My 1000+ word essay on software freedom...

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/My 1000+ word essay on software freedom...

Ok, I was just about to post this on ubuntuforums to get a better response, but then I read a post here about Windows Defender removing software without permission, potentially eradicating competitors products (which is one of the many things I wrote about). So I thought that I might as well post my "essay" here after all. I guess Linux-discussion shouldn't be restricted to Linux forums, otherwise how the hell will people know about it? Hmmmmm... time to break the ice :)

Criticism
In regards to criticism, please only criticise if there is something that could be fixed. And actually explain what is wrong, instead of bitching... but this isn't a gaming forum, so I probably don't have to mention it.

About
My "essay"/article is about a whole range of things: DRM, anti-competitive tactics and a tiny bit about Linux too. So its fairly broad. An important thing to remember is that I'm 16, so if I suck at writing, at least I tried. But I'm sure I kick ass for a 16 yearold. Hehe =)

Please tell me what I'm like in regards to things like:

- Writing style
- Factual information
- Influence

... because that's what I aim for - I'm going to make a site soon. So YES, I wrote this article for my future site, not for people here. But we're all intelligent people here, and I take it that no-one has anything against reading? Have fun...

Digital Rights Management (DRM) and legalized spyware
The most disturbing thing about Vista is the DRM. DRM is software which restricts your rights, its developed by big companies to prevent people from pirating, reverse engineering or violating licensing conditions - but it does more harm than good, and it often irritates paying customers who are legitimately using the software. DRM does all sorts of nasty things, not only does it restrict you from using your software the way you want, but it requires a lot of behind the scenes checking - requiring powerful hardware, which partly explains the minimum hardware requirements of Vista. The idea that big companies should defend profits at the expense of legitimate users is obscene. Not only that, but DRM usually comes with backdoors, and backdoors usually come with nosey governments. A backdoor is a program on your computer which allows unauthorized people to access your computer without your knowledge. This is required to impose DRM on users; its used to check up on you. Since Vista is closed-source, you cannot see how the operating system is written, which means that you cannot remove these backdoors. These backdoors are used whenever and however Microsoft wants, to check if you are pirating software or disagreeing with Vista's License Agreement in some way. Since Windows is installed on almost every computer in the world, it means that governments FORCE Microsoft to give them access to these backdoors. In other words, the American government may be watching you - they know what programs you have installed, they can read your emails/documents and they can see what you're doing on your computer at any given time. Of course, most people have nothing to hide, but the thought of a foreign government being able to potentially spy on any Vista user is pretty sickening. This is why many governments around the world have changed to Linux - for example, the Chinese government uses a UNIX/Linux variant. If the Chinese government used Windows, then the American government could use a backdoor and spy on the Chinese government - which is probably not the most appropriate thing! The French government also uses Linux, and many others too, in order to prevent spying from other governments.

Dodgy licenses
Licensing is another way for Microsoft to restrict you. No doubt you've heard that you should always read the fine print - but do you? Chances are you don't. I highly recommend reading the license agreement of Microsoft software before you use it. Microsoft clearly states in the Vista license that "When you pay for Vista, you don't own it - its licensed to you. And we may terminate the agreement if we want to without any warning". It also states that "Windows defender may DELETE any software which it considers to be spyware without your consent". Strange, now an anti-spyware program has a mind of its own and can delete things without you ever knowing, what do they mean by "any software which it considers to be spyware" anyway? God only knows. It could be referring to just about anything. This licensing agreement is similar to registering an account on a website - the owner of the site owns your account too, and they can do whatever they want with it. Same applies with Vista, you don't own it: using Vista is a privilege, not a right. This licensing scheme allows Microsoft to install anything they want on your system, and it also allows them to decide what time it installs this software or what time to does checks/market research in the background.

Anti-competitive behaviour, market manipulation & the eradication of Open-Standards
Wow! It sure has been a painful read so far. You're probably wondering where it stops. Now that Microsoft has you by the balls, what else could they do to make it even worse? There's only one thing left: Making sure that DRM is imposed on everyone. But how do they do this if really bad DRM software only comes on Microsoft products? Easy! Just eradicate any form of alternative - prevent Linux from entering the market, stop free software and make sure that everyone uses Microsoft software and nothing else. This is where market manipulation comes into play. No doubt you've noticed that you can only ever get Windows on a new computer. This is because Microsoft has license restrictions that prevent computer retailers from selling competitors products, such as Linux. How does it all work? Well, when a retailer (such as Dell, Compaq, HP, ACER) wants to sell Windows on their computers, they have to consult Microsoft. However, Microsoft won't let retailers sell Windows on new computers, unless that retailer signs a license with Microsoft.

The license which the retailer signs says that "By signing this agreement, you can install Windows products on your computers and legally sell them. HOWEVER, if your company sells computers which have a competing operating system on them, then the Windows products we sell you will be X% more expensive". So, retailers get copies of Windows really cheap, but if they start selling computers which have a competing operating system (Linux) on them, then the price of Windows will jump up in order to bribe the retailer away from selling a competitors product. This is an anti-competitive tactic which should be made illegal, however, the public doesn't know about this. As far as the public is concerned: Windows is super-awesome and everything else sucks, which is why Windows comes pre-installed on just about every computer. BUT that's not true, that's what the public assumes. Now that you've read this article, you know the truth - Microsoft manipulates the market and eliminates competition to prevent potentially superior products from gaining market ground. Ever seen a school running Linux computers? No? This is because Microsoft makes deals with governments and schools around the world - they reduce the cost of Windows. Sometimes they even give out products for free. Sounds great! Oh, but there's a catch - if all schools and UNI's use Windows, then what about people at home who want to be compatible? Ah, true. All students of those schools and UNI's will need to buy Windows for their home computers. Not so free after all is it?

