a mac. Is that clear enough?
Aside from the segment that want to play PC games, Linux is extremely easy to set up for someone. If all they want to do is e-mail, surf the web, and use any of the myriad of programs included in a Linux distro, they never have to worry about file permissions. Actually, if you are administering their machine and they don't know how to get root, file permissions work to your favor.
I switched from Windows a long time ago. I still run dual boot for the applications that don't yet run in Codeweaver's Crossover Office, but that list is very short. I love the freedom Linux gives me. And the beauty of it is I have now four computers at home that all run Linux and only paid for one box of CDs - and I didn't even need to pay for that but I did just to support the Linux effort.
I think if more people actually tried Linux they would see it's not the beasty that people like to think it is. The mainstream distros all have great installers and when in the KDE or Gnome desktop environment, it is so close to Windows or the Mac OS (and in my opinion, better) that neophytes have no problem at all grabbing the mouse and going.
Actually, a newbie can do the whole install with just a little help on how to pick packages and do a disk partition if they want to do anything more than the standard install and even those now have good help screens.
My money is on Linux.
He did make a point. He reminded us of one of the freedoms that Apple denies users. You can't upgrade hardware on a mac. Is that clear enough?
Umm, first that had nothing to do with the points I was making. Second, if that were true, maybe, you could argue it as a separate issue although it would be offtopic. I upgrade hardware all the time. My old tower has had everything but the case, motherboard, and chips replaced and that is because I've had no need to upgrade those parts. Sure if you buy a laptop, all in one, or uber-small form factor upgrading might be hard, but that is the case for PC hardware from any vendor. How does this have anything to do with it being a mac?
Parent not a flamebait (Score:-1, Flamebait)
The fact that people are still making a big thing over the Vista DRM limitations is amazing. Yes MS are spineless and evil for adding what the movie industry wants, but if you want to ever be able to play this content on your Apple, Apple are going to have to add the exact same restrictions. Guess what, if you don't play this DRM content on a Vista PC, which you can't play on an Apple currently anyway, then there is no difference whatsoever. Vista is only evil in it's extra functionality, so if you don't like it, don't use it. I've been using a freely provided copy of Vista for a few weeks now, and I'm happier than I've ever been on a Windows OS (and I'm generally a linux fanboy), which must say something. As soon as this new crappy DRM starts being used in high def content, the situation will be the same on Vista, OS X, even linux if you want to play it, and assuming you don't go for a "cracked" approach.
"...and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is?"
You mean this one?
Honestly, I don't see what you're talking about. Everybody's been taking a beating over DRM, as far as I can tell. In fact, Apple seems to be taking more of a beating tha Microsoft is, because while MS has released the occasional product with DRM, iTunes, FairPlay, and the iPod is really the textbook example of using it to abuse the marketplace (both consumers AND the labels - get that!).
Or we could just let MS hang themselves, and keep working on sharpening the quality of the open software stacks we already have.
You'd be surprised how many corporations with large IT operations now must have one or more attorneys on their IT department staff nowadays.
Do I have to worry about my computer becoming unusable if I change hardware? Do I have to worry about re-registering? Do I have to worry about registering in the first place?
Actually your computer does become unusable if you change your hardware if the hardware isn't Apple, OS X will not run. And you mistaken what you are buying from Apple, the hardware is what Apple cares about, they are and always will be a hardware company when it comes to profit margins. And yes the computer does bug you for registration, at least my Mac Book Pro did.
So is there a chance Apple will delete software off of my computer without my permission as MS's built in security will?
It's not the DRM that could remove the software it's the Windows Defender and a false positive, Adaware can do the exact same thing if it mistakes a wanted program with an unwanted one. Any program can do that, though I find the chance of it happening quite rare unless you are one of those people that likes Weatherbug.
There is a chip with an encryption key on it in the box?
Not yet there isn't but if Apple wants to support playing full resolution HD content (and I am sure they will want to since they are known for their content production value) they will have to implement the same restrictions as Windows Vista, which are also the same restrictions that all the set top box companies have to comply with.
If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care.
You see that's the thing, the only files that will have DRM that most people will see are protected content that they downloaded (either for free or at a cost), and recordings that have the content flag enabled. The same files would have DRM on the Apple computers also.
I am just sick of people throwing senseless crap out, I use a computer, I don't use the OS, it's just the interface. Of course before you start calling me a Windows fan boy I use OS X as my main desktop OS, but I also have 3 Windows XP machines (one running Windows MCE), 1 Windows Vista laptop, 4 Windows Server 2003 machines, and 2 test machines that run whatever I feel like playing with (often a version of Solaris or FreeBSD). I also run Windows XP on my Mac under Bootcamp and Parallels (mostly so I can use Outlook directly on Mac OS because Entourage Exchange support is sucky).
I have, however, put an undecipherable squiggle next to plenty of things I haven't read.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Explain to them how a dull knife is more dangerous than a sharp one. If that doesn't convince them to stop using windows, stab them with both a duff knife and a sharp knife and ask them which one hurt more. If they still use windows after that then you're talking to the computer, go find the human and start over.
There is more than one person on the Internet and on Slashdot. Not all of them agree on all points. This does not make them hypocrites because, well, they aren't all the same person.
