Boycott Microsoft Windows Vista

Hi, people!

http://www.softsphere.com/articles/boycott-microsoft-windows-vista/

 

sure, i'm moving to openbsd anyways

Alphalutra1

 

Interesting......but I think I will wait for the more knowledgeable to weigh in.

 

Interesting. If this results as true i will change my OS.

 

I didn`t/don`t plan on using Vista anyway so it`s no big deal to me.

 

I read the article and it is littered with assumptions and logical fallacies. For example, it assumes that big companies cannot be innovative and that Microsoft cannot offer “next generation security software.” I certainly do not like the idea of trusting one company for all of my security needs, especially Microsoft, but at the same time I do not buy the arguments presented in this article. The bottom line is that the numbers do not lie and history is a good predictor of the future. Just as people initially resisted migrating from Windows 98SE to Windows XP people will do the same with Windows Vista. Eventually, Windows Vista will become the standard and software companies that do not make their products compatible with Vista will operate within a perpetually shrinking market of potential customers until they either move with the times or exit the marketplace.

 

That's a wise choice.

BTW, never gonna install Vista here. I just don't like what Microsoft is doing at all. So yes, I'm going to boycott them, no matter the consequences. I don't like the idea of using a platform where I'm forced to use Microsoft's pathetically crappy "security" features.

 

Oh yeah? Any clue on why this would happen? Because people are sheep?

 

As I live in the European Union, Microsoft will be required by law to release any code needed by independent software writers. The threat of more large fines will ensure Microsoft toe the line.

 

More from Agnitum if you haven't seen it:
http://www.agnitum.com/news/kernel_patch_protection.php

 

The bottom line is that most third party software vendors are going to be opposed to what Microsoft is doing. I know it is not possible, but let's just say that Microsoft developed the perfect security solution and built it into their OS. We would all still be hearing complaints raining down from almost all third party software vendors, just as we are now.

The truth of the matter is that truly innovative software vendors will learn to operate within the paradigm shift, not sit around and complain about it. Call us sheep. Call us whatever you want. Microsoft has done wonders for the computer world, like them or not. Those of us that were around before Microsoft know what things used to be like. I'm not making the mistake of attributing the general improvement in computer technology entirely to Microsoft. However, I am giving them the credit they deserve. It's easy to sit around and complain about the dominant superpower. What's not so easy is to think of a better way, implement it, and challenge that superpower.

 

Opensource!

Well, I think that is the movement we are looking for in order to keep MS on it's toes. It just might be the "challenge" Dallen is referring to.

But as for Microsoft Vista, I believe it's a step in the right direction, too little too late, but nonetheless, a step in the right direction. Security is being looked at more closely now, perhaps not to the content of critics, but for the general public, it's better than it was.

As for ever installing Vista, probably not because I'm moving away from proprietory software in general.

 

@ dallen

With respect, you are also "assuming" that vista will be automatically migrated to. With all the delays to vista, I think people will be very wary of doing that, when it is eventually released, even companys.

If giant corporations, never mind smaller ones and individuals, can operate effectively and effeciently with what they have now, there is no need to change just for the sake of change or to keep up with the jones's.

This time round I have a feeling that just about everybody is older and wiser to the "upgrade" illusion. Not only that but people havn't forgotten all the patches etc that have been required, and still are, for xp. I sincerely hope that ms don't release vista, just to get it out there in the market place, as has happened before, before they have ironed out all the problems they are aware of with it. Not only would that be wrong, but also a very grave mistake on their part which will seriously backfire on them.

In the past not as many people were aware an alternative os to what ms had to offer existed. But now more of them are, and prepared to experiment with them. The fact that more user friendly packages are available, and often free, is very encouraging. Once the word spreads even more widely about them, and people recount their, hopefully positive, experiences with them, who needs vista ?

Freespire and linspire and the like are examples of the ms alternatives i touched on above. These, at last, appear to come in much easier to install and use packages with many useful applications included as standard.

ms excluding third party vendors from integrating their software with windows is outragous

 

@cloneranger

I think the delays are making things better because it shows people M$ is making an effort to refine code instead of just shipping it like XP was.

Linux is still hard to use. [This is from the viewpoint of most computer users.]

There is still no out of the box solution that comes standard with MS. Lack of driver support, lack of codec support, non-universal repositories. These are all things that must be improved significantly before we even see another 10% of MS's business drift over to the opensource desktop. Linspire, Freespire have taken a lot of steps in the right direction, but it's still not enough. Understandable, because hardware manufacturers make drivers for Windows only, not caring about things like a Ubuntu distrobution more than half the time, but this is the hurdle that keeps many from making any sort of switch.

And plus, Mac's are about as expensive as a MS distro.

 

There are better products already, and there always were for people who wanted to use the computer as a technical work platform, not as a toy. The fact that I can even use Windows in a productive way is because I installed a truckload of third party applications, most of them coming directly from the UNIX world.

Microsoft hasn't introduced much "new" technology at all. The Internet itself was created, developed, improved all on UNIX, and most of Microsoft pushed as a "revolution" was a disaster (Active Channel, ActiveX). To claim Microsoft is the leader because they have the best technology is like claiming McDonalds is so popular because their food is the best: nobody in his right mind would believe such absurdity.