Breaking the cycle
In order to break this insidious cycle, we need alternatives. Unfortunately, alternatives like Linux have been severely set-back by Microsoft's monopoly - mostly in regards to drivers (software which tells your hardware how to run). Drivers are only written for Windows, so its often difficult if not impossible to get certain devices running on Linux. Because of this, the public assumes that Linux is an inferior operating system, wheres it is actually the device manufacturers fault for not providing Linux drivers. This is incredibly annoying, but Linux is still gaining ground like never before - one disgruntled user at a time. Eventually Linux will get driver support and become accepted. The sooner Microsoft's monopoly is broken, the better it is for everyone - software prices will fall, and software companies will have to be very careful not to let their standards slip, otherwise people will just move to free alternatives. The possibility of breaking this cycle is an exciting though, and it could only be a few years away thanks to the effort of great companies such as Dell (reference: www.dell.com/open). Eventually there will be a time where YOU are in COMPLETE control of your operating system, and its very hard to comprehend how much ass that would kick. Thanks for reading my article: please show your support by saying NO to "trusted computing" and help promote software freedom for consumers!

http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.gnu.org/
http://badvista.fsf.org/

Edit: Hmmmmm maybe I should have posted elsewhere. People here seem misinformed, what makes anyone think that Linux users WOULDN'T pay for software? Just because I use Linux it doesn't mean I won't pay for software, free software is often pretty crap anyway. Also, the reason why Windows has better driver support than Linux is because the device manufacturers ONLY write drivers for Windows. I would love to see MS write drivers for every device out there. Lol, then they'd know what its like for the Linux developers.

MadMax

What can I say? Use the software that is more convenient for you.

I use Linux Fedora, but then maybe not everyone will like using Linux. They shouldn't worry they can use other alternatives. As the song says "a kiss is just a kiss".

JustLuke

There are problems with grammar and punctuation. I'd explain in detail but I'm just about to set off for a holiday. You might want to check the difference between "its" and "it's", and about correct comma usage.

The article seems pretty paranoid to me. Perhaps I don't know enough about the issue, but all the stuff about the US government using Vista to spy on the world seems a little silly. Also you should get your facts straight. For example, you mention that the Chinese government uses a UNIX/LINUX variant, and they might well be developing/have developed one, but they use Windows XP for most things.

You need to convey your argument in a more sophisticated way, without the hysteria, paranoia and extrapolation (remove unsupportable speculation of the "because A happens today, B must surely happen tomorrow!" sort.)

In some ways - many ways, really - the article comes across as a recycled hash of lots of other similar articles that have been circulating recently. I reckon that the type of person who might be interested in reading your article will already know this stuff. In other words: you're not saying anything new.

Uber-nerd

@JustLuke: Its not paranoid, its true. If you're charged with having a harddrive full of pictures of people humping animals, then the courts can order Microsoft to hand in your logged activity and REMOTELY access that data which is meant to ONLY be accessible by you while you're at your computer, and they could do that without a search warrant without you even knowing. Wheres Linux is OpenSource and has a very short license agreement preventing anyone from spying on you. Even if you haven't been doing anything illegal, your privacy is still in the hands of a corrupt power and you still have no idea what data they collect from you. This is the day and age in which people actually care about being watched - we're a surveillance society. And no-body likes it. I personally think that we should have the power to remove these backdoors if we don't want them to be wide open. I also think that we should be able to use software as we see fit. The US government isn't interested in every single person in the world, but if they are interested in someone then they can use their OS against them. Like I said: Think governments VS governments. Why do you think the French government has recently started disliking Windows? Because the US government has the potential to spy on them.

Its not really paranoid - if there are government backdoors on your computer, then your instinct should be to eradicate them. You don't need/want them, and it wasn't your choice to install them. Why should they be there?

I can easily see this from your point of view - you think I'm paranoid and that I'm worried about the US government watching me. That isn't the point. The point is that society is going the wrong way about things. We should take up the idea of Open-Source-Software in the next 10 years to eradicate this "big brother" scheme, Open-Source-Software will inevitably be more efficient anyway.

Aside from the fact that you didn't fully understand what I was saying, I assume that the rest of the article kicks ass?

Oh, and what's that grammar thing you mentioned? I never paid attention in school!

Dreamora

free software will be inevitably more dead as well if the all goes on as it was started and is pushed by Apple and Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers, at least free software outside OSX and Windows as nobody uses a system only capable of playing DVD in 10 years nor do people like 6 year old cpus because current ones don't work with it.

As well, I think its always funny how people rant about Microsoft, yet I've hardly seen anyone rant about Apple who does the same stuff as Microsoft, just worse as they hardly get sued for doing it.
And especially nobody seems to realize that true problems come from giving any idiot access to powerfull opensource.
Sony DRM Rootkit, anyone?

Knowledge is power and open knowledge nearly guarantees power to the wrong ones.

