FSF Attacks Windows 7's "Sins" In New Campaign 926
CWmike writes "The Free Software Foundation today launched a campaign against Microsoft Corp.'s upcoming Windows 7 operating system, calling it 'treacherous computing' that stealthily takes away rights from users. At the Web site Windows7Sins.org, the Boston-based FSF lists the seven 'sins' that proprietary software such as Windows 7 commits against computer users. They include: Poisoning education, locking in users, abusing standards such as OpenDocument Format (ODF), leveraging monopolistic behavior, threatening user security, enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the request of entertainment companies concerned about movie and music piracy, and invading privacy. 'Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,' said executive director Peter Brown. And if Microsoft's Trusted Computing technology were fully implemented the way the company would like, the vendor would have 'malicious and really complete control over your computer.'"
And we should attack the FSF... (Score:1, Insightful)
for this stupid "sins" campaign.
There has already been some uproar about this being a stupid campaign, it'd be nice to see more.
It's time to tell the FSF to stop being stupid about this, stop spreading FUD, and instead *promote* free software instead of just bashing windows.
These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is any of this new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasn't every previous version of Windows been guilty (or at least accused) of these very same "sins"?
Besides, I would imagine that the majority of Windows users won't ever see or hear of this campaign anyway, your average PC World customer won't have a clue what free software is, what DRM is, and most probably don't even know that there are alternative operating systems available anyway. My parents, parents-in-law, my siblings.....hell just about everybody I know that doesn't work in IT. Perhaps if the FSF could get some TV advertising...
I've always wonderded... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Children learn to work on the platform that's mostly used in Businesses today, giving them the necessary skills to obtain a job.
Wrong. WGA does not "inspect" the users hard drive, it checks the Windows license. It's mostly used to combat fraud done by computer vendors which sell illicit copies for money. Users at home will purchase Windows with their PC and use OEM Activation, which does not need any user interaction. Enthuasiasts upgrading their PC will need to enter a key, but Activation is also quick and painless.
Not true. Microsoft requires vendors to only sell computers with an operating system to qualify for a discount. You can purchase laptops with Ubuntu from Dell, you can purchase ThinkPads running FreeDOS or SLED.
Vendors may also opt to purchase OSB copies at standard pricing, which has zero restrictions.
Support for old software is discontinued everytime, by every vendor. Every Linux vendor and even free distributions like Ubuntu have a support lifecycle.
Well, i'll give them this point. But Microsoft has added support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2, however it was the ODF guys who weren't even able to spec out something basic as formulas in a spreadsheet specification.
If you purchase DRMd content, you know exactly what you're in for. Windows just supports it. It's like a car that can lock the rear doors to children can't open the doors while on the road. Yes, some people may use that feature to kidnap someone, but that doesn't mean that locking rear doors is bad.
This was true until Windows XP SP2, but Microsoft has really improved security since then.
All in all, it's a bunch of stupid FUD by hippies that eat their gunk from their toes.
This is what most fortune 500 companies want! (Score:3, Insightful)
.... complete control of their employees computers. More lockdown features present in the OS = more power to the IT department = easier for BOFH IT administrators to take away any and all "freedoms" you may think you have when using equipment provided by your workplace.
In other words: What a waste of time sending letters to these companies!
FSF turning into RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully, they are not representative of the open source movement.
Indeed. They're representatives of the Free Software movement; the clue's in the title.
However, while we know this, and in spite of all Stallman's protests over nomenclature, there are still many, many geeks who don't know about (or even care about) the distinction. What chance they have with Windows users (even geeky Windows users) should be minimal to the point of insignificance.
digital copies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, that's probably the least likely way those people will end up listening to you, and after all, those are the people you're trying to convince.
A lot of people like Windows very much, and even if they could afford an alternative, like a Mac, they choose not to, because they like Windows. Hardcore industry people, like professional photographers using Photoshop, graphic designers using Illustrator, computer-aided manufacturing engineers using things like Mastercam or AutoCAD are so dedicated to their tool-of-trade that they will take umbrage to anything that tries to insult it. After all, doing so may be taken as an insult to their very profession, and thus, to themselves.
So what I'm trying to say is, the strategy of attacking Windows, and proprietary software in general, in order to help bring people to FOSS is going to have the exact opposite effect -- it's only going to solidify people who use proprietary software and alienate them from any thoughts of an alternative. After all, you wouldn't listen to someone telling you you suck, the software you use sucks, and you're an idiot for using it. Now, I'm not saying that's what they outright said, but that's how it's going to be taken by people reading it.
Maybe FOSS should stop being like PETA and, instead, tell people why it's *good* to use FOSS. Why Linux is *better* than Windows, GiMP is *better* than Photoshop, OpenOffice is *better* than MS Office. And maybe people will listen. But if you insult their software and tell them to use something else, they won't be very open to the idea.
Just a thought, anyway.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong. Children learn to work on the platform that's mostly used in Businesses today, giving them the necessary skills to obtain a job.
not that i'm supporting this campaign, but it would be better if children learn to work with computers in general, not one specific platform or product, so that they can also use whatever will be used in businesses tomorrow. give a man a fish etc.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
The delusion is thinking that screaming terms like "abuse" (repeated over and over), "poisoning education" (think of teh childraaan!) and "bribing officials" (libel ahoy!) is going to win hearts and minds.
Throwing shit at Microsoft is just going to get the FSF's hands smeared in crap. If they do persuade anyone to come off the Microsoft teat, they're more likely to drive them to MacOS than to a FOSS system.
Do you understand that? I typed it really slowly to make it easier.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could at least try. Every single claim they make is laughable. They make overarching claims such as "inspect users' hard drives", which carries a heavy implication of looking through user data when no such looking occurs. Most of the others (vendor lock-in, security holes) are a decade out of date. Then they use terms like "proprietary Word formats" when all Word formats - both OOXML and DOC - are fully documented, as mandated by federal court.
