There shouldn't be any bashing at all in this article.
. India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values. If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it. I don't agree with it -- but it's their call. If at some point in the future there is a change in social attitudes towards porn in India, they can vote for a government that will change their laws accordingly.
. If you want to bash anyone, bash Google for not respecting local laws -- but even that would be stretching it a bit.
Dude, you're a bit tall on opinions but a bit short on logic.
Just a couple of years ago I could still install almost all productivity software on Windows 2000, but that doesn't work any more. It's such a farce, forcing people to buy more RAM so they can run a bloated OS, and all for what? The older versions of Windows might have trouble with large hard drives or something, but why make it a requirement to upgrade Windows?
As a developer, every supported OS, every supported architecture (x86, x64, ia64), every supported language adds multipliers (and consequently time, money) to your test passes, test failure investigations (debugging), and bugfix (developer) costs. Infrastructure changes occur over OS versions (API changes, run-time environment changes (JREs/.Net) new frameworks become available, etc.). It's a lot of complexity to work around if you target tons of OS versions willy nilly.
Instead, you simply look at your users. What % of the market is using each version -- and accordingly, what's the oldest version that you need to target? Pretty simple. No farce.
Second logical fallacy -- your use of the word 'force'. If you use version V of app X on win2k -- and version V+1 only works on XP onwards -- well, who is 'forcing' you to upgrade to V+1? Is somebody holding a gun to your head? Developers decide on supported platforms based on whatever constraints they have. You choose your apps and OSes based on whatever constraints you have. Who can force you to do anything else?? Similar story with H/W requirements. If you want to use your old hardware, you know what your software options are. If you want to use the latest s/w you know what your h/w requirements are. You know your budget. You know your use cases and what software / hardware you need to best meet them. You can make a decision accordingly on what hardware to buy (or stick with your old h/w) and what software to run on it. Who's holding a gun to your head? If you get 'forced' to buy 4GB of RAM just because Win7 got released, you're a pretty weak-willed person.
As a matter of interest, can you tell me what you have really gained from moving from XP to Win 7 apart from a bit of a spring clean out (real demonstrable gains not just a prettier interface and a few more GP widgets to click on, oh and IPv6) ?
Could you clarify the question? What constitutes a real demonstrable gain in your opinion?
That's how any engineer worth their salt would create a 'backdoor' for testing purposes. i.e. it would never make it's way into the released bits. It would never get past a simple code review. It would never get past a simple security audit.
If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network. No way such a thing can go undetected. Pure fucking FUD.
It's just kdawson posting FUD as usual. He's known to break into hives if he doesn't post some mindless anti-MS sensational BS once a week.
But seriously -- looking back at some of the stuff he's posted -- he's got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a nerd I've ever seen. I mean, some of this shit doesn't even pass the sniff test. I mean, consider these gems in addition to TFA:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/03/0015252/Windows-7-Compatible-PCs-Must-Be-64-bit -- in which kdawson is so stupid he doesn't realize that the windows compatible sticker is to be used on a device (mouse, keyboard, webcam, etc. etc. and this requirement means that drivers must be available in both 64-bit and 32-bit versions
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/29/2250228/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Released-Rivals-Mock-It -- in which kdawson ludicrously decides that an AV-vendor that is directly threatened by the release of AV s/w from MS is a great source to refer to for information on said AV software.
And that's just from the last time I happened to read slashdot. In 2 visits to the site, that's three rabid anti-MS stories with zero merit. Either kdawson is completely and utterly incompetent, or he's got a not-so-hidden agenda. Trouble is -- how do we get rid of this guy?
"you have to pay Microsoft to get their approval for your driver"
You have no dependence on MS (very critical point -- MS has absolutely zero control over who can sign an application, kernel module/driver, whatsoever.
There is no *approval* process. You're just paying for a signing certificate, that's all. The only point behind code signing is so that an end user who downloads and installs your software knows that if the signature checks out ok, then they can be absolutely sure that the code is unaltered since you signed it, and it is from the entitiy that claims to have provided it -- i.e. the end user has an assurance from the signer (developer) that this s/w is not malware -- and if it turns out to be malware, the user now has the means to track this malicious developer and go after them (say in court).
