Slashdot Mirror
FSF Attacks Windows 7's "Sins" In New Campaign
CWmike writes "The Free Software Foundation today launched a campaign against Microsoft Corp.'s upcoming Windows 7 operating system, calling it 'treacherous computing' that stealthily takes away rights from users. At the Web site Windows7Sins.org, the Boston-based FSF lists the seven 'sins' that proprietary software such as Windows 7 commits against computer users. They include: Poisoning education, locking in users, abusing standards such as OpenDocument Format (ODF), leveraging monopolistic behavior, threatening user security, enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the request of entertainment companies concerned about movie and music piracy, and invading privacy. 'Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,' said executive director Peter Brown. And if Microsoft's Trusted Computing technology were fully implemented the way the company would like, the vendor would have 'malicious and really complete control over your computer.'"
for this stupid "sins" campaign.
There has already been some uproar about this being a stupid campaign, it'd be nice to see more.
It's time to tell the FSF to stop being stupid about this, stop spreading FUD, and instead *promote* free software instead of just bashing windows.
And then they wonder why noone is taking the FSF seriously. Thankfully, they are not representative of the open source movement.
Hasn't every previous version of Windows been guilty (or at least accused) of these very same "sins"?
Besides, I would imagine that the majority of Windows users won't ever see or hear of this campaign anyway, your average PC World customer won't have a clue what free software is, what DRM is, and most probably don't even know that there are alternative operating systems available anyway. My parents, parents-in-law, my siblings.....hell just about everybody I know that doesn't work in IT. Perhaps if the FSF could get some TV advertising...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
I've always wondered if the FSF was actually somehow on Microsoft's payroll. They' sure as hell aren't doing free software/open source any good. If anything, they're making people want to avoid using open source thanks to Rick Stallman's antics.
Wrong. Children learn to work on the platform that's mostly used in Businesses today, giving them the necessary skills to obtain a job.
Wrong. WGA does not "inspect" the users hard drive, it checks the Windows license. It's mostly used to combat fraud done by computer vendors which sell illicit copies for money. Users at home will purchase Windows with their PC and use OEM Activation, which does not need any user interaction. Enthuasiasts upgrading their PC will need to enter a key, but Activation is also quick and painless.
Not true. Microsoft requires vendors to only sell computers with an operating system to qualify for a discount. You can purchase laptops with Ubuntu from Dell, you can purchase ThinkPads running FreeDOS or SLED.
Vendors may also opt to purchase OSB copies at standard pricing, which has zero restrictions.
Support for old software is discontinued everytime, by every vendor. Every Linux vendor and even free distributions like Ubuntu have a support lifecycle.
Well, i'll give them this point. But Microsoft has added support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2, however it was the ODF guys who weren't even able to spec out something basic as formulas in a spreadsheet specification.
If you purchase DRMd content, you know exactly what you're in for. Windows just supports it. It's like a car that can lock the rear doors to children can't open the doors while on the road. Yes, some people may use that feature to kidnap someone, but that doesn't mean that locking rear doors is bad.
This was true until Windows XP SP2, but Microsoft has really improved security since then.
All in all, it's a bunch of stupid FUD by hippies that eat their gunk from their toes.
.... complete control of their employees computers. More lockdown features present in the OS = more power to the IT department = easier for BOFH IT administrators to take away any and all "freedoms" you may think you have when using equipment provided by your workplace.
In other words: What a waste of time sending letters to these companies!
They're sounding ever more rabid, proclaim bizarre things that anyone with a clue can see right through and are frankly counter productive to whatever they are trying to achieve. Once upon a time I had a lot of respect for them in many areas but these days, just seeing FSF in a headline is usually a clue you need to jump to the next new article.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I don't know about you, but I can still copy CDs and other DRM-free content pretty fine with Vista.
Those same "sins" can be applied to any proprietary piece of software; heck, some of them can be applied to certain open-source software as well. Now, putting Windows aside, people use proprietary software all the time -- and for some of it there is no FOSS equivalent. Whether it's Windows itself, or Photoshop, Visual Studio, AutoCAD, Mastercam, Office, VMWare, or any of the slew of proprietary pieces of software out there, it's a bad idea to sit there and categorically attack something that many people are either fine with, don't care enough to be against, or ignorant about whether or not they should be against it.
