6 ms·

> Anyone has the right to bundle 3rd party software and make n installer that configures their software a certain way,even if the config gives them a competitiv

> Anyone has the right to bundle 3rd party software and make n installer that configures their software a certain way,even if the config gives them a competitive advantage. That should read their software. MS is free to set the default search in edge when I am installing edge. If I install something unrelated like office and it goes and touches my chrome config that is something else entirely. Don't touch other people's stuff without asking first.

jevgeni 7y ago
So, any modification of the OS environment would be illegal. Like, say, updating the PATH.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  Sure, if you suddenly overwrite the default version of python you break lots of stuff. Adding onto PATH at the end in contrast does not break anything and is totally fine. See the difference? Similarly for bundling your own libc vs replacing the system one. Again, simple kindergarten manners: If you think there is any reason people might object to what you want to be doing with/to their stuff, ask first and be prepared to hear "no".
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system Well, the point is to make an application available to the user; the changes are required by how the OS is designed. It's an accident of history that things like PATH in Windows are world-writable. Things like Metro apps have far less ability to modify the wider system. The tech company response to this kind of application infighting is likely to be more sandboxing and lockdowns. Everything will move in the direction of an iOS like model where the platform owner can just veto apps and ban developers, as that's the only way to deal with "abuse".
      - anoncake 7y ago
        > Everything will move in the direction of an iOS like model where the platform owner can just veto apps and ban developers, as that's the only way to deal with "abuse". Unless the adults aka the state steps in and orders them to do their jobs instead of bullying each others and the users they are supposed to serve.
        jevgeni 7y ago
        Holy hell.. Can you imagine the complexity of such a legislation?
        anoncake 7y ago
        No more complex than other customer protection laws.
        _jal 7y ago
        You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers instead? You really do not want what you are asking for.
        anoncake 7y ago
        > You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers instead? In the same way I want the police to take over the sex trafficking business from the mafia. So no. > You really do not want what you are asking for. I believe I know my mind better than you do.
        _jal 7y ago
        > So no. Wanted or no, it is the end result you will get. > I believe I know my mind better than you do. I believe you do, too. What I am questioning is if the end result is what you think it to be.
        anoncake 7y ago
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      And I think there is a big difference between "system" and "applications". It is not like this is hypothetical magic or unexplored, see any sandboxing ever or Android and iOS, where an app can't even access another app's files without specifically asking for permission.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        You are talking again in technical terms. Legally this is all irrelevant.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. Chrome is not part of the OS. > It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. It's not only possible but easy to differentiate between installing software which includes registering it in the appropriate places and changing user settings for anticompetitive reasons. Unlike some corporations' customer support departments, the court system is not only staffed by actual humans with brains, they're even allowed to use them. > And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process. I prefer solutions that have a chance of working, but to each their own.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        > Chrome is not part of the OS. Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. > It's not only possible but easy... Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco. > I prefer solutions that have a chance of working Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.
        Skeime 7y ago
        > > Chrome is not part of the OS. > Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. I would argue that this shows that it is legally relevant. Because it is possible to say that IE is not part of the OS but an application, we can talk about “bundling” products together at all. If IE and Windows were one indecomposable unit, I don’t think the EU would have had a case.
        diffeomorphism 7y ago
        > If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.
        7y ago
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Such things should require explicit consent from the user and be implemented in such a way that the application can't even tell if permission was granted or not. For a long time now applications have proven that they cannot be trusted to act in the user's best interest. If we care at all about personal computing, then applications should be isolated and sandboxed by default with any connection to the rest of the system under the explicit control of the user. I'm sure someone will say you should only install applications you trust, but where does that trust come from? How can I judge the trustworthiness of an application if I can't use it first? Must I trust some third party like a community of repo maintainers --not to mention corporate run repos-- and pretend that they all must have my best interest at heart and never make mistakes? Am I required to believe in the fantasy that once trustworthy software will always be so?
badrabbit 7y ago
So you're conflating legality with good practice I think. In general I agree touching other publishers software is a bad idea but far from illegal. MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. You picked their platform's installer so they configure it for their platform ,that's it. They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights, I hope some foss package maintainers chime in on this. Would suck if it was illegal to change upstream's defaults.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  I did not mention either legality or good practice. > MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. That sentence makes no sense to me. The chrome installer is completely unrelated to this and MS is not shipping anything resembling a chrome installer. They are shipping their office installer (which you are kinda forced to use to install office), which unexpectedly(!) tampers with your chrome install. > You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights Nope.
- creato 7y ago
  > They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. Everything you are saying makes sense if you are talking about controlling the defaults of the software maintained/installed by the package. That's not what is happening here.