Finally, they talk about DRM and removing support for older versions when you'd be hard-pressed to find an Open Source vendor supporting products for even a quarter of the lifecycle Microsoft supports its products for and the DRM exists solely to allow playback of HD content (and is nonexistent when such content isn't being played), something with OSS can't do.
Really, the FSF is almost as much of an embarassment to the Open Source community as RMS. If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, why should we let microsoft get away with being evil even if it's the status quo?
Would you let a polluter who has polluted for years get a break when you catch them doing something?
In short, what I'm saying is, that evil shouldn't be protected by a grandfather clause.
Re:Is any of this new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you for real? Here is just 1 gem from their "campaign":
Are you insane? Removing support for older versions?
Windows 2000 (released on Feb 17, 2000) is supported until 13 July 2010.
Windows XP (released in Aug 2001 is supported until April 8, 2014
Now please, list for me, the free software OS distributions that are provided with security fixes for 10-12 years after release?
Is Computerworld confused? (Score:5, Insightful)
Founded in the mid-1980s by hacker-activist Richard Stallman, the FSF argues that free software and source code is a moral right. It takes pains to distinguish itself from the open-source movement, which advocates sharing of source code but tolerates charging for software.
I find this point rather interesting, as Richard Stallman gave a speech at Otago University here in small old New Zealand last year, and he was quite adamant that there was nothing wrong with charging for software, and took great pains to make the distinction between "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer".
Is Computerworld confused?
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everybody is aware of the "Microsoft's standard behaviour", and not everybody is realizing it is an issue. So FSF are starting a campaign that raises awareness of the issues. It might have wasted _your_ time, but that doesn't matter. It's not aimed at you.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have can point to some part of their argument that's flawed, then do so.
One of the more egregious examples of their FUD:
Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
But, really, the whole article is swimming in it. Another gem:
With Windows Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording television shows that they have the legal right to record.
In fact, _Microsoft_ does not apply any DRM restrictions to content. They merely provide a system where the restrictions put in place by the content owners, are enforced. The only time the DRM systems in Windows do anything, is when the owner of content tells them to.
Oh, and let's not forget presenting standard software licensing practices like this:
Microsoft is up to their usual tricks again -- only this time, they're also inserting artificial restrictions into the operating system itself. While not the first time they've done this, this is the first release of Windows that can magically remove limitations instantly upon purchasing a more expensive version from Microsoft.
As if they were something pioneered by - or even unique to - Microsoft.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, you are wrong. Children shouldn't be receiving a vocationally focused education, especially when given their age the software of the moment will likely be surpassed by the time they enter the workplace. Children deserve a proper education on computers, not just a limited set of skills on one vendors software.
You are wrong elsewhere in your post, but frankly I don't have the time to feed the MS trolls that much.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing is spreading FUD. A very different thing is spreading the truth in a blatantly sensationalist manner.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the rhetorical skills of the FSF (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the FSF is using some ineffective rhetoric.
The first sin:
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.
I think this rhetoric only works if the reader already is at least somewhat suspicious of Microsoft.
To someone whose only experience with non-MS OSes is watching 90's movies (remember the Apple product placement) and maybe using a Mac at a friend's house once or twice; to someone whose only complaint about Microsoft software is that it crashes a bit too often and thinks this is just the way computers are; to someone who thinks that Windows and Office is the "standard" software and that it's useful to use what everyone else uses; to someone who doesn't think (rightly or wrongly) that the MS monopoly is causing bad things to happen to them---
What is the FSF saying? That schools should teach children how to use another OS that very few people use, and that might not work well together with what everyone uses? "Yeah, sure, monopolies aren't great, but I want my kids to learn something useful instead of what some ideologue thinks is right."
I don't agree with "the common man"'s interpretation, but I think that's what it is.
I think a much more powerful message could be sent by pounding (hard) on the fact that Microsoft is costing you more money that they have to. But they don't make a big fuss out of that:
4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
That really hasn't been my experience when I was using Windows: I wanted faster boxes such that I could play better games. How many people have upgraded computers to run newer versions of Windows/Office? In any case, why doesn't the FSF say in big, nasty, red letters: "Microsoft is making you spend money (excessively)!"? [add an OMGBBQROFL and exclamation marks if you think it makes the message more convincing].
Oh well... I think it's good of the FSF to try*, although I doubt the effectiveness of their methods.
[* I happen to use (GNU/)Linux, but if the FSF was advocating Haiku or OpenVMS or $NOT_LINUX as their main Windows alternative, I'd still be happy: I want more competition in the OS market, and a more fragmented platform base that'll encourage software vendors to write portable code; when you ignore 40% of the market instead of 5%, you might rethink not porting. Maybe this'll just shift apps even more onto the web, though...]
Re:I m waiting for google operating system (Score:4, Insightful)
ChromeOS will just be another way of controlling you really; Google is, in a very MS-like move, intending to use their operating system to leverage people onto their cloud services. How free or not their OS will be irrelevant because its goal is to have you shove all your data off to Google.
To be blunt, you want a free OS you download and install Linux. Yes, Linux can be an absolute pain in the arse, you sometimes need to faff around to get the simplest things to work whereas a whole bunch of features you don't need work out of the box, but no matter how much of a mess it gets, it is always YOUR mess.
As G. B. Shaw said, "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it"
If you want to be free, be prepared to spend Saturday screwing around on the command line. If its too much hassle, go ahead and place your data in the hands of Google or MS.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:2, Insightful)
The source for those older free distro is available in repositories... get some one to compile it and zingo, it's 2000 again.
What they were really talking about is constantly f*sking with their file formats so that when a user with a new system sends a document to a user with an old system the recipient can't open it... even if the document does not use any of the new 'features' of the updated software... and they then suffer the social shame of *still* being on last year's s/w? There is no reason for it other than to trap people into upgrade cycles that are spurious.
