Slashdot Mirror
Vista is Watching You
greengrass writes "Are you using Windows Vista? Then you might as well know that the licensed operating system installed on your machine is harvesting a healthy volume of information for Microsoft. In this context, a program such as the Windows Genuine Advantage is the last of your concerns. In fact, in excess of 20 Windows Vista features and services are hard at work collecting and transmitting your personal data to the Redmond company."
Is this another example of Bill Gate's Microsoft micromanagement leaking out into the general public, or is this truly a way for Microsoft to help fool-proof Windows operations?
If this is nothing more than a way for Microsoft to ensure that Windows operates properly and to find potential issues, data collection should be an option. A lot of power users won't want it, and a lot of paranoid public won't either.
Of course, what choice do they have if they want/need to run Windows? If enough of the system monitors your usage and activity, not using those services pretty much makes your computer a brick.
Aside from privacy concerns, how much storage space and processing power is being used for this endeavor? Couldn't all that be put to much better use?
I don't have nearly enough ram.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
like Google does, maybe I wouldn't be microwaving genuine Vista Ultimate DVDs into petrol...
I hear the icon on the desktop isn't called My Computer anymore, it's now just "Computer". I guess in the fine print it says "BillG's Computer".
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
In the article, there's a Vista technology referred to as "Rights Management Services (RMS) Client" - I guess I'm not the only one who's midldy amused about the acronym used for that service ;-)
What's especially delicate about it is that the service's name uses the term "Rights", where many who are in favour of digital freedom would probably deem "Restrictions" a much better fit.
I bet if Richard Stallman were dead by now (please note that I'm glad and happy that he's alive and kickin'!), there'd be a chance he'd be rotating in his grave at high speeds because of this.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
... and this kind of undisclosed(?) sneaky communication has to be considered a security risk from our side, and one which may very possibly invalidate the state of validation (in, again, the FDA-regulated sense) of numerous production-related systems that might eventually run on Vista platforms. We're testing Vista now, and as soon as I get my hands on a copy, I'm gonna poke arounnd and try to figure out what data is sent where, what happens if you cleverly block it, what options there are to just shut these features the f*** off, and many et ceteras,...
Vista's biggest enemy is not Linux -- it's Vista. Americans take their privacy too seriously to ignore this if this becomes public. Of course, one could argue that by now the 'war on terror' has taught us to just bend over when the government says so, but hopefully, the reaction will be a little bit more violent when Microsoft asks us to 'submit'....who knows.
or just proof of what we've come to know and love from The Great MS. All Hail Bill Gates!
Come on, knowledge of Microsoft's shadey buisness and programming practices has been well documented for over a decade. Plenty of time to migrate away. W2k is going to fade away, and I'm already looking into becoming all-Linux here at home. My employer still uses windows on employee machines, but I don't care because I only do work-related stuff on the laptop. I suppose I might want to segregate the VPN-using MS machine from the rest of my network incase Vista+1 decides to sniff my packets or something.
Blar.
I wonder...
Is it paranoia if the OS really *is* sending tons of data to Redmond?
Is it slander if it's true?
How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie-pop?
Just WTF *is* the cream filling in the middle of Hostess snack cakes????
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Seems like they would want to keep this data anonymous as much as possible too, or it would seem like they would have an endless barage of subpoenas for civil lawsuits like divorces, where one spouse wants evidence that the other was cheating.
The privacy concerns are obvious. I, for one, do not want to agree to having all kinds of (largely unspecified) information transmitted to Microsoft.
But even putting that aside for a moment. Assume that Microsoft is a friendly company and that you are confident they will never use this information "against you." Even in that case, this is a really bad idea. Why? Because security works best when you *minimize* the avenues of attack. By sending this information to Microsoft HQ, your OS opens itself to new attacks. On the one hand you have the possibility of MS's servers being hacked, and your information stolen (or the transmission being intercepted and copied). But much worse, this transmission functionality can be co-opted by malware or viruses.
Every functionality you include in the OS is a functionality that "the enemy" (malware, viruses, crackers, etc.) can (and will) use against you. In particular, every network-enabled program is a potential security breach. Hence, we should always be disabling as many services (especially network services) as possible. By having all kinds of code that is constantly communicating outside the machine (with no notification to the user), built into services that the user cannot sensibly disable, you are leaving a tempting target for "the enemy" to find vulnerabilities.
Add to this the fact that it makes it harder on network admins to pick out suspicious traffic. If all these Vista installs are constantly sending out packets of information, how can the sysadmin tell when one of those machines has been taken over, and that "phone MS HQ" service is now sending nefarious packets?
Face it, the advent of the internet has brought to the world many great and wonderous things. However, there is a dark side to connectivity, and it's name is, connectivity. If you want to be part of the whole, you have to accept the inherit lose of privacy that is associated with it. Doesn't matter how much you dislike it, but as a whole EVERYTHING is becoming more connected, you can't truly expect your privacy to somehow remain immune from all this "openness".
Those who thrive in this environment (and in this case, thrive means are able to navigate it with the majority of their private information private) will be those who understand, accept, and deal with it.
Disclaimer: I run Vista, I am slightly upset by these findings, but I'm just gonna ponder the positives. As long as the info is sent anonymously, whats the big deal? This information is probably being used to make sure the operating system run the smoothest it can, the info sent can be used to help update the system and keep MS on top of bugs and holes in the OS
It's just: Windows Update, Web Content, Digital Certificates, Auto Root Update, Windows Media Digital Rights Management, Windows Media Player, Malicious Software Removal/Clean On Upgrade, Network Connectivity Status Icon, Windows Time Service, and the IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT) Traversal service (Teredo).
See, typical /. overreaction
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Really... Is there some reason why we didn't expect this?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If in fact they aren't and have not desire to identify me then they should be making it a point to abstain from recording information that can ID me.
Actually my biggest objection to this was it was initially not disclosed in a sufficiently conspicuous manner and seems to have no simple way to be deactivated save identifying and disabling all the services in question. I'll allow that Microsoft has something to be gained in product improvement by collecting some of this data but they ought to ask before using my bandwidth to do it.
