Slashdot Mirror


How Windows 7 Knows About Your Internet Connection

An anonymous reader writes "In Windows 7, any time you connect to a network, Windows tells you if you have full internet access or just a local network connection. It also knows if a WiFi access point requires in-browser authentication. How? It turns out, a service automatically requests a file from a Microsoft website every time you connect to any network, and the result of this attempt tells it whether the connection is successful. This feature is useful, but some may have privacy concerns with sending their IP address to Microsoft (which the site logs, according to documentation) every single time they connect to the internet. As it turns out, not only can you disable the service, you can even tell it to check your own server instead."

72 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. The relevant bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is possible to disable NCSI by a registry setting if you don’t want Microsoft to be able to check your internet connection.

    * HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
    * Under the Internet key, double-click EnableActiveProbing, and then in Value data, type: 0.The default for this value is 1. Setting the value to 0 prevents NCSI from connecting to a site on the Internet during checks for connectivity.

    1. Re:The relevant bits by Noughmad · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is possible to disable NCSI by a registry setting if you don’t want Microsoft to be able to check your internet connection.

      * HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
      * Under the Internet key, double-click EnableActiveProbing, and then in Value data, type: 0.The default for this value is 1. Setting the value to 0 prevents NCSI from connecting to a site on the Internet during checks for connectivity.

      Oh, the user-friendlyness of Windows. Everything is so simple on Windows, while I imagine that on Linux (if it had such a feature), you would need to edit a text file with comments in it. Horrible.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:The relevant bits by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because remembering to type "man" in front of the program name to discover what files configure it is just so horribly difficult. And then typing "vim .config", dear lord the TORTURE .!

      Frankly, what CLI phobia tells the world is that *you* think you're an idiot.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    3. Re:The relevant bits by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please! I can make that into a little .reg file and go "See this thing? Go clicky clicky and reboot" and its done, period, the end. Just because YOU don't know how to make a .reg file doesn't mean the giant clusterfuck that is Linux CLI (seriously even OS fricking 2 has a solid API by now, having drivers break every time Torlvalds gets a bug up his ass is inexcusable) is in ANY way shape or form comparable.

      I get can have a machine spend years without needing a SINGLE line of CLI, ever. Can YOU do that? Try this experiment if you think Linux is ready for the desktop: Remove ALL shells. C'mon, Linux is modular, yes? Then remove the shell or mod them down so you can NOT use them! I bet the machine won't even make 6 months, and you sure as hell won't be updating the thing, because without CLI Linux falls down like a house of cards.

      Just face the fact that Linux is a SERVER OS, with millions being spent on SERVER tools, and the GUI is an afterthought at best. Sound breaks? Bash, Wireless fucks up? Bash. Video problems? Bash. Hell the answer to EVERY question in Linux is bash. Which is fine if you're an admin, CS grad, or geek with more time than money. For everyone else? News Flash: They ain't touched a CLI in 10 years and they sure as hell ain't about to start now. You show them a command prompt and they think "rinky dink Mickey Mouse OS" and frankly they are right. You should NEVER need CLI on a modern OS. The fact that Linux can't live without it just shows how far behind it is in the desktop arena. Embedded and server its great, desktop is shit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:The relevant bits by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll bite

      A) Windows
      A1- Here's the doc
      A2- type regedit
      A3- change the key as indicated
      Done !

      B) Linux
      B1- look for the doc
      B2- open a terminal
      B3- sudo
      B3b- type in credentials
      B4- open the file
      B5- edit as per doc, being careful of where you add your line, misspellings

      that's already a few more steps and more possible mistakes... but now the real fun begins:

      B6- find out the doc was only good for Horny Huckster (which is 9.7), you have 10.5 (which is ... Priapic Prong ? maybe), look again
      B7- don't find any doc you're 100% sure is germane to your setup/issue
      B8- try a few, fail
      B9- ask on the forums
      B10- get shot down as a noob who can't even search for an answer nor ask a question right, 'coz everybody knows the right term is NCSI.

      I'm exaggerating a bit, but this happens more often than not, and is the main reason why I'm still using windows. Linux mostly works out of the box, but any issue is hard to find docs or support for. In my experience, issues no longer happen as early (drivers are OK, installs have been auto-completing for me for a couple of years), but more advanced stuff is still very badly documented nor version-ed.

      Example of cases this happened to me over the last year:
      clean up the grub2 boot menu. Couldn't do it in the end, still had 3 choices for Windows (only 1 installed), one for my unbootable data partition... did find where to get rid of older linux kernels
      setup RDP server
      get rsync to work for NTFS to NTFS backups

      goodbye karma ....

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    5. Re:The relevant bits by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alright, I give up, you win. Linux i indeed a server operating system. And, the primary server I'm interested in is the Xserver. It fits beautifully onto my desktop screen, where I can play games, watch flash video in full screen, listen to music, browse the intartubez, do some serious computing, and read geeknewz.

      WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! LINUX IS A SERVER OS!!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:The relevant bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear lord, please forgive those who use emacs. Not that I am one, but those souls endure so much already...

    7. Re:The relevant bits by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My issue with the registry is it's lack of comments and relatively non-intuitive naming scheme. Even gconf-editor in gnome which reminds me a lot of regedit has comments. When I want to configure something textually, I just go to my home directory in the file manager, and look around for a file that is named something similar to the program I want to configure excepting being preceded with a "dot", i.e., a dot file and that's it. Just edit that file. It will probably be liberally commented so it's really not that hard to figure out what you're doing. For system wide config, look in the /etc directory. Same deal just without the dots.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    8. Re:The relevant bits by bennettp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sound breaks? Bash, Wireless fucks up? Bash. Video problems? Bash. Hell the answer to EVERY question in Linux is bash.

      Life getting you down? Bash.
      Boss riding your ass? Bash.
      Spouse getting on your nerves? Bash.
      Co-worker won't shut up about pet llama? Bash.