Naughty Alien

..I do agree that knowledge is a power...thats really clear..but its also clear that if you have knowledge to build apartment and I have money to buy it, doesnt mean that you have right to sneak and look what Im doing inside apartment you build...thats what is about this open source thingy..and im pretty sure that open source will not die, simply becouse people like to be independent, much as they can..far as I can see M$ philosophy, soon I'll need Cray 9 machine just to play fuc..ng DVD..screw that..

CS_TBL

I highly recommend reading the license agreement of Microsoft software before you use it.

Here's the problem:

- I want to run software X
- software X requires Windows
- therefor I require Windows
- If I read the EULA I may be a bit more spooked, but:
- as I need software X, I need Windows

As soon as *all* software becomes 100% multiplatform, and I mean *everything*, small hackertools, games, indiegames, small utilities, drivers, big tools/utils etc. etc. just everything, *then* I have the choice to use an alternative. Note that saying 'but Linux has this and that tool that does more or less the same' won't cut here, as art-ppl are always very fond of using a specific art tool. Another tool usually has to be exactly as comfy and designed as the fav.tool, otherwise the person sticks to what he already has. Therefor: the world requires 100% xplatform by nature, out of the box. I wonder what Microsoft thinks of xplatformness.. :P

ImaginaryHuman

I thought your article was pretty reasonable but about halfway through you began to let your ego get involved and you became somewhat more emotional about the topic which I felt decreased the clarity of your writing and turned it a little more toward a personal rant than something that is informative to all readers. In a sense it was not quite as `professional` or detached as it might have been, and including terminology such as b**** and a** will put some people off. To be taken more seriously you might want to consider cleaning it up a bit. It sounds like it is sort of halfway between an informative article and a blog entry.

Also it would help if you add some deeper insight into why what Microsoft is doing is wrong. Perhaps mix in some stuff about the free software movement or something - talk about liberty and freedom. Your article is slightly biased towards attacking Microsoft in an attempt to point out how bad they are so that Linux stands in a better light - but this is a backwards way of making Linux look better - you should instead focus on some of the benefits of Linux without them being better merely as a contrast to Microsoft. People are free to choose what o/s they like and it won't necessarily be because other o/s's are worse. Focus on Linux's virtues rather than Microsoft's mistakes. Otherwise you are just on the Microsoft-hating bandwagon.

I think your article is a good start although for me personall it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know about. But I'm sure it will help some people and you have every right to write whatever you want.

With regards to the actual topic of the article, let me say this...

I think that Microsoft has begun to decide that the operating system is not the software which is installed on your computer, it is now something that runs on THEIR computers and attaches to your computer. In my opinion they are trying to turn the Windows operating system into a dumb client whereby there are major strings attached through these backdoors and controls, so that the thing that really runs your computer is not your operating system but Microsoft's servers. With Windows ending up as client software and with Microsoft ending up as the place where all the decisions are really made, they are shifting the decision making process (ie the freedom of choice) away from the customer's computer and into Microsoft's hands. It's a subtle shift and many people will not recognize it because they still think they are installing stuff on their computer for their use by their choice.

Microsoft also knows that there will always be so-called `security` issues until they have absolute 100% control over all decisions. And since everyone is buying into the hype that computers are unsafe, along comes the necessary evil of Microsoft to provide that security. But the only way to provide security is to isoalte and control and limit and that's exactly what you're seeing. People's complains that Windows is not secure enough drives MS to take away their priveleges. Eventually you as a user of your own computer will not even own any of the software that runs on it and will have no right to change any of it for any purpose. It's moving toward a completely closed elitist system.

The thing that Microsoft does not understand is that this is digging their own grave. You can't make a move towards being closed without making a move towards death. This is precicely what has given rise to the movement towards Linux and free software, which is symbolic of the desire for a youthful, alive, and open system, as an antithesis to Microsoft's dominance and control. Microsoft are not evil but they are making a lot of choices which inhibit your freedom, should you choose to allow them to do so. The only choice you will really end up having is the choice to use some other operating system which is more open. Or to make your own. People's blind acceptance of Windows and Microsofts misuse of trust and power means that people are now in a bind, of their own choosing, and either they will have to comply or move elsewhere.

I am working on my own `platform`, not an operating system, but something like one on a higher level, to put some of the freedom back into software. If your preference is to achieve this by using Linux then good for you.

smilertoo

If its an essay I'd use more spacing between lines...lecturers don't like big chunky paragraphs.

Gabriel

#10

Unless education standards have fallen significantly in recent years, using the word "sucks" in an essay would be an instant fail.

Kanati

#11

If you're charged with having a harddrive full of pictures of people humping animals, then the courts can order Microsoft to hand in your logged activity and REMOTELY access that data which is meant to ONLY be accessible by you while you're at your computer, and they could do that without a search warrant without you even knowing.

Riiiiiight. I'd really like to see them do that through a nice hardware firewall. Really. I'd pay to see it.

Paranoid is definitely right.

xlsior

#12

As fas as "removing competitors products" is concerned:
One example of that I've run into is VNC, a remote desktop program that's flagged as a 'hacker tool' by Windows Defender, and prompted for deletion.
Of course Microsoft's own Remote Desktop doesn't get 'detected
, even though it's pretty much the same thing.