In fact, that's probably the least likely way those people will end up listening to you, and after all, those are the people you're trying to convince.
A lot of people like Windows very much, and even if they could afford an alternative, like a Mac, they choose not to, because they like Windows. Hardcore industry people, like professional photographers using Photoshop, graphic designers using Illustrator, computer-aided manufacturing engineers using things like Mastercam or AutoCAD are so dedicated to their tool-of-trade that they will take umbrage to anything that tries to insult it. After all, doing so may be taken as an insult to their very profession, and thus, to themselves.
So what I'm trying to say is, the strategy of attacking Windows, and proprietary software in general, in order to help bring people to FOSS is going to have the exact opposite effect -- it's only going to solidify people who use proprietary software and alienate them from any thoughts of an alternative. After all, you wouldn't listen to someone telling you you suck, the software you use sucks, and you're an idiot for using it. Now, I'm not saying that's what they outright said, but that's how it's going to be taken by people reading it.
Maybe FOSS should stop being like PETA and, instead, tell people why it's *good* to use FOSS. Why Linux is *better* than Windows, GiMP is *better* than Photoshop, OpenOffice is *better* than MS Office. And maybe people will listen. But if you insult their software and tell them to use something else, they won't be very open to the idea.
Just a thought, anyway.
They could at least try. Every single claim they make is laughable. They make overarching claims such as "inspect users' hard drives", which carries a heavy implication of looking through user data when no such looking occurs. Most of the others (vendor lock-in, security holes) are a decade out of date. Then they use terms like "proprietary Word formats" when all Word formats - both OOXML and DOC - are fully documented, as mandated by federal court.
Finally, they talk about DRM and removing support for older versions when you'd be hard-pressed to find an Open Source vendor supporting products for even a quarter of the lifecycle Microsoft supports its products for and the DRM exists solely to allow playback of HD content (and is nonexistent when such content isn't being played), something with OSS can't do.
Really, the FSF is almost as much of an embarassment to the Open Source community as RMS. If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
Founded in the mid-1980s by hacker-activist Richard Stallman, the FSF argues that free software and source code is a moral right. It takes pains to distinguish itself from the open-source movement, which advocates sharing of source code but tolerates charging for software.
I find this point rather interesting, as Richard Stallman gave a speech at Otago University here in small old New Zealand last year, and he was quite adamant that there was nothing wrong with charging for software, and took great pains to make the distinction between "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer".
Is Computerworld confused?
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
I think the FSF is using some ineffective rhetoric.
The first sin:
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.
I think this rhetoric only works if the reader already is at least somewhat suspicious of Microsoft.
To someone whose only experience with non-MS OSes is watching 90's movies (remember the Apple product placement) and maybe using a Mac at a friend's house once or twice; to someone whose only complaint about Microsoft software is that it crashes a bit too often and thinks this is just the way computers are; to someone who thinks that Windows and Office is the "standard" software and that it's useful to use what everyone else uses; to someone who doesn't think (rightly or wrongly) that the MS monopoly is causing bad things to happen to them---
What is the FSF saying? That schools should teach children how to use another OS that very few people use, and that might not work well together with what everyone uses? "Yeah, sure, monopolies aren't great, but I want my kids to learn something useful instead of what some ideologue thinks is right."
I don't agree with "the common man"'s interpretation, but I think that's what it is.
I think a much more powerful message could be sent by pounding (hard) on the fact that Microsoft is costing you more money that they have to. But they don't make a big fuss out of that:
4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
That really hasn't been my experience when I was using Windows: I wanted faster boxes such that I could play better games. How many people have upgraded computers to run newer versions of Windows/Office? In any case, why doesn't the FSF say in big, nasty, red letters: "Microsoft is making you spend money (excessively)!"? [add an OMGBBQROFL and exclamation marks if you think it makes the message more convincing].
Oh well... I think it's good of the FSF to try*, although I doubt the effectiveness of their methods.