      Hell. The answer to EVERYTHING is Bash!

    9. Re:The relevant bits by 3vi1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> Oh please! I can make that into a little .reg file and go "See this thing? Go clicky clicky and reboot"

      The fact that you instinctively think such a thing needs a reboot proves how well Windows has conditioned you to accept your Stockholm Syndrome..

      BTW, the people in Linux that are going to the shell are doing power-user stuff (like Windows users who take advantage of powershell). You can get by without it: my kids and my parents have used Linux for years and have never *ever* used the shell. Swear To God (I keep them on stable releases, and there are no viruses to screw up their wireless, video, etc.).

      How many Linux powered devices (ex. Android, Tivo, etc) are there in the world where the user has never touched a shell? Use of a shell all depends on how much you want to bend a system to your will. Microsoft didn't add powershell to Windows because shells are pointless.

    10. Re:The relevant bits by Machtyn · · Score: 2

      I hate to agree with the above post, but I have to do so. I get along just fine in a CLI environment. I'm really in my element when I am there. However, there is no reason to have all the same options available in a GUI. That was the biggest complaint Linux admins had that I've seen - the GUI doesn't enable or contain all the possible options. This is actually getting much better now.

      While their complaint is valid, it is misdirected at the OS and not where it should be - lazy developers and Linux has lazy developers, too. Is it so difficult, if you are going to build an interface for the options, to include all of the options, whether it be checkboxes, radiobuttons, dropdown lists, or textboxes with an explanation of what is expect (this configuration value is 0.0 .. 9.9 [ 2.3 ]). Write the options to a file, when the execute occurs, read the options from the file. And for Linux developers, if you are not going to include a GUI for options, at least give us good documentation of command line options - preferably in a table.

      Where appropriate, I like to provide both the GUI and CLI options. That way they can start the application manually or automate it to do its functions.

    11. Re:The relevant bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your starting points for your steps are not equal.

      You make "open regedit" one step while you make "open terminal, sudo EDITOR, type in credentials three steps"

      Let's look at the reality.
      The "type credentials" step has an analog on Windows 7 and Vista. Lack of authentication before changing system-wide configuration is not a feature. If that's really what you want on linux you can easily set it up too.

      Opening a terminal and then opening your editor are not seperate steps for everyone. On my system WindowsKey+E brings up emacs, which is usually already running anyway

      sudo is 4 more characters (5 if you include the space) that you may have to type in front of your editor command. I'm pretty sure I can do that faster than you can find regedit with the mouse. Even if you use WindowsKey+R and type regedit, regedit is 2 characters longer than emacs and 4 characters longer than vim, so the effort wasted on typing sudo is seeming smaller and smaller all the time...

      UNIX paths are generally much shorter than paths in the registry. Once knowing the name of the file to edit, I suspect I can open the file more quickly than you can navigate to the registry key.

      You have to be careful of misspellings in the registry too. And unlike emacs, regedit won't automatically create a backup file.

    12. Re:The relevant bits by PNutts · · Score: 2

      Yea, try managing 100s of windows desktops compared to 100s of linux desktops.

      They're called Group Policies and they're used to manage 1000's of PCs at our shop, including the registry entry that started this conversation.

    13. Re:The relevant bits by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get can have a machine spend years without needing a SINGLE line of CLI, ever. Can YOU do that?

      My brother's logged over two years running Ubuntu without ever going near the shell, so, yes. Nor, before you ask, have I been forced to come over and do CLI-based maintenance for him. He did the whole thing, from installation on, by himself with no CLI involved at any point.

      Remove ALL shells.

      And it won't boot--init runs shell scripts (as does cron). But that's different from the user not running a CLI. On any vaguely modern Linux, the user is "forced" to use the CLI about as often as a windows user is "forced" to use regedit, but, unlike regedit, the CLI is actually useful, fast, and efficient if you do decide to learn to use it.

    14. Re:The relevant bits by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      editing the registry using the built-in ms tools is a joke.. it literally is like searching for a needle that might not even be there..

      I get can have a machine spend years without needing a SINGLE line of CLI, ever. Can YOU do that? Try this experiment if you think Linux is ready for the desktop: Remove ALL shells. C'mon, Linux is modular, yes? Then remove the shell or mod them down so you can NOT use them! I bet the machine won't even make 6 months, and you sure as hell won't be updating the thing, because without CLI Linux falls down like a house of cards.

      since when is CLI bad? no, you just don't care to learn it. fine. that doesn't mean it sucks or is backward. guis suck for some tasks too.

      at least linux HAS a decent cli to fall back on.. break windows enough and you might as well just reinstall..and we all know how much of a pain it is to rebuild a complex windows setup from scratch..long gone are the days when we could just put binaries in arbitrary directories...now tons of dlls have to be registered to the right GUIDs (talk about a stupid system) that indicate no relevance to anything. user paths are ridiculously long. instead of /home, it's c:\users\\appData\hiddenthis\locked that. Don't get me started about the unmanageable update system that gives no real details of what's being patched or why without digging through technet..hey wait, this is what ms users complain about having to do with linux: read the docs.

      god help you if windows update breaks on your computer leaving you with a cryptic log file and NO real documentation about it besides some half-assed help sites on the internet where everyone's guessing anyway. if you do find a solution, more often than not, guess what? you're told to open a cmd.exe as the localSystem account! instead of that being a sudo away, it's "download psexec.exe and type this blahblah". serious network issues? netsh.exe. linux is an example of a cli done right.. windows is an example of it done wrong. the fact it's broken and the fact that people still need to access it to shore up the GUI speaks volumes. CLI is relevant today and it isn't going anywhere.