Basically, this is *not* like the iPhone app store approval process -- there is no approval process at all. You can pay once for a signing cert., and then sign stuff to your hearts content. The only day that will bite you in the butt is when you release malware.
.
Fuck that totalitarian bullshit. 32-bit forever.
So you see, it isn't totalitarian. It isn't bullshit (it's there to protect users, and it's a Good Decision). That makes GP's post either FUD or uninformed.
That's absolute bullshit (or fud). You expressly do not have to pay Microsoft to get their approval. You just need to sign your application / device driver using a certificate from a bunch of trusted CAs.
.
What's more upsetting (maybe even enlightening/entertaining to watch) will be the huge slugfest that's gonna happen. There's gonna be tons of threads discussing all kinds of garbage:
. "MS is teh sux -- they're forcing me to buy a new computer"
"Well, Apple already forced you to buy a new computer"
"Linux still runs on PPC -- both Apple and MS are teh sux"
. And so on and so forth.. the editors didn't stop to think for one second, and most posters won't stop to think for one second before starting all kinds of ridiculous flame wars. I swear, sometimes this site drives me nuts!
Oh - if anyone needs to hear it from the horses' mouth itself, see here. To save yourself time, scroll to the bottom of the article and see the update.
But seriously -- the headline is so eye-popping that you'd think the editor would pause for a second, and then verify it, before starting a whole freaking conversation about nothing.
The sticker in question (Windows 7 Compatible) is not intended for use on a computer -- it's intended for peripherals and add-ons. Mice, keyboards, graphics cards, network cards, routers, etc. etc.
.
What the hell is wrong this site? Are the editors becoming so lazy that they don't stop for two seconds to understand the stupidity of their headlines? You would think that Win7 isn't being offered in 32-bit mode from reading it. Instead, what it means is that any device you buy with that sticker will work with 32-bit windows and 64-bit windows.
But you're missing the main point of TFA and getting lost in the analogy.
That main point being: There are other sources of AV software (free or otherwise) -- and they have whatever business models they have, and these business models sustain them. So why should MS cater to people who are pirating windows -- these people have other alternatives -- they're not being hung out to dry. They can get protection from a bunch of other sources, and that would provide the herd immunity you speak of.
So you'll dismiss MS's Security Essentials without ever looking at it, because it's "from the creators of WGA" -- but you'll still use the OS "from the creators of WGA" thus entrusting your computer+data to this same entity? Fucking brilliant.
Right.. $5 was just an off-hand example.. assume that number to be whatever make the economics work for MS & the OEMs -- would the deal be okay by the DOJ?
Microsoft *could* simply include this in the base OS image, however.
Actually I'm pretty certain they're not allowed to do that.. that move would make maximum sense for MS (and for consumers) but the AV industry would scream bloody murder until the DOJ does something about it. Neelie Kroes (or whoever succeeds her in the EU) will probably go to town on the fines as well..
MS discontinued OneCare around a year ago genius (see here). The free Security Essentials release we're discussing in TFA is what the OneCare team got spun off into..
Agreed. KDawson is reaching for his FUD as usual -- he actually quoted a direct competitor as the source for negative comments.
I wonder if MS will be within their rights if they were to pay OEMs to pre-install Security Essentials on PCs they sell. Will it be seen as a sneaky way of offering a discount with Windows ("install this with Windows and we'll knock 5 bucks off each Windows OEM license"), or is it seen as something that's beneficial to consumers, so it's ok for MS to make pre-installation deals with OEMs.
I mean, if Security Essentials is pre-installed, then it saves customers a ton of hassles with selecting an AV, paying for AV, dealing with AV nagware, and worrying about updated AV in addition to Windows Updates. So if it's good for consumers (i.e. if there's no consumer harm), then is it ok for MS to make such deals?
Your analogy does not hold water either. When I am in Best Buy walking through the detectors I am on their property. When the WGA is digging through my computer without my consent it's running on MY property...the hardware I paid for.
