Boycott Microsoft Windows Vista

One thing to keep in mind when you are on an anti Microsoft rant is that there is no law that states you have to like Microsoft, you don't even have to like the company. But Microsoft is a company and they are going to look after no.1 first just like any other company that is still in business. Microsoft has the right to develope their software pretty much the way they see fit. The bottom line is that if you don't like the way Microsoft does business or you don't like their software you aren't required to use it. Personally I think Microsoft could do a bit better than they are in the public relations field. But I also like useing their software and will continue useing it until the time a real alternative is available, and Linux is not it for me. But if I didn't like Microsoft products I wouldn't bash them every chance I got I just wouldn't use their products.

END OF MY RANT

bigc

by the way I do have windows Vista and it seems to be pretty decent so far.

 

Microsoft seems to want an OS that's hostile to both users and software vendors. They want it to have DRM to make sure the users actually bought their music and video content. They don't want security vendors in the core operating system. Their own track record proves that Microsoft couldn't secure the box a PC comes in, but they want to prevent anyone else from doing so? Seems that the only "security" they're really interested in is their own, that and the big money entertainment industry with DRM. Either of these alone would make me think that money and industry monopoly are the real goals, but these 2 "behaviors" together suggest another possibility. Do they plan on hiding rootkit behavior of their own in the kernel? Not just DRM, but something more "national security" oriented? It would definitely explain why they won't let legitimate security software into the kernel, and their refusal to compromise or respond to those vendors. Wouldn't suprise me a bit.
Rick

 

I certainly wouldn't use them, if I had the choice.

 

The idea of boycotting Vista is all very well and good in protestational concept, but what happens when XP's support is simply scrapped like 9x's just recently was? What will your options be then, and what will you choose?

 

*nix and / or continue to use XP. There are ways to prevent exploits without ms's patches as well. Remotely exploited services, just one example, can be prevented from being exploited by a firewall that blocks access to them, or by just disabling them all.

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

you do have the choice not to use them.

 

unless your work/school requires it which I think is TNT's case. There always is cygwin though

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

herbalist made some very sharp observations in #27 about some possible additional stealth etc reasons behind ms intentions with vista, which if true are very disturbing indeed. Their refusal to enter into dialogue with other software manufactures is, very very arrogant, and telling in itself

Everybody should ensure they make copies of whatever os they have now, and all their other applications and software, and keep all documentation, disks, info etc. Regular backing everything up would also be sensible and storing permanent copies of them

If at some point in future we discover things that we might be even less happy with than we are now, we can revert back to what we have now, or updated versions of them as we progress. Any os not being supported anymore would be the least of my concerns in circumstances such as those. And I know which option I have already chosen, and isn't the most current, for very similar reasons to those mentioned already.

Having a very effective selection of security software along with optimised os and computer settings, all correctly configured, has left me with a very secure setup that has been proven to work over and over again

 

Yeah, work.

What do you think I commonly use?

 

Hello,
I won't use Vista either. The way MS is going, first it's install crap behind your back, now it's going to be install crap in your face. I cannot stand the concept of DRM. For some reason, I see all the big companies with their false slogans and the hype of music / video insutrdy floating in front of my face, jeering, any time I hear or read the word DRM.
Political issues aside, which I think play majorly here, the little man has nothing but to lose unless he turns elsewhere - opersource.
Mrk

 

People who are afraid of DRM…fear not. Two things need to be considered before you resort to fear.

First, given the current paradigm, content can only remain digital up to the point that it is transferred to our human senses. At that point it becomes analogue. Whether it is transferred into sound waves for our ears or light waves for our eyes, the moment that transfer occurs all DRM is lost and that signal can be recaptured in an unsecured manner. I’ve read quite a bit on the subject and listened to talks by some of the leading minds on the issue. In my opinion, which is based on hearing the opinions of those that know, there will not be a way to ensure that content is secure from duplication any time soon.

Second, have faith that many minds are more powerful than fewer. Anytime something is declared secure, you can bet that there are bright minds hacking to render that security defeated. This is true for your computer and this is true for content based media. DRM strategists and all their efforts will not withstand the pounding that millions of brains will give them. Have faith in thy hackers my friends.

 

Hello,
The idea is not to be smart to avoid getting buggered. The idea is that companies have decency and moral not to try to do in the first place.
Mrk

 

Win98, what I'm using now. A lack of M$ support doesn't translate into no choice. Eventually I'll migrate to Linux or BSD, but still have some hardware issues to resolve, starting with a modem. If it wasn't for the introduction of HIPS software and the fact that some of them like SSM (one of a very few) chose to support Win98/ME, those operating systems could well have been written off for security reasons alone. It's really bizarre if you think about it. A Russian company, a part of the old Soviet block, a former symbol of lack of choice and freedom, has given us back the choice of being able to use and secure older operating systems that a giant company from the "free world" wants to take away. Gotta love it!