Good grief, I hate Microsoft as much or more than the average Slashdotter, but most of TFA is just alarmist FUD.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
It's the government. If the government leans on them to ramp up the monitoring of their users, then the public will be truly SOL. Right now Microsoft seems to be content with detailed diagnostic information and preventing piracy, not spying on their users. In fact, there would be precious little they could gain versus the heaping cargo ship loads of what they would lose by preemptively spying on their users.
Far fetched? The government just demanded all of those search records a while ago. I think that speaks for itself as to where things are going.
Isn't it ironic that the very company charging insane amounts for a "safe and secure" OS is essentially using spyware embedded in the system itself when the average user shells out a decent amount of money to prevent spyware programs?
If there wasn't enough of them already, add this to the stack of reasons not to use Vista.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I expect that the majority of people believe that they're buying a product when they purchase Vista, or when they purchase a PC with Vista pre-installed. That presumption may be entirely wrong though.
... or else nothing, that's the only option. In fact then, you haven't purchased a product at all, but a service without any agreed terms.
... although Microsoft probably wants you to continue purchasing without owning.
Certainly from Microsoft's point of view, and in view of their total focus on WGA, you've agreed to a single-payment licensing deal. EULAs may not be valid in some jurisdictions, but that doesn't seem to concern them. You live within their worldview, or else
Likewise, from the content providers' point of view, your PC and its software certainly doesn't belong to you, which implies that you haven't purchased Vista as a product. Instead, it's just a delivery vehicle for their content, and Microsoft is the guarantor of DRM safety to ensure that this is so. The fact that you've paid for your hardware and software as if it were yours seems to have escaped both content providers and Microsoft alike.
Perhaps in the future, people who are not technical will not own computers at all, but only rent content delivery vehicles?
That's where Vista seems to be heading
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Very few people will care about this. Even if MicroSoft were collecting their credit card numbers and access codes, they still wouldn't care. Just look at how often they click on all those "verification" emails, and give this information away. You can make up an obvious "evil" email, explaining that you want to steal all their savings, and they will still click the link and enter their personal information.
Most people are just stupid when it comes to computers and securing their personal information.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Why don't they tell you? Every halfway serious program I use that has to report information home (or at least wants to, for statistical purposes) asks me first, or at least informs me that it is going to do that now. Some programs even tell you what exactly they're going to send (and, behold, checking source and the transfered data shows that they actually tell you the truth).
Usually I don't mind. They probably sell that information (not about me, but about their "user base") to someone to make some money that way, since I don't pay for the honor to use their program for free. No problems there.
A problem arises when said data is transmitted without my consent. Without me even knowing that it is being sent. Am I supposed to trust a company that it isn't going to do shady business with my data when they're sneaky about it?
Now, I'm not saying MS does. But, seriously, why the cloak-and-dagger approach? Just tell the user "Vista is now gonna send MS the following information about your system, anonymized so it can't be tracked, and we want it to see what hardware platforms our system should run best on. Thanks for your co-op."
What's wrong about that? If someone doesn't care, heck, one more click on "accept" isn't going to be even noticed in Vista. And if someone does care, the smell of fish is not gonna hit his nose when something like this is being exposed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is not good. Probably only used to invalidate your copy of Windows once you change the motherboard.
This service asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL.
Again: if a device is plugged in, a dialog first comes up and asks the user if he/she wants to search the internet for a driver. And the service NEEDS the name of the device to search for one.
That's because you ASK for it. Similarly if I Google a problem, Google gets my search query. But they're collecting stats on hardware, and that's pretty normal for an OS company. After all, it'll help them build a better OS (not likely though).
Just the extensions?? Big deal. Here's a partial list for my computer: *.raw, *.mov,...wait, this person has some Apple format on their computer...DESTROY. Can they use this information to help with vendor lock-in? Maybe.
Maybe this is going a bit off the deep end. What I install is my business and not theirs.
This asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL. Why are they even including this in this article?
This asks your consent, and is okay and OPTIONAL. So, if you register, it receives the data. No surprise there.
Makes data available to services that contact Microsoft does not mean this data will be SENT to Microsoft. FUD.
If this is actually true, then it's too far. Direct monitoring of the sites!
Too far. But I'm not sure what a Peer Name is now. And I doubt it's very useful.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Lord, there are surely a hundred SERIOUS attacks on our privacy every day that deserve attention. Why is someone wasting time getting all paranoid because MS software sends back error reports?
Will we now see a companion story about how OS X, Firefox, and Thunderbird are all collecting "personal information" and transmitting it back to Apple and Mozilla.org?
Three Squirrels
The things that get transmitted are:r ary/28cd5e13-e955-4941-91d9-fec2525e96c71033.mspx? mfr=true
1. Activation info. Well, duh.
2. Windows Update. -do-
3. Auto Root Update. Updates the list of trusted certificate authorities. You know, Verisign etc.
4. Windows Media DRM. Not an issue if you don't use DRM files, and no, information isn't transmitted every time you play the song.
5. Windows Media Player. To download album art/track names. Again, no different from other players. Easy to disable completely.
6. Malicious Software Removal. What's the problem if info is transmitted to Microsoft that you had an infection and it was cleaned? Non-issue. You can choose not to use it at all.
7. Network Connectivity Status Icon. This doesn't TRANSMIT anything except the HTTP request. It just downloads a small page to check if the Internet connection is working. Easy to disable, no problem.
8. Windows Time Service. Syncs time. Again, what's the problem? It's easy to disable if you really have a problem.
9. Problem reports. It asks you very clearly if data is to be sent to Microsoft, and asks you again if you want to send personal data. And reporting problems is good.
10. Games. Come on, it downloads fucking info and covers.
11. Event Viewer. Data is sent only when you specifically REQUEST for more online help. http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/lib
12. Customer Experience Improvement Program. Microsoft *SPECIFICALLY ASKS YOU* if you want to opt-in. Once you say no, it never asks you again.
