Slashdot Mirror
Safari 3.1 For Windows Violates Its Own EULA, Vulnerable To Hacks
recoiledsnake writes "The new Safari 3.1 for Windows has been hit with two 'highly critical'(as rated by Secunia) vulnerabilities that can result in execution of arbitrary code. The first is due to an improper handling of the buffer for long filenames of files being downloaded, and the second can result in successful spoofing of websites and phishing. This comes close on the heels of criticism of Apple for offering Safari as a update for approximately 500 million users of iTunes on Windows by default, and reports of crashes. There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites." Further, Wormfan writes "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs." Update: 03/27 17:23 GMT by Z : Dave Schroeder writes with the note that the license has been updated to correct this mistake.
Guess this article was right!
So Acid 4 will include security tests too now, right?
Sometimes it's just really not a good idea to push a piece of software out to hundreds of millions of people on its first release just because they use/update your other products. This is the real way that it could come back and bite them, and it certainly seems to have.
The software installation forbids the EULA!
...if Apple can sue itself for proposing illegal installs of safari on windows?
EULA's have gotten to the point that they conflict with themselves. One can then assume that Safari is intended for the Windows install on Mac machines, *or* on machines to which someone has applied an Apple brand sticker.
I am waiting for the EULA that requires all users to declare the programmer their god and send off their first born child to him in sacrifice.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Apple is the new Microsoft. Even the Apple zealots agree. Point out some flaw with Apple products, and they will invariably link to a similar example by Microsoft. I don't know why they are so quick to make the association, but I think it is similar to how Republicans like to ingratiate themselves to the public by showing how similar they are to Bill Clinton.
Can someone please explain to me how software could possible "violate its own EULA" (even theoretically, not necessarily restricted to this case)?
;)
I agree that the EULA makes no sense, assuming that Apple wants as many Windows users as possible to use Safari. But that's an entirely different matter.
In fact, the EULA can be adhered to without any problem: afterall, you can install Windows just fine on Mac hardware these days. So you can actually run Safari for Windows on "Apple labeled hardware".
I seriously doubt the way it is stated in the EULA is really Apples intention though
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
I can't believe that this issue slipped through to production. Safari is an excellent application but this does not speak well for the developers. People need to take the time to watch closely to what they are doing. I think that there should be more time spent on beta-testing and code reviews before a deployment. I once invented the roller blade but I showed a few friends the prototype. A few weeks later someone got the patent before I did. It is human nature to want to get something done as fast as possible. It cost Safari a major security issue. It cost me a lifetime of money and unlimited roller blades.
How can you violate an agreement that you never agreed to? Does Microsoft have a copy of a contract with my signature on it saying I'll accept its terms of use for XP? If I had Safari would Apple have a signed contract?
When I go to best buy I don't "license" an OS or piece of software; I pick a box up off the shelf, pay money for it and am delivered a purchase reciept. I then own the goods that I just BOUGHT. I am under no statutory obligation to read anything or sign anything. I tear open the box and do what I want with it, short of violating copyright law.
Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.
Does that answer your question?
My iPod came with a big Apple sticker which for some reason I did stick on my PC. Guess I'm OK to use Safari then.
The more eyes that are put on Safari, the more bugs/holes that will be exposed. Ultimately, Safari will become a better, some might say decent, browser as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."
They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.
A naturalist is -
"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"
Not a naturist or nudist.
That Apple themselves interpret the clause in OSX EULA as meaning it can be installed or run in a VM on whitebox PCs. Thanks for the confirmation Apple.
Yeah, and they found that it's based on Konqueror, not Firefox. Something that Apple widely acknowledges, too.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
Apple, these sort of tactics really are not necessary. Don't take the low road please...you can win it by going on the high way.
Considering both WebKit and Gecko (the rendering engines in Safari and Firefox) are available under the LGPL, it's quite possible that some Gecko code seeped into WebKit or vice versa. I'd highly doubt it, however.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Could someone please explain to me why anyone wanting an interface that uses Kon.. er QT.. er Safari would be using Windows in the first place?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
No wonder it's so bad.
Step 1: Install Safari on millions of unsuspecting Windows PCs
Step 2: Sue non-Mac owning PC users for violating EULA
Step 3: ???
...I can install one copy of Safari on an Apple-branded computer
It doesn't say how many I can install on non Apple-branded machines...
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements
I am trying to figure out why this is a bad thing, and I'm coming up dry. Help me here.