Lumooja

#13

@xlsior: Actually VNC is much better than RDC, it runs also on Linux and many other platforms, and uses much less CPU power. Sometimes RDC gets into a CPU hog loop, and I've still not figured out what causes it, but when it does it, RDC takes up 99% CPU power and you can't do anything, not even rebooting of the server and client helps. Then it just goes away again. VNC is also better because it can run OpenGL and DirectX 3D graphics, which RDC can not.

I think I will write a Windows Defender Defender, which removes all Windows Defender installations when it finds them. That will improve security a lot.

D4NM4N

#14

Riiiiiight. I'd really like to see them do that through a nice hardware firewall. Really. I'd pay to see it.

Paranoid is definitely right.

A firewall is only as good as the person controlling it. A hardware firewall (with standard setting) will let most internet traffic out but not in .
Problem is, if its the actual microsoft based stuff spying on you then a hardware (probably even software) firewall is useless.

For example how would 99% of users respond to this (this is a totally made up example) and those using auto update wouldnt even get this, and worse still, the capacity for it could already be coded into vista:

Do you want to download and install :
Name: microsoft system check :
publisher: Microsoft
Description: This is a security feature for microsoft to prevent malicious content being generated on your machine.

(Think about it, malicious to whom? Could it possibly be talking about your own content?)

Now its installed and running your hardware firewall is not stopping anything on the standard internet port going out is it? If anything all you will get (possibly) from your software firewall is:

Name: MSsyscheck.exe is attempting to access the network.
Publisher: Microsoft corp.

Most users simply click OK to remove the annoying invasive bubble from their screen. Even most advanced users would see the word microsoft and click ok.

@uber nerd.
Your article needs to be more balanced. Using phrases like sucks and kicks ass lowers the academic quality of a well thought out (if a little biased ;) ) essay.

Uber-nerd

#15

@ImaginaryHuman: Finally. What I wanted to hear. I agree that some of it sounds like a smear campaign and I also agree with the "ego" thing. However, this is going to be posted on <insert my full-name here>.co.nz - which is why it sounds part informative and also part blog-entry. I take that as a good thing, because this will be put on a personal site which will mainly be aimed at people who know me in real life. Just to let you know: My site isn't a BadVista/FreeSoftwareFoundation wannabe, it's a personal site. Therefore rants and the use of words such as "ass" are great, it gives it a personal touch :)

Thanks for pointing that out, maybe in the future I'll take up that advice about professionalism. I might be a politician or FSF journalist one day (If I'm really lucky!)

Also, I prefer to talk about the disadvantages of Windows rather than the advantages of Linux. Because the public doesn't know about Linux. Therefore, I have to point out that Windows is crap before I can discuss the advantages of Linux. Otherwise people will stick with Windows, because it works for them and they aren't aware of anything else and see no point in moving unless they discover that their current OS has problems. It seems logical to me anyway. Edit: This won't be a stand alone article by the way, this will be the first of many to come. Most of which I plan on making constructive.

Riiiiiight. I'd really like to see them do that through a nice hardware firewall. Really. I'd pay to see it.

-Kanati

Ever heard of "Windows updates" and critical security patches? You NEED to communicate with Microsoft's servers. So it doesn't matter, the backdoor is enforced. If you use a hardware firewall as you suggested then it means the user will be unable to get critical patches and they will also be unable to use many Microsoft services (ones that require net access anyway). Now give me my money.

FlameDuck

#16

Okay, from the top:

The most disturbing thing about Vista is the DRM.

That's entirely subjective. For me the most disturbing thing is the outrageous hardware requirements, and poor security. The whole DRM issue is not even Microsofts fault. It's the fault of special interest groups like the RIAA and MPAA.

DRM is software which restricts your rights, its developed by big companies to prevent people from pirating, reverse engineering or violating licensing conditions - but it does more harm than good, and it often irritates paying customers who are legitimately using the software.

Postulate. DRM does not restrict your rights, it enforces the content owners rights. Now wether that's a good or a bad thing is open for debate, but saying that DRM was invented to restrict your rights is absurd, as is the notion that it often irritates paying customers. I would wager that most iTunes customers are not "often" by any definition of the word, inconvenienced by Apples DRM.

DRM does all sorts of nasty things, not only does it restrict you from using your software the way you want, but it requires a lot of behind the scenes checking - requiring powerful hardware, which partly explains the minimum hardware requirements of Vista.

First of all, you're not entitled to use some software the way you want - that's the whole point of the FSF. Second of all, it's not reasonable to suggest that DRM (as opposed to lazy developers) is the fault of Vistas ridiculous hardware requirements. In the famous words of Niklaus Wirth "Software gets slower, faster than hardware gets faster".

The idea that big companies should defend profits at the expense of legitimate users is obscene.

The idea that it's even feasible is even worse. Companies live off their customers. There is no way a company can "defend profits" at the "expense of legitimate users". Any action taken at the expense of its customers, is at a net loss.

Not only that, but DRM usually comes with backdoors, and backdoors usually come with nosey governments.

Postulate. If you're going to say things like that, you need to support it with empirical evidence. The idea of using a form of DRM with a built-in circumvention device, seems counterproductive. If a 14 year old Norwegian kid can reverse engineer something as complex as CSS, how long do you think it's going to take professional criminals to find a back door? The inherit danger in using back doors, is that any hole the feds can use to peek through, the criminals can use to peek back.