- etc -
The paranoia claims are really ridiculous. The operating system uses Internet resources to improve your experience, like telling you when you are connected to the Internet. Please take your tinfoil hat off for a minute and look at this objectively.
X-ray machines, Jet engines, and more all report operating conditions and usage information back to the manufacturer. Microsoft is doing this anonymously to improve the products. I have no problem with this. They aren't sending back any "personal information" like credit card numbers or even identification information.
There are plenty of reasons you still don't want this happening. Consider...the war on terror continues and somebody gets caught up in the Feds dragnet. They press charges, but don't quite have the evidence they need. The defendant's lawyer (and the ACLU) is probably going to get him to walk unless they can find something. Little known to all, the President (or these days, the VP) issues a secret Executive Order that strips "terror suspects" of the right to attorney-client privilege. The Feds show up at Microsoft's door with several court orders. They order the tracking of the suspect, and they provide the IP addresses of computer in the offices of the defendant's attorney and the ACLU and demand that Microsoft install a backdoor patch to download documents off that computer. Of course the download will be indiscriminate...maybe this lawyer will also have you as a client, and your files will go to the Feds also.
Far-fetched? Perhaps, but certainly plausible. Suppose it's not the American government, but the Chinese looking for a few journalists or Falun Gong members. Still far-fetched? Which way do you think Microsoft will go when the choice is a few journalists in prison or losing access to the Chinese market?
Privacy is always good.
Any idea how this works with a Microsoft Enterprise license? Will half the Internet
traffic be Microsoft computers calling home?
Very speculative article. Author claims all kinds of information is gathered by Microsoft, but does not
specify what exactly. Sound like FUD to me. Anyhow, how does he know? Because of the closed-source nature
of their products, there's nothing stopping MS from getting any information they want from your computer.
Also, such claims are hard to verify or debunk, so nothing's stopping anti-MS fud-spreading bloggers
and journalists.
So, if you are concerned about privacy, use an open source product that you trust, or if you don't trust it,
(have someone) look at the source code.
assignment != equality != identity
>It appears that Microsoft is slowly trying to head towards a near-constant connection of the end-user to their system, for what purposes is a matter for conjecture.
/author/ of the software, not the user - more DRM, more restrictions on how I can use the software, instead of better software for /me/. It's seriously getting to where I don't trust commercial upgrades anymore. It seems like 90% of the time or better a commercial upgrade limits what I can do with the application instead of enhances it.
And it's not just Microsoft doing it.
This "phone home" crap is the single biggest thing that is driving me to consider open-source alternative operating systems and software.
The second biggest thing is that it seems more and more that with commercial software every time I install an "upgrade" it is really an upgrade for the
It's really all come down to games for me. If my games would all run on Linux I'd be there tomorrow.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Oh No! Microsoft will have my IP Address, OS, Browser, Name and version of the software I'm using, and the language I use!
Oh wait, every website I've ever visited has the potential to have that information.
IP address, I can somewhat understand. But the other stuff? Yes, I'm among the millions that use Firefox, Windows XP, and speak English. Tell me how that is going to help anyone identify me? Even the IP address I use isn't static. Just look at how much trouble the RIAA has had tracking down users via IP address. And honestly, of the millions upon millions of people that use Windows do you really think that Microsoft is going to come after YOU? If you are that paranoid perhaps you should disconnect your computer and put on your tin foil hat. It'll free up some space on the tubes for the rest of us.
Microsoft is stepping over some big lines here.
Either that, or they're just using their pool of hundreds of millions of users with tens of millions different hardware/software configurations in order to collect bug data.
That's really the most obvious and the most likely answer.
I don't respond to AC's.
MS just wants to steal pr0n!
Isn't it ironic that the very company charging insane amounts for a "safe and secure" OS is essentially using spyware embedded in the system itself when the average user shells out a decent amount of money to prevent spyware programs?
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.... and now Spyware is Security.
If you want to be part of the whole, you have to accept the inherit lose of privacy that is associated with it. Doesn't matter how much you dislike it, but as a whole EVERYTHING is becoming more connected, you can't truly expect your privacy to somehow remain immune from all this "openness".
;-)
To some extent this is true, but that does not mean we should give up more privacy than what is unavoidable.
In the context of this article, I think it is bad to have a bunch of services on my computer that send more data to the software vendor than immediately necessary. It might be useful for Microsoft to run statistics about the habits of Windows users, but that does not mean I have to accept being monitored.
BTW, my private computers are still on Windows 2000, because I found the product activation in XP too annoying. Vista is completely disqualified. The new machine I've just bought will probably be my last Windows PC, because it already approaches the limits of what Windows 2000 Professional can handle (Dual Core, 2 GByte RAM).
Any significant upgrades from that will make a switch to a proper 64 bit OS necessary
C - the footgun of programming languages
It kind of depends on what info they are capturing.
Google keeps track of all your searches, and this seems like this could be more of a privacy concern in some situations. There was a story a while back about some murderer or attempted murderer where they recovered all of his Google searches, which included stuff like "how to murder and not get caught". Not using Google must not have been on the list.
X-ray machines, Jet engines, and more all report operating conditions and usage information back to the manufacturer.
And X-ray machines and jet engines are multi-purpose devices that store gobs of personal information?
They aren't sending back any "personal information" like credit card numbers or even identification information.
I'd like to know how you've achieved that conclusion given the fact that you and just about everyone outside of Microsoft lacks meaningful information as to what *is* being sent, in what form, and how.
Someone long ago said "Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is a ridiculous one." But no worries, right?
you're probably mostly right.
Hell, my mother has purchased a bloody HP with Vista. That's double Jeopardy on privacy!
I'd like to know how you've achieved that conclusion given the fact that you and just about everyone outside of Microsoft lacks meaningful information as to what *is* being sent, in what form, and how.
Oh for cripes sake. Just fire up tcpdump and have a look at what is being sent. It is all clear-text.
It seems redundant that all of these companies have to mine our data independently, or that we have to sign up for free stuff to help them out. The least Microsoft and Google and Apple and everyone else could do is get together and take our data ONCE and be done with it!
