It's kinda hard to take someone harping on about a trivially disabled UI feature as if it's fatal OS architectural flaw, seriously.
Tell that to the multitudes that don't know what it is or that they should turn it off. It is an insecure feature and, IMHO, indicative of the insecurity of Windows.
This has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with badly written applications.
Well, that certainly is *an* opinion, not mine nor the opinion of other experts. The Windows API is full of calls that require system level access to do things that, on UNIX or Linux, only require group membership.
This isn't to say that Microsoft *couldn't* implement this granularity of access, they certainly could, but they do not and it is beyond most administrators to do it, and it would be an impossible burden for any IT department to do it.
So, just the most important data on the machine then ?
Yup and that would be bad, but it certainly couldn't travel like on Windows because it would be unable to propagate for the aforementioned lack of permission.
Also, "I could get a virus on my linux box" was a fairly hypothetical piece of conjecture. It would be pretty damn hard to create a user level Linux virus that could function in the wild. I'm sure it is theoretically possible, but we have not yet seen one. Older PHP systems were vulnerable to a SQL injection, but only when the web environment was set up poorly, and again, only on the service level.
Yes, of course, how many Solaris or Linux viruses are there?
I do not buy the hogwash equivocation argument that all security vulnerabilities are the same. There are degrees and there are levels of ease of deployment.
If a 12 year old script kiddie can exploit a windows system easily, but it takes a 20 year software security expert to exploit a UNIX system, I'd call that different.
Years ago, I was on a DoD facility where scheduling was being done on a UNIX box. Everyone there used the console for their work, everyone used the root account to do their work, and the password was written in on the first page of the book marked "Procedures" that was beside the console.
I call this a lie. There is no way this would happen in a DoD shop.
Security all comes down to the person who's task it is to implement it.
To a point this is true, however, Windows is far more insecure to begin with.
Running Unix (or any compatible rip off) only gives you an additional layer of security through obscurity.
Not true at all. It gives you an over-all more secure base from which to begin.
Sorry fanboys, it's true.
No it isn't.
Obviously, that includes any media (CDs, FlashDrives, Floppies) attached to the system.
Why? Why would those devices be a security breach unless a brain-dead operating system looked for "autorun.exe?"
ow you want to blame Microsoft instead of the brass simply because you think it's a chance to expand your following.
No, it is because Windows starts out insecure and UNIX starts out secure. There is a fundimental limit you reach with Windows and security. It gets to the point where you can't even use it. With Linux or BSD a use can use the system as an untrusted user.
I could get a virus on my Linux box, but it couldn't install itself or destroy system areas.
how absurd it would be for our own military to purchase software from one of our premier software companies.
Who has a world famous reputation for poor performance, reliability, and security.
A company that provides a consistent tax revenue and employment opportunities.
Security != Money. Damn it! Just because a company is profitable does not mean it has a good product.
no malicious agents would dare sully the name of the *nix by writing custom software to go after a high profile target like the US military and it's related assets.
I refuse to buy that hogwash. It isn't about popularity or anything like that, it is about inherent security and the difficulty with which compromises are developed. It is far far harder to compromise Linux or BSD system.
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I also refute the equivocation argument that all security vulnerabilities are equal. Windows is insecure at the system level where as Linux and BSD tend to only be insecure at the service level which is easier to administer.
Just one more point that I think is very important.....
In case I have not been clear. This is not about a situation where there is a dispute of fact and law where the parties are attempting to settle their differences, ethically, within the court system. I wish that were the case.
It is about when very powerful and unethical parties game the system in a way that is injurious to people who do not have the power to fight back. That is not justice, and the power of the people has to be applied.
Solution to political problems often the following steps:
Step #1 doesn't work because most people don't understand the problem yet.
Step #2 doesn't work because they own both the democrats and the republicans.
Step #3 doesn't work for two reasons: step #1 and that they have the unimaginable resources against virtually helpless victims.
I'm only calling for a step "3.5" where we make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the behavior needs to be stopped. Not violence, but certainly not polite business as usual.
Mark my words, it is because of Windows. If Linux or BSD based systems were predominant in the Pentagon, this would not be an issue.
The world, the U.S.A. is so screwed up. We all know what the problems are, but we can't address them because no one in position of power will discuss them.