Everyone knows EULAs are a joke, and this certainly isn't the only one that's impossible to comply with. Are they legally binding anywhere?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
And the heavy-handed tactics they use to push said software is truly amazing. If MS did half of the underhanded stuff Apple does, they would be dragged back into court in a heartbeat. Why Apple continues to get a free pass on such crap is beyond me.
I will NOT install Quicktime, iTunes, Safari or any other Apple software on my computer. And I always advise others not too as well. It's just not worth the hassle (if Apple really wanted your business, and not just to sleaze their way onto your computer, they would sell iTunes songs through their website and not require a software download).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think you should seriously consider Ubuntu: for all those things that people usually use a Mac Mini for (music, video, photos, web browsing, text processing, Skype, etc.), it's actually probably a better choice. Ubuntu supports more audio, video, and file formats, it's easier to keep updated, and all the applications are preinstalled. Oh, and Ubuntu will talk just fine to your iPod, and unlike iTunes, will let you copy both to and from the iPod.
(I have a Mac Mini, an iMac, and several iPods, but I now mostly use my Ubuntu systems for everything)
You're free to do one yourself if you want, since Safari's engine, WebKit, is open-source. It's kind of odd though that a "rip off" of Firefox would be scoring so much higher than it on the Acid3 (100/100 now as of the latest nightly), and (compared to FF2) on Acid2.
You must not come here much, do you?
How many digits are in your id again?
hehe
The WebKit rendering engine has reached 100/100 on Acid 3.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Proof that nobody reads EULA, not even the people that write them?
More likely, some tired programmer just copied the string resource across from another project without checking it.
Apple sends you the software, that if you install on a Windows box, will violate it's own EULA.
They're giving you something that, when you use it for the purposes Apple would like you to, still violates it's own EULA.
No. They sent it to ME, I did not request it. I did not ask for it, it was part of the iTunes update, which was a decision on Apple's part.
Now, I'm not "blaming" Apple for anything, because it's just a silly oversight, but they screwed up by sending it to people who neither requested it nor were able to use it legally.
I am guessing that if our current set of laws has something to say about it, that apple will lose. Big.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IANAL but....
The offending section seems to have an even bigger issue in it.
It reads:
B. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site
(http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "OpenSourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these OpenSourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple
Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Applelabeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms
governing use of the OpenSourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple
Software.
You expressly acknowledge that if failure or damage to Apple hardware results from modification of the OpenSourced Components of the Apple Software, such failure or damage is excluded from
the terms of the Apple hardware warranty.
---
Now, one of the open source components used in Safari was/is Khtml which is licensed under the GNU LGPL. Now this clause allows you to modify & use the open source components ONLY if you use them on a single system (assuming the apple-labeled part has been fixed as i've heard).
You mean, like.... Ummm.... I'm thinking here.... Windows Media Player for mac? That would be the sort of vindictive thing that would be awesome for MS to do in my not so humble opinion. Bonus points if they "forget" to fix their licence, and say that it has to be run under windows.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
I run a Bootcamped MacBook in Vista 98% of my time. Its an Apple labelled machine, and thus surely that is within the EULA to use Safari?
Yes, even a guy with the handle maccolossus will join in the Apple bashing games. If you read the license agreement it also states it can only be installed on one computer at a time. So far for including Safari in my Windows lab images. It also states it can't be made available over a network to be used by more than one person at a time. So if you turn your mac mini's into a thin clients connected to a windows terminal server and more than one is using Safari from the terminal server you're "BREAKING THE LAW! BREAKING THE LAW!"
Come on guys, this was a bad cut-n-paste job when drafting the EULA for the Windows version of Safari, and you know it.
It has already been fixed.
:q!
They're all over the place:
- Stuck to the back glass of pickups
- Stuck to the back glass of poorly maintained econo-cars
- Stuck to teenage girls' bedroom/dorm doors
- Stuck to teenage girls' binders and backpacks
Good luck getting them back...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What a misleading title:
... EULA" - which is of course totally wrong.
/.
> Safari 3.1 For Windows Violates Its Own EULA, Vulnerable To Hacks
This sounds like "Safari 3.1 For Windows" is "Vulnerable To Hacks" which "Violates Its
But yeah, this is
hackerkey://v4sw5/7BCHJMPRUY$hw3ln3pr6/7FOP$ck6ma8+9u6L$w4/7CGUXm0l6DLRi82NCe3+9t5Sb7HMOPRen5a17s0DSr1/2p-3.62/-5.23g3/5
They have a lower ID than you, what's your point?
13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/03/27/safari.license.changed/ While the Mac license remains unchanged, the Windows license has been altered from "allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time" to "allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on each computer owned or controlled by you." The revision date on the license is March 26th.