Oh but it does, because you didn't consent to it. If you say that walking into the store is implicit consent, then I say accepting the EULA is explicit consent. Otherwise, a hotel can record it's guests having sex saying they're on the hotel's property. Consent is what's required in all these cases.
.
The best option I can think of would be to open source windows and change to a support-type model. Since this will never happen the next best option would be not to bother.
That's exactly the point. You can't come up with a better option. So you have no moral high-ground from which to launch your complaint. You can't come up with a proper way of preventing piracy, and your solution is for MS to open-source (read: give away for free) it's most valuable property? Phenomenal!
.
This DRM does not work anyway. All the WGA does is force the pirates to find a volume licensed copy of Windows to pirate instead.
One of my pet peeves here -- people keep using the word "force" with such glee abandon when talking about Micrsoft. Anyway -- I'll come back to that later. Suffice it to say that you're missing the point. VL piracy can also be dealth with by revoking VL keys (for example). The specifics aren't important since all DRM can be defeated - this is known. It just has to be hard enough to defeat that 'most people' (some significant percentage) who would otherwise have pirated, will now buy.
.
Besides, if Microsoft does too good a job of preventing piracy I suspect many of the pirates would switch to Linux or another free OS. I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't want to loose all of that market share.
Doubtful to say the least. MS won't care about losing 'customers' who never pay them a dime. They have economies of scale on their side even without them.
If pirates switch to Linux, they'll realize that paying for Windows isn't so bad after all. No offense to Linux -- but it's not ready for Joe Public yet.
If people start pirating OS-X en masse, Apple will eventually make them pay in court and could concievably emulate the WGA example themselves. They're not known to sitting idly by and let people steal their IP.
.
Although what's more annoying is when there are false positives (like any form of DRM I suppose.)
Agreed -- but if there was an epidemic of such things, there would have been court cases by now and MS would have been taken to the cleaners. They get raked over coals for less. Outages of the WGA validation service (that have occurred briefly in the past) are a far greater risk, I think. At least a false positive can be dealth with in a quick phone-call. Prolonged activation service outage will result in call volumes that simply cannot be handled. MS will pay dearly if/when that happens -- so you can rest assured that they already have/will continue to do everything they can to guard against it. They almost certainly will have built in some kind of fail safe into WGA as well, to allow for brief outages (but not too much -- so that spoofing a 'permanent outage' isn't an option for bypassing WGA). Just theory of course -- I don't really know that much about WGA.
.
Back to the word "force". Pirates aren't "forced" to find a VL key. They just 'prefer' doing so. They might decide to find a way to hack the WGA code to always return an activated status or something like that. They might, as you said, decide to pirate some other OS (like OS-X) or use Linux instead. When they have that many options, the word "force" kind of loses meaning. People keep saying "MS is forcing me to get a new computer to run Win7", "MS is forcing me to upgrade to the latest version of Office so I can read.docx" etc. etc. With so many options available, I can never understand how the word "force" gets used here. Either that, or the slashdot crowd is really easily persuaded.
Learn people what a spreadsheet is and does and they will be able to use any of them. Specifics will be learned when they are in the company that then can decide if they want to use OpenOffice, Excel, Gnumeric or paper.
That's not what the FSF is saying though. The FSF is saying MS somehow 'forces' people to use Excel.
.
The excuse that MS uses is that they are able to use what the companies want. The companies then can only buy these tools, as nobody knows how to use anything else.
Dead wrong. First -- MS doesn't need an excuse. They want to sell as many copies of Excel as they can. They don't need an excuse for it. Second -- companies choose MS Office. Sure some of them choose Google docs, some of them choose OpenOffice.org, some of them choose Lotus notes. But that's the proof that they all have options, and the majority of them decide that MS Office is better. It's really just that simple.
Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats
Well, i'll give them this point. But Microsoft has added support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2, however it was the ODF guys who weren't even able to spec out something basic as formulas in a spreadsheet specification.
Actually, you can't even give them that point. MS participated in the ODF standardization process in an observational capacity only. They did not ever vote against the standard or add any complications to the process.