[* I happen to use (GNU/)Linux, but if the FSF was advocating Haiku or OpenVMS or $NOT_LINUX as their main Windows alternative, I'd still be happy: I want more competition in the OS market, and a more fragmented platform base that'll encourage software vendors to write portable code; when you ignore 40% of the market instead of 5%, you might rethink not porting. Maybe this'll just shift apps even more onto the web, though...]
ChromeOS will just be another way of controlling you really; Google is, in a very MS-like move, intending to use their operating system to leverage people onto their cloud services. How free or not their OS will be irrelevant because its goal is to have you shove all your data off to Google.
To be blunt, you want a free OS you download and install Linux. Yes, Linux can be an absolute pain in the arse, you sometimes need to faff around to get the simplest things to work whereas a whole bunch of features you don't need work out of the box, but no matter how much of a mess it gets, it is always YOUR mess.
As G. B. Shaw said, "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it"
If you want to be free, be prepared to spend Saturday screwing around on the command line. If its too much hassle, go ahead and place your data in the hands of Google or MS.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
In terms of a CIO he just wants to eat, he doesn't care if it's fish, burgers or bread. The FSF completely miss the point here, sending what amounts to basically a hate letter to fortune 500 companies is really damaging to free software, it makes FSF look like lunatics which as a knock on effect makes things more difficult for the sales teams of people like Novell and RedHat. If you they are going to send deranged letters at least send a positive message with a clear and honest comparison of the benefits of both open and proprietary software. I wish we could make this windows7sins website go away.
Guys at FSF, if you want your message to reach the public, take some web design lessons.
Do you know and remember the old gnu.org site? You know, the one with black text on white and blue links [probably because that was the browser default]? Where the only document structure was h1 and p, with an em or two thrown about for, well, emphasis?
That was actually a good design (for a particular subset of parameters). It was viewable with any browser (almost including netcat :D), it handled just about any window size well [as well as possible, at least], it was friendly for the colorblind, the structure was quite simple with no sidebars, no top-bars... no clutter.
But then someone went and changed it, and now there are all the colors, and double-column layout (with long columns), and... meh.
The whole "sin" thing makes the FSF and by extension all of us look like a bunch of religious loonies. Combine that with the fact that the FSF is being creative with the truth in this campaign and there goes our credibility.
*Poisoning education - Frankly, writing software for Windows is simply easier (or at least was until recently, it's getting better) especially if the bulk of what you're writing is interface work (like, say, educational software). And the argument that people who learn to use computers running Windows will somehow not be able to use anything else is bullshit, as most office productivity software works roughly the same. I do sometimes get annoyed with Linux (no Linux version of [favourite tool] exists - oh well, Wine) and OpenOffice (simply isn't complete yet) but that isn't Microsoft's fault.
*locking in users - The free software community is as much to blame as Microsoft. People will use whatever they need to get the job done. There are quite a few Microsoft applications for which no good alternative exists yet. Getting angry won't help here - start coding instead.
*abusing standards such as OpenDocument Format (ODF) - They didn't abuse the standards (unless you count the formula thing, which I regard as a bug in the standard itself) but the standards bodies by bribing people. This is bad, and it isn't something you're going to convince anyone of using a misleading headline and a lack of references.
*leveraging monopolistic behaviour - Sort of true, and sort of not true. You can get angry at MS for including a browser and a media player with their OS, but every OS should in this day and age ship with those anyway and you can't blame them for shipping their own. You would have done the same in their shoes, not out of malice but since it's the natural thing to do.
*threatening user security - Most Windows malware could easily be ported to Linux. Seriously, the times when the goal of a virus was to stop the system from booting are over. The sociopaths under the virus writers just want to trash your documents (easily done under Linux) and the spammers just want your internet connection (easily available under Linux also - I know this because I've run netgames and file sharing apps (among other things) under Linux).
*enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the request of entertainment companies concerned about movie and music piracy - Unfortunately for MS no one uses WMA, everyone uses MP3 (or rarely Ogg) for their music and this is how it ends up on the file sharing networks. Maybe it was evil of MS to try to go that route, but it has been scientifically proven that DRM cannot work and all material anyone wants is available without MS's DRM on it, so this is a huge non-issue.
*and invading privacy - Oh, come on. The FSF cites just the WGA thing, and for all the horrid things it may be, it certainly isn't a privacy risk.
