This isn't an AV app, its a REMOVAL TOOL. They've been very clear about its purpose, and that users should continue to use an up-to-date AV product:
This tool will help to remove specific, prevalent malicious software from infected systems. Because computers can appear to function normally when infected, Microsoft advises you to run this tool even if your computer seems to be fine. In addition to using this tool, you should use an up-to-date antivirus product to help protect your computer from other malicious software. For more information, see Protect Your PC.
(ganked from Microsoft® Windows® Malicious Software Removal Tool (KB890830))
Their AntiSpyware Beta app updates daily by default. This malware remover is the more grown up very of the cleaners they deployed via autoupdate last year.
I'm fairly impressed with my tests of the AntiSpyware product. Its pretty slick, seems much more well-rounded than Adware Pro as a comparison. The depth is there too, its not just a mindless GUI app. The configurability and insight into the various bits of registry fiddling that spyware gets up to is cool... and good for a mostly-Windows Ignorant like me.
The malware removal tool is pretty simple. It installs, scans, gives you a clean bill of health or tells you what a dirty infected whore your PC is.
The auto-update features in both applications is nice to see too... Grandma and Grandpa Internet need something to spoonfeed them like this, and if Microsoft keeps them free then grrreat. Now if only we could get them to fix IE so it isn't such a steaming pile...
"But if you cared enough about security, you'd be running either a BSD or SELinux. And you wouldn't be hooked up to the net."
I am running OpenBSD and SELinux, and I don't connect to the internet directly without a highly hardened firewall in between. SELinux is much less of a rarity than most people think... install Fedora Core 3, turn on enforcement, and you have SELinux controls governing what commonly used services can do. For example, the desktop I'm using to post this comment uses SELinux enforcement.
Connecting a patched or unpatched Windows box directly to the net is irresponsible, negligent, and insane. Unfortunately, it is also typical of the big fat portion of the bell curve. And that, in a nutshell, is why we have such a horrible state of end-use security on the internet. Unpatched Windows 2000/XP boxes are thoroughly infected in 20-30 seconds at best. Microsoft even knows better... its PEBCAK.
Good luck with that... IBM shares are trading at around $95 right now. Their variations in price alone over 52 weeks are the entire value of a single share of the company I work for. IBM shares might be nice as a core holding for a stable portfolio, but I wouldn't expect them to make you much money. Too big, too old, too stable. In other words, I'd also expect them to make a few brutal misteps to compensate for the warm fuzzy feelings they are giving the Open Source development world;)
Compare apples to apples unless you are also willing to count vulnerabilities in all the GNU stuff, other opensource apps included in major distros, etc. There are far more vulnerabilities announced on a frequent basis for Open Source due to its strength: transparency. The actual numbers of vulnerabilities/flaws in Microsoft's closed source code is unknown until a vulnerability is detected and announced. Open Source also has the potential of a vulnerability coinciding with a patch since those who detect can also fix due to the openness of the code... Microsoft relies on "responsible disclosure" to ensure that they are able to release fixes with vulnerability announcements. Closed source means that announcements can be scheduled and planned for monthly "patch day"... open source means that a vulnerability and maybe the fix can be announced at any time, and therefore with greater frequency.
So, as far as the number of vulnerabilities, you can't convince me (as someone in the industry) that Linux "wins". You also can't convince me that the Linux kernel has far fewer holes found than the Windows kernel. The available evidence does not support the claim. However, that doesn't mean that the Open Source development method tends towards greater potential quality than the closed source method.
Also, remember that a local root vuln is only 1 remote non-root vuln away from becoming effectively a root vulnerability. Too many people who think they are responsible admins try to ignore or downplay the seriousness of local root vulnerabilities.
Texas may be fiercely independant, but the situation is nothing like Quebec and Canada. You see, Quebec is the province home to the decendants of the defeated French colony when Canada got scrapped over by the French and the English. Now, the province seems to think it is something special just because of the cultural differences, legal differences, etc. The Canadian government, for some reason, allows it to continue. Quebec is accorded far more rights and self-determination than any other province in the country... i.e., the Quebec situation isn't just about attitude, its about a completely bullshit double standard.
Ottawa should with extend the same freedom and allow all provinces to have the same level of self-determination, or they should crush Quebec like they have everybody else. The US, by nature, favors much more independant states and delegation of decision making to the state level. Canada only allows this for Quebec.
Wow, a Microsoft and capitalism troll all in one! Thats right, Linux cave save the world from global warming and greed! Hoooray!