A backdoor is a program on your computer which allows unauthorized people to access your computer without your knowledge. This is required to impose DRM on users; its used to check up on you.

No it isn't. There are plenty of DRM implementations (like public/private key schemes) that don't require invasion of privacy. In fact I don't recall a single DRM implementation that relies on some form of back door.

Since Vista is closed-source, you cannot see how the operating system is written, which means that you cannot remove these backdoors. These backdoors are used whenever and however Microsoft wants, to check if you are pirating software or disagreeing with Vista's License Agreement in some way.

Again, you're stating things that cannot possibly be proven. Personally I find the idea that Microsoft has the time or inclination to spy on several million home users, the majority of which having nothing more damning on their systems than pictures of their pets and families, rather ridiculous.

Since Windows is installed on almost every computer in the world, it means that governments FORCE Microsoft to give them access to these backdoors.

No. The government couldn't care less about Microsofts (real or imagined) back doors. Windows isn't an OS that's secure enough to warrant using back doors in the first place. 95% of all installed Windows systems are not protected against intrusion anyway.

In other words, the American government may be watching you - they know what programs you have installed, they can read your emails/documents and they can see what you're doing on your computer at any given time.

Well not really. At least not in any way that you could blame Microsoft for (other than making a sub-standard OS). Read up on "Carnivore" - then you'll see why the FBI couldn't care less about back doors in Windows. They don't need it.

Of course, most people have nothing to hide, but the thought of a foreign government being able to potentially spy on any Vista user is pretty sickening.

Because much like the American government and Microsoft, the Chinese government also has nothing better to do than wade though terrabytes of pet photos and meaningless blogs in order to find anything remotely incriminating.

This is why many governments around the world have changed to Linux - for example, the Chinese government uses a UNIX/Linux variant.

No. Not having to pay for it, I believe was the reason China switched to Linux.

If the Chinese government used Windows, then the American government could use a backdoor and spy on the Chinese government - which is probably not the most appropriate thing!

If the Chinese government used Windows, the American government wouldn't have to spy on the Chinese, because they'd be dead broke, having to pay for a bulk licensing scheme for the millions of computers they use.

The French government also uses Linux, and many others too, in order to prevent spying from other governments.

Again, no. Most governments that use Linux do so because hiring a few hundred Linux geeks is cheaper than most Microsoft bulk license agreements, for the amount of licenses they would need.

Licensing is another way for Microsoft to restrict you.

Which they're perfectly entitled to.

No doubt you've heard that you should always read the fine print - but do you? Chances are you don't. I highly recommend reading the license agreement of Microsoft software before you use it. Microsoft clearly states in the Vista license that "When you pay for Vista, you don't own it - its licensed to you. And we may terminate the agreement if we want to without any warning".

It doesn't matter. In most countries an agreement is only valid insofar as it does not contradict preceptive law.

It also states that "Windows defender may DELETE any software which it considers to be spyware without your consent". Strange, now an anti-spyware program has a mind of its own and can delete things without you ever knowing, what do they mean by "any software which it considers to be spyware" anyway? God only knows.

And possibly, God only cares.

It could be referring to just about anything. This licensing agreement is similar to registering an account on a website - the owner of the site owns your account too, and they can do whatever they want with it. Same applies with Vista, you don't own it: using Vista is a privilege, not a right.

Which goes for pretty much all software that doesn't have some OSI approved license. Much like driving a Ford is not a right either.

This licensing scheme allows Microsoft to install anything they want on your system, and it also allows them to decide what time it installs this software or what time to does checks/market research in the background.

Sure. But do they? You would have to at least cite references.

Wow! It sure has been a painful read so far. You're probably wondering where it stops. Now that Microsoft has you by the balls, what else could they do to make it even worse?

I would just leave this one out if I were you.

There's only one thing left: Making sure that DRM is imposed on everyone. But how do they do this if really bad DRM software only comes on Microsoft products?

Well they've lost there. Apples iTunes has DRM software, for starters.

Easy! Just eradicate any form of alternative - prevent Linux from entering the market, stop free software and make sure that everyone uses Microsoft software and nothing else.

Actually I think the motivation for this is money, rather than evil. While I'm not certain Steve Balmer isn't an Evil Genius, there is one thing more important than world domination. Shareholders, and by extension the board of directors.

This is where market manipulation comes into play. No doubt you've noticed that you can only ever get Windows on a new computer. This is because Microsoft has license restrictions that prevent computer retailers from selling competitors products, such as Linux.

Well that's just rubbish.

How does it all work? Well, when a retailer (such as Dell, Compaq, HP, ACER) wants to sell Windows on their computers, they have to consult Microsoft. However, Microsoft won't let retailers sell Windows on new computers, unless that retailer signs a license with Microsoft.

You're (purposefully ?) twisting the facts, to make a rather poor point. The only version of Windows that requires such a license is the cheaper OEM version which is shipped with most new computers. There is nothing (except the price difference and competition) that prevents a company like Dell from shipping boxed versions of Windows with their PCs.

The license which the retailer signs says that "By signing this agreement, you can install Windows products on your computers and legally sell them. HOWEVER, if your company sells computers which have a competing operating system on them, then the Windows products we sell you will be X% more expensive".

You need to provide a link to this OEM agreement. The one we had at my old job did not specify that we couldn't sell computers with say OS/2 or even Linux preinstalled, or that our OEM license would become more expensive if we did.

