There is no "free" version of Windows 10. If you've paid for Windows 7 or 8, then you can get a free "upgrade" to Windows 10, but you still paid for it indirectly.
How do you even know what information is being transmitted to Microsoft? It's encrypted.
lol.. its encrypted.. so how do _YOU_ know what it is? Maybe its nothing.
You linux cheerleaders are funny and sad at the same time. I guess you don't really have to be rational to use Linux. You just have to be some kind of anti-ms troll.
That's amazing logic there. You don't have to worry about spyware because you don't explicitly know how much of the surveillance is being reported.
Somebody put an Internet-connected video camera in front of my toilet. I'm not worried though: I don't know what it's taping!
does anyone release malware that can't evade Windows Defender out of the box?
Given Window Defenders wide spread usage, it would kind of be pointless to do so. Evading Windows Defender would be the minimum requirement for any new piece of malware.
No antivirus is capable of defending against zero-days, so it's a moot point to begin with. The Windows security model is fundamentally broken--probably on purpose, to fuel sales for the AV vendors.
No, but repeating your false pro-Linux propaganda over and over won't make it true, either.
Which part is false: the part about the spyware (which even Microsoft admits is true, albeit in an indirect way, because they've documented that you cannot turn off any of the surveillance without the Enterprise edition), the part that Windows has malware and Linux does not, or the part that it is my advocacy that people should boycott Windows and use Linux instead?
I might be missing something but I was able to turn off all the spyware in the privacy settings and I am running the home version. ??
No, you pressed some buttons that gave the appearance of turning off the spyware. In effect, they do nothing unless you're on the "Enterprise" edition: http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
Describing the collection of anonymized data as spyware is dishonest and false for two reasons. First, it's anonymous so it can't be used to spy on anyone. Second, they are not hiding that they collect it; normally if you are spying on someone you don't tell them.
Aside from that it's just an overblow worry. People who have this concern typically have no problem using a smartphone or google products. They just use it as a flimsy prop for their anti-ms bias.
How do you know it's anonymized? How do you even know what information is being transmitted to Microsoft? It's encrypted. And clearly it's very valuable to Microsoft, because it conspicuously bypasses the user's hosts file and the firewall. And it's dispersed to over 100 domains, some of which you could possibly guess what it's for, but most of them in mystery.
Although Microsoft have publicly documented that you can't turn off the surveillance, the buttons in the OS which seem to turn it off is very misleading. Hence they are, in effect, hiding it.
I appreciate your point, but my comments on this article are not a legal filing. I was merely saying in what fashion the government could strike back at Microsoft; approach the matter as if Microsoft had attacked those computers with ransomware. Because it's not that far off from the truth.
Yes, when it was first designed, it was a school hobby project by a kernel hacker. But that was over 20 years ago. And assuredly you're not going to say that anything that begun as a hobby must be a toy for its entire lifespan?
No. With well over a hundred different Distros and more petty squabbling and "religious-war" infighting than the U.S. Republican Party, "Linux" is doing a fine job of that all on its own...
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
No, but repeating your false pro-Linux propaganda over and over won't make it true, either.
Which part is false: the part about the spyware (which even Microsoft admits is true, albeit in an indirect way, because they've documented that you cannot turn off any of the surveillance without the Enterprise edition), the part that Windows has malware and Linux does not, or the part that it is my advocacy that people should boycott Windows and use Linux instead?
You're just jealous that Windows 10 users don't have to deal with Systemd and GNOME 3.
The most serial criticisms of system and GNOME 3 are that they're too similar to Windows SCM and Metro, respectively. Thus saying that one should then use Windows to avoid them is a collapsing spiral staircase of lunacy.
Without adding file system hooks to the kernel, how should a real-time antivirus tool trap attempts to read potentially infected files?
Sometimes I think the PC Matic guys are right: a whitelist is a more reliable way to block malware. But a whitelist requires more diligence to maintain if you don't want to turn a PC into a game console, and diligence is something sorely lacking in the non-technical majority.
A whitelist is useless. It will either--as you said--just lock down the computer a la Windows RT, or it won't prevent the admin from whitelisting whatever he wants to execute or install, thus retaining the exact same threat risk as before.
For optimal security, what one should do before executing an unknown binary is (1) first run it in a safe testing environment [e.g. a virtual machine] and carefully monitor the std streams to make sure it's not trying to do something malicious, and/or (2) use mandatory access control [e.g. SELinux, AppArmor] to profile the binary before executing it, thus ensuring that it won't be able to do anything beyond the realm of what the admin expects it to do. As additional safeguards, ALWAYS have multiple backups of important data. Also, a ZFS/btrfs snapshot would be good too.