This is just human nature. We're overglorified monkeys that evolved to a hazardous state of dominance that can only be challenged by massive ecological disaster, and our own efforts at offsetting greed feed into this phenomenon. We simply have no need to get smarter, and will have to come close to wiping ourselves out in order for any meaningful evolution of the species to happen.
Capitalism does not eat itself. Human nature eats itself. Our only hope is to allow human nature to evolve. Either way, the planet doesn't care. It isn't sentient. It will simply continue as a complex system even if we freeze/flood/burn/whatever ourselves out of our position as dominant species, unless of course we blow it up. In which case, the planet STILL doesn't care and our solar system just has a bunch of new groovy asteroids. Perhaps the nature of LIFE is to eat itself... we're all doomed.
Have another pint of beer, slice of pizza, and some more sex. If you really want to maintain status quo and stagnation then GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, but don't pretend that you can fix the whole system (including human nature, planet earth, etc) by eliminating Microsoft, the profit motive, and capitalism.
"basically all of my friends who proudly call them selves sysadmins are running Debian (stable) on their production boxes"
Should that be interpreted as you suggesting you are a Debian missionary or something? I've observed that Debian seems to have a higher proportion of users who advocate it as the One True Linux compared to the other distributions. Only one of my many friends who are sysadmins uses Debian, and only for machines that have been around for awhile. The new stuff gets something like Gentoo, more cumbersome to manage, but quite capable of working in production. He used to be an advocate/missionary, but recently lost faith;)
As far as desktop Debian flavors... Ubuntu seems to be a getting a lot of traction lately. I haven't spent any time checking it out yet (its on the list to research further, but not high on the list), but seems to be gaining popularity.
I was a fan of Storm and Progeny, back in the day, but both are effectively dead (Storm being stone-cold dead, and Progeny's near death experience stopped their progress IMO). Now, I wouldn't recommend Debian for desktop or server to any friends, colleagues, or casual acquaintances, sysadmin or not.
That is not correct, at least not everywhere. Age of consent != age of majority. Child pornography is media which focuses on the genitals or sexual activity of minors. For example, if age of consent in Jurisdiction A is 16, a filk of two 16 year olds might not risk either of them being charged with rape, but whoever has a copy of the video could be charged with possession of child pornography.
(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is
(h) made after the earlier of
* (i) one hundred years after the record containing the information was created, and
* (ii) twenty years after the death of the individual whom the information is about;
Of course, a certain Redmond-based company also gets regularly criticized for look over at their neighbors and borrowing some ideas... a certain Remond-based company gets outrageous reactions for just about everything they do. I can't imagine the rant on/. if they develop software that helps cure cancer;)
She wasn't even that great of a novellist... some interesting ideas, but I think all she really needed was a hug and someone to say "yes, there are a lot of stupid people, there there dear".
Nice succinct way to summarize the differences in approach to reality comprehension. You are right, I do anticipate that we will get it. I don't expect that the majority will every understand, but I do think some will. The majority can watch the TV movie after the fact.
Knowledgeable, critical and (attempted) objective perception (with, of course, feedback integrated into the loop to correct broken perception) implies that some people's perceptions must be more rational than other's. It is necessary to the goal of approaching accurate models. Broken models must be discarded and/or revised, or even returned to "active" status as appropriate. The trick is to separate models from mere perception or assumption. That is what science is about. If there are sentient forces beyond the mere interactions of physics, i.e., "gods", then science will prove it. However, as we work towards reality comprehension, certain models will be discarded just as the always have been. Some models may be completely irrational, so yes.. it is entirely likely that "my" model is more rational than somebody else's, just as it is likely that there is a model out there that supersedes "mine" in rationality. Since I'm not a theoretical physicist, I can't claim to perfectly understand chaotic dynamics, but I sure as hell can try;)
Predictive behavior analysis requires lots and lots of data so the signal can be filtered out of the noise... for a reminder, you might want to refresh yourself on Poindexter's Total Information Awareness project.
Excellent, a fly stuck in my Objectivist web;) For every filter looking for a weak argument based on Objectivist philosophy, there are traps set to draw out those filters and use them as examples.