      Just face the fact that Linux is a SERVER OS, with millions being spent on SERVER tools, and the GUI is an afterthought at best. Sound breaks? Bash, Wireless fucks up? Bash. Video problems? Bash. Hell the answer to EVERY question in Linux is bash.

      in windows, when wireless fucks up? try this driver or that one.. oh it still wont stay connected? oh well. read the event logs? oh they don't tell you anything interesting besides the fact the driver stopped with a hex error code you MIGHT find info on if you're lucky? video problems? get the latest drivers? oh they still fucked up your game or autocad? grab the latest ati hotfix..did that solve it? good..oh wait, now your other 3d app isn't working right? linux has similar problems, but it has nothing to do with it's CLI.. problems like this have to do with shitty drivers. blame the vendors, not the os. in the case of logs, at least linux gives you the opportunity to easily enable and search very verbose logs if necessary to get to the bottom of the issue.. you can't do that with windows unless you plan to run the debug version, complete with external slave machine as kernel debugger.

      Which is fine if you're an admin, CS grad, or geek with more time than money. For everyone else? News Flash: They ain't touched a CLI in 10 years and they sure as hell ain't about to start now. You show them a command prompt and they think "rinky dink Mickey Mouse OS" and frankly they are right. The fact that Linux can't live without it just shows how far behind it is in the desktop arena. Embedded and server its great, desktop is shit.

      last I checked, most CS grads make more than most of the individuals who fall into that 'everyone else' category. 'everyone else' doesn't do what CS grads do. the fact is that there are plenty of functions

    15. Re:The relevant bits by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not saying there are no problems with linux, or that it is more user-friendly than Windows in this (or any other) case, but you're hardly treating the situations equally.

      For example:

      Open doc versus find the doc. System-level configuration options tend to be quite well documented. How are you magically going to know where the documentation for an obscure feature is in Windows but have to look it up in linux? What the hell would you even search for? "My Windows machine seems to be pinging the Internet randomly and I want it to stop?"

      Apparently "open terminal" deserves its own step, yet we're magically typing regedit. Where do we do that? Equality dictates there should be AT LEAST one more step in the Windows instructions at this stage, to open Start Menu -> Run or Ctrl-R (I think, anyway).

      If you're allowed to edit system-level properties in Windows without Administrator credentials, you have an entirely different problem or, more likely, you're running as one constantly. If it's the latter, consistency once again dictates you've added an unnecessary step in the linux instructions. You're free to run linux as root if you want to vastly increase your chances of getting owned, just like you're free to do so with Windows.

      b3 (sudo) and b4 (open the file) are one in the same instruction. You'll do sudo /path/to/config.file which will simultaneously get your appropriate privileges and open the file. You can have B3b if you want, subject to the above.

      "Change the key as indicated" is pretty much no different than "edit as per the doc," even though you try to make it seem as if it is. In either case you're looking at documentation, finding the appropriate configuration value and changing its value. You may or may not have to add the line; if it's a feature defaulting to on, as is the situation in Windows, it will almost certainly be there. Likewise, where you add the key almost never matters other than for organizational purposes. And you have to be careful of typos either way. If the value in Windows is 0 or 1 it's likely to be the same in linux. You can fuck typing it up as easily on one system as the other.

      In other words, if you're not deliberately trying to make Windows seem superior by fabricating the scenario to be simpler for Windows than linux, the steps are pretty much identical. You need to make sure the have appropriate privileges. You need to know what to edit, whether that is a key buried in the registry or a confgiruation file buried in a directory tree. You have to actually edit it, and you have to not fuck it up while you do so.

      And that's without even touching the rest of your "steps," which even you admit are exaggerated.

      I don't care what operating system you use; I'm not a zealout either way. I used linux for years. My PC primarily runs Windows (it has a linux distribution on a second partition that has gone from Red Hat to Gentoo to Kubuntu over the years, but it hasn't been used in several years now). I'm typing this reply on a Mac. But if you're going to make comparisons, let's be intellectually honest and make valid ones.

    16. Re:The relevant bits by WeatherGod · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll bite

      A) Windows A1- look for the doc A2.1- click the "run command" taskbar item A2- type regedit A2.2- supply credentials (assuming proper security setup) A3- change the key as indicated Done !

      B) Linux B1- look for the doc B2- open a terminal B3- sudo B3b- type in credentials B4- open the file B5- edit as per doc, being careful of where you add your line, misspellings

      that's already a few more steps and more possible mistakes... but now the real fun begins:

      Additions mine... Let's be fair when discussing these comparisons. First off, you have to find the documentation regardless of a windows or Linux system. You can't just say that someone will hand you the docs in one situation but you have to hunt in another. Next, opening a terminal is just as easy as clicking (or having a keyboard shortcut), and in windows, you also have to click somewhere to enter the regedit command. I would also hope your system is set properly that modifying the registry requires authentication.

      Next, you talk about making sure you place some particular option in exactly the right place with the right value. First, most configuration files don't care about order. Many follow the .ini approach. Second, good configuration files should come loaded with comments and examples. For example, the apache and sendmail configs are chock full of information. Personally, I have found the descriptions in regedit to be fairly limited.

      Don't get me wrong, there are definite benefits to a centralized registry system, but I think that there are pros and cons to both approaches, and I lean towards the linux approach.

      B6- find out the doc was only good for Horny Huckster (which is 9.7), you have 10.5 (which is ... Priapic Prong ? maybe), look again B7- don't find any doc you're 100% sure is germane to your setup/issue

      Lastly, while documentation for open source projects can definitely be a weakness, (although programs on windows aren't completely immune to this criticism) getting the wrong version of the docs is a pebkac issue. If the man pages don't have the info you need, the distro should have the docs available for your version, or the project's website should have the docs for your version. Checking the docs' version should always be the first step.

    17. Re:The relevant bits by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My issue with the registry is it's lack of comments and relatively non-intuitive naming scheme. Even gconf-editor in gnome which reminds me a lot of regedit has comments. When I want to configure something textually, I just go to my home directory in the file manager, and look around for a file that is named something similar to the program I want to configure excepting being preceded with a "dot", i.e., a dot file and that's it. Just edit that file. It will probably be liberally commented so it's really not that hard to figure out what you're doing. For system wide config, look in the /etc directory. Same deal just without the dots.