Slashdot Mirror
There shouldn't be any bashing at all in this article.
.
India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values. If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it. I don't agree with it -- but it's their call. If at some point in the future there is a change in social attitudes towards porn in India, they can vote for a government that will change their laws accordingly.
.
If you want to bash anyone, bash Google for not respecting local laws -- but even that would be stretching it a bit.
Dude, you're a bit tall on opinions but a bit short on logic.
Just a couple of years ago I could still install almost all productivity software on Windows 2000, but that doesn't work any more. It's such a farce, forcing people to buy more RAM so they can run a bloated OS, and all for what? The older versions of Windows might have trouble with large hard drives or something, but why make it a requirement to upgrade Windows?
As a developer, every supported OS, every supported architecture (x86, x64, ia64), every supported language adds multipliers (and consequently time, money) to your test passes, test failure investigations (debugging), and bugfix (developer) costs. Infrastructure changes occur over OS versions (API changes, run-time environment changes (JREs/.Net) new frameworks become available, etc.). It's a lot of complexity to work around if you target tons of OS versions willy nilly.
Instead, you simply look at your users. What % of the market is using each version -- and accordingly, what's the oldest version that you need to target? Pretty simple. No farce.
Second logical fallacy -- your use of the word 'force'. If you use version V of app X on win2k -- and version V+1 only works on XP onwards -- well, who is 'forcing' you to upgrade to V+1? Is somebody holding a gun to your head? Developers decide on supported platforms based on whatever constraints they have. You choose your apps and OSes based on whatever constraints you have. Who can force you to do anything else?? Similar story with H/W requirements. If you want to use your old hardware, you know what your software options are. If you want to use the latest s/w you know what your h/w requirements are. You know your budget. You know your use cases and what software / hardware you need to best meet them. You can make a decision accordingly on what hardware to buy (or stick with your old h/w) and what software to run on it. Who's holding a gun to your head? If you get 'forced' to buy 4GB of RAM just because Win7 got released, you're a pretty weak-willed person.
As a matter of interest, can you tell me what you have really gained from moving from XP to Win 7 apart from a bit of a spring clean out (real demonstrable gains not just a prettier interface and a few more GP widgets to click on, oh and IPv6) ?
Could you clarify the question? What constitutes a real demonstrable gain in your opinion?
What, in your opinion, justifies a version bump between OS releases?
Lie dormant until a certain event occurs
Sorry -- not an option. You *will* get detected the first time you activate.
.
Piggyback on legit comms to ms controlled site/s
How many such legit comms exist? WGA and Windows update? You think people don't already monitor and analyse that traffic?
#ifdef DEBUG
// backdoor code
#endif
That's how any engineer worth their salt would create a 'backdoor' for testing purposes. i.e. it would never make it's way into the released bits. It would never get past a simple code review. It would never get past a simple security audit.
don't the network is used __all__ the time for the "updates" and "windows genuine advantage." things?
Lookup packet analysers and related tools. Just because the network is in use, doesn't mean we don't know exactly what's being sent/received.
.
I know, you have sometimes the option to delay a " software update" -- but that is mostly an illusion
(a) Depends on your settings or network admin settings. (b) Completely unrelated as I explained above.
.
Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?
So now do you realize why this story is just FUD? Or is it called something else when it came from you?
What a steaming pile of shit.
If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network. No way such a thing can go undetected. Pure fucking FUD.
It's just kdawson posting FUD as usual. He's known to break into hives if he doesn't post some mindless anti-MS sensational BS once a week.
But seriously -- looking back at some of the stuff he's posted -- he's got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a nerd I've ever seen. I mean, some of this shit doesn't even pass the sniff test. I mean, consider these gems in addition to TFA:
And that's just from the last time I happened to read slashdot. In 2 visits to the site, that's three rabid anti-MS stories with zero merit. Either kdawson is completely and utterly incompetent, or he's got a not-so-hidden agenda. Trouble is -- how do we get rid of this guy?
See my reply to the other poster. This is a Good Thing all around. Signed software is a Good Thing.
What's the difference?