FWIW, read up on how MS put the pork sword to an entire nation of school kids here in Australia... words like 'abuse', 'corruption' and 'fuck' are about the only things you can say when it comes to this little gem of policy designed to get every kid aged 13 and above to do their homework on MS and Adobe products... a purported $5500 worth of 'value' in software alone... who wouldn't want that?
-cb
Re:"Teach a man to fish" (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in them good ol' days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys at FSF, if you want your message to reach the public, take some web design lessons.
Do you know and remember the old gnu.org site? You know, the one with black text on white and blue links [probably because that was the browser default]? Where the only document structure was h1 and p, with an em or two thrown about for, well, emphasis?
That was actually a good design (for a particular subset of parameters). It was viewable with any browser (almost including netcat :D), it handled just about any window size well [as well as possible, at least], it was friendly for the colorblind, the structure was quite simple with no sidebars, no top-bars... no clutter.
But then someone went and changed it, and now there are all the colors, and double-column layout (with long columns), and... meh.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Slahsdot crowd is not the target audience, and I do think this campaign does a few things right:
- trying to take the moral high ground... the use of "sins" is even funny. Sinners vs hackers ?
- being back-to-basics... most people are not aware at all of the issues, and not well equipped to understand them. So yeah, maybe this campaign is stupid... maybe it needs to be ?
- negativity... I personnally don't like that, but we've seen time and time again that negativity just works. It's not like MS's took any sort of moral high ground that's make us want to behave like gentlemen...
- the actual point they make are not actually bad. I'd have gone for more in-your-face, practical stuff though.
I'm sure the FSF would welcome any better ideas. As the French say: "La critique est aisee, mais l'art est difficile".
I personnaly may suggest a 1984ish dystopia, with someone and someone's grandchildren trying to acces photos, music, videos, even journal, only to be denied again and again, then punished out of proportion. The issue with that is that 1984 is a "liberal" reference, we want something conservative.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there is a point with poisoning education.
Considering lifecycle of products, any 'education' tied specifically to commercial software product is only good for several years. After that it becomes obsolete and wasted. And regardless of huge spread, it is still one product focus.
Education which instead teaches about concepts and underlying structures will on the other had continue being useful much longer and applicable to wider array of situations.
Do you think is is worth it using school-time to do job training that will be obsolete pretty much right after they get a job?
Re:Great strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe FOSS should stop being like PETA and, instead, tell people why it's *good* to use FOSS. Why Linux is *better* than Windows, GiMP is *better* than Photoshop, OpenOffice is *better* than MS Office. And maybe people will listen. But if you insult their software and tell them to use something else, they won't be very open to the idea.
Too hard, and in some cases impossible. Anyone who has used both 3D Studio Max and Blender will laugh in your face if you try and tell them Blender is an overall better piece of software to use.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:3, Insightful)
- is your point that negative advertising doesn't work ? are you really sure ?
- yep, "think of the children" never ever worked at all
- no, we should never ever use legal references to smear a convicted felon's character. Unfair, and uneffective
- please, feel free to contribute better ideas...
this, typed even more slowly
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not sure it is FUD if it is true...
And certainly one should promote FS more than bash windows - but most everyone will compare against windows (and Mac), so maybe talking about the limitations and problems with Windows and Mac is not such a bad place to start to talk about Free Software...?
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:3, Insightful)
WGA DOES NOT examine the contents of your hard drive. It simply compares the installation time product key and hardware hash with a list of known bad keys and stored activation data, distinct from activation since this can happen at any time, such as a Windows update session.
On the security front, MS has made some important in-roads, particularly the old problem of running as root all the time. UAC may not be perfect, but it's a damned sight better than anything they've come up with since Windows 2000, which was *almost* perfect when set up correctly.
With such rebuttals being rather simple to come up with for someone with an open mind and few preconceptions, even without recourse to web searches, one wonders how much of the rest of this tirade against MS is accurate. Admittedly their business practice descriptions seem to be spot-on, especially with regards to pre-installation of Windows (you get it whether you want it or not), but those like myself running non-Windows based OSen would be foolish to buy a pre-built machine in the first place, given the hardware compatibility complexity and the quality of the rubbish they build "standard" PCs with these days. Yeah, yeah, laptops and netbooks, the usual response to this assertion. Well you can, if you know what you're doing and who to deal with, spec these yourself with equal facility.
As you can probably tell by now, I couldn't care less about market share figures. They're for the economists; I'm a technologist and I'd much rather deal with technical issues than political and economic.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:1, Insightful)
Parent is right.
Okay, I might not be a GNU/linux user, but I've regarded what I know of the FSF with respect. That respect is now gone.
Come on, you're going to spend the money people give you (the FSF) on trolling and bashing?
I thought the FSF was about spreading the good, rather than fighting the bad.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of being yelled at for a Godwin, remember that Hitler was bought to power in an election as legitimate as some recent US ones.
Without yelling "Godwin": Yeah? So, American presidents need armed forces standing at parliament doors to intimidate MIPs to get to power, too? If you do historical comparisons, do them right. In the election only Hitler's party was elected, not himself; and they did not even get more than 50 per cent of the vote. Only later were MIPs intimidated by SA soldiers in front of the parliament to vote for (or rather not vote against) laws that made Hitler a de facto dictator (though he was chancellor before, however, checked by democratic institutions).
As a German I am appalled by how often you people get these things wrong. Didn't you have history lessons? Or don't you at least have the ability to google or the decency to shut up when you don't know better?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Children learn to work on the platform that's mostly used in Businesses today, giving them the necessary skills to obtain a job.
not that i'm supporting this campaign, but it would be better if children learn to work with computers in general, not one specific platform or product, so that they can also use whatever will be used in businesses tomorrow. give a man a fish etc.