      Making it more user friendly is sort of against the whole point. It's an interface designed for programatic manipulation, like XML for example.

      Your problems should be addressed with online documentation in the application layer, not in the backend configuration store which should be clean and concise for programatic access. The behavior of a setting will depend on the version of application code you're running, and face it, the documentation you get is going to be targeted at developers wherever you actually find it, because these interfaces are not designed for end users.

      If a program leaves end users to deal directly with configuration data, it is just broke. For every XML/registry complaint I hear, I can find one application that _fails_ at usability.

    18. Re:The relevant bits by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 5, Funny

      And then you have to use vi, which is in itself a whole different world of pain. Good luck! ^Z^Z Shit how does this fucker work?! ^C quit exit ESC ** CARRIER LOST%%:.,*$£$$$

    19. Re:The relevant bits by jhantin · · Score: 2

      No, the worst of it is vertical-market software vendors that start from the assumption that competent IT help will not be available and therefore build software that won't run without write privileges to the entire drive (including the root of the system drive, because it poos temp files there), includes a kernel-mode printer driver that breaks on anything newer than XP just to render TIFFs for faxing, requires a separate login dialog in spite of also requiring a domain, and in spite of being MSI-based, lacks any working silent-install capabilities so the only way to automate rolling it out is sending mouse events to the setup, and count on the utter lack of data portability to keep you locked in to their miserable product.

      Sorry, just had to vent a little. :-)

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    20. Re:The relevant bits by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention you can't do search-and-replaces, pipe the registry through other utilities to make more advanced changes, easily back up and restore major changes and actually view an entire app or daemon's config in a single plane as opposed to annoying trees that only obfuscate and complicate config changes.

      I realize the registry can store binary blobs, but I'd argue that the file system is a much more efficient place to store such data, which is why I'm general not in favor of large binary blobs in any kind of database.

      The registry is a very typical of the Microsoft way of doing things; overly complex with way too much stuffed into it that could be done better in other ways. I absolute hate the difficulty of backing up and restoring registry sections, particularly since .reg files are essentially merged into the existence structure, rather than replacing it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:The relevant bits by oakgrove · · Score: 2
      If it were possible for a collection of words to suck the IQ out of the room, we would all be slobbering out of the sides of our mouths right about now.

      Oh please! I can make that into a little .reg file and go "See this thing? Go clicky clicky and reboot" and its done, period, the end.

      How is you making a .reg file any different than me making a .sh file that somebody can click on and let the magic happen? Exactly, it isn't. Except that .reg file is a black box. My .sh file can easily be commented so the user can view it and understand what it does.

      Just because YOU don't know how to make a .reg file doesn't mean the giant clusterfuck that is Linux CLI (seriously even OS fricking 2 has a solid API by now, having drivers break every time Torlvalds gets a bug up his ass is inexcusable) is in ANY way shape or form comparable.

      This is little more than a shrill rage induced rant and has nothing to do with the first half of your paragraph.

      I get can have a machine spend years without needing a SINGLE line of CLI, ever. Can YOU do that?

      Yes, I have Linux machines that have run for years without needing a single cli command. My mother, god bless her, couldn't keep her XP machine virus free for more than a week. Finally, I got tired of it and installed Ubuntu. Haven't heard anything since except for how easy it is to use and how she raves about it to all of her friends. I haven't touched it other than to just observe it occasionally when I go visit.

      Try this experiment if you think Linux is ready for the desktop: Remove ALL shells. C'mon, Linux is modular, yes? Then remove the shell or mod them down so you can NOT use them! I bet the machine won't even make 6 months, and you sure as hell won't be updating the thing, because without CLI Linux falls down like a house of cards.

      How long will your Windows machine make it without the registry? Exactly.

      Just face the fact that Linux is a SERVER OS, with millions being spent on SERVER tools, and the GUI is an afterthought at best. Sound breaks? Bash, Wireless fucks up? Bash. Video problems? Bash. Hell the answer to EVERY question in Linux is bash. Which is fine if you're an admin, CS grad, or geek with more time than money. For everyone else? News Flash: They ain't touched a CLI in 10 years and they sure as hell ain't about to start now. You show them a command prompt and they think "rinky dink Mickey Mouse OS" and frankly they are right. You should NEVER need CLI on a modern OS. The fact that Linux can't live without it just shows how far behind it is in the desktop arena. Embedded and server its great, desktop is shit.

      So you sum up your several points that range from typical uninformed ignorance to outright lies with a conclusion that can only be based on said outright lies. Imagine that. You are a joke.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    22. Re:The relevant bits by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making it more user friendly is sort of against the whole point. It's an interface designed for programatic manipulation, like XML for example.

      That should only be true if I never have to access the registry at all. This story is about a configuration that can only be changed by editing the registry or clicking on a .reg file that directly manipulates said registry. Your point falls flat.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    23. Re:The relevant bits by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      If youre crying "user friendly" and then talking about Vim, I daresay youre doing it wrong. Vim may be many things, but easy it is not.

      Now if you had said "nano", then you might be on to something.

    24. Re:The relevant bits by internettoughguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying the windows registry is a "central mechanism for configuring OS directives", is like saying that dumping all your papers in the middle of your office floor is a centralized filing system.

    25. Re:The relevant bits by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I get can have a machine spend years without needing a SINGLE line of CLI, ever. Can YOU do that? Try this experiment if you think Linux is ready for the desktop: Remove ALL shells. C'mon, Linux is modular, yes? Then remove the shell or mod them down so you can NOT use them! I bet the machine won't even make 6 months, and you sure as hell won't be updating the thing, because without CLI Linux falls down like a house of cards.