To be more precise, the html rendering engine (webkit) is based on khtml, which is the konqueror (default) built-in rendering engine.
And whatever we can say about konqueror/safari, this branch of engines is generally considered to be well designed and standards compilant (khtml passed acid2 tests before gecko).
...because Safari gets a 98 on Acid3!!! whiiiiii
So don't be a killjoy y'all
It's hard to believe that a (supposedly) legally binding contract is cut-and-pasted by a programmer rather than being carefully drafted and approved by a lawyer. Actually, it's not hard for me to believe, but may be hard for people who think EULAs are legal contracts to believe.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Most of the discussion seems to be around the EULA & not the vulnerabilities.
Or have the fanboys modded down any comment about the vulnerabilities?
someone wanna 'splain the bad part of this incongruous charge?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Did anyone actually explore these? It's fun to poke fun of the EULA, but most people who toss around the vulnerability stuff probably don't understand it. The spoofing issue is silly in that if the "trusted" site is really trusted, then they likely wouldn't insert javascript to open an exploitative frame in a window with their address. (BTW... the originators code is mess, in fact his example of this alleged flaw doesn't work.)
The other "vulnerability" throws an exception, as it should, rather then allow an exploitation of Windows inability to deal with long filenames gracefully. Again... Safari could handle the exception more gracefully, but there is no vulnerability here.
Nothing to see here... so let's make fun of the EULA
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Man, they're not even trying are they? This day an age, not only is there no excuse to ship with such a basic flaw, there's really no excuse to be programming in a fashion that would allow it. It's so easy to audit for basic overflows (at least on Windows) that it's silly. Even just compiling /GS with VC++ should protect you against a lot. Seriously, people give MS a bad rap these days, but any exploit you're going to see in their software these days usually takes advantage of complex system interactions or odd exception throwing.
Apple should take a serious look at their coding practices and consider banning the use of unsafe CRT functions and using _s versions of any C functions their using (Visual C++ has them and they're part of the next standard) or at a minimum requiring audits of all raw pointers. Static analysis tools should also be mandatory and should catch most issues.(http://www.spinroot.com/static/)
But why isn't it possible for this sort of bug to be found automatically?
500 million users of iTunes, really? 12% of the world population that has access to electricity, are you sure?? How many computer users are there even really out there anyways? And how the hell would you know how many single users for a program you have out there any bloody way? And why on Earth am I seemingly the only one out here this figure made cringe?
You just got troll'd!
I installed Leopard and it took over my entire system! Worse, if I try to uninstall OS X, my powerbook would be so non-functional, it would need to be booted from a disk!!! Can you believe that crap?
As a long time Mac user I have seen witnessed long second rate standing with MS products on Apple Hardware, backed by good (for marketing) intentions but never coming of to well.
...though this wasn't the beginning, you can look to Quicktime, ClarisWorks/AppleWorks for that, but that one was done better.
I guess this is turnaround, Apple Software on Windows hardware.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
"There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites."
So, just stop using the internet, basically? Honestly, if you're worried about someone exploiting vulnerabilities of your web browser in any scenario, you're probably careful of where you're browsing or you've got some protection (A/V, HIPS, or whatever). Abstinence is always safest, but if you're going to browse the torrents, use protection.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
All I want to do is update QuickTime on my XP box. I need it because of the .mov and .qt files it won't play otherwise. QT tells me there's a new update I must install, but the ONLY WAY Apple will provide me this update with bundled with iTunes which I DON'T HAVE and DON'T WANT!
It's never a good idea to install software you have no need for (I'm one of the remaining 27 people in the world without an iPod), don't want (the software, or the iPod), and don't know how avoid without just not updating in the first place.
Why the hell does Apple think I need an iTunes update just to update their buggy QT?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Considering ... the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer...
Good Lord! Apple has hacked Windows' security so it lets Apple software mod the Registry to determine which app starts when you double-click a URL?
They're more malicious than I could ever have imagined!!! Soon, all these machines will be filled with all the spyware, viruses, trojans and etc that Apple is notorious for hosting!
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
Now it says you can use one copy on "any computer owned or controlled by you."
at least, that's close to what it says. The EULA's PDF doesn't let you copy from it, apparently.
The important thing is how did they score on the ACID2 test? Do they handle XSS correctly or not at all? I want my happy face with the blinky nose, not security.
A naturalist is -
Not a naturist or nudist.
Good catch. I just started to write the same thing when I saw your post.
back in the nt4 days, I logged on to one of the big clunky nt4 servers and got a dos prompt, did alt-enter and faked a novell login. good fun!