Did you know that the meaning of the word idiot, in the original Greek, is a private person, someone who does not engage in public life? Maybe you should get out more.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore."
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess you are saying that Microsoft would bury them but that might be harder than you think giving the potential for anti-trust lawsuits.
The real reason OSX doesn't run on generic x86 hardware (without hacking) is:
Apple makes their money off of hardware.
The second reason is that by controlling the hardware Apple can provide an OS that only targets a small subset of x86 hardware. This means that it is much easier to create an OS which is stable and consistent versus the Windows situation where a single bad driver can cause system instability. The user who experiences the BSOD is going to blame Microsoft even though it might be the driver for their $1.50 NIC causing the crash.
The problem for me is that Apple, in controlling their hardware, has created very strict market segments for their computers. They don't want iMac sales to inch in on their Mac Pros, so they limit the RAM slots and any form of upgrading. I need the expansion of a Mac Pro but it's out of my price range and to be honest dual Xeons is over kill for me. Steve won't make a nice mid range expandable desktop Mac any more. I find that just as crappy as anything MS does.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
It sounds like this guy is ticked because Microsoft closed up the core to its vendors. Symantec and McAfee were also up in arms over the model in Vista. So basically he is saying that Microsoft should put back in the very security holes and bugs that they set out to fix with this version. Does this mean the crackers need to get a day job? Either way they do it someone is going to have his sensationalist FUD and tell you how what-Microsoft-is-doing-is-wrong.
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
You can't upgrade hardware on a mac. Is that clear enough?
Horse hooey and FUD.
RAM and HD are standard, and accessible (the Mini, is, understandably, tricky without instructions). Processors are in zif sockets. Yes, you can't upgrade the video on their consumer machines, but consumers rarely upgrade beyond ram/hd, they add-on things like usb flash card readers. The Mac Pro tower takes multiple video and controller cards, etc. Every single mac I've ever owned or managed has been upgraded, that's in the hundreds. Some of them were pretty much rebuilt inside. Maybe you wish you could just throw any old motherboard in there? I happily relinquish that questionable freedom in lieu of driver-hell.
That said, there isn't much point to upgrading a Mac beyond memory and storage, as upgrading components costs more and nets less performance, due to high used mac prices, compared to buyi. Most of the serious upgrading I've done is for fun, not profit, even though I buy standard parts at bargain prices.
So, apple users can upgrade, just within similar constraints to any 'tier one' manufacturer. Joe Consumer upgrades ram and hd, then sells the old machine and buys new, which is better economics anyway, and expands capabilities by plugging in firewire devices etc. Joe Pro crams RAM, cards and drives in his Mac Pro tower, and wisely leaves the liquid-cooled quad processor and finely tuned motherboard alone, because a pro wants to make money, not fiddly time. Joe Hobbyist doesn't grok the economics of upgrading macs by selling the old then buying better, and doesn't care, because screwing with a new power supply to replace the cheapass smoking POS on his $500 barebones box gives him jollies.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Another idiot talking out of his rear.
This is called an ad hominem attack. Anyone who makes such an attack immediately loses credibility. When I see this I don't think, "oh gee PPGMD must be smarter than me." I think, "look another person who doesn't know how to logically address points and probably makes their decision based upon emotion since they obviously don't understand logic or the rhetorical method."
Actually your computer does become unusable if you change your hardware if the hardware isn't Apple, OS X will not run.
Really? Because I put in hard drives, replaces the optical drive, replaced the RAM, replaced the video card, added a video card, added a TV, tuner, etc. and none of those parts were made by Apple or purchased from Apple. The same goes for CPUs cases, and power supplies according to people I know that replaced them. The only part you might not be able to find is the motherboard. Since most copies of Windows are tied to hardware (legally) as well that means I can buy a machine with an OS tied to it from Apple of from Dell, but if I replace parts on the Apple it works, while if I replace parts on the Dell it might or might not work.
And you mistaken what you are buying from Apple, the hardware is what Apple cares about, they are and always will be a hardware company when it comes to profit margins. And yes the computer does bug you for registration, at least my Mac Book Pro did.
I know exactly what Apple is selling, better than you it seems. Their crown jewels are their OS. Since the OS market is monopolized, they can't sell their OS. Instead they sell hardware, using the OS as incentive. They sell bundles of hardware and software, the same as Dell, but bypassing MS as a component supplier.
As for registration, when you install the OS it asks you to register for support, that is not the same thing as a licensing scheme that can potentially disable your computer if you don't have the right code or if someone else generates your code and starts using it. You can take the same copy of OS X and install it on every mac you can get your hands on and they will all work.
It's not the DRM that could remove the software it's the Windows Defender and a false positive, Adaware can do the exact same thing if it mistakes a wanted program with an unwanted one. Any program can do that, though I find the chance of it happening quite rare unless you are one of those people that likes Weatherbug.
There is no software on my machine legally licensed to remove software from my computer, certainly not without my direct intervention. Now Vista includes such software and can you even turn it off? 'm not going to trust my machine to their decisions.
Not yet there isn't but if Apple wants to support playing full resolution HD content (and I am sure they will want to since they are known for their content production value) they will have to implement the same restrictions as Windows Vista, which are also the same restrictions that all the set top box companies have to comply with.