"Hi I'm a PC" "And I'm a Mac." Mac sees PC with phone in hand, watching a 3rd person. "So what you doing?" "SHHH! I'm collecting data on that user over there. And phoning hom." *to person on other end* "Yeah, he's reading a news site. No, it's not MSNBC. Is he allowed to do that? Confirm or deny?"
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
As long as companies write such ridiculous EULAs, it is only natural that people will react this way to them. Frankly the only reason that more people are not scared and appalled at EULAs is that no one actually reads them. Probably many of the things claimed in EULAs would not hold up in a court of law. But if all the terms of the EULAs were actually legally enforceable, then it would not be at all paranoid to be concerned about them: the terms are, after all, very consumer-hostile.
As long as the info is sent anonymously, whats the big deal? This information is probably being used to make sure the operating system run the smoothest it can, the info sent can be used to help update the system and keep MS on top of bugs and holes in the OS
Hello, we're with the police. We'd like to install these realtime video cameras and microphones into all the various rooms of your home. The information gathered will only be used to make sure your home is run the smoothest it can, and that no criminals can get in to do you harm, or in case a fire or storm damage or medical emergency then we can send the appropriate first-responders right away.
The OS is using YOUR computer and YOUR network infrastructure to connect to the Internet ... fine.
If this information were to be captured at invoiced at the end of each month - because, remember, you are now providing a SERVICE to Microsoft - I am sure it could be profitable. When others charge a rate for per-kilobyte service, this comes out to around $0.02/K (USD; Heliophone). Plus "taxes and fees". Plus a "service charge".
At the end of the day, we all should not only demand MS to be punitively damaged for installing what ammounts to malware on the desktop, but also be PAID for the service (both in terms of data use and also market research) we are providing.
I remember back in the early 1990s, when the first network software for Microsoft systems started coming out, I read a report from some engineers who had been using it in their lab. They noticed that their modem's lights would flicker during times that the machine was "idle". So they hooked up a line monitor, and studied the activity.
It turned out that some software inside the machine was making connections to Microsoft sites, and passing information about the contents of the disk over the line.
So MS has been doing this for 15 years or so. Even back then, they knew how to make this "service" unobtrusive. It didn't show as a running program, and it apparently didn't run when other software was using the line. It was just a quiet, hidden, background task that continuously reported on your data to its master.
Nobody who has been paying attention should find it at all surprising that, in 2007, this is still happening. If you are running Microsoft software, you should assume that, unless you know otherwise, that Microsoft has full access to everything in your machine.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
First comes blocking words like democracy from searches, then comes deleting dissident blogs,
Then comes any Chinese/Tibetan activist unfortunate enough to use Vista getting carted off to the gulags.
Hardly an adversarial relationship. Google, Yahoo and MS all roll over to the demands of the regime. It's the new 21st century open door policy, only the doors are kicked in by the PLA after receiving updates from American corporations.T oc142395826
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/5.htm#_
i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
okay, it's probably not (new user ID, single post (the one I'm replying to), nothing on google about "media center deleted" or '"media center" deletes' that would indicate media center magically deleting any files - let alone ones onf a network drive...
:)
but if it's true, I'm amazed there's been no giant huff about this - not to mention lawsuits.
In case I've been googling wrong - I fully expect replies posting to the dozens of websites that would likely report this sort of thing
... is that any Microsoft system is NOT owned by the 'buyer'- it is Microsofts' as they are licensing it to the 'users'. Microsoft can do what they wish as owners of said software. So I can't see what people get bothered about, really - what do you expect from something you do not and cannot ever, ever own, no matter how much you think you do (or even how much you spend on it too).
Or, rather, the information.
The big deal, imho, is not that they are anonymously collecting data, it's that Microsoft is using it to further ensnare the market, taking away privilege from the end user. Look at what you're agreeing to when you buy the OS; first, you must pay for it. Then you must provide space for it to install, and system resources for it to utilize. Now you have to pay additional resources for it to send information to Microsoft. That information is used by Microsoft to make more money, either by selling it on or by using it to alter their practices or to directly target something (such as a DRM violation). You have to give approval for these things, or you have to find an alternative OS. But with each additional demand they place (money, information, usage of resources you're paying for) their cost of doing business is going down, the cost to you is going up and they have more resources to leverage at keeping you where you are.
In some sense this is the classic, "It's expensive to be poor" situation. You have no enumerated rights here. They have every ability to make contractual demands you're not even aware of. They're not beholden to you, but can use your resources for their ends. You have to agree, otherwise what little else you have can be taken away by them. They play on ignorance, lack of capital and their own entrenchment to stay entrenched, and keep you powerless. This is not a happy place for you to be. Get out.
[Ego]out
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act otherwise known as GLBA controls how businesses collect, use, and distribute non-public information, and provides for penalties for the misuse of that information. Having managed IT for a bank, I can tell you that this act is serious stuff.
Microsoft's attorneys are not stupid. They know if they collect non-public information, they are bound by GLBA to protect that information. That includes audits of any systems that store or transmit that information.
It would cost Microsoft way more money to collect non-public information from its users than it could make by using or selling that information. Also, it would expose Microsoft's products to outside auditor scrutiny, possibly even requiring the source code of its products to be inspected.
For these reasons, Microsoft does not want to collect non-public information from its users.
-ted
As if you needed another reason to Just Say No to Vista.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Even if you decide that you believe MS 100% and trust that they won't quietly change the terms in a year or two (a right they do reserve) to allow them to collect personally identifying information AND sell, it, just how secure are their servers? Any chance their admins will sell the data on the side for obscene amounts of cash?
Does any unique but not personally identifying information also appear in personally identifying Word documents? What is their policy if the NSA wants a copy? What is their policy if Bill needs a favor from Congress?
Funny, my Linux boxen don't collect any information at all and still they run nice and stable and get their updates as needed.
Kernel.org is not a trusted site. reject or deny?
People, people, calm down. You are taking this all the wrong way.
I for one welcome our private data collecting and protecting overlords!
Seriously, I am so grateful that Microsoft are putting all this effort into collecting my private data - this way I know they are doing their best at making my Windows experience even more pleasant and productive, which is a difficult task, as you all will surely agree.