Ayn Rand was not objective. I don't know how hard she tried to be, but her ideas were a product of her experience and perception. She was a writer, not a scientist, and therefore cannot be trusted as objective despite claims to the contrary. Its funny, though, how aping a bit of what she wrote immediately attracts ideas with the opposite charge, so to speak;)
Your counter to my argument is predicated on any one individual's perception approaching 100% accuracy. This is, as far as we have to assume, impossible. It is also unfortunate that inaccurate perceptions and compelling explanations that fill a gap in people's ability to understand can gel into a persistent belief system. Therefore, we cannot rely on any chunk of philosophy to provide us insight into reality. Reality is the one true way, perception is the filter through which we comprehend it... so yes, it is possible to be right, wrong, misguided, deluded, enlightened or wise. Those are terms in the English language that seek to describe various levels of complete understanding. However, this doesn't mean that there is no "one true way", as you put it. Reality is the One True Way, the trick is to perceive it accurately or at least approach accuracy. It is possible to fundamentally disagree on perception of reality and have one position be the correct one, however without defining terms we will never truly sort that out. You assume that I argue from someone elses teachings (i.e., Ayn Rand), while I assume that you literally and truly believe in a god or that some guy 2000 years ago was the son (figuratively or literally) of this god.
What you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we both perceive the same thing different and both have a subjective understanding of reality that, though imperfect, maps to the same reality. What I'm saying is that it is entirely possible to perceive (or comprehend) inaccurately, and therefore incorrectly. That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Both seek to explain reality, however they approach the challenge differently... but it is entirely possible to have one (or both or neither) of them doing it inaccurately. Where you see "god", I see complex dynamic systems and emergent features born out of the complex interactions of far too many variables for us to be able to model reality in a very simple way.
Another junkie for Tha Man's poison... they want you to be hooked on it, maaaannn, its how they control us, see? Its the prepackaged shit that Tha Man controls, doses you up, and then controls your mind. The only way to be free, maaaannn, is to grind your own, brew it yourself.
Liberate, my brother... Tim Horton sold out a long time ago, and now its just his name covering up oppression, maaannnnnnn...
Following Christ's teachings in part does not imply a belief in Christ's mythology. Do unto others blah blah blah is a pretty nice standard to live by, and some of the ethical messages attributed to Christ are worthwhile on their own without religious trappings. However, if you subscribe to the entirety of those teachines, how could you not view dissenters as wrong or misguided? They, as far as you are concerned, deny reality.
By the same token, I consider everybody who believes in a god to be somewhere in the realm of wrong, misguided, irrational, insane, or something of that nature. I don't see how viewing them otherwise could be anything other than inconsistent. Reality is reality, those who deny it are wrong, as are those who misperceive it. Perception that deviates from reality is inaccurate perception. It doesn't equate to being a "bad person"... perhaps that is your point? That you don't judge others as being bad people because they don't believe what you believe to be the truth?
If by "fine" you mean "really crappy responsiveness and a whole lotta page file activity", then sure... at least for XP.
I think the goal of a computer system isn't just to run the OS, but some apps as well. 128 MB of RAM might cut it for a video card, but I'd sooner eat my pants than try to run XP on a box that underpowered.
Linux, on the other hand, won't be quite as pathetically slow.
No, he was saying that homosexuality, which will tend towards pair bonds not producing offspring, may emerge as a way of maintaining species population at a somewhat sustainable level. There was no mention of fear, nor any value judgement in the parent post. Please set mode -troll.
Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race. It was listed as an example of emergent issues that help keep populations in check. Political correctness does not trumpt science, reality, or reason. It is possible to think about and try to understand why successful species (i.e., species that survive and reproduce) have sub-populations that pair bond in ways that will tend away from reproducing. There is nothing homophobic, biased, or discriminatory in try to understand how and why this happens.
Another issue to factor in to our understanding of these emergent homeostatic mechanisms is why heterosexual pair bonds who are naturally equiped (and actively engaging in the requisit behavior) to reproduce choose not to.
Microsoft distributes compiled software. It has bugs. Linux has bugs. MacOS has bugs. Everything humans make will have flaws. Possibility of a flaw being present increases as complexity increases. Such is life. Microsoft is not an anomoly other than that they dominate the desktop market, therefore provide a very high target surface area, and therefore get more of the attention from attempts to exploit vulnerabilities. If Microsoft compares poorly with other options in terms of merit (software quality, useability, features, price, etc) then they will be corrected out of their dominant position. Merit is what matters, it is objective. Ideology is subjective, and cannot form the basis for evaluation beyond a personal assessment. Unless users start making choices based on ideology, Linux, *BSD, Mac OS, etc, will have to compete without relying on ideology. The big fat part of the bell curve does not comprehend (or maybe they just don't care about) ideology or source code. They just want to read their email, and they want someone to call when something fails. It sucks, but thats life (it is also why Linux vendors like Red Hat and Novell SUSE are becoming more and more enterprised flavored... big businesses want somebody to call, not source code).