Actually, several video editing programs on OS X now support the creation of and playback of blueray discs and OS X does not seem to have those same DRM hooks.
You see that's the thing, the only files that will have DRM that most people will see are protected content that they downloaded (either for free or at a cost), and recordings that have the content flag enabled. The same files would have DRM on the Apple computers also.
So? I don't download or use them. This has nothing to do with the platform or the issues I have with Vista, as they were described in TFA, and as I enumerated them.
I am just sick of people throwing senseless crap out, I use a computer, I don't use the OS, it's just the interface.
Senseless? You didn't debunk a single one of my points. All you did was argue that OS X was no better in ways I don't care about and did not mention. The OS is the interface for all my progr
I am still patiently waiting for a Linux version to come out that can be used by someone with ZERO sys-admin skills. I'll be the first one in line when it comes out. Come on Ubuntu or some other flavor, just polish that last 10%.
*sigh* But then what about all my games? What a no-win situation this is. Guess I'll be stuck on XP forever. *sob*
I really wish that software could run independent of OS. No this isn't a vote for Java either.
And yes the computer does bug you for registration, at least my Mac Book Pro did.
That's a misleading statement. Windows bugs you for license registration. Mac OS bugs you for warranty registration.
Someone pointed this out on the TransGaming forum, and it seems appropriate here. When you install things with Cedega, the EULA is often entirely unreadable. It seems that one of two things is true: either TransGaming has read the EULA on your behalf and provided the button to click on, or clicking on the button shows acceptance of an EULA that was not possible to read. It seems pretty clear that using Cedega to execute Windows programs is not illegal in any way (Microsoft executables aren't protected by DRM -- yet!) (and certainly not in Canada or any other locale that doesn't have DMCA-style legislation), but the result is that the EULA is mangled. I can't see how either of the above interpretations can be construed as me reading and accepting the license agreement as it was written by the software manufacturer.
I think it is becoming necessary to bind you to the EULA in a non-software-based manner. Any non-Linux vendor isn't going to test their software EULA in either WINE or Cedega, so what does this mean for Linux people? Will I blindly accept EULAs whose content I am completely unaware of (not that that's much different than now, but still...)? Does TransGaming's reading my EULA for me bind me in the same legal sense as me reading it? Does TransGaming need to provide a disclaimer about this?
In short, what's the effect of accepting a license agreement on a platform other than the one it was tested on when the license has been mangled by the time it reaches the end-user?
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess you are saying that Microsoft would bury them but that might be harder than you think giving the potential for anti-trust lawsuits.
Are you kidding? MS has too much money for the laws to apply to them. Notice how they've been forced to un-bundle IE, WMP, XPS, .doc, etc. since they are obvious violations of antitrust law? Notice how they've been forced to open up their secret protocols that tie to their server offerings? The courts have done nothing to stop MS and they outright killed several OS's (see BeOS). I have no doubt Apple might win a lawsuit about 8 years after they completely lost their OS and hardware market, and they'd get a big settlement, and MS would have mode more than that because of the abuse, in that time.
Apple makes their money off of hardware.
In a non-monopolized market, Apple could not afford bundling their hardware and software. They don't have a monopoly. The only way they get away with it now is because all the other options are Windows. If MS's monopoly was broken up and consumers could pick from a marketplace where monopolistic lock-in was broken, they could choose from hardware vendors and choose WindowsA, WindowsB, several Linux distros, and Apple who bundled. Apple would lose quickly. They would stop bundling out of necessity, and the necessity for being bundled would be gone.
The second reason is that by controlling the hardware Apple can provide an OS that only targets a small subset of x86 hardware. This means that it is much easier to create an OS which is stable and consistent versus the Windows situation where a single bad driver can cause system instability.
For Windows the onus of creating drivers is on hardware vendors. In any case, this is by no means insurmountable. More robust driver architectures could and would appear to provide more stability.
The problem for me is that Apple, in controlling their hardware, has created very strict market segments for their computers. They don't want iMac sales to inch in on their Mac Pros, so they limit the RAM slots and any form of upgrading. I need the expansion of a Mac Pro but it's out of my price range and to be honest dual Xeons is over kill for me. Steve won't make a nice mid range expandable desktop Mac any more.
What would you have them do? If they enter the OS market by itself they will die. It is simple market economics, even without abuse. There are too many lock-ins to Windows. Apple would kill a huge chink of their hardware market, lose their reputation for stability, and incur huge costs writing drivers, that MS does not. Having a better OS is not enough when you are against a monopoly because they can create artificial barriers to entry. To risk the entire company on that gamble would be criminal, literally. As a result you are unlikely to ever have as large a choice of hardware for OS X.
Seriously, I think the key is simply to restore the market. MS can't abuse monopoly power they don't have. Split them into at least two companies, both with full rights to the patents and codebase. Forbid them from collusion and let them battle it out for customers. Everyone wins as prices drop, innovation speeds up, and lock-ins evaporate since they drive customers away. Without a monoculture we will be able to choose among many more, better OS's in a healthy competition with one another and all of which have a need for compatibility and portability.