I am also grateful that I don't even need to consent to every little transmission of my private data... after all I trust my friends at Redmont and could think of no better place to store this data. Actually, maybe there is one better place. But then again, the RIAA do not write operating systems yet.
I am so glad that above this fabulous article there were Google ads pointing me right to the best place for buying Vista. I just have to buy a few more copies now, how thoughtful of them - now I know where to get them!
So cheer up folks, just relax. The private data of Vista users is in good hands.
The home licence agreement can be found here (I'm sure that you all read it before activating Vista :-P)
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/W indows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875 -8153-889cf5105718.pdf
I'd be more concerned that Microsoft don't want you to "work around any technical limitations in the software".
...when you realize anybody can do this. Not that I trust Microsoft completely, but chances are good they won't abuse the information they collect. Compare spamers and many (most?) online retailers. Personally, my only use of Microsoft is research. Its ran in a totally artificial environment (emulation) to see if they have "anything new". The answer appears to be "not".
/. post, it would appear the average MS 'user' is incapable of setting up a simple DNS server, so suggesting MS 'users' set up a packet filter is clearly out of the question. Providers are in a good position to block all of this at the customer's request. Looking at all the paranoia out there, there certainly appears to be a business model here. Those of us that know how can easily intercept all this and make a shot of interpreting the data MS or any other 'spyware' operator would have received. It's rarely encrypted in a real way, in fact its almost always easily extractable by standard Unix utilities. Perhaps somebody should make a Windows tool that can monitor this? It doesn't sound like much more than a web ad blocker. Its unclear to me how to do this "clickity click" and maybe the simple reality about computers is: "Type or else"?
Nobody wants Vista here (Europe) and from what I read, this appears universal. The simple answer is: "Don't use it". The practical answer may be a new service for providers to offer. From an earlier
The answer Slashdot wants to hear is simply 'bite the bullet' and use real operating systems. It would appear Vista might be just what it takes for people to say enough. Linux or Unix in incompetent hands is clearly a bad thing, so its not just dump Microsoft, its time to learn how to use a computer!
BillSF
I remember when you actually had a choice to the tcp stack.. but since WIN 95 I think.. maybe earlier.. MS rolled it up into the OS and I begrudgingly accepted the fact they now control my traffic. I thought anyone who had a clue assumed MS knew everything about you and your PC.. Greedy company:check, complete data control:check, connectivity:check.. what did you *think* they'd do?
Let's assume for one moment that what you are saying is correct (although I don't believe for one moment that it is), then since these are independent applications, then it's very easy to disable or uninstall them if you don't like them phoning home. So, pray tell, how would you do this in Windows where the "phoning home" is being done by a stealth application that's running as part of the intrinsic underlying OS.
Also, you're turning this into a "Windows vs Linux" discussion which is an overly simplistic viewpoint. Open Source applications are subject to constant peer review meaning that any suspicious "phoning home" would be rapidly identified and brought out into public attention. I can't comment on YaST as I don't use SuSE Linux but I suspect, as a commercial entity, they are interested in user information but since there are a myriad of Open Source applications that run on Windows also, this is more a case of Open vs Closed Source, not Windows vs Linux.
So, you might charaterize things less harshly as follows : Linux tries to let you keep your personal information private but all of your work product is public, and Windows keeps all of your work product private but your personal information is public.
Sorry, but that's utter trash. Aside from stability, "free beer" and customisability, the main reason I use Linux as my primary OS choice is that it allows *ME* to take responsibility for protecting *MY* information and does not allow me to dump that responsibility into the hands of some private entity.
I am one of the first people to volunteer to take part in surveys and information gathering excercises because when I am *ASKED* to provide information and have the choice of what information to and not to provide, it can be very useful to someone who is designing or marketting a product or service. But I am *NOT* going to let someone just take that information - and if that means never using Vista then so be it...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The National Association of Theater Owners, the businesses that run movie theaters, faced demands for DRM from the movie studios. They agreed, but on their terms, which limit the intrusiveness of the DRM system. Here are some of the terms:
Any software that phones home in an enterprise environment ought to be held to standards like these.
I really don't see what the big deal is. It sounds like the most identifying thing they're capturing is your IP address and this is really no different than going to Google.com or something (other than the fact that you KNOW your IP is being captured there). Your IP address isn't a big secret, it's captured by possibly hundreds or thousands of places daily. They say Microsoft COULD come knocking on your door, but it also says in their EULA that it won't be used for "Identifying or Contacting" you, so Microsoft is restricted to their own rules. They COULD, but WON'T come knocking... Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't do a lot with an IP address without doing some major research to find your personal info.
>But Open Source software is not going to uphold your freedoms, only Free Software will.
Sorry, I thought they were the same thing?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Bottom line...serious cocaine addicts are stuck with crack"
I don't feel like it...
He works in an FDA regulated environment, not works for the FDA. There are several companies that are heavily regulated by the FDA. I used to work for a pharmaceutical research company and almost every piece of software requires some kind of validation in order to protect no only the the pharmaceutical companies, but also the patients as well.
While most IT environments can install Patches and Service Packs and Updates at will, this is not the case for FDA regulated companies. The update or patch will be installed on a system that has no access to any real data, each step of the installation is documented down to each mouse click complete with screen shots, then the installation is performed following that document by a person who didn't write the initial instructions, and they will then take screen shots of their installation. Then once it has passed the installation steps, then there are instructions written up for each thing that needs to be tested and validated, that is also complete with screen shots, and each mouse click and keyboard entry. Those instructions are sent to someone else who goes through each step, and takes screen shots along the way, and if that passes, it can then go on to production where the installation is performed, with screen shots, and a final series of tests, with screen shot is also done. All the documents are printed out as the FDA hasn't completely allowed electronic storage.
So where the normal IT guy clicks download/install and maybe makes a log of it. A simple windows update in an FDA regulated environment will produce a mountain of paperwork. If anything along the line has the potential of revealing any confidential information against FDA regulations, then the software will be rejected. Vista at this point has been rejected so far.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Is there a way to spam these data collection services so that you send it false data, making it harder for these data collectors to sift through and find valid data? It seems like a real case of where security through obscurity would actually work.
