11 ms·
Microsoft's Software is Malware
- Arzh 11y agoI guess all of the internet is also malware. Neat.
- Spivak 11y agoEven if what you said was true, and it's not, "well everyone else is doing it" is never an excuse.
- Arzh 11y agoI don't take a side in this statement.
- krapp 11y agoThe web possibly qualifies as malware (or at least malware-like) under several of the definitions provided by FSF: surveillance: although this can be mitigated somewhat by turning off javascript, sites can be very aggressive about forcing you to reveal data about yourself, and making a site unusable unless you do. This data about you, your habits and identity can be used for marketing purposes you may not consent to. DRM: you don't control the data you post to a site, can't necessarily change, update or remove it at will, and you're subject to arbitrary terms of service which may have the site assert ownership over user posted content. sabotage: there is nothing you can do if an online service decides to close and take your data with it - you can't simply fork it. Sites can remove or monetize formerly free parts of their API and hold your data hostage. jails: because the site itself runs on a remote server, you are limited to interacting with it through whatever API the site owners see fit. You cannot download it in its entirety, inspect the code, modify it for any purpose and redistribute it, unless it's entirely static. But, of course, as the code is on a remote server, there's no way to verify that either.
- exo762 11y agoInforming NSA about bugs before fixing them is grand. This alone qualifies MS software as malware.
- skolor 11y agoNote what the actual source for that says: > Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. The implication being made in the gnu page is that Microsoft delays fixing bugs so that the NSA can exploit them. The source article says something slightly different though, that they inform "various" agencies prior to the patches going live. I suspect the linux kernel devs do too, or Firefox, or any number of open source projects. I'd be more surprised if none of the people on the security lists for those groups don't have a list of agencies (both US and otherwise) they send bugs to .
- dogma1138 11y agoMSFT notifies every large costumer of security issues sometimes months in advance, the NSA don't get an exploit just a notification that a security issue has been detected, some mitigating actions they can take, sometimes an IDS/IPS signature from MSFT partners and an expected date for the fix. Smaller business costumers (pretty much any one with a TAM) will get notification before patches are released and in some cases will get the updates prior to the normal release window on "Patch Tuesday". Microsoft isn't the only company that does that, you can't expect businesses with 1000's of machines to be able to roll out patches on a moments notice so they share information before it becomes a Zero-Day issue for their clients.
- RyanZAG 11y agoIt's all true and yet not true at the same time. Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. For example, the backdoors are required by government, and Microsoft is not above the government and cannot really refuse if it is a legal requirement for national security. They're not exactly designed as backdoors either - mandatory security updates are necessary to prevent the spread of botnets. There is a valid argument that users should not be allowed to stop these essential security updates. Unfortunately, there are far more changes than only security updates. DRM is pretty much required for Microsoft to be able to get into distributing media for a fee. The same applies to a lot of the rest - it's all for being competitive in a world where Apple and Google are doing the same thing. However, that they are all legitimate doesn't actually change that it really is malware at the end of the day and this page is pretty much true.
- pjc50 11y agoif it is a legal requirement for national security. Is it legally required?
- TallGuyShort 11y agoIf it was, are you sure they would be allowed to tell you?
- cwyers 11y ago"Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user." Some days I'm pretty sure bash is malware, too.
- ChrisLTD 11y ago"Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly. (...) A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them." Microsoft did not make anybody dependent on them, and should have zero obligation to open source Windows XP. There are thriving alternatives to Windows like OS X, Android, Chrome OS, and iOS that XP users could have moved to in the last 14 years.
- wosos 11y agoI think the problem is that they won't allow anyone else to continue working on it
- ChrisLTD 11y agoThat's only a problem if Microsoft promised or implied XP would be updated indefinitely. Is that the case?
- rplnt 11y agoNo.. but one could think so seeing how they postponed the end of life so many times :)
- johncolanduoni 11y agoNot that I agree, but the FSF's issue with non-free software does not seem to be purely based on those who sell proprietary software lying (or being unclear) about the limitations, but at least partially on the fact that they even offer such "raw deals" to begin with.