I blame our current situation on MS's criminal behavior, but also upon the corrupt courts that have not stopped that behavior. If our legal system was not for sale, cheap, we wouldn't be in this mess.
You are confusing other components with the core of the system, the motherboard, which like Apple it's the only part that the OS is tied to, but unlike Apple I can change the motherboard out as long as I am willing to call Microsoft and explain that the board died and had to be replaced. Apple OTOH unless you are a repair show it is very hard to get replacement motherboard. There are a few shops that sell them, but even then it's hard to find the top of the line board.
I know exactly what Apple is selling, better than you it seems. Their crown jewels are their OS. Since the OS market is monopolized, they can't sell their OS. Instead they sell hardware, using the OS as incentive. They sell bundles of hardware and software, the same as Dell, but bypassing MS as a component supplier.
I was speaking from a profit motive, they make very little on the OS so they are much less worried about piracy, while Microsoft makes no money on the hardware so someone pirating their OS is something they care about. Also Apple knows that if someone pirates their OS, they are very likely own Apple hardware so they already made their money from them.
here is no software on my machine legally licensed to remove software from my computer, certainly not without my direct intervention. Now Vista includes such software and can you even turn it off? 'm not going to trust my machine to their decisions.
Yes you can turn it off, Microsoft made a descision, and I believe that they made the right one. If Windows Defender didn't delete automatically then people would whine "It doesn't do anything about the software with the default install." Microsoft can't do anything right according to you and the rest of slashdot.
Actually, several video editing programs on OS X now support the creation of and playback of blueray discs and OS X does not seem to have those same DRM hooks.
I forgot to add the qualifier, those are required once the ICT is enabled on production discs starting in 2010. Apple will likely have one or two more major OS releases between now and then. Microsoft has a much longer development cycle and has to get PC makers to ramp up to provide the hardware changes required, while Apple has full control of the hardware and can simply make the changed with the hardware at the same tune as the OS is changed. That is assuming that the hardware isn't already HDCP compliant.
So? I don't download or use them. This has nothing to do with the platform or the issues I have with Vista, as they were described in TFA, and as I enumerated them.
Then you wouldn't have any issues with Vista because you said, "If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care." The content protections that you are decrying in Vista will be coming to Mac OS if they want to play HD disc content after the ICT goes into effect.
Content is encoded so that it is only interoperable with a subset of devices, but that is the extent to which DRM relates to content. All the controversy relating to DRM relates to the locking down of devices by people other than the owners of the devices, and the treatment of these owners as a threat that third parties (manufacturers of the devices) need to protect against.
The first part of our petition is a clear protection of property rights, and is accomplished in two ways. The first is to not have anti-circumvention legislation, which is the status-quo in Canada. There is no obligation for Canada to ratify the 1996 WIPO treaties, and it is largely foreign special interests (Major labels and studios, USTR, USPTO) that are calling for Canada to ratify these treaties.
This first part also suggests simple labelling requirements, in support of a free market, such that consumers will be able to tell before they purchase content whether it will be compatible with their hardware. The doesn't say that companies can't encrypt content to deliberately break interoperability (a "feature" of all DRM), but that if content is encrypted that it will be lawful for a Canadian to decode the content with the hardware/software of their choosing, and that the deliberately non-interoperable content require labelling. This is consistent with existing Canadian law, and the laws of many other countries, and is not radical at all.
The second part talking about "conditioning of the supply" is part of anti-trust or competition law in many countries, and is often called "tied selling". This is also not radical at all. Again, content can be encoded, but citizens must be free to convert the files to a format compatible with the devices that they own.
There is no conflict in having Canadians being able to legally device shift their content regardless of any technology used to deliberately reduce interoperability, but US citizens not being able to. There are many laws where Canada and the USA is different. This is no different than the fact that in Canada copyright is only life+50 rather than life+70, meaning that Canadians have access to public domain works a full 20 years before citizens in the USA. This is no different than how Canada has crown copyright (The Canadian government is a massive copyright holder), but the US government more fairly releases government works directly into the public domain. US citizens also benefit from a comprehensive Fair Use regime, while Canadians only have a much more limited Fair Dealings regime.
The last sentence should be an obvious recognition of the property rights of owners of computing hardware. While I would prefer to have all citizens of all countries have their basic property rights protected, there is no harm for Canadians to have their rights protected even if the rights of people in other countries are not.
This isn't a case of excessive regulation, given what we are proposing isn't new regulation at all but the application of existing regulations, and objecting to radically new regulations against our rights.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
You are confusing other components with the core of the system, the motherboard, which like Apple it's the only part that the OS is tied to...
You're just wrong. From MS's site: "Specifically, product activation determines tolerance through a voting mechanism. There are 10 hardware characteristics used in creating the hardware hash. Each characteristic is worth one vote, except the network card which is worth three votes. When thinking of tolerance, it's easiest to think about what has not changed instead of what has changed. When the current hardware hash is compared to the original hardware hash, there must be 7 or more matching points for the two hardware hashes to be considered in tolerance. If the network card is the same, then only 4 additional characteristics must match (because the network card is worth 3, for a total of 7). If the network card is not the same, then a total of 7 characteristics other than the network card must be the same. If the device is a laptop (specifically a dockable device), additional tolerance is allotted and there need be only 4 or more matching points. Therefore, if the device is dockable and the network card is the same, only one other characteristic must be the same for a total vote of 4. If the device is dockable and the network card is not the same, then a total of 4 characteristics other than the network card must be the same."