For example, if you could blast these Microsoft services with false information, how could they reliably use the data at all? At some point, with enough bad data, they would just have to turn off the services altogether. That seems to be the most effective way of getting rid of all these data collection/spyware services.
This approach would work with almost all data collection services... if these collectors can't prove to their investors that the data is valuable, they will stop being funded, and then the services will be shut down. Simple capitalism at work.
This is nothing new, nor is it malicious. Ham-handed, perhaps, but not malicious. And yes, I really do believe that -- mod away. Microsoft has plenty of data about users, competitors, and so on -- the sheer volume of chaff they'd have to deal with if they really were tracking our movements would grind even them to a halt.
I do appreciate the irony that the article about Microsoft's pushy tactics is full of landmines that barf popups whenever you happen to mouse over them.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Let's assume for one moment that what you are saying is correct (although I don't believe for one moment that it is), then since these are independent applications, then it's very easy to disable or uninstall them if you don't like them phoning home.
Of course its is true. Strong networking is one of the greatest reasons to use Linux. I've not tried Vista yet, but my Suse Linux 10 blows even Windows Server 2003 out of the water for how it handles lots of applications with lots of connections. And please, don't even get me started about contrasting the horror of Winsock with the elegance of Linux sockets.
So, pray tell, how would you do this in Windows where the "phoning home" is being done by a stealth application that's running as part of the intrinsic underlying OS.
Most of these requests are from Services that can be turned off. Others are from applications that you don't have to use. You don't -have to use Media Player-. And, in the worst case, if you have a decent firewall, it will ask you if some application is allowed to use the internet.
All I am saying is that there is a cultural predisposition in Linux to trust that things talk to the internet are doing so for legitimate reasons, but, that this totally flipped in Windows. Getting icons for albums, synching up the time, is a pretty benign business for any operating system, and honestly, sending bug reports to a server for analysis are all good things, but, because it is Microsoft, it is difficult for some people to accept that that is the way they are.
My feeling though is, probably 99% of that MS traffic is actually benign and beneficial in some way, becuase, the developers that think it up are geeks after all. IT's just the guys that do the Windows Vista Registration and Validation that spoiled the party for everyone else. Basically, Microsoft has sort of shot themselves in the foot with using the internet as an enforcement mechanism, as now consumers will never quite trust the rest of their internet activities.
This is my sig.
"All you have to know is that Microsoft could come knocking on your door as soon as you boot Windows Vista for the first time if you consider the system's computer information harvested. Microsoft will get your "Internet protocol address, the type of operating system, browser and name and version of the software you are using, and the language code of the device where you installed the software." But all they really need is your IP address."
Um, dude - don't tell ANYONE, but every site you surf to knows your IP address and then they could also come and knock on your door!
Slow news day for the evil empire? I hear they have no Moxie(R) in the vending machines in Redmond - a conspiracy, I tell you!
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The bottom line is you have to transmit personally identifiable information to Microsoft to keep Vista running properly. Unless you're willing to go to extreme lengths to sanitize every bit of outbound data.
I know my ISP is keeping records of where I visit on the internet. But if that really worried me I could tunnel through to a secure proxy and all they get is the proxy IP. If you block Microsoft at the firewall your operating system will stop working and you won't be able to get security updates.
Finished updating my home network to Kubuntu this weekend. Very nice. I support Microcrap all day and going home to my Linux network is like diving into a clear, cool pool at the end of a hot day. Everything is so fluid, easy to manage, low stress computing. Funny thing, I remember a day when going with Microsoft was the low stress networking option.
Those days are over.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The link is buried in the article, so in case you didn't catch it: Windows Vista Privacy Statement
There's a short highlights page as well: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vist artm.mspx.
Notice that this is a separate document from the EULA that is both more specific about exactly what data is ever sent and much more readable than the typical legalese found elsewhere.
So reading through most of these /. responses, I noted that a great majority, if not all, of you will be unticking boxes that allow MS to collect this info. Fine, that's your right. So who's info are they going to collect? The people not savvy enough to untick, which is probably the subset of users that coincides with the subset that doesn't read /., ars technica, etc. So now MS has anonymous usage statistics from the people who aren't power users and design their products accordingly. These people also happen to be a majority subset in a larger group.
Now the power users, for one reason or another, still have to use the OS that MS comes up with (games, work, etc). Wouldn't it be better to find out what sort of statistics are being collected, find out to what degree they are anonymous, improve upon the anonymity while allowing MS to collect useful data about the power users who actually use MS products? Because if they can't collect even the most anonymous info from power users, how are they going to build an OS that appeals to us?
It's seems like most people don't want to be grouped into a category unless it's a category they already agree with. Fine, stand up for your category and make MS build something that appeals to it.
I'm not sure to what nefarious purpose Microsoft's web server and firewall logs will be put, but if you consider the routine kinds of activity tracking performed by the average web farm, of course Microsoft will have your IP address and user agent information when you or the Automatic Updates client hits https://updates.microsoft.com/. That's the way the web works! The same goes for things like the time synchronization service - this is a client/server technology, so of course the other end will have your IP address.
Now, what's strange is how things like the IPv6 tunneling driver, the IME, etc. talk back to Microsoft. I'm willing to bet that its almost all performance-related logging, but it'd be nice to see a detailed dump of all of it.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
How much of this is based on what microsoft wanted to do and what was wanted by other 3rd parties (and by that i mean the government).
... are behind at least part of this". It opens up some alarming possibilities as well for things like the novell/others patent agreements (as in, are MS trying to get code into linux to do the same thing?).
While I seriously wouldn't doubt that ms are behind it all (in a bid to beet google at the ad game by leveraging their OS to force you to view better ads and hence give them a tremendous advantage), there is a little voice in the back of my head going "hey you know i wonder if the NSA, CIA, FBI,
Of course theres always the even more disturbing thought that MS were given an "open slather" by the US govt to "gather any and every piece of intel you possibly from your users and we dont care how you use it so long as we have access to it".