When I was in school, I learnt "word processing" and "spreadsheets" with very early word processing and spreadsheet packages. However, the standard for formulas in spreadsheets has not changed in the 20 years, right up until Office 2007, where the cell referencing is different by default. So it would be better to teach children to use the standards, and teach companies to adher to standards...
FSF is not very truthful in this campaign (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole "sin" thing makes the FSF and by extension all of us look like a bunch of religious loonies. Combine that with the fact that the FSF is being creative with the truth in this campaign and there goes our credibility.
*Poisoning education - Frankly, writing software for Windows is simply easier (or at least was until recently, it's getting better) especially if the bulk of what you're writing is interface work (like, say, educational software). And the argument that people who learn to use computers running Windows will somehow not be able to use anything else is bullshit, as most office productivity software works roughly the same. I do sometimes get annoyed with Linux (no Linux version of [favourite tool] exists - oh well, Wine) and OpenOffice (simply isn't complete yet) but that isn't Microsoft's fault.
*locking in users - The free software community is as much to blame as Microsoft. People will use whatever they need to get the job done. There are quite a few Microsoft applications for which no good alternative exists yet. Getting angry won't help here - start coding instead.
*abusing standards such as OpenDocument Format (ODF) - They didn't abuse the standards (unless you count the formula thing, which I regard as a bug in the standard itself) but the standards bodies by bribing people. This is bad, and it isn't something you're going to convince anyone of using a misleading headline and a lack of references.
*leveraging monopolistic behaviour - Sort of true, and sort of not true. You can get angry at MS for including a browser and a media player with their OS, but every OS should in this day and age ship with those anyway and you can't blame them for shipping their own. You would have done the same in their shoes, not out of malice but since it's the natural thing to do.
*threatening user security - Most Windows malware could easily be ported to Linux. Seriously, the times when the goal of a virus was to stop the system from booting are over. The sociopaths under the virus writers just want to trash your documents (easily done under Linux) and the spammers just want your internet connection (easily available under Linux also - I know this because I've run netgames and file sharing apps (among other things) under Linux).
*enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the request of entertainment companies concerned about movie and music piracy - Unfortunately for MS no one uses WMA, everyone uses MP3 (or rarely Ogg) for their music and this is how it ends up on the file sharing networks. Maybe it was evil of MS to try to go that route, but it has been scientifically proven that DRM cannot work and all material anyone wants is available without MS's DRM on it, so this is a huge non-issue.
*and invading privacy - Oh, come on. The FSF cites just the WGA thing, and for all the horrid things it may be, it certainly isn't a privacy risk.
Now, I think there's a lot wrong with Microsoft and Windows (being a programmer, it's mostly the myriad of new API's that strike a nerve, I like it when things are stable and I don't have to relearn everything every two years - I think I'll be skipping at least two or three of 'm and maybe I'll never be back - there are other things also) but I don't think starting a FUD campaign is going to do us any good.
Re:digital copies? (Score:1, Insightful)
Which just goes to show how insidious the push for DRM is, since you don't even understand the problem, no offence.
The issue is not what you're able to do on Windows now, media-wise. It's what Big Content would like you to NOT be able to do, in the future.
The only way to completely control media files is if the hardware and OS support it completely. By purchasing supporting hardware such as HDCP-enabled monitors and a DRM-enabled OS you open the way for Big Content to one day switch all media to DRM-only, and assume complete control over all of it.
It hasn't happened yet, but that's little confort.
Guess again. Yes, the OS will stop you, and will cooperate with the DRM-enabled hardware to do so quite effectively. You're currently buying into their scheme and from the looks of it, doing so quite willingly.
What you're describing is exactly what I'm talking about above. You got the DRM-enabled OS, you got the DRM-enabled hardware, and now you're completing the last step, buying DRM-enabled media. They got you.
And if you're relying on someone hopefully developing a way to bypass all this DRM cage somehow, sometime in the future, I'm sorry to say it may not be so easy, or even possible. Blu Ray has been designed specifically to take advantage of the full power of DRM and so far it's been quite effective.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. FYI. MS is in the content business, and have been for years, or have you forgotten it's game studios? (lionhead, rare etc).
3. Sounds like every single shareware application from the 90's to me.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:3, Insightful)
OS FUD Wars: A race to the bottom. (Score:5, Insightful)
FSF clearly has Microsoft hate disease to the point it is leaping into the FUD game with claims that are quite a stretch. Talk of 'sins'
Microsoft has previously been the dirty monoploy, but many claims are a stretch, some as good as ficticious. Furthormore things have started to change in Redmond.
DRM is hardly a threat anymore. DRM in WIndows was a flop, it's progressing no further, it's a seldom invoked codepath that somehow got blamed for performane problems, crops failing and stillborn babies in Vista (guess what same DRM is in Windows 7, problems there? No dead babies).
These 'sins' are tenuous at best, and are mostly situations that are improving. FSF: please do not be unhelpful, stick to facts or go beat up on Apple please.
Lock in? Seriously, that's being erroded, Microsofts supposed Lock-in is now as feeble as ever, consumers and developers have long taken matters in to their own hands.
Poisoning education? Maybe previously, but you can actually get Linux qualifications nowadays, and the tremendous growth of Linux in schools and universities is another point.
To the more lawless of individuals DRM is so insubstantial as to be no exsistant. Example:
'Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,'
Let me fix that for you, FSF:
'Windows, for some time now, has really been a piracy platform, the OS of choice for pirates, warez, and hell the OS itself is the most pirated OS ever.
I would add, that 'piracy' is a feature of Windows. DRM of any kind has been a failure, people take matters into their own hands and get what they want restrictions be damned
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well some of the points are good ones. For example, the DRM part is relevant and worth raising awareness about. Some points certainly require more support to stand (e.g. the part about how Microsoft violates my privacy by scanning my hard drive, which makes it sound like they're grabbing all my personal files for analysis) and some of the points are either very tangential issues on their own, e.g. "Poisoning Education", or really scraping the barrel, e.g. "Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities."