Now, I think there's a lot wrong with Microsoft and Windows (being a programmer, it's mostly the myriad of new API's that strike a nerve, I like it when things are stable and I don't have to relearn everything every two years - I think I'll be skipping at least two or three of 'm and maybe I'll never be back - there are other things also) but I don't think starting a FUD campaign is going to do us any good.
FSF clearly has Microsoft hate disease to the point it is leaping into the FUD game with claims that are quite a stretch. Talk of 'sins'
Microsoft has previously been the dirty monoploy, but many claims are a stretch, some as good as ficticious. Furthormore things have started to change in Redmond.
DRM is hardly a threat anymore. DRM in WIndows was a flop, it's progressing no further, it's a seldom invoked codepath that somehow got blamed for performane problems, crops failing and stillborn babies in Vista (guess what same DRM is in Windows 7, problems there? No dead babies).
These 'sins' are tenuous at best, and are mostly situations that are improving. FSF: please do not be unhelpful, stick to facts or go beat up on Apple please.
Lock in? Seriously, that's being erroded, Microsofts supposed Lock-in is now as feeble as ever, consumers and developers have long taken matters in to their own hands.
Poisoning education? Maybe previously, but you can actually get Linux qualifications nowadays, and the tremendous growth of Linux in schools and universities is another point.
To the more lawless of individuals DRM is so insubstantial as to be no exsistant. Example:
'Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,'
Let me fix that for you, FSF:
'Windows, for some time now, has really been a piracy platform, the OS of choice for pirates, warez, and hell the OS itself is the most pirated OS ever.
I would add, that 'piracy' is a feature of Windows. DRM of any kind has been a failure, people take matters into their own hands and get what they want restrictions be damned
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Slightly off-topic, but I am sure that W7 and IE Browsers are "tightly woven" with the Sharepoint portal. You can hardly use the portal without the IE Browsers and Office200x. I never hear much ado about the interaction of all that stuff. Not many Firefox add-ons there, are there? This worries me a bit more than anything FFS is going on about.
A vector file would be much smaller. And scale to the size of a side of a building. Just sayin'.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Maybe a good "DRM disaster" would teach the world more than any amount of vague handwaving by an unknown bunch of extremists.
No sig today...
Well for one, plenty of CIO's are stupid.
For another thing while no one likes vendor lock in, vendor lock in has absolutely nothing to do with how much you pay for the software licenses. Investing in serious linux infrastructure is as much a lockin to that vendor as doing the same thing on Windows. License fees just aren't that large a percentage of operational costs. Even if you write your own there's vendor lock-in, you're just the vendor. Getting something else is still expensive and difficult, no matter what you had before.
So it really comes down to what the benefits and costs of being locked into a specific Historically, Microsoft will support whatever version of Windows you choose to use for more than a decade so long as you keep paying them. Generally Linux distributions do not do this. If you lose a staff member, Microsoft techs are a dime a dozen, the same cannot be said for qualified linux techs.
The reality of the situation is that going open source does not automatically solve everyone's problems, it may be the solution, but you're not going to prove that by saying "you should go with us because the alternative is evil". Aside from the fact that evil is probably an overstatement, convincing fortune 500 CIO's that getting paid for your product is fundamentally evil is a hard sell.
The way to sell open source to companies is to understand what they get out of their current product, what they don't get out of their product, and how they might be unhappy with elements of one or the other. Then you show them how your product is better for their needs. Just like every other salesman. Telling them what they're doing is morally wrong might work if they're breaking the law or killing people, but using commercial software just doesn't rate.
We have learnt to to understand our masters. We have identified with their views. We enjoy and love slavery.
Can someone please tell me how most of these problems (except maybe some of the new DRM stuff) didn't apply to XP and Vista? I'm just not seeing what's so special about Win 7 here.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I'm so tired of the FUD by these guys.
We've all gone through this before. FSF throws more FUD and causes more issues than MS ever did. I gladly use FOSS if it's around and it looks like it works, but I'm tired of the stupid politics.
I've abandoned Linux and no longer go to any Linux meetings because of the idiots that want to conquer the world. They do exactly what they accuse microsoft of doing.
Why do people insist on demanding Microsoft live up to standards that Apple, and Linux arent asked to live up to?