I know it sounds a bit far fetched and more than a bit tin-foily but i cant help but wonder in this post 9/11 world just how likely that is.
Now assume it is true for a second, would disabling all the things that collect this information get you marked as a terrorist? scary thought.
Seriously, on financial/market size grounds? I'm guessing at least four orders of magnitude, probably more.
Right now, consoles represent something like 75–80% of the games market. The Windows PC is most of the remaining 20% or so. The Mac gets a look in, just. Nothing else is even relevant.
At that split, there are already few Mac ports of even big name titles that could be converted with relative ease and low cost if you planned for it up-front. You sometimes here senior people at games companies quoted as saying it's not worth going after the Windows market, because consoles are bigger and that's where the growth is.
And of course, that's money talking, not numbers of gamers. Like it or not, Linux comes with a culture that says people don't expect to pay for software, and that makes it a very unattractive target for commercial games developers. For gaming on Linux ever to advance beyond puzzle games and low-budget action titles made by hobbyists, there needs to be a much, much greater number of Linux users, and they need to have a demonstrated willingness to fork out $LOCAL_CURRENCY for real games.
To be brutally honest, I'm not sure I can ever see that happening. I expect consoles to develop replaceable controller technology that makes them more appealing for the genres they don't suit already several years before Linux gets enough of a foothold on the home user desktop to be a serious challenger.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I realize that the article is about Vista... But does anyone have information on what IPs and domains to block at the router level for Windows XP? I'd like to block everything except Microsoft's update servers - I don't want them to have any of my info, regardless of why they want it. I'm sure people would love to have the same info about Vista but I'm assuming that more info exists for XP.
EXACTLY! I mean honestly its heresay whether MS even logs the IP's of the people sending the data or not. Who cares. I'm sure by simply reading TFA that very news website logged your ip, browser, etc also, just like ANY website does. Why dont people sit here and get all pissy about that? I mean in all reality Netscape was the first app to do this that I could recall, sending back crash information when it crashed; brilliant. This expands on the idea somewhat seeing what are the most common features used, as well as their reliabilty and performance. Also if you are really worried about the cpu time it will use to do this then you aren't really that bright or you are still using a 486, I mean seriously its essentially negligible. It will only be time before some of the big Linux distros follow suit-- but of course everyone will praise them for doing exactly the same thing... Oh well.
Technophile
Bush's DOJ switched sides and now our government supports Microsoft so vigorously both here and in abroad.
Besides the free gift of your personal info, the are those backdoor keys. They didn't call them "NSA keys" for no reason.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Why the hell did you have write access on your media shares?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Microsoft has *always* been in the spyware business.
Vista is just a *trusted* spying machine.
Trusted by Microsoft, not the user.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
I won't upgrade to Vista. Too blind to enjoy the eye candy, and don't want a computer that draws as much juice as a toaster to run it. What personal data could it collect? That I, John Pocahontas Smith, who lives at 31416 Pi Blvd, and smokes Lucky Strikes and prefers Gordon's vodka and plays poker every Thursday night; what could M$ learn? That I am a socialist, who is into extreme right wing politics and believes the earth is locally flat. Google could probably learn that. Doesn't worry me, they will come and get me eventually anyway, whoever "they" are.
Good thing I'm running the Paradox BIOS emulator. They don't know WHAT I'm running!
"You mean a Mac?"
"Oh, heavens no."
Actually, I think it's more like:
"You mean a Mac?"
"That's exactly what I mean."
And then the conversation usually ends there.
Why oh Why don't console game developers allow the use of keyboard and mouse in their games?
My left thumb is the LEAST dexterous digit, and yet that it what I am forced to 'aim' with.
The first PS3 game to release with a keyboard/mouse controller option will sell off the shelves!
You hear me? Just do it!
Thanks
Next thing you know Nazi (MS) storm troopers will be showing up at any moment at my front door to steal my tin foil hat, my Birthday, and inalienable right to be a MS hater.
I think for software development to be truly successful, it's essential to collect data from your users. No matter, how superior your developers, testers, project managers or user interface designers are, in the end, you need some way of measuring the experience your user is having with your product. Be it Windows, Linux, or the Macintosh. Now, collecting data without the user's consent is illegal - some forms of spyware do this, search engines at time do this as their very usage is implicit consent (say search queries). Now, IMO, Windows does a great job of informing you and asking you for consent (Let's ignore the fact that there are a large number of such prompts). In Vista, the Control Panel prompts you, Check for solution dialog prompts you, and as someone else has said Customer Experience Improvement Program prompts you. Therefore, the characterization that Vista plucks your data sneakily is somewhat far fetched. What's worthwhile to discuss is A] Is the consent experience simple enough and clear enough for all users to understand? B] Are too many consent choices being offered to the user? [This would be annoying] C] Is the consent explicit enough in describing 'exactly' what's collected? I do think Vista doesnt do a great job with these. However, the user does have the option of being conservative and saying no. Microsoft is not a two penny company - companies of that size know how to treat customer data seriously. If there are concerns about how that data maybe shared, then one should not consent into these programs. To be truly fair in discussion, one should not criticize the concept of data collection, but rather evaluate how it's done. Good data collection followed by solid product changes are beneficial to the software community as the whole. And we'd be doing a great injustice in portraying data collection in such poor light.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10189.cfm
This is just further proof that Microsoft lies.
Is it slander if it's true? - Just because something is in a license agreement doesn't mean its happening.
Truth is absolute protection against libel charges in this case.
Not knowing is also a good defense. It can be happening because M$ gives themselves both the means and permission. Reporting facts and speculating on the implications is completely legitimate. No one but M$ is every going to really know because M$ can compress and encrypt the information. Non free software is capable of malicious action by it's very nature and the first malicious act is it's promotion. You can't trust it, ever.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you want to be part of the whole, you have to accept the inherit lose of privacy that is associated with it. Doesn't matter how much you dislike it, but as a whole EVERYTHING is becoming more connected, you can't truly expect your privacy to somehow remain immune from all this "openness".