- Silhouette 11y agoGiven that Microsoft has long published the support lifecycles for its major products, and that those support lifecycles are often guaranteed (as much as anything in the commercial world can be) many years into the future, any criticism on this score just feels like bad faith. The alternative is to take your chances with free software where outside of any commercial support agreement with a specific provider you generally have no actionable guarantees of any kind that your support will last as far as the time your installation completes.
- ramblerman 11y agoHmm, I agree with the some of the points on this page but the language used is incredibly childish, "Microsoft Tyrants" and "Microsoft Sabotage".... I think there are better ways to educate and spread this message. Whoever wrote this page is a bit too emotionally vested imo.
- oldmanjay 11y agoIt's preaching to the choir in the guise of persuasive writing. Almost literally, given the religious nature of the gnu belief system.
- laumars 11y ago> "Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly." XP has had longer support than any Linux distro out there (aside the rolling release ones, but that's a little different). I know this submission is intended to be biased, and I do honestly favour Linux over Windows anyway. But surely FUD like the above is so painfully transparent that it only undermines the credibility of the larger argument?
- tim333 11y agoAlso Microsoft have been fairly laid back about the "Registry hack enables free Windows XP security updates until 2019" stuff
- sounds 11y agoHow exactly does a factual statement, "Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly," cause Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt? Are you really uncertain about whether Microsoft will EOL your current Windows version, or what that will mean for legitimate businesses who need it to continue to function? If you don't want to hear what the FSF has to say, that's fine. But their statements are carefully worded in the hopes we can have a calm, logical discussion about the issue -- user freedom has become impossible with Microsoft's latest OS. This submission is not intended to be biased.
- sanderjd 11y agoIt is FUD because of the implication that there are competitors who do support their operating systems for more than 15 years without requiring expensive support contracts.
- mc32 11y agoIn almost any other context the content being delivered here would be considered a "hit piece". I'm a bit miffed. The choir is already converted, so to speak, so this is not the intended audience, others, non converts, would mostly be put off by the over the top style and rhetoric. Moreover, the article focuses on one vendor when other vendors follow similar policies but those aren't visited in the article. So.... What gives?
- HillaryBriss 11y agoThe BitLocker recovery key for the user’s device is automatically backed up online in the Microsoft OneDrive account. Even if we trust MS, do we trust MS to keep these keys safe from outside hackers?
- cwyers 11y agoI mean, the short answer is "no." But the longer answer is more complicated than that. Start off with the question of, is the consequences of not being able to access your device worse than the consequence of someone else getting unauthorized access to your device (or is it worse, controlling for the probability of each?) And then, is Microsoft's storage of those keys more or less secure than any alternative way you could back up those keys remotely? It's possible to both not trust Microsoft to store the keys safely and to make a rational decision to entrust the keys to Microsoft anyway.
- dogma1138 11y agoNo this is why it's not the default setting it asks you if you want to do it. That said OneDrive content is encrypted, while the encryption is not perfect it's not going to be "hacked" as easily as one thinks, it's not stored in some global key repository just in your normal onedrive account which is by far more likely to be compromised due to your activity than Microsoft's. BitLocker can fail, simple things like a UEFI/BIOS updates will cause it to fail, playing around with your boot loader or even boot order will cause it to fail, anything that will trigger the TPM will cause it to fail, sudden powerloss/crash can cause it to fail. BitLocker is quite more reliable now but when I was using it with Widnows 7 about 4-5 years ago I had to use the recovery every 2-3 months usually so I had the key printout stored in my wallet this is probably quite less safe than storing the key in OneDrive. Most people use encryption not to fight state level surveillance but to ensure that if they lose their devices or they get stolen they don't need to worry about all their accounts being compromised and their life being penetrated to a point where they need to worry about identity theft, fraud, and extortion. However FDE also puts you at risk for not being able to access the device when you need to, at like usual it will fail at the worst possible moment, the chance of losing all access to your device and data is a big hurdle which prevents people from using FDE and OneDrive-BitLocker integration kinda solves this quite well while still providing tamper resistance/detection.