 

sosaiso,
I agree. I feel that having millions of eyes on code creates more secure code than closed source. I recently tried three distros of Linux for the first time, Xandros, Mandriva, and Ubuntu. I did not like the first two very much, but was very surprised by the third. Ubuntu performed far better than I imagined.

CloneRanger,
You are correct to point out that I am assuming that people will migrate to Vista. This assumption is based on my observation of what happened when Windows 98 and Windows XP were released. It is an assumption nevertheless and I do not deny that, but it is an assumption that I am willing to bet on. What I think will happen is that people and businesses will eventually migrate to Vista, but that the migration will occur at a slow rate. Of course there will be an immediate jump by the early adopters, but most businesses will migrate more slowly and with more caution. Rest assured that the migration will occur and within 3 - 5 years of the release of Vista, we will be talking about XP like we do 98 now.

 

TNT,
With all do respect, and I do respect you, what you say about UNIX is true and agree with your comments on third party applications. However, your assessment of Microsoft is problematic, in my mind. One only need go back to the introduction of Windows understand what things were like before Microsoft got involved and fully appreciate what they've done. You may be technically correct with your claim that Microsoft has not introduced "much new technology," although I'm not going to agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but if you consider Microsoft's product Windows XP in its entirity as a form of technology (i.e. a stable OS with all of its capabilities), then I think you will understand what I am saying.

Your McDonald's analogy is interesting.

I will modify it to be a little more precise. To claim that Microsoft is not the leader knowing that they control an overwhelming majority of the marketshare is like claiming that McDonalds is not the fast food king knowing the current state of fast food sales: nobody in his/her right mind would believe such absurdity.

I hope that I don't offend you because I have a lot of respect for you. Your analogy just did not seem to accurately reflect my point.

 

I agree that Microsoft has "introduced" technology to the masses, yes. They made it possible for regular people to use the computer, but (here's the problem I have with their "new" course, and to some extent to much of their "old" course as well), the always had a VERY aggressive marketing approach, to the point that it always tried to crush/limit the others. Now granted, it's not just Microsoft, some of the other "big" companies do this too (I'm thinking Symantec for instance), but limiting the others on technology grounds can be very frustrating for those who are not "the majority".

Let's be real here, they majority of people don't want to know about programming, scripting, Internet protocols, etc... they just want to "use" some games and read the mail. They might not even NEED ssh, shell scripting, Perl, etc. But some do, and to me it's hard to consider Microsoft between the "advanced" ones in that respect. Frankly, there have been always MUCH stuff developed by minor vendors or open source "communities" that, for "technical" people, is heaps and bounds better than anything Microsoft was ever able to offer. One needs only to compare for instance a dos prompt to a UNIX shell, or Windows' firewall to pf, to see how WIDE the gap is.

 

TNT,

You are correct and I agree with everything you say.

I am hoping that third party vendors are just freaking out right now because there has been a shift in the way their programs will have to interact with the OS. Some of the vendors are concerned that the change occurring with Vista will not allow for their products. I hope that once Vista is released, vendors will find a way to make products that are able to operate under the new rules and we are all safer as a result.

Call me naïve. Call me optimistic. I hope I’m right.

 

im hoping things will change before Vista becomes final because I want a new OS and Mac/Linux is not my cup of tea.

When Vista does come out, then we will see how its changed and how security software will work with it.

 

Ilya I commend you for standing up for your livelihood and survival calling for a boycott of Windows Vista, although I think it will be the actions of the malware/concept writers or the courts that help direct Microsoft to change things.
Microsofts aim is to prevent modification by unknown code and foil the writers of rootkits, their designs have some merit some good ideas but this also impedes 3rd party security vendors which has to be undesirable - so you cant blame vendors claiming this is for a reason...

...

It is true to say that 3rd party vendors provide better protection than Microsoft, and the more options and diversity on offer make things significantly harder for malware writers.
Microsoft have always tried to dictate how security vendors should apply security, and now it seems this will force the issue.
SoftSphere comments...

 

Also, I would like to note that only one vulnerability in it's defense schemes without 3rd party security solutions will make millions computers infected in very short time.

Just remember WMF exploit- the first who've made the patch was Ilfak Guilfanov, not MS! So, I don't want rely only on MS in the field of security!

 

I was planning on getting Vista 2-3 years after it hit the market, just so M$ could get some time to fix bugs & close security holes. But if they are going to exclude 3'rd party vendors I'm not gonna get it at all, because I feel hell of alot safer with those installed than anything M$ has ever made.

 

Well, in this case Vista will never be installed on my PC. (if that article is fully true and other security vendors won't be able to implement 100% working apps. Another bad trick from MS.

 

If it is true that malware makers can circumvent the MS kernel protection but third party security software vendors will get sued if they do the same to protect the computer I will not buy Vista. MS should not do such drastic thing until they can guarante that their code is unbreakable. Everyone knows that is impossible so the user who pays for Vista should have the freedom to choose how to protect their computer.