With free software, I'm in charge of what my computer tell you. If you ask me for more than I'm willing to give, I might have to avoid your network. If everyone was using free software, you would have few users of your network and much of what they tell you would be a lie, which serves you right for asking what you should not.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I suppose this means that net neutrality is a thing of the past?
But all they really need is your IP address.
The guy goes bonkers over Microsoft but fails to mention Apple and Mozilla.. Similarly, none of the comments 352 comments mention this problem with Apple.
I recently configured a new iBook for a friend and was surprised by the "you can't get past the registration without filling it in" aspect (secret keystroke is required). Many apps on the dock phoned home. Every new copy of Mozilla/firefox/etc reports your IP, platform, etc. How do those not get a privacy mention?
Yeah, it's so quiet in fact that it asks you every single time if you want to do it.
It's about as silent as an atomic bomb.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
perhaps the big difference is: the developers of gimp are likely to want to know gimp runs well on my machine and not my hobbies, whereas Microsoft et al, wants to know everything I am doing to control me.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
and I would say Linux would phone home a lot too...
Let's say Firefox:
It phone home and a) checks for update, b) checks for plugins update, c) checks for phishing.
Even apt-get would:
Contact and download the catalog, I didn't check but believe by only downloading the difference, the other peer could easily guess how old my catalog is.
And the list just go on with many other softwares.
The difference is, you can always verify the source with open source software, which I believe 0.1% user, at most, might actually do. You can always assume Microsoft is doing bad thing with its phone home feature, but if you are that paranoid, you better setup an independent machine for going online, or a proxy machine to route and only route those absolutely necessary traffic.
In Soviet Russia, you look at the vista!
Activation - Annoying anti-piracy check. This is the worst of the group, because it can't be turned off.
Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP) - Optional feedback program.
Device Manager & Driver Protection & Dynamic Update - Gives you an option to scan for updated drivers.
Event Viewer - Optional, If you click the 'get more information' it sends a query for, (get this) more information.
File Association Web Service - Same as above.
Games Folder - Downloads pictures and ratings for your games.
Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition - Optional error reporting..
Input Method Editor (IME) - I assume it's looking for new language packs.
Installation Improvement Program - Optional error reporting.
Internet Printing - Not sure on this one, I assume it's a driver check. Unless they're talking about the Internet printing service that prints your photos. If so, then duh, grow up.
Internet Protocol version 6 Network Address Translation Traversal, Network Awareness (somewhat), Peer Name Resolution Service - Read how these servcices work, they require an Internet server.
Parental Controls - I believe it's tied to the phishing filter.
Plug and Play, Plug and Play Extensions, Program Compatibility Assistant,Program Properties--Compatibility Tab, Program Compatibility Wizard, Properties, - Driver updates, compatibility updates.
Registration - Marketing, optional
Rights Management Services (RMS) Client - DRM as bad as activation
Update Root Certificates - Automatic updates for SSL certs.
Windows Control Panel - Not sure which panel
Windows Help - Optional Online help
Windows Mail (only with Windows Live Mail, Hotmail, or MSN Mail) - Well duh, hotmail calls microsoft?
Windows Problem Reporting - Optional error reporting.
With the exception of Activation and the RMS client, both of which are useless, these are useful Internet services, feel free to turn them off or actually answer NO, when asked.
Stop making this into a 'oooh, they're spying on me'. They're spying the same way Slashdot is spying on you when you post a message.
do you really trust your host file on a Microsoft system? They're known for bypassing it specifically for that kind of stuff.
I hadn't thought of that, but wouldn't be supprized if Windows was able to bypass the host file on the machine. A way around that though is to use a hardware proxy or firewall. That of course leaves IPs addies not registered to MS. But then though the proxy or firewall can block IP addies that aren't "friendly", ie you don't know who it is.
Damn, I wish I had thought about MS bypassing host files because I use one to block ad networks like doubleclick, and MS may be getting into ad services. This gives me another reason, like I needed one (NOT!), for switching.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Because MS is treating users of Windows like criminals I am switching. For a desktop I got a PC with Linux preinstalled and when I get a new laptop, hopefully in a week or two, I'll be getting a Macbook Pro.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All I can say is I'm glad I don't have anything important like games to dictate what OS I use.
Same here. I use a computer mostly for productivity purposes, news, and research with some communications thrown in.
I know it's off topic but did you hear about the UCCS ruling about that high school student in Alaska who contested being suspended by the principal when he wore a tshirt saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus'"?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sorry, but even with all the evilness that is Windows, it is still *far* less evil than a console. In console gaming the console manufacturer approves what games are on the system, as with the Manhunt's AO rating preventing it from being released on the Wii and PS2. In PC Gaming, that would not happen, because even if the game was banned in Walmart, it could still be digitally distributed. Also, the console manufacturer doesn't need to spy on you because it uses DRM to lock down the console so that only approved devices can be connected to it (there are hacks of course).
Also, you do not need to license anything to make a game on the PC, anyone who wants to can make and sell a PC game without paying MS anything. This is why PC gaming is actually innovative with the indie and small studios. Console gaming is: "Madden 200x slightly better graphics than last year and nothing else new!" And games like Halo are "revolutionary" on the consoles, while PC gamers had been playing better FPSs for years.
The fact is, MS made DirectX 10, and when games are released for DirectX 10, gamers will switch to Vista to play them. And the graphics in games like Crysis that use this will make console gamers cry. While I use an Apple for all of my applications and data, the majority of my computing money is spent on my PC so that I can play these powerful games.
if nothing is offensive about all this story, and what's been said here is only rubbish, then could someone please tell me why they took the story out from the original site? I can't find it nowhere, not even with google cached utility. C'mon, it stinks like a million miles away....
let's supose that all this story is full of crap, why is it then taken out of the internet? even google cache doesn't help me with this. still, i want some strong evidence, not just some sentences that are taken out of the context and put in front of my eyes to test my reaction and start another win vs linux long thread
Vista came on my laptop, and I'm running Kubuntu now.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.