According to that since I added a NIC(3), swapped the RAM(2), video card(1), hard drives twice (2), and several other components I almost certainly would have had to re-register that same machine had it been running Windows. Your assertion that only the motherboard matters is factually incorrect.
I was speaking from a profit motive, they make very little on the OS so they are much less worried about piracy
No, the OS/hardware bundle is what they make all their money on, or do you think Apple would survive as a Windows reseller? It is their value added proposition.
If Windows Defender didn't delete automatically then people would whine "It doesn't do anything about the software with the default install." Microsoft can't do anything right according to you and the rest of slashdot.
Horseshit. Take a look at my posting history for today. I praised them for doing the right thing just this morning. The problem is they legally grant themselves the right, in the license, to delete software from my machine, with very vague details as to what that software might be. It might be a worm or DeCSS code, or it might be Firefox. That is unacceptable. I'm happy to hear that I can turn that feature off, but I have guarantee that it will remain that way due to the license. For all I know they could make leaving it on prerequisite to getting patches once they get people to migrate.
Apple has full control of the hardware and can simply make the changed with the hardware at the same tune as the OS is changed.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this. It is a bit garbled. If you're trying to say Apple will comply with DRM requirements for media playback in hardware, maybe they will. I don't care. That is not a problem I have with Vista either. Why you keep bringing it up, is a mystery to me.
The content protections that you are decrying in Vista will be coming to Mac OS if they want to play HD disc content after the ICT goes into effect.
Let me make this perfectly clear once again. I don't care about DRM'd media files because I won't be buying any I can't strip the DRM from. What concerns me are the Defender and activation requirements and licensing which means I cannot be assured that my computer will continue to work without being shut down or gutted by Microsoft who have included in their licensing the legal means to do just that.
You might be right re: the anti-trust, but Apple has such good press that if there was ever a time to try it - now would be the time. Especially given the fiasco that is the Vista launch.
I don't think Apple could survive just making money from the OS. They'd also run into the same problem regarding piracy as MS. As it is most Mac users I know pirate OSX upgrades (generally casually and without thought to it being bad) and I doubt Steve really cares. That isn't where they are making their money.
Regarding what I'd have them do re: hardware. It's not that I mind having only a few options, what I mind is how Apple has deliberately broken down their product line. It makes perfect sense for them to do things like limit an iMac to 2 DIMM slots and no video upgrade. But it doesn't make sense to me. I want expansion, I want to be able to upgrade later to a 24" monitor without having to through out my Mac. I don't want an all in one but the Mac Pro is overkill and out of my price range. The reasons for the Mac line existing in it's current state are purely due to feeding Apple's bottom line. Great for them but no choice for me.
Now in the Enterprise space where Apple barely makes a dent, if they can't give me more options, I would love to see them partner with a high end server provider like Sun or EMC or whoever to create a real set of offerings. The Xserve alone just doesn't cut it and XSAN is lacking in most features vs current SAN offerings. I'd love to give Apple more money on the corporate side, but they don't make it easy for me.
(And for the record we have about 1/3 of our desktops as Macs, as well as Xserves in the data center)
Sometimes my arms bend back.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
You might be right re: the anti-trust, but Apple has such good press that if there was ever a time to try it - now would be the time. Especially given the fiasco that is the Vista launch.
It might make sense to try it now, but not because of Vista. What Apple needs is for the courts to act effectively and not be bribable. Someone needs to have a political incentive to make sure this happens. Apple not shipping OS X separately, Adobe going to the EU courts for their antitrust issues, and OEMs not shipping Linux pre-installed to stores are all big votes of "no confidence" in our legal system. I'm sure they know better than I the situation. You simply don't gamble a multi-billion dollar company unless you have some real belief this will pan out, otherwise you're liable to end up in jail for defrauding shareholders.
It makes perfect sense for them to do things like limit an iMac to 2 DIMM slots and no video upgrade. But it doesn't make sense to me. I want expansion, I want to be able to upgrade later to a 24" monitor without having to through out my Mac. I don't want an all in one but the Mac Pro is overkill and out of my price range.
This really isn't much different from most all-in-one computers out there. Very few of them are upgradable at all. Take a look at Gateway or Dell's lineup and you'll notice machines with specs designed so that they don't cannibalize higher end sales. You want a machine in a slot Apple doesn't make one. That is one of the problems with tying the OS to the hardware, fewer machine slots mean sometimes you have to upgrade beyond what you need to get enough. I feel for you, but realistically Apple can't make as many machines as all the other vendors combined. It isn't going to happen so this problem will always persist to some degree, even if they do eventually make a machine for the slot you want.
Now in the Enterprise space where Apple barely makes a dent, if they can't give me more options, I would love to see them partner with a high end server provider like Sun or EMC or whoever to create a real set of offerings.
Apple is pretty weak in the enterprise for a laundry list of reasons. They are making money there, but are not seriously competing. On the plus side, they seem pretty interoperable with other vendors. I don't have any problem with what Apple doesn't offer there, since other vendors do.