That last one is particularly bad. It's not like Linux doesn't have a long history of security vulnerabilities. It has historically been much better because of the account privileges system has been better on Linux. But it has also benefited greatly by simply not being anywhere near as worthwhile a target as Windows platforms due to (a) market share and (b) being used mainly by people who are technologically capable. That there are a very large number of people out there that don't keep their computer systems up to date or well-administered would not much change if, say, Ubuntu were the market leader. Bear in mind that Windows now has the capability for real differentiation of accounts and centralized "package management" will appear sooner or later, no doubt.
But the EFF isn't saying positive things about how the situation has come across. They're mixing up serious issues like the DRM with what has the appearance of "we hate Microsoft and will find as many arguments against them as we can, even weak ones" and, at least to me, creating a very poor impression of themselves. The outside world (by which I mean people who haven't aligned themselves with either Microsoft or the EFF, but just want to get on with their own things), don't appreciate seeing someone attack someone else.
If a Linux company contacts these Fortune 500 companies and says "Our product is better because...", that sounds natural and healthy enough. If the EFF come out with a statement saying "Windows 7 contains DRM technology that will adversely affect us all like so..." then that sounds rational and interesting and respectable. But if, as they have with this, they come out with a slew of whatever arguments they can find clearly motivated by a dislike of the company, it looks bad. That's all I'm saying, really. Some of the arguments are good ones, some are weak or even flawed, but the whole campaign looks bad because the motive is clearly not constructive, but an attempt to slate a company they don't like. It's very hard to fling mud without getting it on yourself.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
People complain when there IS backwards compatiblity.
People complain that there is NOT backwards compatiblity.
We get it. You don't like windows. Great, don't use it. I totally appreciate your standpoint. Don't complain however because I like and continue to like the dammed OS. No one is holding a gun to my (or your head). lol. For all of the arguments against Windows (choose your poison), I'm fairly certain the same can made for any other system (with the sole exception of being a convicted monopolist, although I'm certain Apple should be joining them, but that's an argument for a different day).
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it like this: does anyone want a t-shirt that says "C:\"? or "Where Would You Like To Go Today?" Meh.
But this:
"#> %blow
#> blow: No such job."
Is Freaking Genius and a high watermark of Geek.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
> Wrong. Children learn to work on the platform that's mostly used in
> Businesses today, giving them the necessary skills to obtain a job.
Children who learn to use the platform in use _today_ will have no useful skill with the platform in use in 10-15 years, whey they will have to obtain a job.
Children who learn about computing, on the other hand, will be able to adapt to the platforms in use in 10, 20, 40 years, as needed in the various jobs they'll have. This is something that is harder to teach, however, even if it can be done with any OS.
And yet, Portal + Browser get no attention (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All I want? (Score:3, Insightful)
A vector file would be much smaller. And scale to the size of a side of a building. Just sayin'.
DRM? What's that?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe a good "DRM disaster" would teach the world more than any amount of vague handwaving by an unknown bunch of extremists.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, why should we let microsoft get away with being evil even if it's the status quo?
Would you let a polluter who has polluted for years get a break when you catch them doing something?
In short, what I'm saying is, that evil shouldn't be protected by a grandfather clause.
I don't think the complaint here is with the FSF calling out Microsoft on their nasty behavior, I doubt many on /. would object to such things -- I think the objection is more to the shrill, get off my lawn approach that FSF is taking to it. The '7 Sins' come across as being extremely overhyped, whiny, and pathetic. To go with your polluter analogy, this is like saying that one polluter in Kansas (or Redmond) is going to destroy the whole planet. They are most certainly doing something wrong, and deserve to be taken to task for it -- but by making over the top and shrill arguments against them you really undermine your own case and force people to tune out.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Teach a man to fish" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well for one, plenty of CIO's are stupid.
For another thing while no one likes vendor lock in, vendor lock in has absolutely nothing to do with how much you pay for the software licenses. Investing in serious linux infrastructure is as much a lockin to that vendor as doing the same thing on Windows. License fees just aren't that large a percentage of operational costs. Even if you write your own there's vendor lock-in, you're just the vendor. Getting something else is still expensive and difficult, no matter what you had before.
So it really comes down to what the benefits and costs of being locked into a specific Historically, Microsoft will support whatever version of Windows you choose to use for more than a decade so long as you keep paying them. Generally Linux distributions do not do this. If you lose a staff member, Microsoft techs are a dime a dozen, the same cannot be said for qualified linux techs.
The reality of the situation is that going open source does not automatically solve everyone's problems, it may be the solution, but you're not going to prove that by saying "you should go with us because the alternative is evil". Aside from the fact that evil is probably an overstatement, convincing fortune 500 CIO's that getting paid for your product is fundamentally evil is a hard sell.
The way to sell open source to companies is to understand what they get out of their current product, what they don't get out of their product, and how they might be unhappy with elements of one or the other. Then you show them how your product is better for their needs. Just like every other salesman. Telling them what they're doing is morally wrong might work if they're breaking the law or killing people, but using commercial software just doesn't rate.
We love slavery (Score:1, Insightful)
We have learnt to to understand our masters. We have identified with their views. We enjoy and love slavery.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:2, Insightful)
...but they'll never be able to communicate their argument in a way that gives it any impact.
People should be able to control their own computer and the stuff that is in it. Corporations or government should not be able to control peoples computer or what is in it.
That is the argument. You can couch it in conservative, liberal, libertarian or whatever kind of dressing you want, but that is it. And noone has given any argument against it, except - "but we would really, really like to control your computer - won't someone think of the children/record executives/artist we're starving/whatever".
Also, there are a lot of other truths about MS, such as their express desire, tactic and actions to destroy open formats and protocols for their own goals.
I don't think we should shut about that either, just because it makes MS look exactly as bad as they are...
