When 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.
Microsoft's Software is Malware
51–60 of 185 posts
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#52> "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.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that they won't allow anyone else to continue working on it
That's only a problem if Microsoft promised or implied XP would be updated indefinitely. Is that the case?
Yes, you're right, in the end is the users fault as they didn't foresee those consequences and some didn't even made migration plans, even when stated clearly.
You can even argue that all of the things there end up being the users fault as they choose so for convenience.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#54> "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 personally think that if the users are too dumb and lazy to upgrade themselves to better alternatives (either Windows 8/10 or Linux distros), then you can't blame Microsoft for billing on their slumber. In fairness, even Red Hat might be doing the same thing to their RHEL clients who are "locked" into it and can't move on to Ubuntu or something.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#55It'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. Th…
Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. So, the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense? [0] Regular malware-malare has a valid business reason for showing you ads and exfiltrating private data too. It's harder to defend because it isn't bundled with a featureset the user also likes. But nobody downloaded BonziBUDDY or hot screensaver packs because they wanted the ads. [0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04…
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#56"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.
OP 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.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#57> "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…
As the FSF clarifies a few sentences later, their criticism centers around the fact that those users are dependent on Microsoft. When support ends for an old version of a free software distribution, users have the ability to hire someone else to maintain it. They often don't, however, because it's usually cheaper to upgrade to the latest version, and free software operating systems don't have the ratcheting oppressive privacy and security implications that Windows 10 comes with.
I do think, though, that it's a valid counter argument to say that users knew (or should have known) the kind of deal they where making with Microsoft when they bought Windows XP. Instead of criticizing Microsoft, they should be pointing out that free software operating systems typically are much more friendly and respectful of the user's rights, even rights beyond being able to modify that operating system.
The FSF has always had a problem explaining to the average user why they should care about the ability to modify their own software when they lack the expertise to do so; Windows 10 is providing a practical example.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#58> "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…
Demonstrate then how it is incorrect.
Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#59Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware
#60All 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.
I don't think the author is saying 'Microsoft is bad - everyone swap to Google and Apple!'. This is from GNU. The author is saying Microsoft is bad, and since most of these points probably apply to Apple and Google too, the author would probably say that Apple and Google are bad too.
Either way it's kind of irrelevant. "He shot my dog!" "Not an issue, other people are shooting dogs all the time."
Other people being at fault does not absolve you of fault.