(I would say Apple but they aren't much better)
Yeah, that would certainly convince me.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
TPMs are inherently bad... because they are designed to hide the root key from the owner. It's that simple. Owner Override can help to solve this, so that you can get the benefit without the nastiness. The Trusted Computing group will have nothing to do with OO... showing pretty conclusively where they see TPMs going.
So yes TPMs as they are currently designed and shipped are inherently evil. No amount of liguistic twisting and turning can change that.
I have been planning a switch to Linux for about two years and Vista is the prefect opportunity to commit. In fact, Microsoft has practically made it mandatory.
I've been an exclusive Windows user the past few years, however because of MS I've decided to switch. A few months ago I got a desktop, well tower really, PC with Linux preinstalled. I also want to get a new laptop and I decided to get a Macbook Pro for it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You read it, but you don't understand it. Apple doesn't need a TPM on the motherboard on newer Macs, BECAUSE IT WILL BE SHIPPING INTEL CPUs WITH THE TPM BUILT INTO THE PROCESSOR.
Fucking brainless Apple sycophants. Apple is busy, right now, building protected media paths and a hidef video system around the fucking TPM in their Macs.
I'm Canadian, and will sign the petition, but I have already found a better solution. I just bought a Mac. Vote with your wallets people.
I thought the transition would be difficult, and thought I'd rely heavily on Parallels to run Windows apps; I haven't had to fire it up in over a week (and even then, it wasn't because I really needed to). Have my hard-core Unix development at my fingertips under the hood, with the best commercially available GUI (in my opinion), is almost a dream come true. I think the switch Intel was brilliant, in that it allayed one potential fear (if MacOS doesn't do it for me, I can just put Windows on the unit; something I won't even bother to try now.)
I did try out a vista prevue/beta under Parallels to see what it looked like. It ran well, but looked a bit different and unfamiliar, and I couldn't really see anything compelling to it. So I deleted it.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
It doesn't. But if you use itunes service it does affect you. They are very different market segments but the end result is the same and both companies are using it.
I know of no such legal software. It is all illegal. The only way you can get around it is if you reverse the order: burn to cd then rip the cd. But I'm not even sure that is legal by the usage agreements (I have to review the agreements but at the time I read them and the discussions I came to the conclusion it was illegal on my part to remove the DRM). There's also the other media like videos which I know of no way to strip DRM.
"Refund? The principle of the thing is worth more than the money, and for most people, neither is that important to them."
The cost, to Microsoft, of the Refund is not just a lost sale. It's also the time and money that went into licensing and de-licensing that copy, and returning the money. It's not cheap for them.
Ah but it's not MS you get the refund from, you're supposed to get the refund from the OEM. The firsrt tyme you start up Windows it goies through the legal thou shalt nots then says if you disagree then contact the pc manufacturer. Then unless MS has changed it's licensing OEMs have to pay a license to MS for every PC they sale in order to get a discount on licenses.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What exactly are you referring to? I mean, I've used Macs for quite a while, and in terms of stuff I can't run, it boils down to
Stuff I don't need - like CAD, animation, or other professional programs. Not used by 99% of the population.
Actually CAD does exist for Macs. Though I don't know if Autodesk offers a current version the first tyme I saw Autocad it was running on a Mac. Architosh is a forum for Mac users of CAD.
FalconShould there be a Law?
TPM modules aren't inherently bad. It's how they are used that makes the difference. If the owner of the computer is in charge of the module, they are a powerful tool. If someone else is, then it's a problem.
WOW ! Just like DRM !
So if I buy a mac, how does the DRM affect me?
Same way it does in Vista - don't buy DRMed content and you have nothing to worry about.
Do I have to worry about my computer becoming unusable if I change hardware? Do I have to worry about re-registering? Do I have to worry about registering in the first place? The answers are, of course, no, no, and no.
These have about as much to do with "DRM" as Apple's license (and I'm betting in the relatively near future, software) restricting you to only installing OS X on Apple hardware.
So is there a chance Apple will delete software off of my computer without my permission as MS's built in security will? No.
Apple's _updates_ have accidentally deleted data off machines in the past.
(I can only assume you're referring to Windows Defender, which will only delete files under the same conditions other AV and anti-malware tools will - with the users implicit permission.)
So what, exactly, is the issue? There is a chip with an encryption key on it in the box? Okay, so why should I care? I'm a pragmatist. If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care. Apple does put DRM on their music files, they sell, but I generally don't buy from them. I did buy a few songs once that I could not find elsewhere, but I legally stripped the DRM off with a freeware program and backed them up as a regular audio CD with no DRM. What's the problem?
If you're a pragmatist, neither the DRM, nor "activation" in Vista should bother you in the slightest, since the former is applicable on any platform and the latter won't be noticed by 99% of users.
The biggest difference between something like Dell or Gateways all-in-ones is that there is of course someone else likely to be selling what you need at a reasonable cost. Moving from a PC to a Mac can be a hard thing because you lose this freedom. Especially if you are an enthusiast that wants certain components. For more general users it isn't a problem.