      Troll is troll. Lets start with the issues in your statement:

      1) If you want to start doing things out-of-the box in windows, you often have to fall back to CLI. For instance, if you hit the file-path length limit, you will likely need to resort to something like scripting renaming directories recursively, or setting up directory junctions (which will result in a shorter path). Try doing those without CLI, go on... And what about unhiding files that have been marked system/superhidden by a virus? Or changing the boot priorities on Vista+ (Bcdedit isnt GUI, last I checked....)? Or running a checkdisk, with verbose output, on next system boot?

      And if you had ANY experience whatsoever on Server 2008/ Exchange2007, you would know that there are many many many functions that absolutely RELY on powershell. Example-- trying to view the size of a mailbox; it used to be possible from GUI, but now requires powershell. Example 2: assigning an SSL cert to Exchange (something that is a once-a-year occurance with self-signed certs)-- requires powershell to enable and assign the cert.

      2) You cant remove "all shells" in Linux, as you would know if you had the SLIGHTEST knowledge of what on earth you were talking about. Neither can you remove it from windows, or Mac, or FreeBSD, or any other flavor of OS that I am familiar with. If you COULD, it would be the most retarded move ever-- no CLI means no method of editing boot order (windows), no way of recovering from a failed boot (Linux), no way of accessing verbose program output as it runs, etc etc. Shells are behind the GUI in any sensible OS, because relying on the graphical subsystem+drivers in order to fix a system is about as bass-ackwards as relying on a cars engine to be functional and running in order to pop the hood.

      3) If you install PeppermintOS, or Ubuntu 9.04 (or 9.10, or 10.04, etc), there is a good chance you will not need to touch the CLI. And from experience, the need to touch the CLI in Linux is about as common as the need to screw around with drivers and registry settings when installing a secondary OS on windows-- that is, installing XP on a Vista machine, or vice versa. There is a good chance with several of those machines that you need to screw around with all sorts of windows-based voodoo to get vaguely similar drivers to work with everything.

      Sound breaks? Bash, Wireless fucks up? Bash. Video problems? Bash. Hell the answer to EVERY question in Linux is bash.

      These things can all be accomplished through GUI, using Gedit, gconf-editor, jockey, synaptic, etc. However, copying and pasting a 3-line fix is much quicker and less painful than digging through the registry or running Microsoft's "Fix-It" and hoping it just works.

      Heres a real life example of just how screwed up this kind of thinking is-- this Friday, I will be dealing with a batch of machines that has been endlessly trying to install 60 updates. I dealt with this problem on a few other machines last week. Problem is, you cant really run "update-all" from the commandline and get some kind of meaningful output; no, you have to dig through eventlogs, generic errors that mean nothing (noone having these errors has posted a workable solution), and forum posts, and hope it gets fixed-- if it doesnt, youre SOL, since you dont really have a command that gives you access to the Windows Updates internals. With Ubuntu, if the update database gets corrupted, I can use dpkg or apt to fix it in all of 3 minutes (ie, by purging the database or cache, or fixing broken dependenc

    26. Re:The relevant bits by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2

      Saying the windows registry is a "central mechanism for configuring OS directives", is like saying that dumping all your papers in the middle of your office floor is a centralized filing system.

      That is not entirely accurate. To make the analogy more correct you would also have to remove any comments or instructions from these documents and only leave raw data, labelled with random cryptic terms. Remember, the Registry abhors comments or any sort of embedded documentation.

    27. Re:The relevant bits by drooling-dog · · Score: 2

      Of course then there's this whole thing about having to learn on /. that your OS is phoning home every time you connect to the internet, and then having to go to the trouble of stopping it, so I figure I'm already ahead.

      Next up: Let's talk about how much harder it would be to run antivirus on Linux, if there were actually a reason to do such a thing. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

    28. Re:The relevant bits by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but then there is the whole issue of simplicity of backups (the registry database is always opened and cannot be manipulated by standard filesystem operations), corruption, change tracking and so on and on and on, all of which is trivial with Unix-style user-readable, commented, configuration files. They even have a "central mechanism" too: /etc

      Frankly, given all the drawbacks, I haven't seen any sane argument where gains exceed the losses in favour of a system like the Windows Registry even once.

    29. Re:The relevant bits by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      System Restore is a tool that says Windows fucks up a lot and needs a lot of help.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:The relevant bits by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Son, vi is the VIsual version of ed, the line EDitor. Try editing files with ed for a while and you'll think vi is so user friendly that you'll play first person shooters with hjkl.

    31. Re:The relevant bits by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need Google to figure out what file might have the proper setting under Linux, but you know
      "REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet /v EnableActiveProbing /t REG_DWORD /d 0" without looking it up?

    32. Re:The relevant bits by qubezz · · Score: 2

      It's much wiser to just disable the useless Network Location Awareness and Network List Services. What is the point of those anyway; an icon to tell you you can't get on the internet to help you figure out you can't get on the Internet?

      While you are at it, SSDP Discovery and UPnP Device Host, along with other cruft like WinHTTP Web Proxy Autodiscovery, Function Discovery Provider Host, Function Discovery Resource Publication, Net.Tcp Port Sharing Service. Also on the list is Peer Name Resolution Protocol, Peer Network Grouping, Peer Network Identity Manager, PNRP Machine name publisher, and HomeGroup Provider. All that crap is for lusers who still have their unsecured wi-fi's SSID set to linksys.

      I don't have IPv6 through my ISP, so off goes IP Helper. No need to encrypt every internal packet on my ethernet (so my router decrypts and sends them in the clear on the Internet?), so off goes IPsec Policy Agent and IKE and AuthIP IPsec Keying. I'm not idiot enough to need AV reminders and I'm behind a firewall, so I turn off Security Center and Windows Firewall. No modem, no Telephony service needed. Nobody needs Distributed Link Tracking Client, gone. Nobody would use Window's Internet connection sharing, so that and Application Layer Gateway Service can go to. That's just the start of the list of bloat services on Win7, and no surprise that my network works better. Maybe just a few less attack vectors too...

