No announcement yet.

FSF Issues A Statement Over Windows 10

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post

    No, it's like trying to make an argument through stupid analogies that only distract people into arguing over the appropriateness of the analogy...
    that's what you are exactly doing


    • #32
      Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
      There is the difference of scope.

      A cloud service has access to the data you explicitly decide to share with that service.
      The operation system has access to all your data!
      And, on top of that, also has access on how and when you use your data.

      No there is not. You need to read all of what I said, not just the last sentence. For instance, they say "We collect content of your files and communications when necessary to provide you with the services you use." (Emphasis added.) It is not necessary for them to collect the content of any of your files to provide your operating system, nor do they claim that they collect data for services you do not use. But if you choose to use OneDrive (which the privacy policy also applies to) it is obviously necessary for them to "collect" those files. So according to their privacy policy, they do not collect files you only store locally.

      By the way, the privacy policy applies across the entire range of Microsoft products, not just to Windows 10 (for instance, it applies to Windows 7 and 8(.1) just as much as 10).

      It is possible that they have backdoors or whatever, but I don't think that there is anything new in that regard. And why would they bother to say anything about the possibility of what they could access through such methods in their privacy policy, when they normally can't use them legally because they don't acknowledge them? They're not going to be uploading all of everyone's local files, otherwise it will very quickly be widely known ? and they'd be in hot water for not making it clear.


      • #33
        Originally posted by PreferLinux View Post
        No there is not.
        I am sorry, if you don't see the difference in scope between an online storage service that only has access to data you explicitly share with it, and the operating system which has access to all your data. All the time. In real time.

        Originally posted by PreferLinux View Post
        It is not necessary for them to collect the content of any of your files to provide your operating system, nor do they claim that they collect data for services you do not use.
        So what they are saying is that they don't record you mouse events (yet).
        They don't need to collect data about files, those are directly accessible.
        They already collect information about your usage patters, because they provide services like Recent Files with that data.



        • #34
          Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
          ... For the FSF it is a fundamental right to study and potentially modify the software.
          And that is where they go wrong. Your fundamental rights are things like:
          Receiving source code when you license a binary is not a right. When you are born, you do not intrinsically get the right to get some text when you receive certain bytes.

          You don't buy software, you license it. This means you get permission from the owner to use it as long as you abide by his terms. You don't automatically have the right to modify the source code of it. If the person licensing the software to you agrees to give you the source, and abide by his terms, then you get to do so.

          Even under the GPL (again, just a license, you don't own the code), the copyright holder (actual owner of the software) can do more than the licensee. This is precisely the reason the FSF requires copyright transfer when you contribute a patch to them. The owner can distribute the software under a different license for example, and the FSF has done this. Owner and licensee are not the same thing.

          Please explain why it is ok to receive a circuit board without the full PCB diagram and specifications so you can tweak it, but you somehow are entitled to receive source code when you receive a binary.


          • #35
            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
            (read the GNU su man page)
            This caught my attention. I had to go hunting for it, since most of us probably have su from login or coreutils. Found it in FreeBSD's man page collection:

            . . .
            This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su
            to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist system adminis-
            trators hold unwarranted power over other users.

            Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)
            Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest.
            For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize
            power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep-
            ing it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and
            give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't
            know how to do that in Unix.)

            However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su
            mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with
            the ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature
            would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

            I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used
            to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might
            find this idea strange at first.
            Wow. Ideology in man pages...whowouldathunk?


            • #36
              The statement made by the FSF is true, but sadly most people don't care. What people do care about is what can be done and the best way of getting people to switch is by showing them what GNU/Linux can do better than Windows. So the only way forward is to make videos, who how libre office and/or open office can used as a replacement for MS office and also what it is compatible with.The big challenge is to get people to understand that most (if not all) of what they need is available already and that there is no point in purchasing ms office. The main problem is getting compatibility as perfect as possible - that is where people need to push to eventually push a change. Office and games is basically what keep Windows running these days as the rest of the world is mostly running on penguin power.



              • #37
                MS Office was actually at the root of what MS was originally trying to do with Palladium. Word leaked that they wanted to switch to a DRM'ed default file format for MS Office, force the update, and then switch MS Office to software leasing only. Forced updates would block opting out in advance, and law firms, etc would find that failure to pay rent would leave them with encrypted files that no other office software could open. Forced updates, no rollbacks, and presumably forced conversion of existing files to the DRM'ed format. Thus the need to lock the proposed versions of Windows and Office to the machines in question. This was essentially a proposal for vendor-installed ransomcrypt software, and yes, the shit hit the fan when it leaked. This nearly killed Palladium, though just like Pointdexter's "Total Informaton Awareness" it didn't really die, it laid low for a while and got renamed. This was a lot bigger than kissing Hollywood's ass, though they did and are doing so much of that I don't know how they ever get rid of the taste of shit.