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree sex with *children* is demented.
On the other hand the government & other sexphobic persons who say sex with a person like 16-year-old Miley Cyrus is "pedophilia" is ridiculous. That's not sex with a child, because last I checked children don't come with double-Ds. That's sex with a young adult.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I have to give it the Windows crowd that this kind of "throw out the old, just use the new" isn't often an easy option for companies. They have to rely on their machines ability to continue working. Simply tossing ipchains for iptables was certainly not really an option for many companies (no, the conversion tools that I know were no help either). The same applies to many other cases, from the leap to Apache 2.0 and switching to MySQL 5.
Granted, they were kept "alive" and the major issues were still fixed in the old versions. But, understandably, not with the same speed or interest. Still, companies enjoy a transition period that matches their investment periods. I know my company here, a "quick decision" could be done in less than 2 months, but only if it's really urgent, if you catch my drift...
So having systems that are reliably around for a set period of time is valuable for some large companies that can't simply adapt quickly. They value this. It's hard to convince them to work otherwise, mostly because "it's always been done this way".
Why just Win 7? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've always wonderded... (Score:4, Insightful)
FSF won the hearts and minds of the developers writing GPL code. Oh sure, there might have been some open source at Berkeley with BSD, but I'm sure many had improvements they kept to themselves. Either because they didn't want to give it away to everyone or as proprietary forks or both. Same goes for companies, just recently there was a big paper on all the contributors to the Linux kernel. I think the breakdown for BSD would look quite different.
However, as a public figure for people just using the system RMS is terrible. He'd do much better if he could just talk FLOSS software up without talking closed source software down so extremely. Sure you may not modify the software but you do have choices like voting with your wallet, and if there's noone worthy of your money then not buying at all. There's monopolies but they're bad under any circumstances and they're the exceptions to the rule.
For some things, yes there are good points about open formats, forced upgrades and future access. But in many cases there's also not really. I buy closed source games which can have bugs that I'd like to fix in an ideal world, but I can't. But it's somewhat like going to a restaurant, either you return it to the kitchen or you eat it. RMS insists I'm not free unless I get to go into the kitchen and give the dish a do-over. Don't tip, don't return and give bad reviews seems to work for the rest of the world.
I really like the idea of the GPL, share alike and how you get incremental improvement. If a software does 98% of what you want you can supply the 2%. Then it becomes someone else's 98% project. Slowly you end up with a system that can run on everything from cell phones to supercomputers because many different people pulled it in many different directions. It's good. But you don't need to pretend that with FLOSS software I have all the choices and with closed source none.
FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm so tired of the FUD by these guys.
We've all gone through this before. FSF throws more FUD and causes more issues than MS ever did. I gladly use FOSS if it's around and it looks like it works, but I'm tired of the stupid politics.
I've abandoned Linux and no longer go to any Linux meetings because of the idiots that want to conquer the world. They do exactly what they accuse microsoft of doing.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes people just don't believe until they experience it themselves. My brother did not listen when I said do not, not, not buy Microsoft Vista. I told him if he wants to stick with Microsoft, then choose XP. He just kept saying "But Vista's the latest and bestest program. I want the newest thing."
Two years later while I was reinstalling his nonoperational Vista (for the third time): "Man I hate Microsoft. They make such shit." My brother replied, "I wish I had listened to you when you said don't buy this. I'm starting to think you were right. Microsoft does suck."
>>>supposedly "fair and balanced" news channel thats their choice.
FOX News definitely isn't balanced, but it's more balanced than the "we need more government control and bigger Congress-controlled programs"-biased CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS. I get tired of these channels' constant pushing to give the silk-suited incompetents in D.C. even more power to run our lives. As government grows, individual liberty wanes.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that your school system is broken and your teachers are lazy and stupid is not Microsoft's fault.
Yes it is in fact. Steve Ballmer was the first one to denounce the OLPC with Sugar as "not teaching kids the proper tools for today's workplace". Nevermind the fact that the OLPC with Sugar was a basic learning tool that wasn't even about computing and that it still included a "Show Source" button so that kids could see the source code of exactly what they were doing if they were computing inclined.
I think yes, Microsoft is very much at fault for pushing their products in the school system under the threat of "teaching anything else isn't teaching" turning education establishments into trade skill schools.
Just admit, you hate microsoft. Apple = free pass (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people insist on demanding Microsoft live up to standards that Apple, and Linux arent asked to live up to?
Windows 7 doesnt even come with an email program now! Linux, and MAC OS come with an email program.
Mac OS comes with quicktime, and Microsoft gets called "anti competitive" because Media Player ships with windows!?
If windows didnt come with a web browser, how would download a competing web browser? ... or any other software option?
APPLE is JUST AS GUILTY if not worse, then any thing Microsoft has done in recent times. But Apple gets a free pass... WHY?
Just admit you hate Microsoft out of spite. It has very little to do with reality, and everything to do with personal bias.
Again... APPLE does far more to keep their users locked into "Apple's way". Apple is extremely closed in its workflow, applications and bundled software. It is Apple or nothing. And you know what... Thats what people like about the Mac!
No wonder Windows is falling so hard lately. They cant even do anything comprehensive without being called a "monopoly".
Microsoft is not a monopoly. Lets get over it. Apple's software runs on the same hardware. If anything Apple is far more closed, and controlling than windows has ever been.
Its really time to stop.
I'm all for making sure competition is fair, but not at the cost of a comprehensive environment / workflow. As long as you can use alternative software... I dont care how or what MS bundles with their OS, or what it builds into its OS. Just as long as its good.
Windows still runs exe's last i checked right?
Good. Then there will be alternatives to MS installed applications.
Rights managements, restrictions and piracy oh my! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh...excuse me? Does this mean all those mp3 dics I burned for my car in Win7 really didn't work, or the files I copied to my digital music player? All those Netflix and FlexDVD's that hit my Win7 machine really didn't get backed up and really didn't get outputted to a DVD-R? Wow, without the FSF telling me what Windows 7 couldn't do...I was starting to have major misconceptions based on actual working expierence.