So, retailers get copies of Windows really cheap, but if they start selling computers which have a competing operating system (Linux) on them, then the price of Windows will jump up in order to bribe the retailer away from selling a competitors product.

I don't think that qualifies as a bribe tho'. More like an incentive.

This is an anti-competitive tactic which should be made illegal,

Which it is. Look up anti-trust.

however, the public doesn't know about this.

Or care to know for that matter.

As far as the public is concerned: Windows is super-awesome and everything else sucks, which is why Windows comes pre-installed on just about every computer.

It's funny how Scott McNealys point on 60 minutes (I believe) was much more eloquent than yours, simply asking "How do you know Windows is the best, if it's all you've ever tried?" - I thought that was fairly clever.

BUT that's not true, that's what the public assumes. Now that you've read this article, you know the truth - Microsoft manipulates the market and eliminates competition to prevent potentially superior products from gaining market ground.

No. It's an inherent flaw in high-tech markets. The superior product never wins. Ever. The BetaMax was vastly superior to the VHS, the Dreamcast was vastly superior to the PS and even PS2, and pretty much everything is vastly superior to the iPod.

Ever seen a school running Linux computers? No?

Actually yes. At Uni, Linux was pretty much it. You wanted to use Windows there were some rooms, with hopelessly out-of-date computers in them, sure. But every lab was running Linux, all the servers running Linux, and with a few exceptions (Mac owners mostly) all the students were using Linux.

This is because Microsoft makes deals with governments and schools around the world - they reduce the cost of Windows. Sometimes they even give out products for free. Sounds great! Oh, but there's a catch - if all schools and UNI's use Windows, then what about people at home who want to be compatible? Ah, true. All students of those schools and UNI's will need to buy Windows for their home computers. Not so free after all is it

Sure it is. Because as you stated previously, the "Microsoft tax" makes it quite difficult to buy a PC without Windows on it in the first place!

In order to break this insidious cycle, we need alternatives. Unfortunately, alternatives like Linux have been severely set-back by Microsoft's monopoly - mostly in regards to drivers (software which tells your hardware how to run).

Oh come on! It's hardly Microsofts fault that other businesses chose not to write Linux drivers!

Drivers are only written for Windows, so its often difficult if not impossible to get certain devices running on Linux.

The same is often true for Windows (2000, XP and Vista all have problems with many, many drivers). On the up side some companies do provide good Linux drivers for their products (which in my opinion is nVidias only saving grace). So just make sure that, before buying a computer you want to run Linux on, that all the components are Linux certified.

Because of this, the public assumes that Linux is an inferior operating system, wheres it is actually the device manufacturers fault for not providing Linux drivers.

Actually it's the publics fault for being ignorant. But what can you do.

This is incredibly annoying, but Linux is still gaining ground like never before - one disgruntled user at a time. Eventually Linux will get driver support and become accepted. The sooner Microsoft's monopoly is broken, the better it is for everyone - software prices will fall, and software companies will have to be very careful not to let their standards slip, otherwise people will just move to free alternatives.

All of this is pure speculation.

The possibility of breaking this cycle is an exciting though,

Surely that's "thought"?

and it could only be a few years away thanks to the effort of great companies such as Dell (reference: www.dell.com/open).

I wouldn't say Dell is a "great company" as such. They're just as guilty as Microsoft in many of the things you accuse Microsoft of, particularly the anti-competitive ones. It's also unfortunate as other vendors (most noticeably IBM) have been selling Linux certified laptops for ages.

Eventually there will be a time where YOU are in COMPLETE control of your operating system, and its very hard to comprehend how much ass that would kick.

I don't want to control my OS. I want my OS to do it's thing, namely keep the computer running.

Thanks for reading my article: please show your support by saying NO to "trusted computing" and help promote software freedom for consumers!

Actually I'd like to say YES to trusted computing. However I only wish more companies that I trust were in on it.

EdzUp[SD]

#17

there are loads of companies that do linux pc's.

Uber-nerd

#18

@flameduck: Hmmmmmm I'm going to add the "t" onto "thought" but that's about it. Please find something else to do with your time other than criticising 16 yearolds. I don't HAVE to be perfect. If I had to be perfect on every single detail and back up every paragraph with links then I wouldn't be writing very much. Everyone already knows that Microsoft makes money by screwing everyone over, and I can't be bothered wasting hours of my time finding links to prove something which everyone already knows. My article exposes dodgy business practises, that's all I care. It works. Don't try telling me that my article "isn't factual enough" because it doesn't matter if it's not perfect. It's an awareness campaign, and I'm going to have anti-DRM and anti-Vista stickers all over my site. That way, I'm influencing people and then the FSF, GNU and BadVista are my reliable sources which people can be referred to.

I think that what I'm doing is great, if there was another 100 of me then Microsoft would die very quickly. It's amazing how much damage some smear/awareness campaigns can do. If there was another 100 of me, New Zealanders would probably never see a Labour government ever again :D

The bottom line is that my site will be worth while. And I'm not even going to bother arguing about that.

Gabriel

#19

I'm confused.

Please tell me what I'm like in regards to things like:

- Writing style
- Factual information
- Influence

... because that's what I aim for

Don't try telling me that my article "isn't factual enough" because it doesn't matter if it's not perfect.

