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

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#151

Post by TallGuyShort »

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 ?

I don't think that at all - where did you get that? I'm referring to national security letters, which any regular reader of HN should know about and which require you to hand over information like this and keep it a secret. If Microsoft had government mandated backdoors, there's a good chance they'd be required to keep the intentions hush-hush as well.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#152

Post by Silhouette »

However, 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.

Speaking as a professional software developer who typically does not write free software: [expletives inappropriate for HN deleted]

The allegation that any developer who does not share the FSF's views on the advantages or otherwise of free software is inherently more tempted to screw their users is not only wrong, it's offensive. I have never imposed any of the kinds of malware listed in this article on any user of any project I work on, nor would I be happy to do so in the future. This is more than can be said for several popular software products that also happen to be FOSS.

Also, the idea that Microsoft, or any other commercial software provider for that matter, should be responsible for supporting its software indefinitely, entirely at its own expense and regardless of context, is just silly. I think it is sensible to expect and if necessary legally require a basic level of support for commercial software products that were defective when first supplied, for some reasonable period that will probably vary greatly with context. In practice, actual regulation or legislation has rarely been necessary as most major software vendors have volunteered such support anyway, though the unwelcome trend is for this to change and so the regulatory/legal framework may need to change to match. However, Microsoft has, at least until recently, gone far beyond that industry norm in terms of long term support for its older software, and far beyond any major Free Software project. It might have been fair to say that Microsoft was the last very large software company that should be criticised on this score, but for their recent shifts in policy to much more user-hostile terms.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#153

Post by tzs »

jacquesm wrote: post #70
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.

It's easy to be right in the long run. What's hard is doing the right things in the short run that will bring about that long term rightness.

Stallman is basically like Richard Altmayer from the Asimov short story "In a Good Cause—" [1].

[1] http://www.epubsbook.com/ScienceFiction/Asimov41/27354.html

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#154

Post by jacquesm »

tzs wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's easy to be right in the long run. What's hard is doing the right things in the short run that will bring about that long term rightness. Stallman is basically like Richard Altmayer from the Asimov short story "In a Good Cause—" [1]. [1] http://www.epubsbook.com/ScienceFiction/Asimov41/27354.html

I think RMS did plenty of things in the short run back in the day that brought about more than just a little bit of long term rightness and good. The fact that it's easy to discount him in the present while he's still working away at moving the needle, not just for the day after tomorrow but also for tomorrow itself is quite special. Anybody else with a track-record like that would probably get a more receptive audience. Now if only he'd get his 'PR' to be as effective as his vision, that may make an even bigger difference.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#155

Post by exo762 »

rando289 wrote: post #61
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.

This is false. E.g. they make perfectly clear that some software (e.g. games) are perfectly fine being proprietary and closed source.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#156

Post by taurath »

delecti wrote: post #126
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…

Vista was a flop because of OEM marketing inadequate hardware as supporting it. I had a reasonably competent machine, and Vista worked great on it from the day I switched (summer '07, only a few months after it released). Making the comments others have said about your choice to exclude Vista as a viable option even stronger.

On most metrics of performance Vista was a big downgrade from XP, regardless of your hardware.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#157

Post by Silhouette »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #40
ChrisLTD wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only a problem if Microsoft promised or implied XP would be updated indefinitely. Is that the case?

Not that I agree, but the FSF's issue with non-free software does not seem to be purely based on those who sell proprietary software lying (or being unclear) about the limitations, but at least partially on the fact that they even offer such "raw deals" to begin with.

Given that Microsoft has long published the support lifecycles for its major products, and that those support lifecycles are often guaranteed (as much as anything in the commercial world can be) many years into the future, any criticism on this score just feels like bad faith.

The alternative is to take your chances with free software where outside of any commercial support agreement with a specific provider you generally have no actionable guarantees of any kind that your support will last as far as the time your installation completes.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#158

Post by dang »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #136
bitmapbrother wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thr…

Looks like the Microsoft reputation manager dogs were notified.

Accusing other users of astroturfing or shilling without evidence is a breach of civility that is not allowed on HN, so please don't do it. If you're concerned about possible astroturfing, email hn@ycombinator.com instead and we'll look into it.

We take the question seriously and have banned accounts for astroturfing in the past. Alas, what's far more common is commenters lobbing the accusation merely to attack someone they disagree with, and that's emphatically not allowed here.

Also, some of your other comments have been outright uncivil. We ban accounts for doing that, so please re-read the site guidelines and stop doing that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#160

Post by api »

Many of the things on this list are more or less technical requirements. Forced security updates are required to stop the spread of botnets, for example. If you make security updates optional people will turn them off and you'll get botnets, ransomware, and DDOS flood epidemics. DDOS floods are a major threat to the open web, requiring web sites to cluster behind MITMing 'protection services' like CloudFlare.

I do agree about the privacy aspects, but unfortunately most users do not care about security or privacy and "most users" (the mainstream of the market) pays the bills. Until users care and vote with their wallets, companies will continue to disregard these things.

Post reply on HN