Apple did used to have a number of models that catered to different individuals needs. This of course peaked in the mid 90s with way too many models and serious consumer confusion. What Apple has done completely makes sense to them financially and to their main target market (basic consumer computer users).
I use my home computer for gaming, coding and connecting to the office network. Sure a Mac Pro would do this ok, but it would be a worse game machine at a higher price point. I have a work MacBook Pro which is fine enough, so I guess I can just dream that Apple will someday give me a system I want, a system comparable to a mid-range standard PC desktop.
On the Enterprise side the one area I have constantly run into problems with is AFP and the Apple file system. Our Production staff currently uses Linux based NAS devices which support AFP to a degree, but searching from within OSX doesn't work. Apple has made a decent effort to support SMB but really what I would like is more vendor to support AFP - especially since my designers have a habit of using odd characters in their filenames (the same goes for materials we receive from outside service bureaus). You are correct that in general OSX interoperates pretty well with other systems.
I know the Enterprise isn't Apple's target market but given that OSX is pretty much the most user-friendly UNIX out there, I guess I'd like to see them make a bit more effort.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
TPM isn't restricted to the Apple line, so there's no double standard. A quote from https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/faq/TPMFAQ/:
Are systems with TPMs available?
Desktop, notebook and tablet PCs with TPMs are available from Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Intel, Lenovo, Toshiba and others.
More here and here. In fact, it's becoming more difficult to find a manufacturer that *doesn't* implement a TPM.
Besides, it's not the addition of a chip on the motherboard that's the problem, rather how and where it's used. As far as I'm aware, it's currently unused on Apple hardware; Microsoft however require it for BitLocker in Vista.
Caution: May contain nuts.
What two companies?
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
According to Microsoft's EULA: "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software"
Just wait until we hear, "I'm sorry sir but installing Linux on your machine to get around the technical limitations of Windows is now against the EULA".
It has come to our attention that you are currently the head developer of an operating system called Linux. Please cease and desist these efforts immediately as they are in direct conflict with the new Windows Vista EULA.
Yours sincerely,
Microsoft Lawyers
I'm sorry, but perhaps GPL-free software isn't for you. It's free in the sense that you can do what you like with it. It's not an appliance, like a fridge or a toaster, but a tool that you can deploy in a million ways noone's thought of yet. Saying that you want a zero-maintenance edition of Linux is like saying you want a hassle-free life or worry-free parenthood. It doesn't happen, because freedom and responsibility aren't easy things.
But since companies like IBM are not willing to do that, even though the PC is their invention, there is nothing to be done.
I only sign one petition a year, and I already put my JH on a petition against women's suffrage. Although I believe this is a very important and extremely cool petition here, we gotta end women suffring. But once they're not suffring anymore, I'll be right beside you.
These have about as much to do with "DRM" as Apple's license (and I'm betting in the relatively near future, software) restricting you to only installing OS X on Apple hardware.
Please RTFA before responding. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. The article applied this term to include registration processes and MS's ability to remove arbitrary software. Both of those are digital and both of them are managing my rights. If you don't want to be labeled a troll don't make comments that my terminology is wrong when I'm simply using the terms as they were used in the article we're supposedly discussing.
Apple's _updates_ have accidentally deleted data off machines in the past.
Yeah, there is always the danger that if I install a patch it will break something. If you don't see the difference between me applying a tested patch after waiting to see if it is stable, and Microsoft deleting something without any prior notification or testing or intervention on my part, then you are hopeless.
I can only assume you're referring to Windows Defender, which will only delete files under the same conditions other AV and anti-malware tools will - with the users implicit permission.
This contradicts the article. When you are going to make a claim that contradicts one of the items presented as fact in the article, you have to provide a citation if you want anyone to take you seriously. Assuming you are correct (big assumption) then MS is still reserving the right in their software license to remove software without my permission which means they can change this at any time. That is still a pretty enormous liability.
If you're a pragmatist, neither the DRM, nor "activation" in Vista should bother you in the slightest, since the former is applicable on any platform and the latter won't be noticed by 99% of users.
Who cares about 99% of users. As a pragmatist I care about how it affects me. If I had upgraded a Windows box as much as my old mac media server, I would have had to re-register which is annoying and a pain in the butt. The chances of that server ceasing operation because someone with a serial number generator happens upon the same serial and installs a bunch of pirate copies is zero. The chances with a comparable Windows machine is non-zero. The chances that MS will decide to use Defender to remove some software without informing me in the future is likewise non-zero. These are all real risks and concerns that apply to Vista, but not to OS X.
As such, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the DRM functions of Vista are more of a liability than OS X, for me, and as such it is not hypocritical for me to be concerned about those in Vista while being unconcerned about DRM in OS X. That of course, was my original point which you seem to have missed as you did not address it at all. Go back and read the article before replying to this please.
It's like BitTorrent though. Sure, 1% of all the traffic might be legit, but the rest is not. Similarly, while TPM does have benign uses in theory, it's just too tempting to use it for DRM and other evil schemes.
Most people will go down to Best Buy and buy whatever is there. They'll never read the licensing agreements, will run it, and will kvetch about all the spam they get. They'll install Weather Gadget or similar gizmos, and then they'll wonder why their computer runs so slowly. Eventually they'll go out and buy another one. All Microsoft has to do is ensure that 90% of the PCs in the store have Vista on them. And they have.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I know of no such legal software. It is all illegal.