If its a question of how to treat people, then try this on for size: I have no rights, nor do I deserve, to access any work product, schematics, or source code that was used to build a product made and owned by somebody else. Unless I purchase that right or they extend it freely, that is. Since Microsoft has done neither, they retain property rights over their source. Just because it is software doesn't mean that basic property rights do not apply. In other words, I don't agree with the GNU Project's argument. Users do no have rights to software they didn't make. If they want those rights, they should use Linux and play an active role. They have right to choose, and an overwhelming majority choose software that is provided contrary to the GNU ethic. We have neither the right to someone else's property (or to dictate the terms under which they will make it available, nor do we have the right to force users to choose according to any ideology other than a shallow assessment of whether a product does what they need and is affordable.
I choose to use Linux for the majority of what I do in computing because I *want* to have access, freedom, etc. I choose to use distributions that give me the features I need, and I really couldn't care less if they mix proprietary apps in with the GPLed stuff.
As for placing people in positions of dependency, some of the onus must lie with users who refuse to learn new skills or attempt to treat complex technology as if it was a simple appliance. Human beings are reliant on each other, and those who do not know and either refuse or do not have time to know must rely on those who do. This applies to all technology, specialized knowledge, and other aspects of social interaction. For example, I don't think you would argue that the requirement for translators when conducting business internationally is somehow wrong, even though domestic CEO A may be forced to rely on an interpreter to communicate with foreign CEO B.
Are you trying to shake us out of blissful ignorance to liberate us, or because you are jealous?
The US gov may be very influenced by the big industry associations like RIAA and MPAA, but things are a little different in Canada. The Heritage Ministry here is willfully biased against the rights of Canadian consumers and communications companies... essentially against everybody except for artists (i.e., rightsholders). This means that movement towards copyright reform that could be as crappy as you have in the US is driven from WITHIN government. It is only the much more rational and balanced efforts by Industry Canada and others that keep Heritage's rampage in check.
Slashdot Mirror
Their AntiSpyware Beta app updates daily by default. This malware remover is the more grown up very of the cleaners they deployed via autoupdate last year.
The malware removal tool is pretty simple. It installs, scans, gives you a clean bill of health or tells you what a dirty infected whore your PC is.
The auto-update features in both applications is nice to see too... Grandma and Grandpa Internet need something to spoonfeed them like this, and if Microsoft keeps them free then grrreat. Now if only we could get them to fix IE so it isn't such a steaming pile...
I am running OpenBSD and SELinux, and I don't connect to the internet directly without a highly hardened firewall in between. SELinux is much less of a rarity than most people think... install Fedora Core 3, turn on enforcement, and you have SELinux controls governing what commonly used services can do. For example, the desktop I'm using to post this comment uses SELinux enforcement.
Connecting a patched or unpatched Windows box directly to the net is irresponsible, negligent, and insane. Unfortunately, it is also typical of the big fat portion of the bell curve. And that, in a nutshell, is why we have such a horrible state of end-use security on the internet. Unpatched Windows 2000/XP boxes are thoroughly infected in 20-30 seconds at best. Microsoft even knows better... its PEBCAK.
Good luck with that... IBM shares are trading at around $95 right now. Their variations in price alone over 52 weeks are the entire value of a single share of the company I work for. IBM shares might be nice as a core holding for a stable portfolio, but I wouldn't expect them to make you much money. Too big, too old, too stable. In other words, I'd also expect them to make a few brutal misteps to compensate for the warm fuzzy feelings they are giving the Open Source development world ;)
So, as far as the number of vulnerabilities, you can't convince me (as someone in the industry) that Linux "wins". You also can't convince me that the Linux kernel has far fewer holes found than the Windows kernel. The available evidence does not support the claim. However, that doesn't mean that the Open Source development method tends towards greater potential quality than the closed source method.
Also, remember that a local root vuln is only 1 remote non-root vuln away from becoming effectively a root vulnerability. Too many people who think they are responsible admins try to ignore or downplay the seriousness of local root vulnerabilities.
Thats enough rambling for the day...
Ottawa should with extend the same freedom and allow all provinces to have the same level of self-determination, or they should crush Quebec like they have everybody else. The US, by nature, favors much more independant states and delegation of decision making to the state level. Canada only allows this for Quebec.