.
"you have to pay Microsoft to get their approval for your driver"
.
Fuck that totalitarian bullshit. 32-bit forever.
So you see, it isn't totalitarian. It isn't bullshit (it's there to protect users, and it's a Good Decision). That makes GP's post either FUD or uninformed.
That's absolute bullshit (or fud). You expressly do not have to pay Microsoft to get their approval. You just need to sign your application / device driver using a certificate from a bunch of trusted CAs.
.
See here for a list of trusted CAs: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995347.aspx
What's more upsetting (maybe even enlightening/entertaining to watch) will be the huge slugfest that's gonna happen. There's gonna be tons of threads discussing all kinds of garbage:
.
"MS is teh sux -- they're forcing me to buy a new computer"
"Well, Apple already forced you to buy a new computer"
"Linux still runs on PPC -- both Apple and MS are teh sux"
.
And so on and so forth.. the editors didn't stop to think for one second, and most posters won't stop to think for one second before starting all kinds of ridiculous flame wars. I swear, sometimes this site drives me nuts!
Oh - if anyone needs to hear it from the horses' mouth itself, see here. To save yourself time, scroll to the bottom of the article and see the update.
Because TFA is completely wrong. See here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1390979&cid=29623065
I guess this might help: http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2009/10/02/microsoft-approved-peripherals-get-windows-7-compatible-stamps/
.
But seriously -- the headline is so eye-popping that you'd think the editor would pause for a second, and then verify it, before starting a whole freaking conversation about nothing.
The sticker in question (Windows 7 Compatible) is not intended for use on a computer -- it's intended for peripherals and add-ons. Mice, keyboards, graphics cards, network cards, routers, etc. etc.
.
What the hell is wrong this site? Are the editors becoming so lazy that they don't stop for two seconds to understand the stupidity of their headlines? You would think that Win7 isn't being offered in 32-bit mode from reading it. Instead, what it means is that any device you buy with that sticker will work with 32-bit windows and 64-bit windows.
But you're missing the main point of TFA and getting lost in the analogy.
That main point being: There are other sources of AV software (free or otherwise) -- and they have whatever business models they have, and these business models sustain them. So why should MS cater to people who are pirating windows -- these people have other alternatives -- they're not being hung out to dry. They can get protection from a bunch of other sources, and that would provide the herd immunity you speak of.
So you'll dismiss MS's Security Essentials without ever looking at it, because it's "from the creators of WGA" -- but you'll still use the OS "from the creators of WGA" thus entrusting your computer+data to this same entity? Fucking brilliant.
Right.. $5 was just an off-hand example.. assume that number to be whatever make the economics work for MS & the OEMs -- would the deal be okay by the DOJ?
Microsoft *could* simply include this in the base OS image, however.
Actually I'm pretty certain they're not allowed to do that.. that move would make maximum sense for MS (and for consumers) but the AV industry would scream bloody murder until the DOJ does something about it. Neelie Kroes (or whoever succeeds her in the EU) will probably go to town on the fines as well..
MS discontinued OneCare around a year ago genius (see here). The free Security Essentials release we're discussing in TFA is what the OneCare team got spun off into..
Agreed. KDawson is reaching for his FUD as usual -- he actually quoted a direct competitor as the source for negative comments.
I wonder if MS will be within their rights if they were to pay OEMs to pre-install Security Essentials on PCs they sell. Will it be seen as a sneaky way of offering a discount with Windows ("install this with Windows and we'll knock 5 bucks off each Windows OEM license"), or is it seen as something that's beneficial to consumers, so it's ok for MS to make pre-installation deals with OEMs.
I mean, if Security Essentials is pre-installed, then it saves customers a ton of hassles with selecting an AV, paying for AV, dealing with AV nagware, and worrying about updated AV in addition to Windows Updates. So if it's good for consumers (i.e. if there's no consumer harm), then is it ok for MS to make such deals?
Your analogy does not hold water either. When I am in Best Buy walking through the detectors I am on their property. When the WGA is digging through my computer without my consent it's running on MY property...the hardware I paid for.