Windows 7 doesnt even come with an email program now! Linux, and MAC OS come with an email program.
Mac OS comes with quicktime, and Microsoft gets called "anti competitive" because Media Player ships with windows!?
If windows didnt come with a web browser, how would download a competing web browser? ... or any other software option?
APPLE is JUST AS GUILTY if not worse, then any thing Microsoft has done in recent times. But Apple gets a free pass... WHY?
Just admit you hate Microsoft out of spite. It has very little to do with reality, and everything to do with personal bias.
Again... APPLE does far more to keep their users locked into "Apple's way". Apple is extremely closed in its workflow, applications and bundled software. It is Apple or nothing. And you know what... Thats what people like about the Mac!
No wonder Windows is falling so hard lately. They cant even do anything comprehensive without being called a "monopoly".
Microsoft is not a monopoly. Lets get over it. Apple's software runs on the same hardware. If anything Apple is far more closed, and controlling than windows has ever been.
Its really time to stop.
I'm all for making sure competition is fair, but not at the cost of a comprehensive environment / workflow. As long as you can use alternative software... I dont care how or what MS bundles with their OS, or what it builds into its OS. Just as long as its good.
Windows still runs exe's last i checked right?
Good. Then there will be alternatives to MS installed applications.
"'Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,'"
Uhhh...excuse me? Does this mean all those mp3 dics I burned for my car in Win7 really didn't work, or the files I copied to my digital music player? All those Netflix and FlexDVD's that hit my Win7 machine really didn't get backed up and really didn't get outputted to a DVD-R? Wow, without the FSF telling me what Windows 7 couldn't do...I was starting to have major misconceptions based on actual working expierence.
While I agree with what most of the FSF does, I think this is just hate mongering. Some of the points they make is ok...but seriously...that kind of thing comes standard with any Windows installtion. FUD? Your fudding right!
But back to the DRM thing since it's what I know about. In no way did I see Windows7 as being any more obtrusive with digital media than XP was. This DRM crap they must be talking about is the same "create protected conetnet" crap they've been putting in to Windows Media Player for years.
They don't. Neither Apple nor "Linux" (which isn't an entity, in the first place) are permitted to use anticompetitive practices to illegally leverage a market position which meets the legal definition of monopoly.
Insofar as is legally relevant, Microsoft has been found to not only be a monopoly but to have been illegally abusing a monopoly position, in various jurisdictions.
To me, you answered your own question about monopoly. A monoply causes a monoculture of applications. A monoculture means people blow differences out of proportion. If there isn't a monoculture the fundamentals are clear because they are common. This isn't just computers but of almost everything. It's humans being human.
As much as I like and respect Stallman's works, and his fight for digital freedom, I find this little snippet quite disturbing.
What I appreciate about the statement, however, is that he's willing and able to deal logically with an issue which is too often dominated by fear. Most people aren't willing to discuss the issue, because if they come too close to advocating ephibophilia or pedophilia, or even just fail to assert opposition to it, they will be ostracized.
In my opinion, there's a basic problem of establishing consent. Children are not puppets, but it is relatively easy for an adult to manipulate them or silence them through threats or through the authority they hold over the child. From that perspective I agree with the law which says that when you're young enough you simply can't legally consent to various things, including sex. I don't believe any rule like "X years of age or older" will be perfect, erring on one side or other in various cases - I do think it's better to make the error of telling someone they're not old enough to consent when they are ready than to make the error of telling someone they are old enough to consent when they're truly not ready.
With teenagers I think we have a different set of problems: the age at which people are physically and mentally prepared to have sex does not correspond to the point at which they're legally allowed to. We've criminalized natural behavior.
Bow-ties are cool.
Why don't they just create some nice Linux on the Desktop ads for TV? Get a bounty going and have users donate to a fund that can be used to hire someone to create the ad even better yet have your users create an ad using tools available on Linux Desktop. I can't see why you couldn't get tons of cool ads that would kick ass on the Apple and MS ads I see on tv.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files"
There hasn't been ONE GODDAMNED THING preventing me from making copies of ANYTHING. If there is something that's supposed to keep me from copying stuff, it sure as hell isn't working.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.