Microsoft's Software is Malware • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#111

Post by rando289 » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #81

rando289 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly I think hn, and generally internet commenting sucks because it's mostly all arguments. 1 person says something in a blog/article, 90% of top hn comments are criticism & counter argument, 95% of replies are arguments against the parent, on and on and on.

It wasn't an argument that your comment was wrong, so it wasn't a strawman, it was just an example of something. And then you later go on to agree with me that should be supported because it's proprietary and no one else can support it is subjective and changes based on the use case, eg. medical equipment which runs xp.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#112

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#113

Post by fuj » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

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…

Did you just ignore Vista to pretend the article and your post make sense??? wow....

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#114

Post by mark_l_watson » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC

I support the FSF financially (and sometimes using their licenses) but I think that this article is a little bit off in the criticisms about updates.

I use OS X, Ubuntu, and sometimes Windows 10.

I want security updates as often as they are released.

I don't often use my Windows 10 laptop but when I do the first thing I always do is to update the system and anti-virus definitions.

I also frequently check and update OS X and Ubuntu.

I happen to trust Apple and Microsoft to perform automatic updates, but that is my personal decision.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#115

Post by ghduxjc » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

Ahh, the circle of life continues.

RMS produces an opinion piece -> everyone denounces it as extremist -> some time passes -> something horrible happens that proves RMS was right (like the NSA disclosures) -> everyone freaks out at what's happening -> some more time passes -> RMS produces another opinion piece -> repeat

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#116

Post by Fartag » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

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…

Hold on a second. You can't just claim XP had longer support except for all those "continually updated OSes" and still have a point left! The submission is not FUD, if it is then please point to any fact it gets wrong.

Why are there are so many defensive anti GNU comments here? Do these actual facts that correctly paint Microsoft in a bad light really upset that many Microsoft users / workers / proprietary software proponents?

Also, what is with legitimate comments being ghosted on this site?

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#117

Post by jxn » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #69

metric10 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> 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.

Of course, you can also pay someone to do the same for a free software OS. You might even have more options for safely isolating it. I suspect the main point is that you have options, e.g. you don't simply have to isolate it (that may not work depending on how you use the software), you could also maintain / fork it.

In theory, with enough money, I'm sure you could also pay MS to maintain it for you or (as I've seen done once or twice in the business world) simply buy out the company and have them support it, but it seems like the cash barrier required to getting those things done could be lower than self-supporting the software in many circumstances.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#118

Post by krapp » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

ghduxjc wrote: post #115

Ahh, the circle of life continues. RMS produces an opinion piece -> everyone denounces it as extremist -> some time passes -> something horrible happens that proves RMS was right (like the NSA disclosures) -> everyone freaks out at what's happening -> some more time passes -> RMS produces another opinion piece -> repeat

you forgot -> people show up in the thread and mock anyone who doesn't accept that RMS is, has always been, and will always be right about everything.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#119

Post by swiley » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

Just a reminder about why people still use xp:, earlier versions of windows supported a real time mode (sort of like the preempt rt Linux patches). This is needed in order to run some equipment but later versions of windows (post xp) have dropped support for it.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#120

Post by zeveb » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #74

My biggest problem with the FSF's point of view is that they see these kind of eventualities as inevitable for all non-free software. I would claim that there is not only room for non-free open source software sans abuse, but even closed source software. When it comes to something you want to use as a core foundation on which to build (whether you are building software, general business, academic work etc.) I complet…

> Changing IDEs isn't nothing, but it's not like I'd have to rewrite my code.

You'd have to rewrite any IDE code you've written, which isn't nothing (that pain is a good part of the reason why emacs is still stuck on elisp instead of Common Lisp).