Modern societies are founded on laws. After a revolution of the common people over authoritarian power.
You can't go around getting vigilante revenge on these scumbags, that's immoral and not how a civilized society should function.
I'm not saying "violence" I calling for shunning and depriving them of "society." They are acting outside of the norms of society, thus should not be alowed to enjoy the benefits of it, and that includes good manners.
If you don't like what they're doing (or the laws they've lobbied for), you should either find some way to use their own system against them (like this RICO class action), or else get involved in politics and try to have the system changed.
The point I was trying to make, in case you missed it, we *can't* really win within a system that protects them. The corporate shield, the laws, and the politicians have stacked the deck. The power of the people has always been the power of protest, the power of the masses.
I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.
These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.
They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.
They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.
Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.
Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.
Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?
These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.
It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.
so you will take to the streets violently because of getting caught stealing music
I don't care one little bit about stealing music. I don't do it and it has nothing to do with my point of view.
My point of view is that RIAA and MPIAA are terrorists, they don't use bombs, they use the courts. They create false charges, accuse people of theft with no credible evidence, they then intimidate and bully. Make no mistake, the accusation is by definition assault. (look it up)
Now, when you are threatened by someone, do you fight them under their terms or do you try to pick a venue more suitable to you?
They own the courts, they bribe (oops, "lobby") the politicians, the only advantage you have is the ability to bring the fight out of the protection of corporate shield and in their personal face.
Yes, trash these F*&^*cks where they live. We didn't start the fight they did. If they want to dragnet innocent people to create an environment of fear, so be it, we should retaliate in kind.
You urge others to acts of vandalism and criminal harassment because you don't like the way filesharing copyright cases are civilly prosecuted!
Like I said in another post, I have no problem with an honest dispute being settled lawfully. But these a-holes aren't fighting fairly. They and their jon-doe suits are a travesty of justice and injurious who happens to be in scatter-shot range.
If they wanted to play fair, then that would be one thing. They are not, they are themselves skirting the law worse than any file sharer.
They started an unfair and unlawful fight. Since they aren't abiding by the rules of engagement, we shouldn't feel compelled to either.
They get to fight in the courts, we get to fight in the street.
If you want the freedom to download without interference from the legal system
I don't download music. I go to my public library and borrow what I want and return it when I'm done. I'm pissed off at the abuse of process and power in my country.
Respectfully, I have to tell you I found more heat than light in your argument.
Maybe so, but all I am calling for is equal justice.
Can you honestly say they fight fair? Can you honestly say what they are seeking justice or intimidation? They are trying to bully the people into abandoning their rights. The threaten, bully, and defy the rules of law, and get off because they have the money to lobby.
I say the real power is the people, and we have the power to destroy them with the same sort of tactics they come at us with.
They started the fight, they have used lawlessness and indiscriminate accusation and intimidated, So be it, I say it is there turn!
You are in fact calling for violence. You're just not calling for violence directed at another human being. It honestly scares me that you were modded insightful; it means other people out there agree with you.
I am only calling for people to inflict the same threats and damage against an industry as they are empoying against us.
I understand that copyright is a complex issue, and I'm not on the side of file sharers, but I am on the side of equal justice.
These a-holes are using courts and laws to destroy private individuals. They circumvent the rules of the court, delay, and bankrupt the people they intend to intimidate. They sue with virtually no evidence against people they have no way of having any idea are guilty, and bully them to settle.
Well, screw that, it is time that "We The People" show OUR bully power.
So you disagree with a companies attitude to copyright, so you want to vandalize their employees cars.
That is not the problem at all. I have no problem with an honest dispute of law. What is happening however, is the wholesale abuse of innocent people. HUGE fines for small offenses. Intimidation through the courts. Using the resources of multinational multibillion dollar organizations to threaten and destroy people.
We don't have the power in the courts, because we don't have billions of dollars, but we do have the power in the streets.
I was using a torrent to download a linux distro the other day. I was actually concerned about being "tracked" by my ISP as a file pirate.
This is so wrong. Corporations are using private law backed up by copyright statute to create a Kafka-esque "guilty because we say you are guilty" environment. Oh, sure, they don't have the power to imprison you, but with the courts they do have the power to bankrupt you with lawyers fees with no credible evidence.