But all of that's for the security-conscious. 99% of the human race won't bother with any of that--and that's why Windows has an atrocious reputation for security and crapware, because the UAC introduced in Vista has just conditioned people to click through everything, and even the very best antivirus programs (to this I am counting BitDefender and Kaspersky--NOT Norton, Symantec, McAfee, or Windows Defender) don't protect against zero-days. It's still not difficult to unintentionally cultivate malware just through email attachments and web browsers.
Linux is infinitely superior in this regard, since you have the baked-in defenses from POSIX, but also because the important Linux distros all ship with SELinux or AppArmor sandboxing the privileges of the email client and browser by default.
Treat all those computers that were auto-"upgraded" to Windows 10 as if they were hit with ransomware or otherwise intentionally broken by Microsoft.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that your made-up analogies would ever have any legal bearing.
Treat all those drivers who speed as if it were attempted vehicular homicide.Treat all those Linux distributions as if they stole code from UNIX.
Forcefully altering somebody's OS in order to integrate spyware is illegal. For the people that paid for Windows 7 and 8 and had their computers broken during the forced upgrade, Microsoft actually did break their computers. It's not as far off as your two analogies.
Now's the time to cry for your government to begin imposing criminal penalties to Microsoft...
Unless they can revoke their corporate charter there are no penalties that can harm Microsoft. And canceling the contracts and switching systems will be very expensive, but they should not be included in any future contracts.
I disagree. Treat all those computers that were auto-"upgraded" to Windows 10 as if they were hit with ransomware or otherwise intentionally broken by Microsoft.
The problem goes far beyond systemd and GNOME. Linux is great for servers, not so much for the desktop. When Linux Torvalds first created Linux it wasn't designed to be a mass-market operating system. It was designed by geeks for geeks. A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability, only blind adherence to an Orwellian mindset of "the only way to be free is to do exactly what I say."
Yes, when it was first designed, it was a school hobby project by a kernel hacker. But that was over 20 years ago. And assuredly you're not going to say that anything that begun as a hobby must be a toy for its entire lifespan?
But you don't need to list all the ways that Linux sucks and is horrendously inferior on the desktop. Just one simple fact says it all. When you put everything on a level playing field -- Linux is free and so is a pirated copy of Windows -- people always choose Windows.
Really? I didn't choose Windows. Nor did the millions of people that use desktop Linux.
People only use (and pirate) Windows because billions of dollars of legacy x86 apps that were written when Microsoft had a monopoly on the OS market due to their lucky deal with IBM. Don't believe me?--how much money has Microsoft written off for Windows Mobile and Windows RT, again?
Even when Windows isn't free (i.e., businesses who need to keep things legal so they don't get shaken down by the BSA Mafia) they still choose Windows. The only place you're seeing any adoption of Linux on the desktop is a few European companies, and that's due to anti-American sentiment more than any technical superiority.
Instead of verifying that you don't know what you're talking about and/or are lying, why don't you do some simple research? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What level of cognitive dissonance is required to simultaneously assert that GNOME 3 and systemd were "forced" on Linux distros and then immediately talk about why one wouldn't want to use Linux distros that have voluntarily opted to not use systemd?
I have no doubt that this was all planned by Microsoft. Perhaps they didn't anticipate the backlash, but making it easier to deny the update without manually removing KB3035583 or installing a third-party program (GWX Control Panel, Never10, etc.) in the eleventh hour is too little, too late. There's only another month of the "free" "upgrade", so who's left to take it? The people who intentionally waited for the last possible moment in order to get the most stable upgrade, but they've already decided to go to Windows 10 anyway.
In other words, the damage is already done. Now's the time to cry for your government to begin imposing criminal penalties to Microsoft and cancel their contracts with them, or MSFT will get away with it.
You have to press Enter after Space. For people with Crouton, just warn your friends/family/co-workers not to press Space+Enter on booting. That being said, if it's a real big concern for you, use GalliumOS instead of Crouton.
Until someone else turns it on and presses Space. Then what happens to your data?
You have to press Space and then Enter, so it's not like you could accidentally wipe your data with a sneeze. But to answer your question, the same thing that happens if somebody were to drop your laptop and break its drive.
Slashdot Mirror
See: http://www.howtogeek.com/24326... and https://slashdot.org/story/16/...
There is no "free" version of Windows 10. If you've paid for Windows 7 or 8, then you can get a free "upgrade" to Windows 10, but you still paid for it indirectly.
How do you even know what information is being transmitted to Microsoft? It's encrypted.
lol.. its encrypted.. so how do _YOU_ know what it is? Maybe its nothing.
