Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's Software is Malware

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#41

Post by sanderjd »

sounds wrote: post #26
laumars wrote: post #9

> "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 credibili…

How 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…

It 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.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#42

Post by Nimeo »

laumars wrote: post #9

> "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 credibili…

They are not baised, they are views and opinions. It's like saying Richard Stallman is baised toward Richard Stallman... while those are his views and thoughts...

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#43

Post by diivio »

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.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#44

Post by laumars »

cwyers wrote: post #5

"Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user." Some days I'm pretty sure bash is malware, too.

Especially older unpatched versions of bash with the auto-execution of functions inside environmental variables.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#45

Post by erik14th »

laumars wrote: post #9

> "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 credibili…

I think it misses the point entirely. Being able to define MS software as malware won't make users stop using it.

Even if Windows was way worse than it is now people would still use it.

Also I believe the two distros that have a shot at part of the Windows user base(Ubuntu and Steam OS) could also be defined as malware.

What has to be taken in mind is that FSF is about ideals. Which may explain why they put so much emphasis on concepts as opposed to practical matters.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#46

Post by dsr_ »

I 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.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#47

Post by nivla »

wosos wrote: post #16
ChrisLTD wrote: post #7

"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…

I think the problem is that they won't allow anyone else to continue working on it

Technically they are not preventing you from working on it, they are just not making it easy by open sourcing it. Personally, I would like to modify my OS and contribute the changes under a liberal license such as MIT but the terms of GPL can make it tricky. However it will be wrong of me to go around demanding older phased out Linux distros to be re-licensed under a more liberal license.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#48

Post by rando289 »

laumars wrote: post #9

> "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 credibili…

It's not FUD. Your comment is FUD. The fact is that MS has well tested security patches sitting on their hard drives for software used by lots of people, which they are only selling for prices so high that 99.9% of people won't get it. That is completely different than deciding not to write the patches. And it's also just pointing out another instance of proprietary software and why it's bad, which if that is fud, well the core of linux and gnu are fud too.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#49

Post by jvalleroy »

outside1234 wrote: post #11

All 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.

Here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en....

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#50

Post by robin_reala »

wosos wrote: post #16
ChrisLTD wrote: post #7

"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…

I think the problem is that they won't allow anyone else to continue working on it

That’s what ReactOS is for: https://reactos.org/
Post reply on HN