While I agree with what most of the FSF does, I think this is just hate mongering. Some of the points they make is ok...but seriously...that kind of thing comes standard with any Windows installtion. FUD? Your fudding right!
But back to the DRM thing since it's what I know about. In no way did I see Windows7 as being any more obtrusive with digital media than XP was. This DRM crap they must be talking about is the same "create protected conetnet" crap they've been putting in to Windows Media Player for years.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, as far as atrocities go. Germans and The War live in much less of a state of denial than say Americans and the atomic bomb, or Brits and the firebombing of Dresden. I guess it all comes down to who wins.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
That doesn't look like he's talking about pre-pubescents. He's talking about people beginning to awaken to their own sexuality. The rest of your post I generally agree on, but is largely irrelevant, as you're working of a faulty premise.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm forced to agree.
I'm the biggest Linux fanboi you'll ever meet, but I can't stand this twisted quasi-communist propaganda put out by the FSF. Windows is a proprietary product from a private concern - if you don't like it, don't use it. It is the standard OS because it fills most peoples' needs in the most painless way available. *For most people*, Windows is a better decision than Linux.
Not a single on of their "sins" is immoral or unjust. If you don't like the product - fine - you're free to move to Linux, OSX, BSD, or any of the myriad other minor players.
FWIW, my main PC runs ArchLinux most of the time. I'm a Vi user, and I use ScrotWM as a window manager. I don't have KDE or Gnome installed, as I've no need for a fancy GUI. I've also got Windows 7 on another partition, and I have to say - most of the time, if I just need to jump online, I boot to Windows.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they are very different, in that spreading FUD in a superficially rational manner often convinces people that the falsehoods presented are true, while spreading the truth in a blatantly sensationalistic manner often convinces people that the truths presented are false.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is up to their usual tricks again -- only this time, they're also inserting artificial restrictions into the operating system itself. While not the first time they've done this, this is the first release of Windows that can magically remove limitations instantly upon purchasing a more expensive version from Microsoft.
As if they were something pioneered by - or even unique to - Microsoft.
... and that makes it an acceptable practice?
But mom, everyone else is doin' it!
I think it is an acceptable practice.
First, can we admit that a company selling a product wants to maximize the revenue it receives, and that software prices are in general unrelated to the cost of media and distribution?
So anyone selling proprietary software will set prices in a way to maximize their profits. The features in Win7 Ultimate or Windows 2008 DataCenter had a non-zero development cost, and definitely have a non-zero support cost. But more importantly, people who need those features are willing to pay for them, and in some cases pay big bucks. So they set the price based on what the traffic will bear.
It is called market segmentation, and it is used in virtually every industry. Photoshop costs 6x more than Photoshop Elements. An Escalade is just a tricked out Suburban. The products are different, but share far more parts/modules than the company would like to admit. I guarantee the profit margins on the high end products dwarf the cheaper products. So you sell 10x the volume at a lower magin to the price sensitive crowd, and a smaller number at a huge markup for people willing to pay the price. Consumers get what they want, companies make money, the world goes round. Get over it.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reaching that point to. About a month ago when my brother went on vacation he asked me to pick-up his paper from his drive, and that he'd pay me for it. He gave me $10 and said, "Is that enough?" so I said, "Actually it cost me $12 in gasoline, so if you could give me two more dollars....." He had a fit and gave me an hour-long lecture about how family members should help one another.
I then reminded him that I gave him his first computer in 1999, another one in 2001, and a *brand new* computer in 2003, in total about $1000 worth of equipment, plus tons of weekends teaching him how to surf the net and/or fixing problems he encountered with his equipment ("My printer won't work - I'm afraid it's broke. Help me!"). Therefore I don't think my asking to be reimburse me for my gasoline is NOT unreasonable, especially since HE ASKED if it was enough.
That shut him up. Just because you're family doesn't entitle you to take-advantage of other members.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
Atleast on Slashdot, he IS a rebel.
Re:Is Computerworld confused? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
One might note that there is a vast gulf between stating "I am skeptical of the claims that X is true, and the evidence I have seen presented appears to have flaws A and B" and saying "I believe without question that not-X is true."
Personally, I'm not disturbed by people being skeptical of what most people believe unquestionably, especially on important issues. I am, OTOH, disturbed by people reacting strongly negatively to such skepticism, because it results in policy based on assumption and biases, not reality.
N.B., I think that Stallman's skepticism here is, in a sense, tangential to the question of legality, in that, while individual differences in development may make the legal presumption of a set age of consent a convenient fiction, there are real difficulties with the idea that adult-child interactions can in general be mutually "voluntary" in the sense that adult-adult interactions are, and that, whether or not the rare (if they exist at all) cases of truly voluntary interactions of the type prohibited are, in fact, harmful, it would be very difficult to accurately distinguish them in particular cases and any official tolerance for "voluntary" interactions that involved procedures that would have any practical effect at all would almost certainly do far more in practice to license interactions which were, in fact, involuntary.
Re:Just admit, you hate microsoft. Apple = free pa (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't. Neither Apple nor "Linux" (which isn't an entity, in the first place) are permitted to use anticompetitive practices to illegally leverage a market position which meets the legal definition of monopoly.
Insofar as is legally relevant, Microsoft has been found to not only be a monopoly but to have been illegally abusing a monopoly position, in various jurisdictions.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe I'm not alone in asking... what the shit are you talking about?
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope.
Windows 2000 receives security updates through 7/31/2010.
And look: I can pull a given security bulletin, say MS09-010: Vulnerabilities in WordPad and Office Text Converters Could Allow Remote Code Execution (960477) [microsoft.com], and find that it has a patch in for Windows 2000 SP4.