- outside1234 11y agoAll of this is true, but where is the equivalent attack on Google, whose software is essentially entirely designed to spy on you. Isn't that also Malware? Or is this sort of malware ok because it runs the Linux kernel? I really want to support GNU and FSF but they seem to be constantly fighting some 20 year stale war against a company that is in many ways way more open than Google, Facebook, and Apple.
- bitmapbrother 11y agoWhy don't you point out the spy software on the Android Open Source Project?
- throwaway2048 11y agohow about you point out the phone that runs AOSP without driver blobs/google services blobs.
- Oletros 11y agoWithout any Google blobs any smartphone without Google services. And, as far as I know, binary blobs for bootloader ate not made by Google
- bitmapbrother 11y agoThere are a number of phones that run AOSP without google service blobs. As for running a phone without driver blobs, well that was just a ridiculous question on your part.
- SEJeff 11y agoIn the meantime, the EFF is actually fighting for your freedom and right to not be spied on. Consider donating to them. I switched my monthly donation to the FSF to the EFF instead many years ago as I feel they're doing more to help keep society free than the FSF.
- rando289 11y ago
- littletinman 11y agoShots Fired!
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y agoThey've been firing shots at Microsoft for decades now (remember "MS-DOG" in old GNU writings?)
- SEJeff 11y agoOr their absolutely ridiculous Bad Vista campaign? http://badvista.fsf.org http://badvista.fsf.org
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- KeyBoardG 11y ago"Windows 8 on “mobile devices” is a jail: it censors the user's choice of application programs." I laughed. I don't think its their choice that the app store is horrific.
- grub5000 11y agoOP surely must have meant the Windows RT devices, which can only install apps from the windows store. Normal windows 8 devices can install anything they want.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoI'm not a fan of pretty much anything on this list, but I do think the thing about phasing out Windows XP does stand apart. I don't know exactly how long you should expect an OS to be supported, but I feel like 12 years falls somewhere on the right side of that line. They add the following disclaimer about that: > A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them. which if that is the case, means the whole spiel at the beginning about non-free software not automatically being malware in the FSF's eyes pretty empty if "non-free software not supported forever" is malware.
- rando289 11y agoNice pacemaker you have there, unfortunately, we've ceased supporting the software, and you are too old for a new one to be implanted, so it might break or get hacked and you'll die. How long would you expect us to support it?! And obviously we can't give away our intellectual property! https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/jul/21/software-defects-cardiac-medical-devices-are-life-/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/jul/21/software-de...
- johncolanduoni 11y agoStrawman much? Windows XP /= pacemaker. Just because I disagree with this line of reasoning for Windows XP, doesn't mean I do for critical medical equipment. Although XP is unfortunately used for some other medical equipment. However I think the problem there was using a consumer desktop operating system as an integral part of a medical device in the beginning.
- rando289 11y agoHonestly I think hn, and generally internet commenting sucks because it's mostly all arguments. 1 person says something in a blog/article, 90% of top hn comments are criticism & counter argument, 95% of replies are arguments against the parent, on and on and on. It wasn't an argument that your comment was wrong, so it wasn't a strawman, it was just an example of something. And then you later go on to agree with me that should be supported because it's proprietary and no one else can support it is subjective and changes based on the use case, eg. medical equipment which runs xp.
- joenathan 11y agoThis is way a Neo Nazi or KKK member would describe people of color, cherry picked 'facts' to build an absurd argument.
- flurpitude 11y agoWhat's absurd about it? Which of the items presented are untrue, as suggested by your scare quotes around "facts"? Yes, the article is one-sided, but these are all real points of concern about the direction Windows is going in.
