151–160 of 192 posts
We knew a day like this would come after Microsoft acquired GitHub. Glad to see a great alternative, SourceHut, is moving forward as evidenced by the HN submission made earlier today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485290
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really hard to consider these drivers "high quality" if they don't even work with Wayland properly.
Why would Nvidia care about supporting Wayland at this point in time? Steam itself doesn't even work properly with Wayland. 9 of 10 people are going to be using X right now and within the near future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was not a instance of DMCA not allowing tweaks, but rather DMCA not allowing people to distribute minorly changed isos of Windows.
What about fair use? The transformative factor seems rather clear. People want the many altered things and consider it different enough to go out of their way to find it (despite it not reducing their out-of-pocket cost). The nature of the work is that it is a tool rather than a work of fiction which is also in favor of fair use. The amount taken is substantial, but it has already been ruled that even 100% taken can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that is not what the DMCA copyright claim says. It does not complain about redistributing the files of a paid OS. The complaint is explicitly about providing a tool to work around technical restrictions, so "just provided an exe and some patch files" will not make microsoft happy. A common copyright claim of someone sharing copies of proprietary files would not make news. Using the DRM circumvention provision in…
What exactly is the basis for this DMCA claim? Is there any precedent for this or does MS just think their PR has it too easy? DRM is supposed to prevent redistribution of copyrighted works. That's the unethical part. If the user is not redistributing copyrighted works, why should the law care about the preservation of DRM? If I buy a locked safe at an auction and it contains a bunch of copyrighted paintings, nobody…
This is why DMCA 1201 is such a worthless weasel and needs to be destroyed.
If you're circumventing in order to commit copyright infringement, that's already illegal and you don't need a separate rule for it. If you're circumventing in order to do something that isn't copyright infringement, why should that be illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On my Windows 10 Pro 20.04 edition, that group policy has no effect. The only way to get rid of it was to use the registry edit you've also referenced.
Odd. Did you run gpupdate /force afterwards? I've deployed it to Pro boxes before with no issues.
Does gpupdate /force do something different than what rebooting would do?
Also did you do it on Pro boxes with the 2004 update? This behavior of the setting not working only started with 2004.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hack is probably removing even the 'Security' low-level telemetry. Which yes, would hurt users. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/configure-w... Edit: if you don't feel like reading the link, the 'security' level is the minimum required for updates. No updates means no security updates. Which means exploitable boxes. Which would return us to the grand old days of exploited Windows XP botnets.
Is there any technical reason why telemetry would be required to make updates work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't legally give you something copyrighted even if you can't use it without a valid license code. It's still copyrighted. But that's not what Microsoft is asserting here: the headline (which arguably conveys the main point) says it's about the anti-circumvention clauses of USA's DMCA law.
Yeah, because while distributing the basic .iso is illegal what are Microsoft's damages? They distribute it for free anyway, their losses are $0 from someone else distributing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty different from that. It’s not just that they modified Windows, it’s that they provided a cracked version of the iso. If they just provided the tools to do it, it’d be one thing (and that probably wouldn’t have been attached by Microsoft). But given the evidence, this is perfectly reasonable for Microsoft.
Why are others saying it wasn't cracked and didn't disable activation? Cracked implies copy protection or licensing measures were circumvented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet lots of people who upvoted the post didn't even read the main text.
I read the text and it says nothing like it. It's all about DMCA takedown for removing telemetry, not a single mention of distributing cracked ISO of windows.
There have always been tweaking tools for Windows unless we suddenly see a huge crackdown on the hundreds of other products that remove telemetry, etc, I would consider this overblown.
We knew a day like this would come after Microsoft acquired GitHub. Glad to see a great alternative, SourceHut, is moving forward as evidenced by the HN submission made earlier today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485290