Criticism
In regards to criticism, please only criticise if there is something that could be fixed. And actually explain what is wrong,

Please find something else to do with your time other than criticising 16 yearolds

You want criticism, but you don't.

You're aiming to be factually accurate, but the facts don't matter.

After that I zoned out as we slipped into a few paragraphs of "look at me, aren't i wonderful. the world would be a better place if there were more people like me."

Naughty Alien

#20

@Flameduck..

regarding use of Linux in governments, you talking one big nonsense...economical reasons is why they switching all to Linux (Australian, German, Chinese, France..) you kidding me...I use to work for German government and I assure you that main reason is FULL control over things they want to do with OS, rather than depend on 'someone else'..you should know that one thing what apply on to any Government is that they really dont care much about economy when their security is under question..and belive me, they spending much more money on more expensive and bizzare things rather than changing OS they use..I use to work in government and I guarantee, main reason why Linux is..security (or preciselly fact that they can clearly modify/know whats going on around/....

Gabriel

#21

I use to work in government and I guarantee, main reason why Linux is..security (or preciselly fact that they can clearly modify/know whats going on around/....

Well if you say that's the reason the German government made the decision, who am I to argue? But the British government is trialling Linux too, and the number reason they're trialling it? Cost savings.

Uber-nerd

#22

@Gabriel: I meant helpful criticism, not the "prove-me-i'm-wrong-and-quote-me-word-by-word-without-saying-anything-supportive" type of criticism. By the way, you're last remark was pathetic.

After that I zoned out as we slipped into a few paragraphs of "look at me, aren't i wonderful. the world would be a better place if there were more people like me."

So you basically take the piss out of me and suggest that any form of activism is stupid or some sort of joke which achieves nothing? Smartarse/piss-taking/unintelligent comments don't help - If more people did the things I do, then of course the world would be a better place (you could get a computer with your OS of choice and free software would have a higher standard, and there'd be less big companies succeeding in screwing us over). On the other hand, if the world was full of people like you then we'd get no-where. We'd spend too much time hijacking the speeches of people who support a highly beneficial movement (the FreeSoftware movement).

Please stop specifically snipping any parts of my posts which make me look bad, especially if your snippits completely distort what I'm trying to say. The level of criticism I'm getting here is completely over the top. Some people here have acted as if my whole article sucked. But like I said:

- I will do professional writing if I write for something other than my personal site.
- If I am writing about a company which appears to be 100% legit to the public, then yes I will quote and provide links as proof. But we all know that MS is dodgy, and we know they do things behind the scenes (some of which I mentioned) so I'm not going to get insane amounts of proof to support my claims. Besides, it's a personal site. I'm linking to 100% factual information anyway, if anything I've wrote is wrong then people can go and read badvista.fsf.org and other related sites.

The bottom line is that my site will be worth while. And I'm not even going to bother arguing about that.

Uber-nerd

#23

Excuse the double post, but I think it's time to call it a day. I am basically being told that the FreeSoftware movement is a load of crap, and that everything I say is stupid. I'm going to run my site however the hell I want from now on regardless of what I'm told, it just seems to work better that way.

And please, for the love of god, DO NOT quote this post. This isn't a gaming forum and I'm sure people here have enough brains to stop. I'm capable of making decisions for myself; I'll run my site how I see fit. Thankyou Goodbye.

Gabriel

#24

So you basically take the piss out of me and suggest that any form of activism is stupid or some sort of joke which achieves nothing?

I didn't take anything out of you, I virtually quoted you word for word. If it seems silly to you, I can't help that, they were your words not mine. As for activism, I made no comment one way or the other, so that's purely in your imagination. There's a word for the state of mind where you think everyone is against you though.

On the other hand, if the world was full of people like you then we'd get no-where.

If the world were full of people like me, even *I* wouldn't want to live in it, but then I never said the world should have more people like me.

Kanati

#25

and I can't be bothered wasting hours of my time finding links to prove something which everyone already knows.

Oh of COURSE not. Never ever provide proof to back up an argument. That would be ridiculous.

The only thing you proved in your post, in my opinion... is that you are indeed 16 years old.

Kanati

FlameDuck

#26

However, this is going to be posted on <insert my full-name here>.co.nz

You're supposed to use geek.nz for personal sites. Just FYI.

If I had to be perfect on every single detail and back up every paragraph with links then I wouldn't be writing very much.

Of course you would. It just wouldn't be fiction.

Everyone already knows that Microsoft makes money by screwing everyone over

No they don't. In fact one of the points you postulate in your "essay" is that: This is an anti-competitive tactic which should be made illegal, however, the public doesn't know about this. As far as the public is concerned: Windows is super-awesome and everything else sucks. Now maybe it's because English is only my second language, but that doesn't sound much like "The public knows for a fact that Microsoft thrive on the souls of kittens, but continue buying their products regardless".

My article exposes dodgy business practises, that's all I care.

No it doesn't. Your article claims Microsoft uses dodgy business practices, it doesn't expose anything. Which is odd because there are so many good examples to chose from, like how Microsoft screwed over IBM, or Netscape, or SUN, or SCO, or Oracle or even the US government.

Don't try telling me that my article "isn't factual enough" because it doesn't matter if it's not perfect.

I'm not saying it's not factual enough. I'm saying it's not factual at all.