    33. Re:The relevant bits by qubezz · · Score: 2

      Let me fix that for you:

      -Windows: edit undocumented registry key option to disable undocumented network location service that contacts Microsoft's servers,

      -Linux: doesn't surreptitiously phone home.

    34. Re:The relevant bits by the_one(2) · · Score: 2

      There is gnome system monitor. It does everything taskmgr does and even shows network speeds in a unit that makes sense.

    35. Re:The relevant bits by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      Yea, try managing 100s of windows desktops compared to 100s of linux desktops.

      The "standard" (and I use the term loosely) centralised configuration tools for Linux are woefully bad.

      Though most UNIX head don't realise this because they consider having to roll your own tools for solving common and ages old problems to be a good thing, rather than a complete waste of their time.

    36. Re:The relevant bits by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      There nothing so complicated around the idea of a central configuration for the OS. However, do you thing that naming the groups something like
      Windows\Network\Internet\ConnectionTesting
      instead of
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
      would kill them? There is no way to find something in the registry, unless somebody tells you exactly where to look. Not to mentions that there's a lot of configuration keys that have no default value in the registry, good luck finding those.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    37. Re:The relevant bits by tgd · · Score: 2

      Windows, like Linux, almost never actually needs to be rebooted for a setting like that to take place.

      Windows, like Linux, will likely require some service to be restarted.

      Now, it may be more common for someone to just restart the service in Linux, but there aren't a lot of 70 year old grandparents running Linux.

      I know the command line to restart networking on both Windows and Linux. I wouldn't have to reboot either. But it sure as hell is easier to tell my parents to just reboot.

  2. WHAT! by BigMac7400 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another interesting obscure registry key to target for spyware-malware... the registry database is source of all evil on Windows since his creation....

    1. Re:WHAT! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, it's a built-in way for you to track your laptop if it's ever stolen...

  3. Worse on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's even worse on iPad ::

    Even with push notification/email/find my ipad feature turned off, it still try to connect to any known WIFI network or 3G network behind your back. (Ever wonder why you always get your wifi connection instantly right after waking it up?) You can't disable it unless you put it on an airplane mode.

    Microsoft is still a bit better than Apple here. With Microsoft you can change the ping URL, the same can't be said for iPad.

    iPad is the ultimate spyware.

    1. Re:Worse on Apple by theurge14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you're saying is the iPad will search for a Wi-Fi network when you have Wi-Fi enabled, and it will stop searching for one when you turn Wi-Fi off and/or Airplane Mode on?

      What exactly is the problem?

    2. Re:Worse on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it connects to the Wifi networks you've previously setup - and you can easily tell it not to on a per-network basis. You can also easily turn off Wifi and/or 3G, independent of Airplane mode. What exactly is the problem here? You've described how pretty much every Wifi-enabled device works.

      This article is about something else - not how Microsoft connects to Wifi routers, but how it decides if you have an "Internet connection" or not - in other words, does the router you're connected to actually provide access to the public Internet. I don't find a big problem with how Microsoft does this - it's fairly convenient, and for those of us who don't want this it's possible to deactivate it.

    3. Re:Worse on Apple by datapharmer · · Score: 2

      If you don't think apple calls home, use little snitch sometime. Click on help, open an apple pro app, type in the dictionary or spotlight, or just sit and wait for random checkins by "dashboard advisor" and software update among others.

      --
      Get a web developer
    4. Re:Worse on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

      When all the whizzbang feature turned off and iPad is sleeping, I do not expect it to even attempt to connect to anything. In case of iPad, it does. Not only that, it also ping some IP address that resolves to *.apple.com regularly. My router log & wireshark confirms that.

      iPad/iPhone also have similar feature with MSFT feature mentioned in the article. After you get DHCP lease from your wifi network, iDevices won't consider itself connected to wifi network until it can ping a server (apple.com?) on the internet. A wifi (fan) icon won't appear until then. If it encounters a captive portal, then a portal is popped up automatically.

      The bottom line is that Apple is using the same technology mentioned in the article PLUS pinging Apple regularly behind your back.

    5. Re:Worse on Apple by FlashBIOS · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think you had all the things shut off that you think you did. For example, did you turn off Ping (Apple's social network wannabe, not anything ICMP related)?

      http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/how-to-shut-off-ping-and-increase-battery-life-with-ios-4-3-20110321/

      There's many of these first-party services, and countless third-party that could be involved. I won't pretend to like it (I don't at all, I too want my devices to fully sleep). But I also won't pretend that it is worse. Especially as a ping (ICMP this time) is unable to transmit anything remotely close to what Microsoft's HTTP method of checking network availability could.

  4. I use a similar shellscript by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On my N900 I made a similar shellscript that outputs to a desktop widget. It tries to fetch Google.com using the domain name and via a static IP, and based on that it can tell me if the connection's totally dead, uses a captive portal, has bad DNS, or if it's a good working connection. Very handy for mooching off unsecured and public wifi. I just click a widget and know all about the connection I'm on.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. This is a good thing by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, I know it's hip to hate MS, but why pretend that this is spyware? It's a very nice feature. Whenever I'm traveling and trying to connect to my company VPN from a hotel or airport or restaurant or whatever, it lets me know immediately if I need to open my browser to do so. Back in the XP days, I would just spend a few minutes wondering if I mistyped the WPA key before figuring it out.

    It's not like there's any personal info being transmitted. All they know is that a computer running W7 has connected to the internet with a given IP address. Not exactly the most useful information. The logs are probably only kept to help them debug the service.

    You laugh at people who get tricked by those "Your computer may be broadcasting an IP address!" malware banners. Why complain about this?

    1. Re:This is a good thing by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      I speak for my self, but like you I don't much about Microsoft spying my IP, but I care about being easy to modify and hiding a bug there for a malware. Still not such a big deal.