This changes what? My PC doesn't store analog content. If I buy a few hundred blank cassettes I could store it in analog format but cassette decks don't last very long anymore. My previous one, a Pioneer dual unit was worn out in 2 years on the recording side. Sure, DRM will get defeated, then modified, then defeated again. Shouldn't have to rely on hacker or potentially illegal methods to keep from being treated as a potential criminal, which is the whole concept behind DRM, investigating your innocence or guilt with no probable cause. The entire concept is unconstitutional and should be challenged on those grounds.
Before you think you could safely use some other method to defeat DRM, remember they're locking the kernel to everyone, including security companies in a move that is clearly counter-productive to their stated intent, securing the OS kernel. They already know they can't actually accomplish it, but they could manage to hide something else there, such as a rootkit of their own. If not something national security oriented, something intended to detect and report tampering with other components like the DRM. Looking back at the course windows has taken over the different versions, the different "features" that have crept in over the years, I can't come to any other conclusion other than the entire OS is becoming spyware, monitoring the user. It used to be just index.dat files with histories that couldn't be read or erased without special software or by using DOS. Then they took DOS away and gave us ADS (alternate data streams) instead, where much more can be hidden. Then they gave us a kernel system that allows both processes and files to be hidden (rootkits) and called it a security advance. What did we truly gain? What did this fix that was more of a threat than rootkit technology? Now M$ want to keep security software from protecting the kernel, even though they can't secure it themselves, and that's been demonstrated. Maybe I am being paranoid, but too much of what's been happening points to a different reason for this course and their stated intentions and other alternative explanations make less sense all the time. If I've seen correctly, the beta versions of Vista were between 3 and 4 GB in size? Anyone want to decompile that and see what's really going on? How many pages of code would that be? How many executables are in that package? How much of it is hidden and inaccessible? Anyone know what all of them do? There's a prime example of making security through obscurity work, at least for their purpose. That's just the beta versions. How much will the actual release resemble it?
Is it a coincidence that M$ acquired Sysinternals and Winternals at this time, companies among the best able to develop and release tools that could look into these things? Is it a coincidence that M$ continues to expand its domination to more and more aspects of computers and software without being nailed on anti-trust laws even when their tactics make real competition impossible? AT&T was broken up for much less than they're getting away with. Maybe I am paranoid, but there's a pattern of behavior here that goes back many years that I can't explain away or ignore without running into too much contradictory information and conflicting statements of intent that don't agree with the results, plus a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that supports the same conclusion. Windows is being designed to be spyware/control-ware, Vista is greatly expanding its scope, and the powers that be support and most likely benefit from it. Their stated intentions for Vista, from DRM to keeping others out of the kernel, are perfectly aligned with our national security policies of monitoring and suspecting everyone. DRM was made because they don't trust the users. WGA is the same thing. Make sure the user didn't steal it. They've made their position clear. What would make anyone think that the rest of the OS isn't designed with the same distrusting behavior? The sick part of it is that Vista looks to be that perfect monitoring tool they want, able to record and pass on a wealth of info, from medical to financial to satisfying personal desires, thru connections that are available 24/7, eventually watching most (they hope) homes and businesses, and people are going to buy and install it for them. Their policy of planned obsolescense, pushing (or attempting to push) users to the new operating systems by terminating support of the older ones and deliberately leaving them vulnerable supports this conclusion. Works on most users.
For me, boycotting Vista is just a continuation of what I've been doing all along, using DOS based systems, which are the only Windows operating systems I trust. The last thing we need is an operating system that distrusts its owner.
Rick

 

@ herbalist

Very nice post thank you, and inline my thoughts and earlier post

 

I suspect that Vista will come installed on the next computer I buy in 4 or 5 years, and I'll just use it and not worry about it.
By the time I get ready to buy another computer Vista will be running as well as XP is now.

I wonder why I cannot get excited when MS does something or introduces a new OS?

Jerry

 

I'm right there with ya. It'll be 4 or 5 years before my next PC, and I'm sure at that time Vista will be the standard bearer.

As for getting excited about anything MS releases....I'm actually looking forward to IE7!!!! It looks kinda promising, well, at least some new ideas and things have been implemented. And hey, it can't be any worse than IE6, can it

 

i think Ubuntu is the best alternative if anyone's thinking of leaving MS. i stopped using ubuntu because it's so easy i wasn't learning anything about Linux.

it takes me about 5 hours to set up XP so it's secure and everything works, Ubuntu takes just over 30 mins. i'll write a how to set up Ubuntu if anyone wants it.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

 

Got anything on making it work with a Win98 internal winmodem, Rockwell HCF 56K data Fax PCI? Maybe with a US Robotics 56K Faxmodem, USB model 5633? I have Ubuntu 5.1 installed on my "E" drive, secondary slave. Seems to work, including the bootloader, but I can't get either modem to work. The USB itself seems to be working properly. I can access my external hard drive with Ubuntu. Just can't get it to go online, and right now a hardware modem is out of reach.
Rick

 

Rick,

Your comment about tapes and storing analogue content on your PC indicates that you do not get it. The digital signal can be converted to an analogue signal for the purpose of filtering out the DRM then converted back to digital and stored on you PC in digital format DRM free.

