3 ms·

I've never found subtlety to be the strong point of the FSF. The fact that this particular campaign suffers from hyperbole is...less than shocking.

by gloob 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago
This is particularly questionable: "7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets." The way this is phrased (and knowing the FSF, quite deliberate) is to paint MS as complicit in the spread of malware. This is patently false and I would like to see the FSF called out on this - this draws extremely close to libel.
- pyre 17y ago
  Well, in specific instances you could make a case... Like not patching a huge vulnerability for months. But this claim is way too broad. Most of the security problems plaguing Microsoft today are the results of decisions made years ago. The Microsoft ship doesn't turn on a dime, and unfortunately their large codebase isn't the only thing causing this slowness (internal politics,redtape,etc). {edit} s/cases/instances/ {/edit}
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    There's a difference between not patching vulnerabilities and "allowing" viruses to take over your computer. One is negligence, the other implies active collusion. The FSF is way out of line with that comment - but who am I kidding, this is hardly surprising. The free software movement would be a lot better off if more tempered people were in charge of the FSF.
    - branden 17y ago
      You're misreading the sentence. ""7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets." It states that the "long history of security vulnerabilities" enables and allows exploits, which is true. The obvious inference is that Microsoft has allowed that long history to persist, thus enabling the exploits. This is an accusation of incompetence, not malice.

I've never found subtlety to be the strong point of the FSF. The fact that this particular campaign suffers from hyperbole is...less than shocking.

by gloob 17y ago

I've never found subtlety to be the strong point of the FSF. The fact that this particular campaign suffers from hyperbole is...less than shocking.

potatolicious 17y ago

This is particularly questionable: "7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets." The way this is phrased (and knowing the FSF, quite deliberate) is to paint MS as complicit in the spread of malware. This is patently false and I would like to see the FSF called out on this - this draws extremely close to libel.

pyre 17y ago
Well, in specific instances you could make a case... Like not patching a huge vulnerability for months. But this claim is way too broad. Most of the security problems plaguing Microsoft today are the results of decisions made years ago. The Microsoft ship doesn't turn on a dime, and unfortunately their large codebase isn't the only thing causing this slowness (internal politics,redtape,etc). {edit} s/cases/instances/ {/edit}
- potatolicious 17y ago
  There's a difference between not patching vulnerabilities and "allowing" viruses to take over your computer. One is negligence, the other implies active collusion. The FSF is way out of line with that comment - but who am I kidding, this is hardly surprising. The free software movement would be a lot better off if more tempered people were in charge of the FSF.
  - branden 17y ago
    You're misreading the sentence. ""7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets." It states that the "long history of security vulnerabilities" enables and allows exploits, which is true. The obvious inference is that Microsoft has allowed that long history to persist, thus enabling the exploits. This is an accusation of incompetence, not malice.