You linux cheerleaders are funny and sad at the same time. I guess you don't really have to be rational to use Linux. You just have to be some kind of anti-ms troll.
That's amazing logic there. You don't have to worry about spyware because you don't explicitly know how much of the surveillance is being reported.
Somebody put an Internet-connected video camera in front of my toilet. I'm not worried though: I don't know what it's taping!
does anyone release malware that can't evade Windows Defender out of the box?
Given Window Defenders wide spread usage, it would kind of be pointless to do so. Evading Windows Defender would be the minimum requirement for any new piece of malware.
No antivirus is capable of defending against zero-days, so it's a moot point to begin with. The Windows security model is fundamentally broken--probably on purpose, to fuel sales for the AV vendors.
Somewhat amusing that ads on the lock screen and in the start menu is "intuitive" to Windows users...
No, but repeating your false pro-Linux propaganda over and over won't make it true, either.
Which part is false: the part about the spyware (which even Microsoft admits is true, albeit in an indirect way, because they've documented that you cannot turn off any of the surveillance without the Enterprise edition), the part that Windows has malware and Linux does not, or the part that it is my advocacy that people should boycott Windows and use Linux instead?
I might be missing something but I was able to turn off all the spyware in the privacy settings and I am running the home version. ??
No, you pressed some buttons that gave the appearance of turning off the spyware. In effect, they do nothing unless you're on the "Enterprise" edition: http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
Describing the collection of anonymized data as spyware is dishonest and false for two reasons. First, it's anonymous so it can't be used to spy on anyone. Second, they are not hiding that they collect it; normally if you are spying on someone you don't tell them.
Aside from that it's just an overblow worry. People who have this concern typically have no problem using a smartphone or google products. They just use it as a flimsy prop for their anti-ms bias.
How do you know it's anonymized? How do you even know what information is being transmitted to Microsoft? It's encrypted. And clearly it's very valuable to Microsoft, because it conspicuously bypasses the user's hosts file and the firewall. And it's dispersed to over 100 domains, some of which you could possibly guess what it's for, but most of them in mystery.
Although Microsoft have publicly documented that you can't turn off the surveillance, the buttons in the OS which seem to turn it off is very misleading. Hence they are, in effect, hiding it.
I appreciate your point, but my comments on this article are not a legal filing. I was merely saying in what fashion the government could strike back at Microsoft; approach the matter as if Microsoft had attacked those computers with ransomware. Because it's not that far off from the truth.
Yes, when it was first designed, it was a school hobby project by a kernel hacker. But that was over 20 years ago. And assuredly you're not going to say that anything that begun as a hobby must be a toy for its entire lifespan?
No. With well over a hundred different Distros and more petty squabbling and "religious-war" infighting than the U.S. Republican Party, "Linux" is doing a fine job of that all on its own...
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
Do all of you Microsoft shills enjoy dodging flying chairs?
No, but repeating your false pro-Linux propaganda over and over won't make it true, either.
Which part is false: the part about the spyware (which even Microsoft admits is true, albeit in an indirect way, because they've documented that you cannot turn off any of the surveillance without the Enterprise edition), the part that Windows has malware and Linux does not, or the part that it is my advocacy that people should boycott Windows and use Linux instead?
Does truth become untrue if it's repeated too often?
You're just jealous that Windows 10 users don't have to deal with Systemd and GNOME 3.
The most serial criticisms of system and GNOME 3 are that they're too similar to Windows SCM and Metro, respectively. Thus saying that one should then use Windows to avoid them is a collapsing spiral staircase of lunacy.
Without adding file system hooks to the kernel, how should a real-time antivirus tool trap attempts to read potentially infected files?
Sometimes I think the PC Matic guys are right: a whitelist is a more reliable way to block malware. But a whitelist requires more diligence to maintain if you don't want to turn a PC into a game console, and diligence is something sorely lacking in the non-technical majority.
A whitelist is useless. It will either--as you said--just lock down the computer a la Windows RT, or it won't prevent the admin from whitelisting whatever he wants to execute or install, thus retaining the exact same threat risk as before.
For optimal security, what one should do before executing an unknown binary is (1) first run it in a safe testing environment [e.g. a virtual machine] and carefully monitor the std streams to make sure it's not trying to do something malicious, and/or (2) use mandatory access control [e.g. SELinux, AppArmor] to profile the binary before executing it, thus ensuring that it won't be able to do anything beyond the realm of what the admin expects it to do. As additional safeguards, ALWAYS have multiple backups of important data. Also, a ZFS/btrfs snapshot would be good too.