That being said, I now understand that DRM is not your central concern. It is obvious from reading your postings that you are a very educated person. Please do not take my first statement “you do not get it” to in any way be a criticism or to be condescending. It is simply intended to mean that you did not accurately comprehend what I was saying.

Much of what you said in you lengthy, but interesting, posting was eye opening, albeit borderline conspiracy theorist, but interesting nonetheless.

 

This would be great Iceni! If you decide to make it, could you keep us Windows migrants in mind with general purpose computing, security, and some multimedia as a focus?

 

I'm wasn't thinking of DRM content contained in the audio file itself, but of software on the PC monitoring and reporting on incoming or stored audio files, attempting to identify where you got them, etc. I don't think we've seen the full extent of what DRM will be capable of doing when it's finally released in Vista. Will digital-to-analog conversion software be allowed to run on Vista or will it be made incompatible? An audio file doesn't have to contain DRM for an OS or other software to identify it as an audio file. If it's a digital copy of material that was already released in digital format, it's signature is already recognizable. Since the whole concept of DRM is assuming that people are obtaining audio and video material illegally, I doubt they plan on taking an innocent until proven guilty approach. M$ didn't treat the owners of XP that way with WGA, checking and calling home daily. Look at some of the extremes the entertainment industry is going to already. File sharing has been equated with terrorism. If you think I'm kidding, do a Google search with these 3 words: Terrorism File Sharing. When depriving a big music company the price of a CD is equated with supporting terrorism, just what do you expect from software designed to find illegally obtained music and video material, software that's built into an OS by a company that distributed WGA as a security patch? No conspiracy theory is necessary to see where this all leads. Just combine their own statements with their actions and it's quite clear. If file sharing is equated with terrorism, then DRM has to be viewed as an anti-terrorism tool, which more than explains why they're locking legitimate apps out of the kernel and refusing to talk about it. If DRM software is treated as an anti-terrorism tool, what does that make an OS that it's an integral part of? Spyware in the truest sense of the word.
Rick

 

herbalist

You asked

DAC doesn't have to be inside the computer ie your soundcard. A digital signal can be linked to an external DAC for conversion, this would be then free of DRM

The quality of DAC and analog recoder can be as high as you like. An external CD recorder could then record that, or be fed into the computer for CD recording

Another alternative is to feed the digital signal from the computer into an external CD recorder and record it digitally

 

Microsoft is advancing(IMHO) a different security strategy and one does not have to look too far:

1. There was a blog article at Microsoft technet site not too long ago about 'Deconstructing 10 Common Security Myths' which somewhat suggests third-party sofware products are not really as important as they claim. There are even some 'security experts' also trumpeting the idea that software firewalls and some other security products offer 'false security'. This idea is seemingly shared by Microsoft.

2. The legailty of 'Kernel Patching' is slowly becoming an issue, how far will Microsoft allow software vendors to modify(deeper and deeper) Windows OS in the name of providing security? Even Agnitum has recently cried foul over people making illegal modifications of Outpost and has since encrypted some OP files.

3. Security is a serious issue this days, and if money is to be made MS cannot be left out. I heard someone blaming security vendors for 'scare-mongering' so that they could sell products. So we are yet to see where ONE CARE goes.

 

i just checked it out. you can download the drivers from this link, they aren't open source, so there's two versions - a slow free one (limited to 14.4Kbps data) and a faster paid for version (with 56K and FAX)

http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/hsf/full/downloads.php

this is the download
http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/hsf...0.02full/hsfmodem_7.47.00.02full_i386.deb.zip

when you've got that you do this
open a terminal -
Applications>Accessories>Terminal
and type in this
uname -r
that will tell you which kernel you have.

then open synaptic -
System>Administration>Synaptic Package Manager
and search for kernel-headers-and attach the output from uname -r here
install the result from the search, there should only be one result which will be an exact match to the query.

then you need to install the drivers, if the zip is on the desktop do this -
right-click the zip and select extract
then i think in Dapper you can double-click the .deb and it will install.
if it doesn't install do this in the terminal - (Desktop needs to have a capital letter below)
cd Desktop/
sudo dpkg -i hsfmodem_7.47.00.02full_i386.deb

i'm not sure what happens next, maybe it will work, or perhaps you'll need to configure it

OK, i'll do it in the next day or so.

 

I think it wil be very hard proving this 'kernel patching' as illegal, because after all it is MS who designed and owns the software, and i never heard of a law that says you have to allow other software to interact with it.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, the user will be dependend from only MS for his security.This spells trouble, because not everything that is, is percieved as a threat by MS.
And boycotting this thing?, have you ever tried convincing an average user to install another OS?. Most of them i know are unaware of these issues and are eager to install the 'latest and the greatest'

Lamehand