That way, I'm influencing people and then the FSF, GNU and BadVista are my reliable sources which people can be referred to.

If you think Richard Stallman has a higher opinion about your "essay" than I do, you're terribly mistaken.

I think that what I'm doing is great, if there was another 100 of me then Microsoft would die very quickly.

There are way more than 100 people like you yet for some reason Microsoft are doing better than ever (not counting the XBox).

The bottom line is that my site will be worth while. And I'm not even going to bother arguing about that.

Which is the root of your problem. If you're not willing to argue that your position is correct, you've already lost the fight.

I use to work for German government and I assure you that main reason is FULL control over things they want to do with OS

If you're a government or other large organization, you do have full control over what the OS does. You can get access to the Windows source code, particularly if that organization has no budgetary restraints. Security might have been their excuse, but the real reason is to cut expenses. Windows is every bit as secure as Linux for people with that kind of money.

you could get a computer with your OS of choice and free software would have a higher standard, and there'd be less big companies succeeding in screwing us over

For starters you can already get a computer with your OS of choice. For most people that choice just happens to be Windows. Not because it's the best, not because it's the most user friendly, not even because it has working drivers and a rediculous amount of software they "need". They buy Windows for 2 reasons:
- 1) It's the OS their friends have.
- 2) It's the platform it's easiest to steal software on.

Secondly free software is in many cases vastly superior to commercial products.

And lastly, if you feel corporations are screwing you over that badly, stop buying their products!

So you basically take the piss out of me and suggest that any form of activism is stupid or some sort of joke which achieves nothing?

The first rule of activism (or combat operations), is to pick your battles. Specifically pick battles that you can win. If you don't, then yes you will achieve nothing by losing.

I am basically being told that the FreeSoftware movement is a load of crap, and that everything I say is stupid.

Well you're half right. Do you even understand what the free software movement is about?

Naughty Alien

#27

>>If you're a government or other large organization, you do have full control over what the OS does. You can get access to the Windows source code, particularly if that organization has no budgetary restraints. Security might have been their excuse, but the real reason is to cut expenses. Windows is every bit as secure as Linux for people with that kind of money.<<

Windows source code?? You kidding me..it was required and gentle answer from M$ was NO,but they will kindly support everything what is necessary on to HIGHLY transparent way..funny...do you think they changing every year new set of cars becouse of saving money?? :)

LineOf7s

#28

The only thing you proved in your post, in my opinion... is that you are indeed 16 years old.

Quoted for truth.

Uber-nerd

#29

Lol, I always wondered why the hell there was a post-locking spree a while back. How could that happen in a development forum? It never originally occurred to me, but it's probably because of the persistent word-by-word quoting which I haven't really seen up until now. I should spend my time somewhere else.

People here must be really bored or something. I sat outside in the sun this afternoon and later on cooked myself tea - has anyone else here left their desk today? Judging by the replies, it sounds like a no to me. And no I don't mean it as an insult, it's almost as if people are deliberately trying to irritate me out of pure boredom. Oh well, back to the proof-reading of my Telecom New Zealand article :)

CS_TBL

#30

Your article is way too technical to 'change' something towards people's minds. Try to step away from the technical side, and move yourself into the heads of ppl around the world, focus on the psychological aspects so to say.

Whether or not all the doomsday stuff is correct or not, your article would be more complete by also adding the social aspects to it. Without it, -and without mentioning sources- it just looks like one of the kazillions of M$ vs non-M$ rants found everywhere around the globe. (usually M$ vs Mac or M$ vs Linux, which is btw not much different from the classic 8bit/16bit homecomputer riots from the 80's/90s. Been there, took part in it even :P)

Ducky's points here are right:
- 1) It's the OS their friends have.
- 2) It's the platform it's easiest to steal software on.

1: People live in groups, a uniform group is much stronger, so they act uniformly. If they have questions, they can ask eachother.
2: Face it, even without the piracy, ppl get used to free quality software, and so demand that everything is free, even the big commercial stuff. I estimate that eventually we don't even need Photoshop and the likes anymore, some bedroom geek most probably made a freeware alternative that can be tweaked so much it can mimic Photoshop. Piracy is not the problem for the big companies, those skilled bedroom coders are!

Next, my earlier post: sometimes there's just no choice. If certain software *needs* Windows, then what choice do you have?

Another thing Duck said well, was whether we ppl wish to tweak OS'es. In fact, most people don't give a rat's ass about their OS. They have a few simple things they wish to run: Email, webbrowsing, Office, CD/DVD burning, some games, and perhaps some artistic tools (Photoshop for their pix, video editing for their wedding video, Audio editing for their singing, etc.)
One could annoy them with stories about M$, DRM, backdoors etc., but they really don't give a hoot. Their software runs, and they're happy enough. Actually, I don't think they're 'happy' even, they prolly have other things to be 'happy' about in life, their computer is just another tool, which to them has equally lots of value than their microwave and their bike. You aren't happy about a microwave or a bike, you just use it. Just like ppl never were 'happy' about a classic typewriter before computers took over, it was 'just there'. So, DRM/3v1l/backdoors, is so not going to impress them.

I always feel that the Mac is a computer for them, Linux is an OS for the tweakers, and Windows is an OS for anything in between. And as always, middle of the road is what becomes popular.

2ct/imho/happyxmas/lunchtime!