Here's the updated version: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/SafariWindows.pdf Move along, nothing to see here.
They have updated the EULA
New EULA
Apple has quietly changed the licensing terms of the Safari web browser, reports indicate. While the Mac license remains unchanged, the Windows license has been altered from "allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time" to "allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on each computer owned or controlled by you." The revision date on the license is March 26th.
photosMy Photostream
Seriously, people give MS a bad rap these days, but any exploit you're going to see in their software these days usually takes advantage of complex system interactions or odd exception throwing.
That's because Microsoft's "Active Content" security model, introduced in 1997, pretty much created the 'complex system interactions' vulnerability ecosystem. Before then the whole idea that an application that displayed untrusted content would provide a path for that content to execute code with full local user privileges was inconceivable. It was a joke, literally, the basis for the joke "Good Times" virus hoax was the idea that there would EVER be a way for an embedded virus to be launched automatically by email software.
Microsoft has its own problems with buffer overflows, for example this recent one, but if they only had buffer overflow issues there wouldn't be the kind of virus problem there is now. Because when you fix a buffer overflow you're fixing a bug. When you fix a 'complex system interaction' problem, you can't usually fix the underlying cause because there's other legitimate software that depends on that cause... so all you can do is add new checks. Which means that variants of the original exploit, possibly using a different avenue of approach to the underlying vulnerability, still remain.
So Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place. Every check they add has the possibility of breaking legitimate content. So instead of preventing the dangerous interaction, they pop up a dialog and ask the user if they really meant to do whatever caused the dangerous interaction to happen. Which pisses users off, and trains them to answer "yes" to "I'm about to do something stupid and dangerous" dialogs.
When web comics about fuzzy animals are making fun of this problem, you know things are getting bad.
CATS wants to execute 'setupbomb42.dll'. As a result you may have no chance to survive make your time. Allow (yes) (no)?
And the really annoying thing is that Firefox (with XPI install through the browser) and Safari (with 'open "safe" files after downloading') have started to follow Microsoft's path of setting users up the bomb and then popping up a dialog asking if they want to detonate. Luckily Apple finally turned 'open "safe" files' off by default, but they've kept the 'set us up the bomb?' dialogs anyway.
DOes this thing hijack your machine and become the default? I've seen other installations (e.g. Quicktime) so I'm guessing the answer is "Of course, why would we bother otherwise?" but I really don't know (and I'm not going to try it and see).
One thing is installing some unwanted software. Making it the default takes it to a whole new level. If Apple did that to me I'd remove any/all Apple products from everything I touch until the day I die.
No sig today...
I finally, after seeing your sig line around fairly often, got around to clicking on it. I am a long-time myopia sufferer, to the extent that I'm not convinced I'd recognize family members at the dinner table if I didn't wear my contacts or horribly out-of-style glasses. Your story is inspiring - good luck getting your third eye replaced. :)
They can just push an automatic opt-out update to fix it.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Font designers are also concerned about the uncontrolled redistribution and frightening aesthetics that will result from Safari's new ability to include fonts within the HTML.
Why even offer it if it's illegal for me to use it? Jeez you fanboys...
Now, I fully agree that Apple would never try the "sue them for installing the update we pushed" tactic, it just isn't in their interests, you are unfortunately mistaken about how successful such a suit might be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser If Monsanto can grind a guy into the ground because their GM strain contaminated his crop, I would not be so willing to dismiss the possibility of Apple having a case here, if they wanted one.
The Onion was right on the money back in October!! Check out their prediction. Unbelievable.
You joke implies as if it (IE) is a bad thing. At least on Windows (XP and Vista) Apple is shit compared to IE7 which is shit compared to FF. Opera is probably with FF there.
How the fuck is this troll? Oh.. I see. It compared Apple to Microsoft. Blasphemy!
Congratulations, IBBoard. You have just been nominated. Steve Jobs said in an interview that "Yes. we have nominated IBBoard for the 'biggest fanboy of the year' presidential award. When it comes to sucking my dick, he is just awesome."
Any comment from you on this honor? How long have you been doing this? How do you keep you edge over other competitors?
That happens every time I buy a Windows computer. How did you know?
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Look for old iriver h320/340/h10 - sure it may look old, but miles better than the ipod crap when it comes to functionalities and performance. And my four years old h320 is going as strong as ever. Now only if they release the P10 soon...
A serious question, why would anyone on windows want to use Safari?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I regularly use RunAs to run Safari as a separate restricted user to insulate me from any defects in it's design.
