Windows XP, Anyone?

D

Donald Pittendrigh

Hi All
I am rather inclined to believe whether you choose or not, and whether you believe or not, and also whther you use WinXP or not, your operating system version is probably being checked already anyway. I also believe when you download hotfixes from whatever source and when you utilise service packs, you upgrade or change components of windows of which 99% of us have either no knowledge or possibility of auditing, i.e. you are being controlled anyway, internet or not, like it or no. Simple solution is to get rid of all MS operating systems, if you are tough enough.

Regards
Donald Pittendrigh

>> Notice the phases "If you choose..." and "...,if you elect...". I do not see any statement mandating the use of Internet updates or that you must ever connect your computer up to the Internet at all.>>
 
M

Michael Griffin

On October 3, 2002 04:54 pm, Vladimir E. Zyubin wrote:
<clip>
> I speak about the reactivation code that is needed to reactivate Windows
> when it frozen because of reinstallation or a "substantial" change of
> harware. Where I can get it if the OS support will be canceled?
<clip>

There's two issues here. One is the re-activation code for Windows XP with WPA (product activation). Microsoft has not decided yet what they will do when they terminate Windows XP. They have several options, including either issuing an update which disables the WPA system (no more need to re-activate), or to tell their customers to upgrade to whatever their current operating system is. Microsoft will make up their minds when the time comes.

The other issue involves the Microsoft DRM (digital rights management) system. This will control the use of data which could easily include things like graphic symbols or CAD blocks.
Your data could include things which you have created yourself, mixed with items (symbols, graphics) you obtained from someone else. It may in fact consist entirely of different arrangements of components provided by a third
party. This may include things like drawings of your equipment or system documentation.

We are used to the idea of software becoming unusable because of OS compatability problems, but now data can suffer from the same problems. We are used to being able to in most cases convert (import) data files to new formats if we switch to different software.
If the data is protected by a DRM system however, you may no longer have that option because the original software it was created with won't allow this. Your data files could be locked in by a system which Microsoft will claim to be unbreakable. If someone does break it, then Microsoft will download a patch into your computer to prevent you from taking advantage of
this.

If that particular vendor dropped that product line, or went out of business, your data could become completely unusable and beyond any hope of recovery. This is a very serious technical and business risk which people must keep firmly in mind when evaluating future software.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
G
It doesn't really matter how you or I read the EULA. It only matters how Microsoft reads it. I think the point of this thread is that, as written, the License leaves a lot of room for doubt about what Microsoft intends to do with / to / for machines running Windows XP. Absent further explanation from Microsoft or actual instances of unwanted (and supposedly user-disabled) updates, it's impossible for us to know. And, as you say, without a court case, we don't know how it will actually wash out.

Given the ambiguity in the EULA, widespread distrust of Microsoft's motives and methods, many people's negative prior experience with Microsoft updates and Service Packs, and the potential negative consequences of the worst-case reading of the EULA, I can certainly understand people's reluctance to put XP on the plant floor.

Regards,

Greg Goodman
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

I'm fairly confident that anybody on this list that would actually describe publicly what the NSA is doing doesn't know what the NSA is doing. They could have a 1000 people working on Linux and outside of those 1000 people nobody is likely to know. And that is how it should be. There may have been some public declarations but I, for one,
wouldn't believe anything that is publicly stated about what the NSA is or isn't doing.

Ironically, if the government would have simply avoided filing its politically motivated anti-trust suit against MS in the first place they would have remained naive as to the ways of Washington and it would have been a whole lot easier for the feds to migrate to Linux. Ever since the government went after MS they are now more active in the lobbying arena then ever. It will be more difficult for the goverment to do anything to change their usage of MS products now
with that $39 Billion in cash greasing the greedy palms of the US Congress. It is sad that politics today is really dysfunctional. It should be obvious to everyone by now that Linux is a signficant factor in the market and that its usage and influence will continue to grow over time. The best thing that could happen to Linux is for the government to stay out of it. The political situation will only allow the government to do something after the rest of us have embraced it for the right business reasons instead of for political reasons.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.