I'm serious, people need to start fighting back, and not just in the courts. Who says they get to make the rules? What they are doing is not fair, it is not civilized, and it is not human. The fight, therefor, need not be either.
If every lawyer and executive that works for a RIAA company gets egged every day on the way to work. If every car they own gets its tires slashed. If every time they are in a starbucks, someone pours hot coffee on their suit. If every time someone sees one yells at the top of their lungs "CRIMINAL F(*&CK GET OUT OF HERE." Maybe they'll start to see that the money they are being paid to ruin people's lives will in turn ruin theirs.
We don't have the money to fight them in court, but we can ruin their lives just as easy as they can ruin the lives of innocent people. If they don't have a conscience, perhaps we should perform that function for them. I'm not calling for violence, not at all. I am calling for wholesale property damage. Break everything they own when ever they get it. They feel perfectly comfortable wreakig financial havoc on people, we should feel the same until they stop.
Viruses thrive on Microsoft Windows because Microsoft can't get security right in the first place.
Microsoft now tries to make an anti-virus product to fix the holes it creates in Windows.
Wouldn't it just be easier to fix Windows? Oh! Wait, that's right, Microsoft doesn't *fix* anything, they just add features.
It has to be some inside joke at Microsoft. They screwup Windows so bad that they create an ISV cottage industry of companies creating software to plug the security holes. Then rather than actually FIX the problems, they use their monopoly position to put them out of business.
Are you under the impression that MS is the only place where this happens?
Are you kidding?
Personal experience tells me that absurd requests for features from high-profile customers, and sales guys who over promise is a problem most anywhere else.
True, but, in the end, not an excuse.
I just don't think most places have the luxury of having a well planned, development driven process.
I wouldn't go that far.
As much as I'm usually pretty down on MS, I'm just not convinced they're any different in this case.
I've been dealing with microsoft crap since there was a microsoft. microsoft is one of the worst offenders, if not the prototype.
nice move, comparing software to food and medicine ingredients.
As master of the analogy, I think you.
The difference is nobody dies if they run MS Office instead of Open Office.
Maybe not, but that is not the point. People don't die if they don't see ingredients on the package, but they can use that information to make better choices.
Are you suggesting that software developers should be held to the same standards of regulation as food and health industry?
Speaking as someone who has worked in the medical imaging field, I can say, sure, why not.
Why should we remove the option of using proprietary software?
Why should we remove the option of food without ingredients listed? Why should we remove the option of medicine without warning labels? Why should we remove the option of buying products without consumer protection laws?
What's even more disgusting, you are using "slavery" in reference to computer software. There could not be a more stupid and disgusting misuse of the word. You talk to make yourself feel important.
If that's what you think, why even get involved in the conversation?
The importance of "freedom" in computing is so important today that any claim you make about it would be hard to call hyperbole.
News, media, entertainment, civic participation in a democracy, personal records, etc. are all intertwined with computers, and every trend indicates that there is no ebb in sight.
The idea that we do not have rights to know how these important instruments of our daily lives work or that it is that *we* don't dictate what they do but a multinational corporation does is frightening.
It isn't just "software," just as Guttenberg's press wasn't just about ink. It is about citizenship, freedom, knowledge, the human condition. The democratization of information and society.
keep your eye on the BIG picture, you can be sure the rich and powerful do, and they use what every method they can to keep the average person from seeing it or acting on its behalf.
You wrote regarding copyright: No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't.
For how long? To what extent? Do copyright owners and their progeny have 100% control over everything they've done for perpetuity or are there limitations? What about "fair use?" What about "Right of First Sale?" Copyright is *not* black and white and no person seriously wishing to have a discussion about it would claim it to be.
Just the opening statement of the post indicates that it is not a serious argument and there is no need to continue.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda hard to take someone harping on about a trivially disabled UI feature as if it's fatal OS architectural flaw, seriously.
Tell that to the multitudes that don't know what it is or that they should turn it off. It is an insecure feature and, IMHO, indicative of the insecurity of Windows.
This has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with badly written applications.
Well, that certainly is *an* opinion, not mine nor the opinion of other experts. The Windows API is full of calls that require system level access to do things that, on UNIX or Linux, only require group membership.