      You're going on and on in comment after comment about Microsoft allowing people to "hide a malware" in there. Care to elaborate as to why that's different from somebody hiding a malware in their own process?

    2. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Today, it's a ping. Tomorrow, it's a system-level log. Ten releases later, you wonder where things went wrong when Windows starts keylogging and screen capturing to a corporate server.

      Ok, it probably won't get that bad

      No it won't, and I'm not sure why we need to worry about a very useful feature being included by Microsoft when every geek in the world probably knew already that it had to contact some sort of server, probably owned by MS, to do its job. The summary is a farce, and the person who submitted it should be summarily executed for being fucking idiotic FUD spreader.

  6. Re:So what... by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9752344&tstart=0#9752344
    http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html

    those who have privacy concerns for this , no doubt happily use an iphone all day long....

    They can't possibly just have a privacy concern you either agree with, disagree with, or don't care about. No, no, no that's not how we do things around here. There has to be something wrong with them too. We're trying to imply that there has to be some flaw, something wrong with someone who takes a pro-privacy position.

    Your suggestion that they'd happily use another device with privacy concerns of its own would mean they're hypocrites. Yes, that will do. We'll matter-of-factly portray pro-privacy as the position of hypocrites. The very best thing about this is that it's all about emotional appeal so it's difficult to reason against it.

    So difficult, in fact, that sooner or later you'll start sincerely spewing the same bullshit yourself. 'Course you won't have much time left for actually explaining why you disagree with a pro-privacy position, but for you I suppose that has its advantages. Ad hominems are great fun, aren't they?

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  7. Re:Windows by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you serious? All you have to do is look at his posting history to determine that he is in fact probably *not* an astroturfing shill. Paranoid much?

    That said, I thought this was obvious. The very first time I got that 'no Internet access' message, I reasoned that Windows had to determine this by connecting to a known server, certainly a Microsoft one. It's the same troubleshooting step that I take myself when diagnosing a connection failure - I login to the router and use its tools to ping google or something (to eliminate computer configuration problems).

    This shouldn't be surprising, or particularly important.

  8. privacy concerns? they know your IP from updates by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    privacy concerns? they know your IP from windows update!

  9. Re:First thing I do when I bootup by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 4, Informative

    - open task manager - goto processes - kill any programs that I don't need (like Compaq Assistant, Adobe Launcher, etc) - kill any services I don't need - make explorer High priority

    It frees RAM and makes the computer run faster (less hard drive swapping). Hopefully this internet "IP recorder" service is one of those things I kill off. Although now that I know how to do it permanently, I'll do that instead.

    Spoiling mod points to call you an idiot.

    Start > Run > MSCONFIG

    Turn off the programs and services you don't need so you don't HAVE to kill them every time you boot up, and making Explorer high priority isn't going to really do much for you.

    This "IP recorder" thing is just your computer testing for an active internet connection by actually running a real DNS query and actually contacting a real server somewhere rather than assuming your internet works because the interface is up.

  10. Re:privacy concerns? they know your IP from update by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shush! Don't inject logic into the discussion - let the zealots show the world how paranoia and hate infects the Linux world. After a while you realize why ordinary people don't want to use Linux if there's a risk of becoming one of these losers.

  11. Privacy conerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm all for privacy, but what is the concern with this feature? Nobody has said that it includes any identifying information in the request, so the only thing Microsoft knows is that someone behind that IP is running Windows. They can't track you (there's no way of knowing that a request the next day from a different location is from the same copy of Windows) and there's no way to map a request to a particular person or computer, so I'm struggling to think of any way the data could be used maliciously.

  12. Irrelevant by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    > This shouldn't be surprising, or particularly important.

    Agreed. There is a general antipathy towards MSFT here, but this is a fairly innocuous and important thing for almost everyone. The very few people who have serious concerns about it also can use very restrictive firewalls or change a setting. No big deal.

    Also, after the article referenced in this story yesterday, Microsoft could be reading my credit card and bank statements and taking daily webcam photos through my machine, and they still would not even 1% creepy, comparatively.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  13. Mod Parent FUD. by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My Grandma uses Linux. I installed it for her, yes, but I wouldn't expect her to install Windows or any OS for that matter. I didn't have to touch the CLI to install it. I enabled auto-updates, showed her how to "open the Internet", and where the "app store" is. It's been 2 years. She "accidentally" upgraded to the next LTS release by herself, with no CLI -- A single button click...

    My Brother, Uncle & Aunt all use Windows. In the same space of time, They've each gotten infected with malware at least twice, some more than others. Two of them have shelled out cold hard cash for Win7 because "it's more secure than Vista", had to take the computer to a technician to do the "upgrade" for them, and both of them have been infected with malware on for Win7.

    Grandma tried to use my Uncle's computer -- She said, "Can you make the mouse less shaky, dear, I have shaky hands and I end up making the files disappear" (she means accidentally dragging them into adjacent folders) -- Gnome has drag & drop threshold... My Uncle's OS's window manager doesn't... her response: "Well, just turn it off and on again and go into the Linux." -- She was a bit upset that my Uncle B. didn't have "the Linux"... "Well why don't you have it? It doesn't cost anything, and the whole screen can zoom in when it's hard for me to read..."

    She has a point -- it is free, why not have a dual boot just in case the other OS gets hosed?

    My 75 year old neighbor started using Linux last year. He couldn't use a CLI to save his life. Same story as my Grandma -- Now they call me to shoot the shit, not guiltily ask me to remove malware -- My brother and uncle have both asked me to install Linux on their computers at the father's day family get together.

    Please -- Stop spreading FUD. If these barely computer literate people can use Linux just as well as they can use Windows, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

    1. Re:Mod Parent FUD. by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, I've always used Windows and only infected my desktop once in the past eight years, and that was thanks to a bad download. From the fact that they had to go to a technician to install 7, I'd say they simply don't know their way around a computer, Linux or Windows.

