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

81–90 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#81

Post by johncolanduoni »

rando289 wrote: post #75
johncolanduoni wrote: post #17

I'm not a fan of pretty much anything on this list, but I do think the thing about phasing out Windows XP does stand apart. I don't know exactly how long you should expect an OS to be supported, but I feel like 12 years falls somewhere on the right side of that line. They add the following disclaimer about that: > A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft…

Nice pacemaker you have there, unfortunately, we've ceased supporting the software, and you are too old for a new one to be implanted, so it might break or get hacked and you'll die. How long would you expect us to support it?! And obviously we can't give away our intellectual property! https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/jul/21/software-de...

Strawman much? Windows XP /= pacemaker. Just because I disagree with this line of reasoning for Windows XP, doesn't mean I do for critical medical equipment.

Although XP is unfortunately used for some other medical equipment. However I think the problem there was using a consumer desktop operating system as an integral part of a medical device in the beginning.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#82

Post by a3n »

mc32 wrote: post #28
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…

In almost any other context the content being delivered here would be considered a "hit piece". I'm a bit miffed. The choir is already converted, so to speak, so this is not the intended audience, others, non converts, would mostly be put off by the over the top style and rhetoric. Moreover, the article focuses on one vendor when other vendors follow similar policies but those aren't visited in the article. So.... Wh…

It focuses on one vendor because Windows is an OS, and there are few of those easily available to the general public.

It also focuses on Windows because the article is about Windows. :)

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#83

Post by mangecoeur »

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 really not clear who this is addressing. Anyone with technical knowledge will learn nothing from this rather shrill and superficial commentary. Anyone else will either not understand, not care, or simply never end up on the site anyway.

Frankly it reads like it was written by an angry teenager getting mad at The Man for his injustice. If I were trying to convince anyone to use Linux, I would actively discourage them from reading this.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#84

Post by tracker1 »

bad_user wrote: post #73
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…

Lets not forget that Windows XP is a commercial product, for which people paid money and that was the only reasonable choice for about 8 years, the gap between the release of XP and that of Windows 7 (Vista was a flop due to poor drivers). In these 8 years a lot of companies and individuals bought computers and then stayed on XP because (1) Windows upgrades cost money, (2) compatibility issues and (3) fear of upgrade…

Cheap is relative... for a computer purchased 4 years ago, for under $1k a $200 software upgrade is a pretty cheap migration path.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#85

Post by krylon »

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.

It's not that simple, unfortunately.

For run-of-the-mill desktop usage, i.e. Office stuff, eMail, Internet access, yes, not upgrading is either lazy or stupid.

But there are quite a few companies out there who have built applications that are critical to their operations and which do not run on versions of Windows more recent than XP. To be fair, that is just as big a problem, relying on proprietary APIs without even thinking of an upgrade path. It's not like Microsoft ending support for XP came as a total surprise nobody could have foreseen.

But sometimes, for example in industrial automation, once an installation has been certified, you cannot simply upgrade to a newer version of Windows. If the automation software does not run on newer versions of Windows (and it's an all-Windows game, as far as I can tell), upgrading means you also have to newer automation software, which means spending tons of money and then spending tons more for reprogramming the whole thing. Some automation engineers at the company where I work still have to deal with DOS for a few installations (at least on DOS, the lack of security updates is not an issue, but getting it to run on newer hardware is hard if not impossible, and keeping aging hardware going is a nightmare).

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#86

Post by oldmanjay »

chris_wot wrote: post #63
TallGuyShort wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

It's pretty clear that there was no statement of personal opinion on the morality of the national security directives contained in that post.

Edit: clarity

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#87

Post by johncolanduoni »

rando289 wrote: post #48
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, we…

> MS has well tested security patches

How do you know this? I find it likely that they tested them for the specific use cases of the 0.1% who are actually going to receive the patches, since they are providing a specialized solution.

> 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.

You can want to use free software for some things without thinking proprietary software is bad for everything.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#88

Post by bad_user »

tracker1 wrote: post #84
bad_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not forget that Windows XP is a commercial product, for which people paid money and that was the only reasonable choice for about 8 years, the gap between the release of XP and that of Windows 7 (Vista was a flop due to poor drivers). In these 8 years a lot of companies and individuals bought computers and then stayed on XP because (1) Windows upgrades cost money, (2) compatibility issues and (3) fear of upgrade…

Cheap is relative... for a computer purchased 4 years ago, for under $1k a $200 software upgrade is a pretty cheap migration path.

If you distribute that cost over several years, then it may not look so expensive, but the problem is many people may not be capable of such an upfront cost and the perceived benefits of the upgrade (e.g. security patches, newer IExplorer) are seemingly minimal.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#89

Post by frik »

eka808 wrote: post #77

And after reading that, let's take a deep breath and think about Android. From my personal opinion, it's not better than and maybe worse : - Obligation of having a G+ account. Disable it is NOT straighforward at all and it will try to recreate himself often. - Personal content publicly uploaded/displayed in G+ account I had the bad surprise, and few friends also to see that the photos taken with my android phone were…

In Android you can deactive all phone home and cloud features, also most Android device manufactore add various apps that require no cloud connection at all. The same goes for iOS were it is even easier.

In contrary to Windows 10 were you can't deactivate several phone home and cloud features. Severals apps are only shipped as cloud-only. The Windows update is forced on you and cannot be deactivated. And to top it, every feature update (like Threshold 2) resets your personal privacy settings and more as it is basically a system upgrade that often also replaces device drivers. So Android, iOS, OSX and all other OS incl. Windows up to v8.1 are way better for the end user - as there they still have the choice and decide for themself.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#90

Post by bitmapbrother »

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.

One more thing, Microsoft is a hypocrite. Microsoft employed a number of marketing campaigns to smear Google. They even went so far as to hire Mark Penn, a political smear campaign hitman, to carry out their plans. Now that we know all of the nefarious activities Microsoft has been up to and tried to conceal from the press their actions are even more despicable. From breaking into their users accounts and rifling through their documents, giving the NSA full access to Skype, online storage and email and the spyware infected Windows 10 that they're now trying to impose on people unwillingly.

As for your question, it's better to attack a hypocrite that claimed to champion privacy when in reality they did just the opposite.

Post reply on HN