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

61–70 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#61

Post by rando289 »

dsr_ wrote: post #46

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 casti…

You like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really don't get it.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#62

Post by flurpitude »

joenathan wrote: post #25

This is way a Neo Nazi or KKK member would describe people of color, cherry picked 'facts' to build an absurd argument.

What's absurd about it? Which of the items presented are untrue, as suggested by your scare quotes around "facts"? Yes, the article is one-sided, but these are all real points of concern about the direction Windows is going in.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#63

Post by chris_wot »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #19
pjc50 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if it is a legal requirement for national security. Is it legally required?

If it was, are you sure they would be allowed to tell you?

So let me get this straight... you think that a legal requirement should be secret?

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#64

Post by Beltiras »

I'm glad RMS has a platform. I even agree with the majority of the sentiments expressed. This list is too juvenile for my taste. The corresponding Apple hit-list is more toned down and not so acerbic. Free speech is important but for the sake of the cause I hope that some judicious edits will be made.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#65

Post by dogma1138 »

nivla wrote: post #47
wosos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You won't be able to distribute your fixes (because they contain MSFT copyright protected code), reverse engineering the binaries and even the API might be a violation of the DMCA, and you will not be able to update system files from within the system it self. So yes they kinda preventing you from working on it, at least for the benefit of anyone besides your own intellectual curiosity.

That said I don't see any problem with MSFT dropping support for XP, they supported it much longer than any software by any vendor closed or open sourced.

GL getting support for RHEL 10 years down the line if you haven't upgraded your OS, and Linux from 10-15 years ago has as much in common with Linux today as Windows XP has with Windows 10.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#66

Post by bittercynic »

The mandatory updates seem like a major problem.

One of the greatest benefits of purchasing software instead of using SAAS products is that you can keep using your purchased software regardless of changes the vendor may make in the future. If you're not free to reject updates, you've lost this advantage.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#67

Post by wang_li »

rms_returns wrote: post #54
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 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.

To get access to patches from Red Hat you have to purchase an annual service agreement, for a two socket box it's around $300.

If you bought a copy of Windows XP at release it likely cost you around that much and patches and fixes were available to you for fourteen years at no further cost. The equivalent from Red Hat would have run $4200.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#68

Post by rando289 »

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.

They didn't post this to hacker news, it's /an/ article on their site thats been there for quite a while, and yes they call out Google elsewhere. For example http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html. gnu.org != whatever some random user posted on hacker news today. Try thinking a little before posting.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#69

Post by raverbashing »

metric10 wrote: post #57
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…

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 oppressiv…

> When support ends for an old version of a free software distribution, users have the ability to hire someone else to maintain it.

This is the exception rather than the rule (speaking in general terms)

You can pay someone else to isolate and secure your XP installation as well (for the minimum amount of stuff you need in there). Put it in a VM, behind a firewall, secure it, prevent unknown services from running in it, etc.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#70

Post by jacquesm »

diivio wrote: post #43

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 B…

Stallman has the nasty little habit of being right in the long run. So even if his views may appear 'a little extreme' today give it a decade or two, you'll come around.
Post reply on HN