      I think that's the point. If you do not know your way around a computer, Linux can be just as viable as Windows (possibly more-so according to the arguments made).

      Yes, if you know your way around a computer, you can easily use Windows and not get virus. Same goes for Linux.

    2. Re:Mod Parent FUD. by westyvw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dont know what planet you are on, seriously. Did you just Gentoo or something? My family use linux, the kids have always had it, the eldest always had a choice of windows or linux, but got sick of me having to fix windows, and the wireless never worked right.
      My friends use Linux, or dual boot. Its always, and I mean always, windows that I have to support. For the past 4 or so years the Linux boxes just work. I dont mess with them, they install software, play games, do their homework, take their pictures, make videos whatever. Sound, Video, and Wireless work. I just got a new laptop, I came home to see my sig other printing. I asked her how was it to set up the printer. She said, I dunno, I just plugged it in. (usb, she doesnt even know what its called). The was no driver to get, no setup nothing. It just worked.
      Yes there are issues in free software world, but less then in windows in my experience, and everybody I know who gets used to it and really doesnt miss windows at all.

    3. Re:Mod Parent FUD. by wildstoo · · Score: 2

      You know, for someone who seems to hate the CLI so much, you sure like to type a lot.

    4. Re:Mod Parent FUD. by ammorais · · Score: 2

      On a Windows machine I can expect my relatives to install the software if I sent them the link to the download page. You'd think that installing simple stable software would be possible before you can talk about Linux usability?

      You are actually saying that the windows system of installing apps is better than linux. The windows system(i mean the lack of one) is one of the main reasons Windows users get infected in the first place. Downloading software from unknown sources from the internet. All Linux distros have a central repository of trusted software with 2 or 3 clicks to install software.

      I can't count the number of times I gave up on software install in Linux. Either it has to be compiled or it has a 100-item long list of dependencies

      This is a lie, pure and simple, unless you are talking about LFS, all linux distros have a package-manager that resolve dependencies. There are the rare cases when you can't find a certain package on the package-manager and you have to install it manually. In this cases it's the software provider obligation to make it simple for your distro. All commercial software for linux have a simple way to install their app in the most popular distros.
      Look at http://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/index.aspx for example. It has rpm's and debs. The install is simple and with one click in most systems.

      I don't know where to start to list the things that just don't work in Linux. I really don't. I can typically resolve any problem that anyone in my Windows

      That's because you are not a very bright person. OR/AND you are on the wrong line of business.You are possibly in a stage that can't learn anything different, so you reject everything that is different even if it's better.
      GP is totally right. For a person who never used a computer, it find it easier to learn Linux desktop(of today, not 10 years ago) than windows. I find this true in my experiences because for all my relatives that I do free support.They all have Linux installed. Believe it or not the bothering ratio dropped enormously once I installed Linux, once they find out they could install apps with 1 or 2 clicks. I also recently migrated a small company to Linux(all desktops and servers) and there aren't any major adaptation problems.

  14. Re:Windows by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always wonder when one of you idiots is going to pounce on some pro-Linux post and accuse the poster of being a shill so everyone can see how perceptively cynical you are. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Windows by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google makes most of their money off giving their users as little privacy as possible so their targeted ads become even more valuable to advertisers.

    Microsoft makes most of their money by making people and organisations pay for using their software. They could care less about digging clients private information. Bing is a bit of a different story, but bing is just a small division inside microsoft that has very little connection with windows division, which is what we're talking about here.

    Aforementioned difference in income models makes for all the difference in the world when it comes to being a threat to privacy.

  17. Re:Don't Firebox and Thunderbird call home? by PhrstBrn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The distros turn this behavior off. On Debian and Ubuntu, Firefox, Thunderbird, and VLC have their self-autoupdate disabled (and is non-trivial to enable). If you download the standalone binary and install it yourself, it has the autoupdate feature turned on. Same for Windows.

    All 3 programs have a checkbox to turn that feature off if you really think it's intrusive to your privacy.

  18. Re:privacy concerns? they know your IP from update by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

    And also, since Windows XP, Windows has come with an NTP client on by default, set to their time server. So they've been "spying" on your IP address for a long time!

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  19. Re:Yes it is by DavidRawling · · Score: 2

    Seriously? How do you plan to map "There is a Windows 7 machine at 192.160.3.14" to "Bob@hotmail.com logged on from 192.160.3.14" without also getting incredibly confused when "Mary@hotmail.com logged on from 192.160.3.14" at virtually the same time? After all, 192.160.3.14 is a Comcast web proxy server, and THOUSANDS of people are using it.

    Let's also say that 50% of the 240M licenses sold at October last year connect to the Internet. And retrieve the page every 15m on average (TFA are unclear on the frequency, but my experience suggests a few minutes is about right). That's 480M log lines per hour (at 64 bytes each say?) or nearly 700GB a day. Why on earth would you bother trying to match that against the dozens of TB of hotmail, MSN or other logs? What possible advantage is there in knowing that the Win7 machine checked in with NCSI ... when you already know it was a Win7 machine at hotmail, because the OS version is in the HTTP headers!?

  20. Useful for stolen laptop recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you customized the url to your own personal server this could be very helpful in tracking down a stolen laptop.

  21. Totally false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    MS has LONG been using our information. And they SELL IT TO HIGHEST BIDDER. You can get information about MS's customers if you pay them (name, addr, and phone). OTH, Google will NOT give you the information that you want (say name, addr, phone). They WILL use the data to target ads at you, but then again, so does Apple, MS, Yahoo, amazon, e-bay, etc.

  22. Re:Windows by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do know there are companies that sell Linux products, including Linux support, right? You can shill anything that makes someone money. Shit, you can shill free stuff you developed for ego gratification if you really want.

  23. Re:registry export for the lazy by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    Seriously if your friend is that paranoid you would be better off just getting him a tinfoil hat.