- joenathan 11y agoI'm a sysadmin, I deal with malware on a very regular basis, saying MS software is malware is an absurd statement. Equal to saying black people are all criminals and then quoting incarceration reports.
- yarrel 11y agoCutely emotive comparison, but you have the power dynamic backwards.
- tychuz 11y agoAlso http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/malware-apple.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/malware-apple.html
- oldmanjay 11y agoYou'll have a hard time finding any believer in any religion who would admit to the biases in their beliefs.
- Fartag 11y agoDo the anti-GNU, anti-FOSS advocates of proprietary software ever see theirs? The facts presented in the submission are being largely dismissed without cause.
- jevgeni 11y agoThese things are dismissed because they are dismissible. For example, the article says: > Windows 10 sends identifiable information to Microsoft, even if a user turns off its Bing search and Cortana features, and activates the privacy-protection settings. And links to an Ars Technica article. If you follow this link, you will find that it says nothing of the sort: Windows 10 doesn't send identifiable information to Microsoft as far as this article is concerned. This is just yet another FOSS fan talking about things they seem to be to arrogant to even try to understand, towards a crowd they don't really know.
- Fartag 11y agoI read a few parts of the article and already saw this: "For example, even with Cortana and searching the Web from the Start menu disabled, opening Start and typing will send a request to www.bing.com to request a file called threshold.appcache which appears to contain some Cortana information, even though Cortana is disabled. The request for this file appears to contain a random machine ID that persists across reboots." and "if Web searching and Cortana are disabled, we suspect that the inference that most people would make is that searching the Start menu wouldn't hit the Internet at all. But it does. The traffic could be innocuous, but the inclusion of a machine ID gives it a suspicious appearance." That's as personally identifiable as you need when you have an identifier locked to the machine that is sent even across reboots. This is even more identifiable than an IP address, even for static IPs (since you can have multiple machines behind it). Is that sufficient for the claim or do you still reject it? I'm most concerned that you hold anger at FOSS people's "arrogance" over complaints about a bad software package that many people are unfortunately hooked to. Anti-FOSS advocates here in these comments are behaving poorly; a conclusion they don't like which is supported by facts that are referenced isn't being taken well. Here's some examples of where it is going wrong in these comments: attacking the messenger, claiming things are false / unsupported when they are, trying to find any minor flaw in what was stated in order to discredit the whole thing, ignoring facts and misleading people about what the source actually says. That's some nasty stuff. That's Us vs. Them stuff, not "yeah that is a concern, I'm upset about that too!"
- diivio 11y agohttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.h... Stallman feels the same way about Facebook as well. He got mad at Berkeley when he came to speak and found out someone posted a Facebook event about him coming to campus to speak lol. He also feels cloud computing endangers us because we aren't in full control or fully aware of the computations being done with our data. (He told us this at a meeting in Berkeley back when I was in school) So he has similar views on Google, Apple, Facebook but only Microsoft is being hated on here lol His views are a little extreme. even if his points are valid they seem impractical given the computing paradigms and cultures of today. Don't get me wrong I work at Microsoft in hybrid cloud storage in a team that's a startup that got acquired and I think not having the NT kernel under a GNU v2 license is sad. Any kernel imo should be open source but I don't want to get into a debate on this at least not today. But I'm glad people like him still exist.
- jacquesm 11y agoStallman has the nasty little habit of being right in the long run. So even if his views may appear 'a little extreme' today give it a decade or two, you'll come around.
- scholia 11y agoHe's been doing this stuff for around 30 years so far, and I don't see the evidence of him being exclusively right about anything very much. What have I missed? Far from "coming around", the invention of "open source" was specifically a way of removing the moral tub-thumping "philosophically- and politically-focused" aspect of Free Software and the FSF. http://opensource.org/history http://opensource.org/history I think he's done a lot of good work on DRM and software patents in general, but a lot of people have had the same or similar worries without his involvement.