This is just human nature. We're overglorified monkeys that evolved to a hazardous state of dominance that can only be challenged by massive ecological disaster, and our own efforts at offsetting greed feed into this phenomenon. We simply have no need to get smarter, and will have to come close to wiping ourselves out in order for any meaningful evolution of the species to happen.
Capitalism does not eat itself. Human nature eats itself. Our only hope is to allow human nature to evolve. Either way, the planet doesn't care. It isn't sentient. It will simply continue as a complex system even if we freeze/flood/burn/whatever ourselves out of our position as dominant species, unless of course we blow it up. In which case, the planet STILL doesn't care and our solar system just has a bunch of new groovy asteroids. Perhaps the nature of LIFE is to eat itself... we're all doomed.
Have another pint of beer, slice of pizza, and some more sex. If you really want to maintain status quo and stagnation then GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, but don't pretend that you can fix the whole system (including human nature, planet earth, etc) by eliminating Microsoft, the profit motive, and capitalism.
Team USA made it pretty far into the last winter olympics but got crushed by a superior opponent.
Congrats! I've been safe for awhile after CRIA (maple flavored RIAA) shot themselves in the foot at the federal level. Oh Canada...
'nuff said.
Should that be interpreted as you suggesting you are a Debian missionary or something? I've observed that Debian seems to have a higher proportion of users who advocate it as the One True Linux compared to the other distributions. Only one of my many friends who are sysadmins uses Debian, and only for machines that have been around for awhile. The new stuff gets something like Gentoo, more cumbersome to manage, but quite capable of working in production. He used to be an advocate/missionary, but recently lost faith ;)
As far as desktop Debian flavors... Ubuntu seems to be a getting a lot of traction lately. I haven't spent any time checking it out yet (its on the list to research further, but not high on the list), but seems to be gaining popularity.
I was a fan of Storm and Progeny, back in the day, but both are effectively dead (Storm being stone-cold dead, and Progeny's near death experience stopped their progress IMO). Now, I wouldn't recommend Debian for desktop or server to any friends, colleagues, or casual acquaintances, sysadmin or not.
This cheapshot brought to you buy: Frustrated Hockey Fans 'r' Us.
That is not correct, at least not everywhere. Age of consent != age of majority. Child pornography is media which focuses on the genitals or sexual activity of minors. For example, if age of consent in Jurisdiction A is 16, a filk of two 16 year olds might not risk either of them being charged with rape, but whoever has a copy of the video could be charged with possession of child pornography.
Of course, a certain Redmond-based company also gets regularly criticized for look over at their neighbors and borrowing some ideas... a certain Remond-based company gets outrageous reactions for just about everything they do. I can't imagine the rant on /. if they develop software that helps cure cancer ;)
Nice succinct way to summarize the differences in approach to reality comprehension. You are right, I do anticipate that we will get it. I don't expect that the majority will every understand, but I do think some will. The majority can watch the TV movie after the fact.
Knowledgeable, critical and (attempted) objective perception (with, of course, feedback integrated into the loop to correct broken perception) implies that some people's perceptions must be more rational than other's. It is necessary to the goal of approaching accurate models. Broken models must be discarded and/or revised, or even returned to "active" status as appropriate. The trick is to separate models from mere perception or assumption. That is what science is about. If there are sentient forces beyond the mere interactions of physics, i.e., "gods", then science will prove it. However, as we work towards reality comprehension, certain models will be discarded just as the always have been. Some models may be completely irrational, so yes.. it is entirely likely that "my" model is more rational than somebody else's, just as it is likely that there is a model out there that supersedes "mine" in rationality. Since I'm not a theoretical physicist, I can't claim to perfectly understand chaotic dynamics, but I sure as hell can try ;)
But I don't want 120 year old movies, I want the 0-day stuff!
Predictive behavior analysis requires lots and lots of data so the signal can be filtered out of the noise... for a reminder, you might want to refresh yourself on Poindexter's Total Information Awareness project.