This isn't to say that Microsoft *couldn't* implement this granularity of access, they certainly could, but they do not and it is beyond most administrators to do it, and it would be an impossible burden for any IT department to do it.
So, just the most important data on the machine then ?
Yup and that would be bad, but it certainly couldn't travel like on Windows because it would be unable to propagate for the aforementioned lack of permission.
Also, "I could get a virus on my linux box" was a fairly hypothetical piece of conjecture. It would be pretty damn hard to create a user level Linux virus that could function in the wild. I'm sure it is theoretically possible, but we have not yet seen one. Older PHP systems were vulnerable to a SQL injection, but only when the web environment was set up poorly, and again, only on the service level.
blaming this on Windows is stupid and pointless.
Yes, of course, how many Solaris or Linux viruses are there?
I do not buy the hogwash equivocation argument that all security vulnerabilities are the same. There are degrees and there are levels of ease of deployment.
If a 12 year old script kiddie can exploit a windows system easily, but it takes a 20 year software security expert to exploit a UNIX system, I'd call that different.
Years ago, I was on a DoD facility where scheduling was being done on a UNIX box. Everyone there used the console for their work, everyone used the root account to do their work, and the password was written in on the first page of the book marked "Procedures" that was beside the console.
I call this a lie. There is no way this would happen in a DoD shop.
Security all comes down to the person who's task it is to implement it.
To a point this is true, however, Windows is far more insecure to begin with.
Running Unix (or any compatible rip off) only gives you an additional layer of security through obscurity .
Not true at all. It gives you an over-all more secure base from which to begin.
Sorry fanboys, it's true.
No it isn't.
Obviously, that includes any media (CDs, FlashDrives, Floppies) attached to the system.
Why? Why would those devices be a security breach unless a brain-dead operating system looked for "autorun.exe?"
ow you want to blame Microsoft instead of the brass simply because you think it's a chance to expand your following.
No, it is because Windows starts out insecure and UNIX starts out secure. There is a fundimental limit you reach with Windows and security. It gets to the point where you can't even use it. With Linux or BSD a use can use the system as an untrusted user.
I could get a virus on my Linux box, but it couldn't install itself or destroy system areas.
how absurd it would be for our own military to purchase software from one of our premier software companies.
Who has a world famous reputation for poor performance, reliability, and security.
A company that provides a consistent tax revenue and employment opportunities.
Security != Money. Damn it! Just because a company is profitable does not mean it has a good product.
no malicious agents would dare sully the name of the *nix by writing custom software to go after a high profile target like the US military and it's related assets.
I refuse to buy that hogwash. It isn't about popularity or anything like that, it is about inherent security and the difficulty with which compromises are developed. It is far far harder to compromise Linux or BSD system.
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I also refute the equivocation argument that all security vulnerabilities are equal. Windows is insecure at the system level where as Linux and BSD tend to only be insecure at the service level which is easier to administer.
Just one more point that I think is very important.....
In case I have not been clear. This is not about a situation where there is a dispute of fact and law where the parties are attempting to settle their differences, ethically, within the court system. I wish that were the case.
It is about when very powerful and unethical parties game the system in a way that is injurious to people who do not have the power to fight back. That is not justice, and the power of the people has to be applied.
Solution to political problems often the following steps:
(1) Soap Box.
(2) Ballot Box
(3) Jury Box
(4) Ammo Box
In that order.
Step #1 doesn't work because most people don't understand the problem yet.
Step #2 doesn't work because they own both the democrats and the republicans.
Step #3 doesn't work for two reasons: step #1 and that they have the unimaginable resources against virtually helpless victims.
I'm only calling for a step "3.5" where we make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the behavior needs to be stopped. Not violence, but certainly not polite business as usual.
Mark my words, it is because of Windows. If Linux or BSD based systems were predominant in the Pentagon, this would not be an issue.
The world, the U.S.A. is so screwed up. We all know what the problems are, but we can't address them because no one in position of power will discuss them.
Modern societies are founded on laws.
After a revolution of the common people over authoritarian power.
You can't go around getting vigilante revenge on these scumbags, that's immoral and not how a civilized society should function.