- tzs 11y agoIt's easy to be right in the long run. What's hard is doing the right things in the short run that will bring about that long term rightness. Stallman is basically like Richard Altmayer from the Asimov short story "In a Good Cause—" [1]. [1] http://www.epubsbook.com/ScienceFiction/Asimov41/27354.html http://www.epubsbook.com/ScienceFiction/Asimov41/27354.html
- dsr_ 11y agoI like the FSF. I like the fact that RMS exists. I love open source software, and I even like the GPL a fair amount. Do I think this goes too far? Absolutely. The Free Software position is that the benefits of Free (libre) software outweigh all of the disadvantages, so anyone who chooses proprietary software has already made a big mistake. Given that the mistake has been made, there's no particular advantage in castigating the manufacturer of that software for living up to the FSF's predictions. It's not a surprise, and the FSF is much better off pointing out that, sure, enough, they told you so, and it happened. Make a better choice next time. Here are some alternatives to help you out. This is a tactical mistake.
- rando289 11y agoYou like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really don't get it.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoYou can appreciate the FSF and Stallman without agreeing with everything they say. I think they did a lot to put open source on the map, and make us aware of the dangers with closed source software in certain areas, even if I think that their stance is overzealous.
- rando289 11y ago> they did a lot to put open source on the map Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
- oldmanjay 11y agoThe unfortunate thing about gnu and the fsf is that they think connotation management and "clever" wordplay are effective marketing strategies.
- beat 11y agoWhen was this written? 2002? It feels archaic. Right down to the antique cvs $Id$ tag used for the file version at the bottom. It's like the open source version of some crufty enterprise legacy code.
- bad_user 11y ago> "In practice nonfree software is often malware, because the developer's awareness that the users would be powerless to fix any malicious functionalities tempts the developer to impose some" I'm finding this claim from the article to be very true and it's a pity. Users are often powerless in fixing the software they bought, or the services they subscribed for, with the cost of switching to something else being often very significant. Users are also often uneducated or ignorant in what the software does, not realizing the long term consequences of their interactions with software. And because users are often powerless or uneducated or ignorant, software developers feel empowered to move the boundaries, preferring to ask for forgiveness than for permission as they say, with current casualties being the loss of privacy and even the loss of freedom of speech. And then it isn't a wonder that intelligence agencies get a free pass to spy on everybody's communications, I mean if the software makers and the service providers are doing it themselves, the government would be stupid to not be a part of it, given that we've made it so easy. I've always disagreed with Richard Stallman's stance on Free versus Nonfree software, preferring Open-Source instead and being relaxed about developing and using nonfree software. I've always said to myself that many companies are doing a good job and software developers have to eat, including myself. But some of FSF's arguments hold very true and it makes me wonder. Maybe Free Software is the only ethical choice.
- Beltiras 11y agoI'm glad RMS has a platform. I even agree with the majority of the sentiments expressed. This list is too juvenile for my taste. The corresponding Apple hit-list is more toned down and not so acerbic. Free speech is important but for the sake of the cause I hope that some judicious edits will be made.
- bittercynic 11y agoThe mandatory updates seem like a major problem. One of the greatest benefits of purchasing software instead of using SAAS products is that you can keep using your purchased software regardless of changes the vendor may make in the future. If you're not free to reject updates, you've lost this advantage.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoMy biggest problem with the FSF's point of view is that they see these kind of eventualities as inevitable for all non-free software. I would claim that there is not only room for non-free open source software sans abuse, but even closed source software. When it comes to something you want to use as a core foundation on which to build (whether you are building software, general business, academic work etc.) I completely understand how this is very likely to lead to you being exploited. This applies for example to an operating system, or a programming platform (JVM, .NET, etc.). But there are plenty of places where you can use closed source software that don't put you in such a disadvantageous position. One example is non-required tooling like an IDE. If Jetbrains goes Dr. Evil on everyone tomorrow (though I guess some would argue their recent pricing model changes have done that), there is still Eclipse and plenty of room for someone else to break into that space. Changing IDEs isn't nothing, but it's not like I'd have to rewrite my code. Another is various general XaaS offerings. If Heroku (or more likely Salesforce) goes off the deep end tomorrow, worst case is that I have to administer some servers myself. Again, I don't lose anything that I would have had before anyway. The current trend is already building everything on top of open source infrastructure. Even the JVM and .NET are open source now, as are most other pieces of the development puzzle (Databases, libraries of all shapes and sizes, etc.). In fact, I don't think even a big player like Microsoft would have much luck trying to get people to invest in another closed source platform. So if we walk this line between open and closed software, what do we lose by using some replaceable closed source tools or services? That is one question I think the FSF doesn't have a good answer for.