----------- Confidentiality ---------------
The message above is confidential information and should not
be read by anybody. If you happen to see any of the text
associated with this message please have your brain erased
of all memory of this message at your local Recall outlet
at your earliest convenience. Failure to abide by these
requirements may result in unpleasant memories.
----------------------------------------------------
 
C
Hi Tim

List Manager wrote:
> ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
> From: Linnell, Tim
>
>>>5) It is genuinely scandalous to compare Microsoft commercial
> practices
>>>with Osama Bin Laden hacking into a computer. Sorry Curt, but you
>>>have lost track of reality if you truly believe that.
>>
>>Both are convicted criminals whose crimes involve damaging people.
>>Since both practices are the focus of federal prosecution, I stand
>>ready to apologize to whoever's conviction is overturned . It is
>>scandalous to keep insisting that Microsoft can be trusted when
>>they have been proven to be abusing a monopoly. That would seem to be a
>>breach of trust. It's like selling Enron stock to folks simply because
>>they haven't been paying attention.
>
> Sheer madness. If you genuinely equate an organisation that kills
> thousands of people by flying planes into buildings with a company of
> which the worst that can be said is that it has attempted to dominate
> the software applications marketplace by not fully documenting O/S APIs
> so their own software runs better and dumping Internet client software
> to promote takeup of server side technology,

I would agree if that was the worst that could be said of them. And I didn't compare them except that I'd rather have OBL hacking my computer, and the fact that both are guilty of federal crimes that have done massive damage. Others have added the madness. Please cite any untruth regarding MS, I'm mot worried about slandering OBL. Are you saying that if OBL had done what he'd done in a business context that would be less of a crime? Or that MS is only doing what is in the suit?

then I regret to say that
> you forfeit any right to be taken seriously. However passionately you
> feel about Open Source, its takeup is hardly a matter of life and death.

Are the billions of dollars involved in exclusive licensing deals, the enormous cost of the virus of the week, the cost of downtime and the
obvious restriction of trade simply OK?

> This whole thread has been an exercise in silly FUD and scare tactics.

Again, please point out any untruths and please debunk any FUD. People like to simply ignore that things like UCITA, Palladium, TCPA, the EULA's, and the host of other things going on in the big picture have a dark side. These combined with monopoly power can simply and legally, exclude all competition and grant nearly absolute control of anything you do with a computer to Microsoft.
I suppose that's clever and excellent business and should be commended. Those of us on the dirty end of the stick don't think so. But in the end, it's not my dollars they're after. How do you
suppose anyone could ever calculate the damage done? That is, once they realize there is real damage being done. Not that they'll be able to do anything about it. People are getting a clue, I hope it's soon enough. Other countries are way ahead of us on this. It must be their imagination too.

> Your comparison is an extreme example.

To the extent that you misinterpret my example, yes.

Thanks to the person who posted
> the actual EULA, which I think demonstrates this clearly.

And thanks for the still free internet where alternative
voices can be heard. For a little while yet. I'll be locked
out of the MSInternet if it comes to pass

Regards

cww
 
C
Which brings us back to the updates that aren't
discretionary. Actually, the wreckage this engenders isn't even the point. It's the control issue. Whose computer is it anyway? I should be able to buy the product and use it, (within the law) as I d*mn well please. If you look at the big picture, with UCITA and palladium, and .NET and the covert intent of DRM, (I don't argue with the overt intent) 95% of the computers in the world and all the data they generate, will be under the direct control of an adjudged monopoly. Along with this are the investments they are making to control content and media. It is a very
nebulous effort, but taken together, all the bits and pieces make what the DOJ was worried about look like Sunday School. Of course, it could all be simply coincidental. Reading the EULAs would never lead one to conclude that MS wants to control what you do. :^) To me it looks like the final solution to the customer loyalty problem. Of course, I could be wrong. But what if I'm not? It's just too much power in the hands of
one entity, regardless of if it's great for Joe Sixpack. Many objective observers and foriegn governments are getting uneasy, looking at escape routes and passing legislation. That should be a clue.

Regards

cww
 
B

Blunier, Mark

Hi Peter

> Your assertion that the EULA forces users to take the fix is highly
> contentious but unlikely to be resolved until their is some
> case law in place(which may never happen).

You read that backwards. You are forced to take the EULA if you choose to take the fix.

Mark
 
Joe Jansen:
> I think the confusion may not be entirely coincidental. By calling
> them "security updates", users are more likely to agree to having the
> DRM (Digital Restriction Mechanism)

Actually, "Digital Rights Management", but your expansion makes just as much sense :)

> updates automaticaly installed. All it takes, according to a previous
> posting of parts of the EULA, is to download a driver to play a audio
> or video file, and you implicitely agree to having these updates
> downloaded forever.