But all of that's for the security-conscious. 99% of the human race won't bother with any of that--and that's why Windows has an atrocious reputation for security and crapware, because the UAC introduced in Vista has just conditioned people to click through everything, and even the very best antivirus programs (to this I am counting BitDefender and Kaspersky--NOT Norton, Symantec, McAfee, or Windows Defender) don't protect against zero-days. It's still not difficult to unintentionally cultivate malware just through email attachments and web browsers.
Linux is infinitely superior in this regard, since you have the baked-in defenses from POSIX, but also because the important Linux distros all ship with SELinux or AppArmor sandboxing the privileges of the email client and browser by default.
Okay, and then what?
Then reimburse all of those people of the cost to reinstall Windows 7 or 8.1, or the whole cost of the computer itself.
Treat all those computers that were auto-"upgraded" to Windows 10 as if they were hit with ransomware or otherwise intentionally broken by Microsoft.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that your made-up analogies would ever have any legal bearing.
Treat all those drivers who speed as if it were attempted vehicular homicide. Treat all those Linux distributions as if they stole code from UNIX.
Forcefully altering somebody's OS in order to integrate spyware is illegal. For the people that paid for Windows 7 and 8 and had their computers broken during the forced upgrade, Microsoft actually did break their computers. It's not as far off as your two analogies.
The "free upgrade" window closes at the end of July. https://support.microsoft.com/...
Now's the time to cry for your government to begin imposing criminal penalties to Microsoft...
Unless they can revoke their corporate charter there are no penalties that can harm Microsoft. And canceling the contracts and switching systems will be very expensive, but they should not be included in any future contracts.
I disagree. Treat all those computers that were auto-"upgraded" to Windows 10 as if they were hit with ransomware or otherwise intentionally broken by Microsoft.
The problem goes far beyond systemd and GNOME. Linux is great for servers, not so much for the desktop. When Linux Torvalds first created Linux it wasn't designed to be a mass-market operating system. It was designed by geeks for geeks. A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability, only blind adherence to an Orwellian mindset of "the only way to be free is to do exactly what I say."
Yes, when it was first designed, it was a school hobby project by a kernel hacker. But that was over 20 years ago. And assuredly you're not going to say that anything that begun as a hobby must be a toy for its entire lifespan?
But you don't need to list all the ways that Linux sucks and is horrendously inferior on the desktop. Just one simple fact says it all. When you put everything on a level playing field -- Linux is free and so is a pirated copy of Windows -- people always choose Windows.
Really? I didn't choose Windows. Nor did the millions of people that use desktop Linux.
People only use (and pirate) Windows because billions of dollars of legacy x86 apps that were written when Microsoft had a monopoly on the OS market due to their lucky deal with IBM. Don't believe me?--how much money has Microsoft written off for Windows Mobile and Windows RT, again?
Even when Windows isn't free (i.e., businesses who need to keep things legal so they don't get shaken down by the BSA Mafia) they still choose Windows. The only place you're seeing any adoption of Linux on the desktop is a few European companies, and that's due to anti-American sentiment more than any technical superiority.
Instead of verifying that you don't know what you're talking about and/or are lying, why don't you do some simple research? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What level of cognitive dissonance is required to simultaneously assert that GNOME 3 and systemd were "forced" on Linux distros and then immediately talk about why one wouldn't want to use Linux distros that have voluntarily opted to not use systemd?
I have no doubt that this was all planned by Microsoft. Perhaps they didn't anticipate the backlash, but making it easier to deny the update without manually removing KB3035583 or installing a third-party program (GWX Control Panel, Never10, etc.) in the eleventh hour is too little, too late. There's only another month of the "free" "upgrade", so who's left to take it? The people who intentionally waited for the last possible moment in order to get the most stable upgrade, but they've already decided to go to Windows 10 anyway.
In other words, the damage is already done. Now's the time to cry for your government to begin imposing criminal penalties to Microsoft and cancel their contracts with them, or MSFT will get away with it.
You have to press Enter after Space. For people with Crouton, just warn your friends/family/co-workers not to press Space+Enter on booting. That being said, if it's a real big concern for you, use GalliumOS instead of Crouton.
Booting Linux via Crouton is trivial.
Until someone else turns it on and presses Space. Then what happens to your data?
You have to press Space and then Enter, so it's not like you could accidentally wipe your data with a sneeze. But to answer your question, the same thing that happens if somebody were to drop your laptop and break its drive.
The word "Pro" would imply a high-end laptop NOT running Chrome OS. "Pros" tend to not like being crippled or locked in.
Then use Crouton or GalliumOS?
The LG G phones still have an SD slot and removable batteries. Pretty much the last flagship phone to do that though.