- zeveb 11y ago> Changing IDEs isn't nothing, but it's not like I'd have to rewrite my code. You'd have to rewrite any IDE code you've written, which isn't nothing (that pain is a good part of the reason why emacs is still stuck on elisp instead of Common Lisp).
- eka808 11y agoAnd after reading that, let's take a deep breath and think about Android. From my personal opinion, it's not better than and maybe worse : - Obligation of having a G+ account. Disable it is NOT straighforward at all and it will try to recreate himself often. - Personal content publicly uploaded/displayed in G+ account I had the bad surprise, and few friends also to see that the photos taken with my android phone were automatically published on my G+ account ! When you notify what it's visible, you are are afraid about what is not visible...
- rando289 11y agoInstead just /thinking/, try reading the rest of the gnu site, including the article on android: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html. Or you could buy a book which has most of the articles and had a new updated release a few months ago: http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-3-paperback/ http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-3-pap...
- frik 11y agoIn Android you can deactive all phone home and cloud features, also most Android device manufactore add various apps that require no cloud connection at all. The same goes for iOS were it is even easier. In contrary to Windows 10 were you can't deactivate several phone home and cloud features. Severals apps are only shipped as cloud-only. The Windows update is forced on you and cannot be deactivated. And to top it, every feature update (like Threshold 2) resets your personal privacy settings and more as it is basically a system upgrade that often also replaces device drivers. So Android, iOS, OSX and all other OS incl. Windows up to v8.1 are way better for the end user - as there they still have the choice and decide for themself.
- scholia 11y agoIt takes a lot more than cutting Google out of the OS to truly make it secure and private: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardenin... --- Report finds Android/iOS apps regularly 'spy on users' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514 Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard, and Carnegie-Mellon universities studied 110 apps available on Google Play and the Apple App Store. They found 73% of the Android apps shared users' email addresses, and 47% of the iOS apps shared location data. Android health app Drugs.com shared medical information - including words such as "herpes" - with five third-party domains, including doubleclick.net and googlesyndication.com. The research also found that 93% of the Android apps tested connected to the domain safemovedm.com --- >In contrary to Windows 10 were you can't deactivate several phone home and cloud features. Configure telemetry and other settings in your organization https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt577208%28v=vs.85%29.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt577208%28v=vs.... Spybot Anti-Beacon https://www.safer-networking.org/spybot-anti-beacon/ https://www.safer-networking.org/spybot-anti-beacon/ On any system, Microsoft says that Basic level telemetry doesn't send any identifiable information.
- gkop 11y agoI had the opportunity to try Windows 10 last week. I was surprised to find that Windows now has pop-up advertisements for Office and Bing embedded in the OS itself that recur during day-to-day usage and cannot be dismissed. That seems wild to me. Also, contrary to opinions that I have heard on HN and elsewhere on the web, Windows 10 is typical poor quality Microsoft software, not one of the "good" Windows like XP and 7 were. For example, there are literally two control panels that are different: the classic control panel and a Settings tool (not a different view of the control panel but something completely different) that comes up when you search for various settings in the Start menu. The Start menu is super clunky and slow as well.
- HelloMcFly 11y ago> I was surprised to find that Windows now has pop-up advertisements for Office and Bing embedded in the OS itself that recur during day-to-day usage and cannot be dismissed. Where are these? I use Windows 10 at home and work, and what you're referring to doesn't ring a bell at all. I already have Office on both machines though, so that may explain one portion.