I'm not saying "violence" I calling for shunning and depriving them of "society." They are acting outside of the norms of society, thus should not be alowed to enjoy the benefits of it, and that includes good manners.
If you don't like what they're doing (or the laws they've lobbied for), you should either find some way to use their own system against them (like this RICO class action), or else get involved in politics and try to have the system changed.
The point I was trying to make, in case you missed it, we *can't* really win within a system that protects them. The corporate shield, the laws, and the politicians have stacked the deck. The power of the people has always been the power of protest, the power of the masses.
I say we protest each and every one of them.
I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.
These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.
They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.
They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.
Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.
Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.
Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?
These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.
It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.
so you will take to the streets violently because of getting caught stealing music
I don't care one little bit about stealing music. I don't do it and it has nothing to do with my point of view.
My point of view is that RIAA and MPIAA are terrorists, they don't use bombs, they use the courts. They create false charges, accuse people of theft with no credible evidence, they then intimidate and bully. Make no mistake, the accusation is by definition assault. (look it up)
Now, when you are threatened by someone, do you fight them under their terms or do you try to pick a venue more suitable to you?
They own the courts, they bribe (oops, "lobby") the politicians, the only advantage you have is the ability to bring the fight out of the protection of corporate shield and in their personal face.
Yes, trash these F*&^*cks where they live. We didn't start the fight they did. If they want to dragnet innocent people to create an environment of fear, so be it, we should retaliate in kind.
You urge others to acts of vandalism and criminal harassment because you don't like the way filesharing copyright cases are civilly prosecuted!
Like I said in another post, I have no problem with an honest dispute being settled lawfully. But these a-holes aren't fighting fairly. They and their jon-doe suits are a travesty of justice and injurious who happens to be in scatter-shot range.
If they wanted to play fair, then that would be one thing. They are not, they are themselves skirting the law worse than any file sharer.
They started an unfair and unlawful fight. Since they aren't abiding by the rules of engagement, we shouldn't feel compelled to either.
They get to fight in the courts, we get to fight in the street.
If you want the freedom to download without interference from the legal system
I don't download music. I go to my public library and borrow what I want and return it when I'm done. I'm pissed off at the abuse of process and power in my country.
Respectfully, I have to tell you I found more heat than light in your argument.
Maybe so, but all I am calling for is equal justice.
Can you honestly say they fight fair? Can you honestly say what they are seeking justice or intimidation? They are trying to bully the people into abandoning their rights. The threaten, bully, and defy the rules of law, and get off because they have the money to lobby.
I say the real power is the people, and we have the power to destroy them with the same sort of tactics they come at us with.
They started the fight, they have used lawlessness and indiscriminate accusation and intimidated, So be it, I say it is there turn!
You are in fact calling for violence. You're just not calling for violence directed at another human being. It honestly scares me that you were modded insightful; it means other people out there agree with you.
I am only calling for people to inflict the same threats and damage against an industry as they are empoying against us.
I understand that copyright is a complex issue, and I'm not on the side of file sharers, but I am on the side of equal justice.
These a-holes are using courts and laws to destroy private individuals. They circumvent the rules of the court, delay, and bankrupt the people they intend to intimidate. They sue with virtually no evidence against people they have no way of having any idea are guilty, and bully them to settle.
Well, screw that, it is time that "We The People" show OUR bully power.
So you disagree with a companies attitude to copyright, so you want to vandalize their employees cars.
That is not the problem at all. I have no problem with an honest dispute of law. What is happening however, is the wholesale abuse of innocent people. HUGE fines for small offenses. Intimidation through the courts. Using the resources of multinational multibillion dollar organizations to threaten and destroy people.
We don't have the power in the courts, because we don't have billions of dollars, but we do have the power in the streets.
The copyright environment sucks.
I was using a torrent to download a linux distro the other day. I was actually concerned about being "tracked" by my ISP as a file pirate.
This is so wrong. Corporations are using private law backed up by copyright statute to create a Kafka-esque "guilty because we say you are guilty" environment. Oh, sure, they don't have the power to imprison you, but with the courts they do have the power to bankrupt you with lawyers fees with no credible evidence.
I'm serious, people need to start fighting back, and not just in the courts. Who says they get to make the rules? What they are doing is not fair, it is not civilized, and it is not human. The fight, therefor, need not be either.
