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

91–100 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#91

Post by rando289 »

SEJeff wrote: post #27
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.

In the meantime, the EFF is actually fighting for your freedom and right to not be spied on. Consider donating to them. I switched my monthly donation to the FSF to the EFF instead many years ago as I feel they're doing more to help keep society free than the FSF.

If you care about software freedom, do donate to fsf. eff leaves that to fsf and they already have 50x more funding. Of course eff also has much broader and less well defined goals of things like "internet freedom."

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#92

Post by gkop »

I had the opportunity to try Windows 10 last week. I was surprised to find that Windows now has pop-up advertisements for Office and Bing embedded in the OS itself that recur during day-to-day usage and cannot be dismissed. That seems wild to me. Also, contrary to opinions that I have heard on HN and elsewhere on the web, Windows 10 is typical poor quality Microsoft software, not one of the "good" Windows like XP and 7 were. For example, there are literally two control panels that are different: the classic control panel and a Settings tool (not a different view of the control panel but something completely different) that comes up when you search for various settings in the Start menu. The Start menu is super clunky and slow as well.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#93

Post by mangecoeur »

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…

The fact that you paid for windows bundled with your laptop at discount 14 years ago does not entitle you to a lifetime of free support. Big companies get XP support at great cost, because support is very expensive.

As you said yourself, Windows is a commercial product - you get what you pay for. Microsoft don't really owe anybody anything beyond what they get paid to do - the only reason they kept XP support for so long is that to do otherwise would be a PR nightmare, all their big customers would be angry and all the regular folks would have machines (even more) full of malware.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#94

Post by Oletros »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #72
bitmapbrother wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you point out the spy software on the Android Open Source Project?

how about you point out the phone that runs AOSP without driver blobs/google services blobs.

Without any Google blobs any smartphone without Google services.

And, as far as I know, binary blobs for bootloader ate not made by Google

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#95

Post by bitmapbrother »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #72
bitmapbrother wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you point out the spy software on the Android Open Source Project?

how about you point out the phone that runs AOSP without driver blobs/google services blobs.

There are a number of phones that run AOSP without google service blobs. As for running a phone without driver blobs, well that was just a ridiculous question on your part.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#96

Post by Oletros »

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…

No, Android doesn't require a Google account.

Perhaps you're talking about Google services instead

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#97

Post by laumars »

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…

I think it's a bit selective to exclude Vista's timeline from XP's concurrency just to make a point. But even that aside, 4 years of concurrency is still pretty good compared to most other Linux distributions. Ubuntu Desktop's long term support (LTS) is only 3 years and that's one of the better supported Linux desktops. Granted Ubuntu Server LTS is 5 years, but then we'd have to compare Linux with Server 2003 to be completely fair.

The only real complaint I have against Windows' support is that it's update utility, "Windows Update", makes the whole process unnecessarily painful compared to the most Linux package managers.

Just as an aside, Windows Home (which you mentioned the cost of compared to Pro) wouldn't be an option for many businesses because you can't join Home editions of Windows to a Windows domain.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#98

Post by krapp »

Arzh wrote: post #2

I guess all of the internet is also malware. Neat.

The web possibly qualifies as malware (or at least malware-like) under several of the definitions provided by FSF:

surveillance: although this can be mitigated somewhat by turning off javascript, sites can be very aggressive about forcing you to reveal data about yourself, and making a site unusable unless you do. This data about you, your habits and identity can be used for marketing purposes you may not consent to.

DRM: you don't control the data you post to a site, can't necessarily change, update or remove it at will, and you're subject to arbitrary terms of service which may have the site assert ownership over user posted content.

sabotage: there is nothing you can do if an online service decides to close and take your data with it - you can't simply fork it. Sites can remove or monetize formerly free parts of their API and hold your data hostage.

jails: because the site itself runs on a remote server, you are limited to interacting with it through whatever API the site owners see fit. You cannot download it in its entirety, inspect the code, modify it for any purpose and redistribute it, unless it's entirely static. But, of course, as the code is on a remote server, there's no way to verify that either.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#99

Post by rando289 »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #79
rando289 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can appreciate the FSF and Stallman without agreeing with everything they say. I think they did a lot to put open source on the map, and make us aware of the dangers with closed source software in certain areas, even if I think that their stance is overzealous.

> they did a lot to put open source on the map

Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...

Post reply on HN