- forgotAgain 11y agoI confirm that Windows 10 shows advertisements to install Office. They appear as small popups in the notification area of the toolbar. This was on a fresh upgrade of a Windows 8 machine. In task manager I found a running program (which I can't recall the exact name of but the purpose was obvious) that was for posting ads to install Office. I searched for the name and found instructions for uninstalling it. I don't know if there are others or not. I only ran Windows 10 for a few hours to check it out.
- bitmapbrother 11y agoThe positive opinions of Windows 10 on HN were, for the most part, postings from Microsoft "reputation managers" to create hype and positive spin for the product. http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/06/16/2327213/microsoft-reputation-managers-guide-to-xbox-one http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/06/16/2327213/microsoft-r... https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/online-reputation-manager-jobs/ https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/online-reputation-man... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Reddit-Xbox-One-Reputation-Management-upvote-downvote,23014.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Reddit-Xbox-One-Reputation-... https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1fv5yj/i_saw_microsoft_employees_monitoring_this/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1fv5yj/i_saw_micros...
- ape4 11y agoI wish Microsoft had a way to pay for Windows 10 so I can opt out of the ads, tracking.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ksk 11y agoI think the reason why people (who aren't already RMS fans) don't agree with some of his views is that he has not made a good moral argument against proprietary software. The writings[1] on the moral question fail to convince most people, who then reject other positions that build on that foundation. We see some of that whenever people link to his writings. Even if people do not produce material objects, I think that products of labor especially those can be exchanged for material wealth do require legal protection. (Note that this is separate from Intellectual Property, as in simply thoughts and ideas) If you want proprietary software to go away, you should pay people to write even more open source software and then give it away. You should not have an agenda that demonizes people trying to earn a living. Calling someones means of living as illegitimate/immoral/unethical is simply going to ensure that they never support you. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
- arca_vorago 11y agoWhat amazes me is that people on HN still continue to rail against RMS and the FSF while blatantly showing their ignorance of the principles they both stand for, and often not even through logically sound arguments. Personally, I understand the main reasons people have issues with this though, because very often they simply haven't actually taken the time to think of computing as a philosophical choice as well as a practical choice. As the surveillance and control engine enlarges itself though, those who are more closely aligned with GPLv3-esque ways of computing will have more freedom and control over their systems than others who accept fuedal walled gardens will be, and it is at that point that the walled garden people will start to understand the real impact of what are often considered frivolous arguments like BSD vs GPL. Enjoy your locked down BSD playstation/iBrain/iHome etc, I for one intend to stick with GNU/GPL, and the FSF, as much as possible. The reality is that we have been locked in so much though that this process takes time and should be started now and not later. For example, in my various workflow pipelines, I still have a handful of apache, mit, and bsd licensed programs, but I have at least dramatically reduced the number of them... If you haven't taken the time to understand the differences between BSD and GPL you owe it to yourself, as I consider it foundational knowledge for modern computing, the same way I consider history foundational knowledge of current events.
- mark_l_watson 11y agoI support the FSF financially (and sometimes using their licenses) but I think that this article is a little bit off in the criticisms about updates. I use OS X, Ubuntu, and sometimes Windows 10. I want security updates as often as they are released. I don't often use my Windows 10 laptop but when I do the first thing I always do is to update the system and anti-virus definitions. I also frequently check and update OS X and Ubuntu. I happen to trust Apple and Microsoft to perform automatic updates, but that is my personal decision.
- ghduxjc 11y agoAhh, the circle of life continues. RMS produces an opinion piece -> everyone denounces it as extremist -> some time passes -> something horrible happens that proves RMS was right (like the NSA disclosures) -> everyone freaks out at what's happening -> some more time passes -> RMS produces another opinion piece -> repeat
- krapp 11y agoyou forgot -> people show up in the thread and mock anyone who doesn't accept that RMS is, has always been, and will always be right about everything.