If every lawyer and executive that works for a RIAA company gets egged every day on the way to work. If every car they own gets its tires slashed. If every time they are in a starbucks, someone pours hot coffee on their suit. If every time someone sees one yells at the top of their lungs "CRIMINAL F(*&CK GET OUT OF HERE." Maybe they'll start to see that the money they are being paid to ruin people's lives will in turn ruin theirs.
We don't have the money to fight them in court, but we can ruin their lives just as easy as they can ruin the lives of innocent people. If they don't have a conscience, perhaps we should perform that function for them. I'm not calling for violence, not at all. I am calling for wholesale property damage. Break everything they own when ever they get it. They feel perfectly comfortable wreakig financial havoc on people, we should feel the same until they stop.
I mean come on, think about it!
Viruses thrive on Microsoft Windows because Microsoft can't get security right in the first place.
Microsoft now tries to make an anti-virus product to fix the holes it creates in Windows.
Wouldn't it just be easier to fix Windows? Oh! Wait, that's right, Microsoft doesn't *fix* anything, they just add features.
It has to be some inside joke at Microsoft. They screwup Windows so bad that they create an ISV cottage industry of companies creating software to plug the security holes. Then rather than actually FIX the problems, they use their monopoly position to put them out of business.
Its just insane.
Are you under the impression that MS is the only place where this happens?
Are you kidding?
Personal experience tells me that absurd requests for features from high-profile customers, and sales guys who over promise is a problem most anywhere else.
True, but, in the end, not an excuse.
I just don't think most places have the luxury of having a well planned, development driven process.
I wouldn't go that far.
As much as I'm usually pretty down on MS, I'm just not convinced they're any different in this case.
I've been dealing with microsoft crap since there was a microsoft. microsoft is one of the worst offenders, if not the prototype.
As has always been the case and the #1 reason Microsoft products suck in general, marketing makes the product technology decisions.
nice move, comparing software to food and medicine ingredients.
As master of the analogy, I think you.
The difference is nobody dies if they run MS Office instead of Open Office.
Maybe not, but that is not the point. People don't die if they don't see ingredients on the package, but they can use that information to make better choices.
Are you suggesting that software developers should be held to the same standards of regulation as food and health industry?
Speaking as someone who has worked in the medical imaging field, I can say, sure, why not.
Why should we remove the option of using proprietary software?
Why should we remove the option of food without ingredients listed? Why should we remove the option of medicine without warning labels? Why should we remove the option of buying products without consumer protection laws?
It is none of goddamn RMSs business how people want to distribute their stuff. Don't like it? Don't use it.
If there is an option to "not" use it, do you think people would choose it?
What's even more disgusting, you are using "slavery" in reference to computer software. There could not be a more stupid and disgusting misuse of the word. You talk to make yourself feel important.
If that's what you think, why even get involved in the conversation?
The importance of "freedom" in computing is so important today that any claim you make about it would be hard to call hyperbole.
News, media, entertainment, civic participation in a democracy, personal records, etc. are all intertwined with computers, and every trend indicates that there is no ebb in sight.
The idea that we do not have rights to know how these important instruments of our daily lives work or that it is that *we* don't dictate what they do but a multinational corporation does is frightening.
It isn't just "software," just as Guttenberg's press wasn't just about ink. It is about citizenship, freedom, knowledge, the human condition. The democratization of information and society.
keep your eye on the BIG picture, you can be sure the rich and powerful do, and they use what every method they can to keep the average person from seeing it or acting on its behalf.
You wrote regarding copyright:
No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't.
For how long? To what extent? Do copyright owners and their progeny have 100% control over everything they've done for perpetuity or are there limitations? What about "fair use?" What about "Right of First Sale?" Copyright is *not* black and white and no person seriously wishing to have a discussion about it would claim it to be.
Just the opening statement of the post indicates that it is not a serious argument and there is no need to continue.
And PETA would have us believe that eating chicken is the moral equivalent of the holocaust.
And hyperbole only makes the poster look like an idiot.
Your argument is fallacious because you have started with a false premise.
You keep wanting to make this an argument about copyright, and I have not discussed copyright at all. That is a different discussion.