Ayn Rand was not objective. I don't know how hard she tried to be, but her ideas were a product of her experience and perception. She was a writer, not a scientist, and therefore cannot be trusted as objective despite claims to the contrary. Its funny, though, how aping a bit of what she wrote immediately attracts ideas with the opposite charge, so to speak ;)
Your counter to my argument is predicated on any one individual's perception approaching 100% accuracy. This is, as far as we have to assume, impossible. It is also unfortunate that inaccurate perceptions and compelling explanations that fill a gap in people's ability to understand can gel into a persistent belief system. Therefore, we cannot rely on any chunk of philosophy to provide us insight into reality. Reality is the one true way, perception is the filter through which we comprehend it... so yes, it is possible to be right, wrong, misguided, deluded, enlightened or wise. Those are terms in the English language that seek to describe various levels of complete understanding. However, this doesn't mean that there is no "one true way", as you put it. Reality is the One True Way, the trick is to perceive it accurately or at least approach accuracy. It is possible to fundamentally disagree on perception of reality and have one position be the correct one, however without defining terms we will never truly sort that out. You assume that I argue from someone elses teachings (i.e., Ayn Rand), while I assume that you literally and truly believe in a god or that some guy 2000 years ago was the son (figuratively or literally) of this god.
What you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we both perceive the same thing different and both have a subjective understanding of reality that, though imperfect, maps to the same reality. What I'm saying is that it is entirely possible to perceive (or comprehend) inaccurately, and therefore incorrectly. That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Both seek to explain reality, however they approach the challenge differently... but it is entirely possible to have one (or both or neither) of them doing it inaccurately. Where you see "god", I see complex dynamic systems and emergent features born out of the complex interactions of far too many variables for us to be able to model reality in a very simple way.
Liberate, my brother... Tim Horton sold out a long time ago, and now its just his name covering up oppression, maaannnnnnn...
By the same token, I consider everybody who believes in a god to be somewhere in the realm of wrong, misguided, irrational, insane, or something of that nature. I don't see how viewing them otherwise could be anything other than inconsistent. Reality is reality, those who deny it are wrong, as are those who misperceive it. Perception that deviates from reality is inaccurate perception. It doesn't equate to being a "bad person"... perhaps that is your point? That you don't judge others as being bad people because they don't believe what you believe to be the truth?
I think the goal of a computer system isn't just to run the OS, but some apps as well. 128 MB of RAM might cut it for a video card, but I'd sooner eat my pants than try to run XP on a box that underpowered.
Linux, on the other hand, won't be quite as pathetically slow.
Homosexuality was also not put forth as a danger to the human race. It was listed as an example of emergent issues that help keep populations in check. Political correctness does not trumpt science, reality, or reason. It is possible to think about and try to understand why successful species (i.e., species that survive and reproduce) have sub-populations that pair bond in ways that will tend away from reproducing. There is nothing homophobic, biased, or discriminatory in try to understand how and why this happens.
Another issue to factor in to our understanding of these emergent homeostatic mechanisms is why heterosexual pair bonds who are naturally equiped (and actively engaging in the requisit behavior) to reproduce choose not to.
If its a question of how to treat people, then try this on for size: I have no rights, nor do I deserve, to access any work product, schematics, or source code that was used to build a product made and owned by somebody else. Unless I purchase that right or they extend it freely, that is. Since Microsoft has done neither, they retain property rights over their source. Just because it is software doesn't mean that basic property rights do not apply. In other words, I don't agree with the GNU Project's argument. Users do no have rights to software they didn't make. If they want those rights, they should use Linux and play an active role. They have right to choose, and an overwhelming majority choose software that is provided contrary to the GNU ethic. We have neither the right to someone else's property (or to dictate the terms under which they will make it available, nor do we have the right to force users to choose according to any ideology other than a shallow assessment of whether a product does what they need and is affordable.
I choose to use Linux for the majority of what I do in computing because I *want* to have access, freedom, etc. I choose to use distributions that give me the features I need, and I really couldn't care less if they mix proprietary apps in with the GPLed stuff.
As for placing people in positions of dependency, some of the onus must lie with users who refuse to learn new skills or attempt to treat complex technology as if it was a simple appliance. Human beings are reliant on each other, and those who do not know and either refuse or do not have time to know must rely on those who do. This applies to all technology, specialized knowledge, and other aspects of social interaction. For example, I don't think you would argue that the requirement for translators when conducting business internationally is somehow wrong, even though domestic CEO A may be forced to rely on an interpreter to communicate with foreign CEO B.
The US gov may be very influenced by the big industry associations like RIAA and MPAA, but things are a little different in Canada. The Heritage Ministry here is willfully biased against the rights of Canadian consumers and communications companies... essentially against everybody except for artists (i.e., rightsholders). This means that movement towards copyright reform that could be as crappy as you have in the US is driven from WITHIN government. It is only the much more rational and balanced efforts by Industry Canada and others that keep Heritage's rampage in check.