The lawyer I consulted disagreed with you. Since I had the key on my machine and the software that legally decrypts it, using both of those in a way that it removes the DRM is not breaking encryption for purposes of circumventing DRM, since the encryption is not broken, merely decrypted using the valid key. Even if it were breaking the decryption, possessing and using such software is not illegal, distributing software for that purpose is illegal. It is not illegal to download DeCSS, only to upload it in the US, according to said lawyer.
The only way you can get around it is if you reverse the order: burn to cd then rip the cd. But I'm not even sure that is legal by the usage agreements
Whenever you download a song from iTunes you are (were when I did anyway) reminded to back it up by burning a CD. If their intention was not for you to re-rip that CD, it isn't much of a backup now is it?
There's also the other media like videos which I know of no way to strip DRM.
Some I know how, some I don't, but I don't buy anything I can't legally remove the DRM from. Since I buy very little media with DRM in the first place, this whole part of the discussion is not an issue for me. The digital rights I'm worried about having managed right into the ground are my right to keep using my OS, despite making alterations to the hardware and despite what some software "pirate" somewhere is doing or what MS's system decides about me. Also, the right to not have software arbitrarily deleted at their whim.
Saying that you want a zero-maintenance edition of Linux
The OP never said that and you know it. He said "I am still patiently waiting for a Linux version to come out that can be used by someone with ZERO sys-admin skills."
Zero sys-admin skills required != zero-maintenance.
Until there's a version of Linux that requires ZERO sys-admin skills Windows will always be the better option for most home users. Fix that and advertise the fact, and Linux will be in a much better position to take further market share from Windows.
Or has it become worse in some way?
I don't have XP either, because it requires activation. Also the first tyme I used XP, it was preinstalled on a new Dell, it froze while booting up. I was taking a class in Java and the college had just got a bunch of new Dells. On the first day of class I sat down and started booting the PC, after a few minutes it still hadn't finished booting up, The three finger salute didn't do anything so I ended up pushing and holding the power button then rebooted. The PC I'm typing this on has WinME, and another PC I have has NT 4.0 Workstation which I have the least trouble with of all the Windows OSes I've used.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Please RTFA before responding. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. The article applied this term to include registration processes and MS's ability to remove arbitrary software. Both of those are digital and both of them are managing my rights. If you don't want to be labeled a troll don't make comments that my terminology is wrong when I'm simply using the terms as they were used in the article we're supposedly discussing.
The article does _not_ use the term in that context. In fact, it doesn't use the term "Digital Rights Management" at all.
Yeah, there is always the danger that if I install a patch it will break something. If you don't see the difference between me applying a tested patch after waiting to see if it is stable, and Microsoft deleting something without any prior notification or testing or intervention on my part, then you are hopeless.
And if you equate an anti-spyware program deleting particularly high-risk spyware with Microsoft deleting arbitrary files, you are a liar.
This contradicts the article. When you are going to make a claim that contradicts one of the items presented as fact in the article, you have to provide a citation if you want anyone to take you seriously. Assuming you are correct (big assumption) then MS is still reserving the right in their software license to remove software without my permission which means they can change this at any time. That is still a pretty enormous liability.
Windows Defender is doing the same thing some other anti-malware programs do - automatically removing particularly high-risk executables. Additionally, this behaviour can be easily disabled by the end user. This is easily determined by actually _reading_ the Vista EULA and not trying to publish agenda-laden alarmist trolling, as the author of this article is attempting to do.
The crux of the issue is that Microsoft do _not_ have free reign to delete whatever they want, whenever they want, from a user's computer - contrary to the implication this article is (deceptively) trying to make. Firstly, deletions can only happen in the context of a Windows Defender scan, to spyware that has been marked above a certain danger level and secondly, it can be disabled at will by the end user (by reconfiguring Windows Defender).
Who cares about 99% of users. As a pragmatist I care about how it affects me. If I had upgraded a Windows box as much as my old mac media server, I would have had to re-register which is annoying and a pain in the butt.
No, it would be a quick and painless procedure (assuming it even happened, I'd be surprised if you've upgraded your "old mac media server" that much).
The chances of that server ceasing operation because someone with a serial number generator happens upon the same serial and installs a bunch of pirate copies is zero. The chances with a comparable Windows machine is non-zero. The chances that MS will decide to use Defender to remove some software without informing me in the future is likewise non-zero. These are all real risks and concerns that apply to Vista, but not to OS X.
Certainly. They apply in the same way that some rogue cosmic ray might scramble all the data on your computer is a "real risk and concern".
As such, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the DRM functions of Vista are more of a liability than OS X, for me, and as such it is not hypocritical for me to be concerned about those in Vista while being unconcerned about DRM in OS X. That of course, was my original point which you seem to have missed as you did not address it at all. Go back and read the article before replying to this please.
Your use of the term "DRM" is not in line with the article, which - apart from not actually even using the term - is primarily focussed on the legal implications of Vista's EULA, vis-a-vis registration and Windows Defender (these might be considered "DRM" issues, but not in the same way restricting "premium content" is).