Actually, it's now rolled into SP1 for XP (and SP3 for W2000), so you don't even have to do that. Convenience plus!

> So it comes down to making sure that no operator ever plays an audio
> or video file ever on a production machine.

Like training videos, for instance.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
C
Hi Michael

That really is interesting,(Kiethley's figures) especially since none of the T&M/DAQ vendors really support the use of anything but late edition Windows. DOS libraries are usually considered legacy. It would be most interesting to have data for NI, (who once told me my warranty would be void if I used their board with Linux) and some of the clone builders also. Linux has always been popular with the scientific and engineering community. I tend towards the clone builders. They don't support Linux either, but at least I'm not paying a premium for non-support :^) I would hope the vendors take heed. Imagine what these figures would look like if they actually supported an alternative or two. NI is ahead of the game as they actually have a version of LabView for Linux. They try very hard to discourage you from using it. Part of the reason I'm looking for a job.

Regards

cww
 
R

Richard Higginbotham

Mark Hill wrote:
> Absolutely correct Tim.
>
> I've visited the MS campus in Redmond on a number of
> occasions and I see
> no evidence of Osama Bin Laden lurking in the hallways.

Such comments are in bad taste. I don't mean to single you out, I'm just saying I think we've taken this far enough in a *public, professional* forum. If you live on the other side of the country or in another country it might be far enough removed that you see no problems with it. But as this list is not restricted by geographic location (including New York for example), I think we should all refrain from such comments (most of which are merely to inflame the other side). Just let that dog lie.

> This thread is evidence that there are two trains of though. Those who
> consider Microsoft to be the "Evil Empire", and those who consider MS to
> be an example of commercialism at it's best.

No theres not only 2 sides, theres a wealth of opinions in between, they just don't yell the loudest. We all have topics that we are passionate about, but thats a poor reason to make any decision. I think OSS is the coolest thing since sliced bread, but I would only hurt myself if I refused to listen to any other opinions or ways of doing things.

Regards,
Richard Higginbotham
(speaking for me)
 
A

Anthony Kerstens

"End Users have the option of purchasing any product they choose.
It appears they've chosen."
??????????????????????????????????????

No. Emphatically NO. The products that I like have withered and died, unable to compete with Microsoft. I used to love Word Perfect, Quattro, and OS2. Where are they now?

Microsoft has maintained their profitability at the expense of my being able to use products that I prefer. I spent good money on Word Perfect, Quattro, and OS2. Now, to remain on par with everyone else and to be able to use my industrial software, I'm inextricably tied the perpetual money sinkhole that is Microsoft compatibility.

Hell, I was even tempted to try Corel's rendition of Word Perfect for Linux, but I didn't dare because I suspected I would be wasting my money. LOOK what happened to that product, and Corel for that matter.

Anthony Kerstens P.Eng.
 
Michael Griffin:
> B) A further point which I discovered is that 24 hour service for
> telephone re-authorisation is not available everywhere.
...
> In some areas only "extended business hours" are supported.

> C)
...
> Windows will run for up to 3 days without re-authorising, but this is
> not long enough to cover a long weekend or holiday period.

How does this go with point B - do the "extended business hours" ever have a gap of 3 days or more? Are there times and places where continued
availability of XP simply cannot be guaranteed, because re-authorisation is not available often enough?

> E) Microsoft will support WPA activation for the designated life cycle
> of Windows XP. They have no definite plans at this point for what they
> will do after the official end of life.

Hehe. Sorry, but the idea of deploying a product which may stop working five years after initial availability is so bad it's funny.

> F)
...
> The information below is tabulated as
> Column 1 - Operating system
> Column 2 - Systems which are currently in use
> Column 3 - Systems to be used in the next 12 months


> Windows NT/2000 57% 55%
> Windows 98 45% 26%
> Windows 95 24% 13%
> DOS 31% 16%
> Unix 14% 14%
> Windows XP 12% 21%
> Linux 7% 14%
> Mac 7% 5%
> Other 5% 4%

Cool, Linux has the highest "growth" (close second is WinXP, a new product).

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
C
Laugh if you want, the publicly stated reason was
due to complaints from Microsoft. It's hard to
ridicule facts. And if they've got the influence
to cow the DOJ, I think it's safe to say they can
more or less dictate policy. The government as
a whole doesn't shake and quiver, but a lot of
congressmen dance to the music. Anyone who tries
to pass off UCITA as being in the interest of their constituents could name that tune. That's how it's done. It's much easier than intimidation.