Re:These people are delusional. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the best parallel I did in the recent history, but I couldn't come up with a better one.
Wow. A simple scenario of vendor A selling products that enable the use of vendor B's products, and the "best" comparison you can come up with is the Holocaust ?
The usual excuse "but if we don't, someone else will" does not work when you have a de facto monopoly position.
Microsoft do not have a monopoly position - de facto or otherwise - in the market for playback devices.
If MS did not implement DRM, the content industry would have to drop it because it simply would not work on most computers, thus they would lose a sizable portion of their income, thus have to choose between dropping DRM and losing sales. MS allows them to keep both, only their support makes this possible altogether.
They would not, because the entity with power in this situation is the one selling the content that customers want, not the commoditised playback device they don't care about.
DRM will never be defeated by shooting the messenger.
Re:Education (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman's statement on consentual pedophilia (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I like and respect Stallman's works, and his fight for digital freedom, I find this little snippet quite disturbing.
What I appreciate about the statement, however, is that he's willing and able to deal logically with an issue which is too often dominated by fear. Most people aren't willing to discuss the issue, because if they come too close to advocating ephibophilia or pedophilia, or even just fail to assert opposition to it, they will be ostracized.
In my opinion, there's a basic problem of establishing consent. Children are not puppets, but it is relatively easy for an adult to manipulate them or silence them through threats or through the authority they hold over the child. From that perspective I agree with the law which says that when you're young enough you simply can't legally consent to various things, including sex. I don't believe any rule like "X years of age or older" will be perfect, erring on one side or other in various cases - I do think it's better to make the error of telling someone they're not old enough to consent when they are ready than to make the error of telling someone they are old enough to consent when they're truly not ready.
With teenagers I think we have a different set of problems: the age at which people are physically and mentally prepared to have sex does not correspond to the point at which they're legally allowed to. We've criminalized natural behavior.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great except, the FSF is spreading FUD. The following comment is nothing but FUD:
It's FUD because it's a blatant lie. I am disturbed that the FSF is lying like this - I knew Stallman and his friends were sensationalist and extreme, but they haven't usually needed to lie to make their points.
Firstly, it's not Microsofts technology, these days it's mostly Intel pushing the TCG specs forward. Secondly it's not correct that TC makes your computer obey Microsoft (or any other company) instead of you. Here is what TC actually does ..... wait for it ....
TC lets you make an unforgeable proof about the state of your computer, and then send it to somebody elses computer.
Hmm, doesn't sound so bad now does it? It basically stops you from lying to a third party. Do you routinely lie to those you do business with? If so you might not like TC. Do the people you do business with sometimes lie to you? Do you have to deal with spam and other forms of automated abuse? TC might be just the thing you need.
TC hardware won't send such a proof without you running a program which does so. The TC hardware is fundamentally incapable of making your computer do anything at all, in fact. It simply adds additional features to the standard PC feature set, which you are free to use or not use as you see fit.
Now, that doesn't mean somebody else will do business with you if you refuse to present a proof. Kinda like how some bars refuse to let you in if you can't prove your age, some businesses might refuse to let you in unless you can prove you are running the program they actually sent you. This does not extend to the OS or indeed anything running on the OS. The SINIT instruction, in fact, is designed to make the running OS irrelevant by a clever use of VM technology. Linux, Windows, MenuetOS ... whatever. The other party won't know or care what you use. This might sound impossible but it is not, read the Intel docs and you will see how it works. Indeed the goal is to minimize the amount of code "proved" in this way because the TC designers know the more code you have, the less likely it is to be secure.
TC does not advantage big companies over the individual. The feature set, specifications and implementations contain nothing that would do that. It could just as easily be a Disney server proving to YOU what it's running as the other way around.
TC as implemented today can't be used for DRM. For that you'd need "trusted graphics" and "trusted audio", both things for which there are no specs and no implementations. What it does allow (when it works) is the running of a program in a separate VM sealed from interference from the main OS. That has many uses in many fields, for instance, wouldn't it be nice for your bank to know that the transaction was submitted by a human using a keyboard rather than a virus that hijacked your browser?
I'm sick of the FSF spreading blatant FUD about this versatile and entirely open technology. Don't believe it.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
Germans and The War live in much less of a state of denial than say Americans and the atomic bomb
Who's in denial? We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. I'm not aware of any big movement denying that it happened. It was a very popular decision at the time. I don't see anybody denying that either. Yes, it was ugly and killed a lot of people, but it also ended a very, very nasty war. If you want to talk about atrocities, don't forget all the people (on both sides) shooting, shelling, and bombing each other before we dropped the Bombs. That's pretty atrocious stuff. It's not like Harry Truman just woke up one day and said, "Set up us The Bomb on Japan."
Linux TV Ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they just create some nice Linux on the Desktop ads for TV? Get a bounty going and have users donate to a fund that can be used to hire someone to create the ad even better yet have your users create an ad using tools available on Linux Desktop. I can't see why you couldn't get tons of cool ads that would kick ass on the Apple and MS ads I see on tv.
Oh snap! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files"
There hasn't been ONE GODDAMNED THING preventing me from making copies of ANYTHING. If there is something that's supposed to keep me from copying stuff, it sure as hell isn't working.
Re:And we should attack the FSF... (Score:3, Insightful)
FOX News definitely isn't balanced, but it's more balanced than the "we need more government control and bigger Congress-controlled programs"-biased CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS. I get tired of these channels' constant pushing to give the silk-suited incompetents in D.C. even more power to run our lives. As government grows, individual liberty wanes.
Why do conservative Americans fear giving the state the 'power' to provide decent healthcare, but embrace giving the state the power to indefinitely detain and torture people who are accused of no crime?
As a non-American who generally looks down on all US television media as infotainment garbage I can assure you that if you honestly believe that Fox is "more balanced" than any of the other news networks there then you are living in a paranoid fantasy world, not reality.