4 ms·

Draper Fisher Jurvetson = SuperFish? Classy. Ultimately its worth remembering this is Windows..... Microsoft has to be responsible for the crapware installed w

by hoodoof 12y ago

Draper Fisher Jurvetson = SuperFish? Classy. Ultimately its worth remembering this is Windows..... Microsoft has to be responsible for the crapware installed when people buy a Windows computer. The reasonable conclusion is that if you buy Windows you risk stuff like this because Windows resellers install crapware on top of clean Windows builds.

snlacks 12y ago
I agree, I like Windows, and I think Microsoft agrees too... But they also have agreements that come from times that were very different. The official Microsoft store, their own hardware, special new editions are some of the ways they seem to try to get around it. Sucks for users, either they don't know better, they have to build their own/clean their own, or buy from a limited selection.
- moomin 12y ago
  It's way funnier than that. They can't interfere with crapware because of anti-trust decisions.
yitchelle 12y ago
Not so sure that you can pile all the responsibility onto Microsoft for this debacle. If your favorite Linux distro is to include some adware crap on it, should Linus take the blame? Ultimately, Lenovo should take the full blame for this. edit: grammar
- freshyill 12y ago
  Linux is free and there's no stopping anybody from doing whatever they want to it. Windows is not free. When an OEM licenses Windows for resale in their PCs, that comes with certain terms and conditions about what the OEM can install. If this falls within the terms of the agreement of what the OEM can do, then Microsoft needs to take at least some of the heat.
- serf 12y ago
  False analogy, for a few reasons. Linus is the maintainer of the Linux kernel. Linux is a product of the work of many people. Linux is free, and can be redistributed without securing licensing or rights to do so. Microsoft Windows is a proprietary product, which many people are only exposed to from the initial install on their bought hardware. The company who supplies the hardware, along with the company that supplies the software engage in contractual deals to allow this to happen. Microsoft's image benefits when it is known that they do due-dilligence in checking out the suppliers who they allow to represent their product through licensing. How are you okay with companies who create malware for corporations for pay? They deserve no responsibility themselves for simply existing with nefarious motivations? Microsoft requires licensing their product to use it, and goes an extra step by providing evaluation of the products which use their licensed software, and are vocally against the addition of crapware; but they take no blame when they allow their product to be continually licensed by a vendor that does harm to the image? To answer your question: The distribution that is responsible for spreading the adware should be held responsible, as should the developers of that adware. That's likely why Mint became so popular (numbers wise) after all the Ubuntu fiascos in semi-recent history. I don't think it's as simple as a one-party fault. Sorry.
clwg 12y ago
I used to work in security for one of the big OEM hardware vendors, Microsoft has been working with all vendors for years trying to secure the Window's ecosystem by extending out their SDLC and providing free security services and training to OEM partners. We use to ship them our consumer laptops for testing, and the result was always the same "get rid of the crapware". MS is probably more upset about this than anyone, because ultimately this isn't about Windows at all, but people don't differentiate between Windows and the garbage that OEM's throw on their boxes, so they get blamed as well.

by hoodoof 12y ago

snlacks 12y ago

I agree, I like Windows, and I think Microsoft agrees too... But they also have agreements that come from times that were very different. The official Microsoft store, their own hardware, special new editions are some of the ways they seem to try to get around it. Sucks for users, either they don't know better, they have to build their own/clean their own, or buy from a limited selection.

moomin 12y ago
It's way funnier than that. They can't interfere with crapware because of anti-trust decisions.

yitchelle 12y ago

Not so sure that you can pile all the responsibility onto Microsoft for this debacle. If your favorite Linux distro is to include some adware crap on it, should Linus take the blame? Ultimately, Lenovo should take the full blame for this. edit: grammar

freshyill 12y ago
Linux is free and there's no stopping anybody from doing whatever they want to it. Windows is not free. When an OEM licenses Windows for resale in their PCs, that comes with certain terms and conditions about what the OEM can install. If this falls within the terms of the agreement of what the OEM can do, then Microsoft needs to take at least some of the heat.
serf 12y ago
False analogy, for a few reasons. Linus is the maintainer of the Linux kernel. Linux is a product of the work of many people. Linux is free, and can be redistributed without securing licensing or rights to do so. Microsoft Windows is a proprietary product, which many people are only exposed to from the initial install on their bought hardware. The company who supplies the hardware, along with the company that supplies the software engage in contractual deals to allow this to happen. Microsoft's image benefits when it is known that they do due-dilligence in checking out the suppliers who they allow to represent their product through licensing. How are you okay with companies who create malware for corporations for pay? They deserve no responsibility themselves for simply existing with nefarious motivations? Microsoft requires licensing their product to use it, and goes an extra step by providing evaluation of the products which use their licensed software, and are vocally against the addition of crapware; but they take no blame when they allow their product to be continually licensed by a vendor that does harm to the image? To answer your question: The distribution that is responsible for spreading the adware should be held responsible, as should the developers of that adware. That's likely why Mint became so popular (numbers wise) after all the Ubuntu fiascos in semi-recent history. I don't think it's as simple as a one-party fault. Sorry.

clwg 12y ago

I used to work in security for one of the big OEM hardware vendors, Microsoft has been working with all vendors for years trying to secure the Window's ecosystem by extending out their SDLC and providing free security services and training to OEM partners. We use to ship them our consumer laptops for testing, and the result was always the same "get rid of the crapware". MS is probably more upset about this than anyone, because ultimately this isn't about Windows at all, but people don't differentiate between Windows and the garbage that OEM's throw on their boxes, so they get blamed as well.