Regards

cww
 
Peter Whalley:
> My argument was that the approach taken in WinXP was appropriate for
> the average XP user as I've defined them. For large corporate users,
> IA users and anyone else using XP for critical applications I
> certainly don't consider automatic updating to be appropriate and
> expect they would turn the feature off and would know how to turn it
> off.

It's in the EULA - there's no way to turn it off.

"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

Even if, in practice, disabling Automatic Updates turns this off (and I've never heard that claimed by a reliable source - anyone have a reference?), that doesn't help you much, because the EULA presumably takes priority over whatever advice you download off their website.

Of course, as far as I know, MS has never seriously claimed Windows to be suitable for connection to the Internet, so perhaps the above is somewhat moot...

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
P
Hi Jiri,

According to the instructions at
"http://www.theeldergeek.com/automatic_updates.htm":http://www.theeldergeek.com/automatic_updates.htm the Windows XP Automatic Update Wizard includes 3 setup options:

1. down load updates automatically and then ask if they should be installed

2. ask if the update should be downloaded and then ask again if they should be installed

3. disable automatic updates

In both 1 and 2 the updates are not installed until the users agrees. The article also indicates that their is an option to back out of the update if it causes problems.

As I understand it, even in the case of DRM, you can decline the upgrades to WMP and forego the ability to play the file (music, video or whatever). It's your choice. But this only effects new files and not content that has
previously been downloaded and played.

Regards::

Peter Whalley
Magenta Communications Pty Ltd
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: peter*no-spam*@magentacomm.com.au
delete *no-spam* before sending
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Sorry, my mistake. I had not heard how that issue had ended. I will retract my statement quoted below.

I was amused by part of the cnn article, however, that states:

''That it allows the NSA to load unauthorized security services, compromise your operating system -- that's nonsense,'' said Schneier, who
runs Counterpane Internet Security Inc. ''The NSA can already do that, and it has nothing to do with this.''

I feel better now, I guess......

Although in fairness, they can most likely do the same with any OS.

--Joe Jansen
 
C
Aye, and there's the rub. In our context (largely PLCs in automation) you have to be more than tough, you would have to reverse engineer and rewrite all your tools to run on Linux. That's why Mark's "people have chosen" argument is so ridiculous. You do have a choice: You can use PLCs, which requires that you use Windows, the only supported platform. Or, you can write your own complete automation infrastructure and use whatever else you want. Some choice. Of course this is viewed as a level playing field by the Microsoft crowd. Which brings up the "Let them eat cake" argument which goes "If you want to use Linux, Go ahead!". As if it were actually possible in a monopoly situation. We do have a few tough engineers working on the infrastructure, but everyone else needs a real choice before we can say they've had one.

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Ralph,
I quite agree with most of your points. Now, in the reality of the conviction and remedy phase, the most reliable and most cost effective solution would be for the government simply to remove MS from their approved vendor list until such time as they change their ways. None of the top proposed remedies is even arguably enforceable with a scofflaw company that has the will, the resources and the intent to evade, ignore and delay. We've already seen that. This would also guarantee that there is a viable market for alternatives, which would restore balance quickly and put MS in the position of _having_ to play with everyone else. It would also put the burden on the convicted, rather than the taxpayers.

Regards
cww
 
P
Hi Greg,

If you have an Internet connected XP machine and turn off automatic updates but later find that they have been occuring regardless then you may well be outraged particularly if Microsoft then claimed that you had agreed that they could do that. If this possiblity worries you then install a firewall that blocks access to Microsoft sites (I've seen this done) or don't use XP.

If you didn't connect the machine to the Internet (or block access as above) and some months later a Micrososft lawyer arrived on your doorstep with a writ alleging that you had violated the EULA by failing to make it possible for Micrososft to install updates you would also be outraged but
ultimately this would have to be determined in a court (provided you had deep enough pockets) and would depend on how the judge or jury reads the
EULA. I can't see this happening personally.

For what it's worth, I don't specify XP for automation projects either but concerns about automatic updates is not at the top of my list for not doing so. But if a Client was insistent about using XP I'd like to have some stronger arguments against it or at least some better ideas on how to avoid the problems.

Regards

Peter Whalley
Magenta Communications Pty Ltd
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: peter*no-spam*@magentacomm.com.au
delete *no-spam* before sending
 
Top