jevgeni 7y ago

So, any modification of the OS environment would be illegal. Like, say, updating the PATH.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
Sure, if you suddenly overwrite the default version of python you break lots of stuff. Adding onto PATH at the end in contrast does not break anything and is totally fine. See the difference? Similarly for bundling your own libc vs replacing the system one. Again, simple kindergarten manners: If you think there is any reason people might object to what you want to be doing with/to their stuff, ask first and be prepared to hear "no".
- jevgeni 7y ago
  What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system Well, the point is to make an application available to the user; the changes are required by how the OS is designed. It's an accident of history that things like PATH in Windows are world-writable. Things like Metro apps have far less ability to modify the wider system. The tech company response to this kind of application infighting is likely to be more sandboxing and lockdowns. Everything will move in the direction of an iOS like model where the platform owner can just veto apps and ban developers, as that's the only way to deal with "abuse".
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Everything will move in the direction of an iOS like model where the platform owner can just veto apps and ban developers, as that's the only way to deal with "abuse". Unless the adults aka the state steps in and orders them to do their jobs instead of bullying each others and the users they are supposed to serve.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        Holy hell.. Can you imagine the complexity of such a legislation?
        anoncake 7y ago
        No more complex than other customer protection laws.
      - _jal 7y ago
        You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers instead? You really do not want what you are asking for.
        anoncake 7y ago
        > You you want the "adults" bullying users and developers instead? In the same way I want the police to take over the sex trafficking business from the mafia. So no. > You really do not want what you are asking for. I believe I know my mind better than you do.
        _jal 7y ago
        > So no. Wanted or no, it is the end result you will get. > I believe I know my mind better than you do. I believe you do, too. What I am questioning is if the end result is what you think it to be.
        anoncake 7y ago
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    And I think there is a big difference between "system" and "applications". It is not like this is hypothetical magic or unexplored, see any sandboxing ever or Android and iOS, where an app can't even access another app's files without specifically asking for permission.
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      You are talking again in technical terms. Legally this is all irrelevant.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > What I was saying is that the whole point of an installation is to modify the user's system. Chrome is not part of the OS. > It is pretty unlikely that legally it would be possible to have such fine grained differentiation between replacing and appending. It's not only possible but easy to differentiate between installing software which includes registering it in the appropriate places and changing user settings for anticompetitive reasons. Unlike some corporations' customer support departments, the court system is not only staffed by actual humans with brains, they're even allowed to use them. > And I'd prefer voting with my wallet than to forcing tech companies to involve legal in the development process. I prefer solutions that have a chance of working, but to each their own.
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      > Chrome is not part of the OS. Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. > It's not only possible but easy... Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco. > I prefer solutions that have a chance of working Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.
      - Skeime 7y ago
        > > Chrome is not part of the OS. > Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. I would argue that this shows that it is legally relevant. Because it is possible to say that IE is not part of the OS but an application, we can talk about “bundling” products together at all. If IE and Windows were one indecomposable unit, I don’t think the EU would have had a case.
      - diffeomorphism 7y ago
        > If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE. They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.
        7y ago
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Yes, absolutely. Such things should require explicit consent from the user and be implemented in such a way that the application can't even tell if permission was granted or not. For a long time now applications have proven that they cannot be trusted to act in the user's best interest. If we care at all about personal computing, then applications should be isolated and sandboxed by default with any connection to the rest of the system under the explicit control of the user. I'm sure someone will say you should only install applications you trust, but where does that trust come from? How can I judge the trustworthiness of an application if I can't use it first? Must I trust some third party like a community of repo maintainers --not to mention corporate run repos-- and pretend that they all must have my best interest at heart and never make mistakes? Am I required to believe in the fantasy that once trustworthy software will always be so?

badrabbit 7y ago

So you're conflating legality with good practice I think. In general I agree touching other publishers software is a bad idea but far from illegal. MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. You picked their platform's installer so they configure it for their platform ,that's it. They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights, I hope some foss package maintainers chime in on this. Would suck if it was illegal to change upstream's defaults.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
I did not mention either legality or good practice. > MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. That sentence makes no sense to me. The chrome installer is completely unrelated to this and MS is not shipping anything resembling a chrome installer. They are shipping their office installer (which you are kinda forced to use to install office), which unexpectedly(!) tampers with your chrome install. > You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights Nope.
creato 7y ago
> They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. Everything you are saying makes sense if you are talking about controlling the defaults of the software maintained/installed by the package. That's not what is happening here.