- swiley 11y agoJust a reminder about why people still use xp:, earlier versions of windows supported a real time mode (sort of like the preempt rt Linux patches). This is needed in order to run some equipment but later versions of windows (post xp) have dropped support for it.
- dstaheli 11y agoThis article is weak-minded propaganda.
- neya 11y agoI was just casually checking and looks like they have a page for Apple too..ha http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/malware-apple.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/malware-apple.html
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bitmapbrother 11y agoPC Does What? What an apropos marketing campaign.
- yuhong 11y agoI think it is pretty fun to compare "Windows as a service" with actual "SaaS" (eg Google Docs). As a side note, I once mentioned how Win10 driver signing requires EV certs that are not sold to individuals, and remember this response: https://twitter.com/ericlaw/status/619309157791891456 https://twitter.com/ericlaw/status/619309157791891456
- Silhouette 11y agoHowever, in practice nonfree software is often malware, because the developer's awareness that the users would be powerless to fix any malicious functionalities tempts the developer to impose some. Speaking as a professional software developer who typically does not write free software: [expletives inappropriate for HN deleted] The allegation that any developer who does not share the FSF's views on the advantages or otherwise of free software is inherently more tempted to screw their users is not only wrong, it's offensive. I have never imposed any of the kinds of malware listed in this article on any user of any project I work on, nor would I be happy to do so in the future. This is more than can be said for several popular software products that also happen to be FOSS. Also, the idea that Microsoft, or any other commercial software provider for that matter, should be responsible for supporting its software indefinitely, entirely at its own expense and regardless of context, is just silly. I think it is sensible to expect and if necessary legally require a basic level of support for commercial software products that were defective when first supplied, for some reasonable period that will probably vary greatly with context. In practice, actual regulation or legislation has rarely been necessary as most major software vendors have volunteered such support anyway, though the unwelcome trend is for this to change and so the regulatory/legal framework may need to change to match. However, Microsoft has, at least until recently, gone far beyond that industry norm in terms of long term support for its older software, and far beyond any major Free Software project. It might have been fair to say that Microsoft was the last very large software company that should be criticised on this score, but for their recent shifts in policy to much more user-hostile terms.
- api 11y agoMany of the things on this list are more or less technical requirements. Forced security updates are required to stop the spread of botnets, for example. If you make security updates optional people will turn them off and you'll get botnets, ransomware, and DDOS flood epidemics. DDOS floods are a major threat to the open web, requiring web sites to cluster behind MITMing 'protection services' like CloudFlare. I do agree about the privacy aspects, but unfortunately most users do not care about security or privacy and "most users" (the mainstream of the market) pays the bills. Until users care and vote with their wallets, companies will continue to disregard these things.
- dexterchief 11y agoI think FSF could learn a lot from what Micah Lee is doing at the Intercept. He's been doing a bunch of articles that are a nice blend of why and how with a nice conversational feel. In terms of outreach and informing new generations of users... I think adopting that style would be a big win. Even non-technical users have a multi-year investment in Windows, and in spite of all the polish of modern distros, the jump to FOSS is still a big one. Help people make it. https://theintercept.com/2015/04/27/encrypting-laptop-like-mean/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/27/encrypting-laptop-like-m... https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/getting-hacked-doesnt-bad/ https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/getting-hacked-doesnt-ba...
- dayon 11y agoSpoke in person with Stallman. I asked him why he doesn't complain about server side code. His beef is with software we "own" being proprietary, so apparently server-side code isn't a big deal to him. It puts a huge dent in his logic, though, because if you follow his concerns to the end, then the internet in general is malware. Even if a site claims to be open-source, posting its code online, you can't know what version of the code it's running unless you're given access to the server. So, even if we use all open-source, free hardware, firmware, and local software, as soon as we connect to a remote site, it goes out the window.
- noorah 11y agoHow can a user without computing background be sure that Linux is not what Microshaft Windoze is?