It will run this way even on Windows 2000 with 3.0.3 (the last version that ran on 2000). It will even run as the Guest user, which has even less power than a restricted user.
I am surprised that Apple a) didn't build this Safari to run this way all the time, and b) doesn't support 2000 in the latest releases.
If I need to browse the web as an administrator, I think the safest way to do so is with Safari and RunAs.
If the "I defend Apple for dumb decisions, to the point of logical absurdity" t-shirt fits...
Then that would place the totality of the blame squarely on them.
The truth is I'm done with this. I only replied to you to stress how ridiculous it is that you think it's the end user's fault in any way for being actively solicited to install and use a piece of software by the company who makes the software, only to find out that the software is illegal.
You did nothing to disabuse me of that idea.
Lame excuses. What about their pushing the browser to UNSUPPORTED OS?
This gets better and better. This UNWANTED installation which violates its OWN EULA fails on Windows 2000. Check it out here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1621.
Now what's your point on that one?
This is the second time I've had to uncheck the update and click 'Quit' to avoid having this crap on my computer. No means "no"!
This option seems to involve uninstalling and reinstalling QT each time. Not a nice little Check for Updates option to stay current with the latest version.
Any other suggestions?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm really tired of this kind of bullshit coming from people like you. I run OS X and Ubuntu at home, and I also have installed both for family members.
... unless you've done anything that's not in the default install, like install Java, or nVidia drivers. Then it will fail to upgrade completely.
OS X is a shitload of work to install and maintain; the idea that it "just works" is a myth created by Macintosh nerds who are out of touch with real users.
While Ubuntu still has some warts, compared to OS X, it is considerably easier to install, use, and maintain, even for non-experts. Even my mother has had no problems installing new software on it, and she never has to worry about compatibility, malware, or anything else doing so.
Ubuntu - Easier to keep updated
Both Java and nVidia drivers are part of the regular Ubuntu distribution, and they upgrade just fine.
If you buy a Mac Mini, then Mac OS X is the best option, it works. iTunes works, and you can install Perian and/or VLC anyway.
Unfortunately, a Mac Mini doesn't "just work". It requires a lot of work to track down, install, and maintain things like Perian and VLC. You are really a nerd and out of touch with real users if you think that someone like my parents can track down and install Perian and VLC on OS X. They have had no trouble, though, going to Applications > Add / Remove... on Ubuntu and installing software they liked.
It won't leave you with a blank screen every 20 boots because it's doing a fsck (I didn't think that Linux was still stuck in the 90s file system wise, but Ubuntu 7.4 certainly is)
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. The default file system is ext3, a journaling file system and does not require fsck.
Updates [on OS X] do "just work" without needing mumbo jumbo
Updates on OS X do not "just work". The regular patches sort of work, but they only cover the OS and a few Apple apps. Any actual OS upgrade (e.g., 10.4 to 10.5) usually breaks a lot of third party stuff. And when it comes to third party applications, you're own your own.
Oh, yeah, I loved having to hack the wireless support in because it wasn't supported, and I love the fact that the wireless system in Linux is so broken by design that if you reboot the router, you have to reboot the damn computer because it is quicker than faffing around with that horrible iwconfig in conjunction with ifconfig, and there's no easy GUI to sort things out that a desktop OS should have.
Again, that's bullshit. Ubuntu supports an enormous range of wireless cards. And there's a very easy GUI for configuring it: just click on the wireless/network indicator in the desktop, or go to Administration > Network.
I've had problems with wireless with all my PowerBooks and MacBooks: poor range, incompatibilities with some access points, incorrect default associations, and lots more. Bad wireless support on OS X was one reason for switching to Ubuntu for me.
Yes. The software bends the EULA over and has its way with it. Repeatedly, without consent.
I think he's the counterpart to the Microsoft section's "twitter", who cannot seem to spell Windows or Microsoft (or even MS). There's one for the Linux section too, who constantly spells "Linux" as "teh lunix"
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Except it is and you're wrong. Your arguments ALL fail.
Sorry, you were acting like one. You still are.
Two things here. One, it's not in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER the end user's fault, your arguments are all vacuous and not worth further rebutting. Second, your total inability to make any type of intelligent analysis of the subject means I stopped caring about what you're saying.
No there isn't. That point has been refuted several times, and you apparently haven't bothered to read the refutations because you keep posting the same failed arguments.
You don't have any points, your logic is crap, and your position is wrong and stupid.
Stop repeating the same ridiculous crap just because you're not smart enough to realize why you're wrong.