Oh but it does, because you didn't consent to it. If you say that walking into the store is implicit consent, then I say accepting the EULA is explicit consent. Otherwise, a hotel can record it's guests having sex saying they're on the hotel's property. Consent is what's required in all these cases.
.
The best option I can think of would be to open source windows and change to a support-type model. Since this will never happen the next best option would be not to bother.
That's exactly the point. You can't come up with a better option. So you have no moral high-ground from which to launch your complaint. You can't come up with a proper way of preventing piracy, and your solution is for MS to open-source (read: give away for free) it's most valuable property? Phenomenal!
.
This DRM does not work anyway. All the WGA does is force the pirates to find a volume licensed copy of Windows to pirate instead.
One of my pet peeves here -- people keep using the word "force" with such glee abandon when talking about Micrsoft. Anyway -- I'll come back to that later. Suffice it to say that you're missing the point. VL piracy can also be dealth with by revoking VL keys (for example). The specifics aren't important since all DRM can be defeated - this is known. It just has to be hard enough to defeat that 'most people' (some significant percentage) who would otherwise have pirated, will now buy.
.
Besides, if Microsoft does too good a job of preventing piracy I suspect many of the pirates would switch to Linux or another free OS. I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't want to loose all of that market share.
Doubtful to say the least. MS won't care about losing 'customers' who never pay them a dime. They have economies of scale on their side even without them.
If pirates switch to Linux, they'll realize that paying for Windows isn't so bad after all. No offense to Linux -- but it's not ready for Joe Public yet.
If people start pirating OS-X en masse, Apple will eventually make them pay in court and could concievably emulate the WGA example themselves. They're not known to sitting idly by and let people steal their IP.
.
Although what's more annoying is when there are false positives (like any form of DRM I suppose.)
Agreed -- but if there was an epidemic of such things, there would have been court cases by now and MS would have been taken to the cleaners. They get raked over coals for less. Outages of the WGA validation service (that have occurred briefly in the past) are a far greater risk, I think. At least a false positive can be dealth with in a quick phone-call. Prolonged activation service outage will result in call volumes that simply cannot be handled. MS will pay dearly if/when that happens -- so you can rest assured that they already have/will continue to do everything they can to guard against it. They almost certainly will have built in some kind of fail safe into WGA as well, to allow for brief outages (but not too much -- so that spoofing a 'permanent outage' isn't an option for bypassing WGA). Just theory of course -- I don't really know that much about WGA.
.
Back to the word "force". Pirates aren't "forced" to find a VL key. They just 'prefer' doing so. They might decide to find a way to hack the WGA code to always return an activated status or something like that. They might, as you said, decide to pirate some other OS (like OS-X) or use Linux instead. When they have that many options, the word "force" kind of loses meaning. People keep saying "MS is forcing me to get a new computer to run Win7", "MS is forcing me to upgrade to the latest version of Office so I can read .docx" etc. etc. With so many options available, I can never understand how the word "force" gets used here. Either that, or the slashdot crowd is really easily persuaded.
Learn people what a spreadsheet is and does and they will be able to use any of them. Specifics will be learned when they are in the company that then can decide if they want to use OpenOffice, Excel, Gnumeric or paper.
That's not what the FSF is saying though. The FSF is saying MS somehow 'forces' people to use Excel.
.
The excuse that MS uses is that they are able to use what the companies want. The companies then can only buy these tools, as nobody knows how to use anything else.
Dead wrong. First -- MS doesn't need an excuse. They want to sell as many copies of Excel as they can. They don't need an excuse for it. Second -- companies choose MS Office. Sure some of them choose Google docs, some of them choose OpenOffice.org, some of them choose Lotus notes. But that's the proof that they all have options, and the majority of them decide that MS Office is better. It's really just that simple.
Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats Well, i'll give them this point. But Microsoft has added support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2, however it was the ODF guys who weren't even able to spec out something basic as formulas in a spreadsheet specification.
Actually, you can't even give them that point. MS participated in the ODF standardization process in an observational capacity only. They did not ever vote against the standard or add any complications to the process.