This makes no sense
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cmost Mar 22, 2015 2:26 PM EDT |
So, if Microsoft is giving away Windows 10 for free, then what does it matter if an upgraded version is valid to begin with or not? The point is that Microsoft is GIVING away Windows 10 for free so in my opinion, why not simply level the playing field and make all copies of Windows 10 legitimate from that point forward whether they were upgraded from copies of Windows 7 or 8.x that were not valid. If Microsoft wants to address piracy, (and peripheral to that, malware, back doors, etc.) then it simply needs to eliminate piracy of Windows. The best way to do that is to give away Windows 10 with no strings attached and therefore remove the need to pirate it. This "clarification" merely means that hackers will innovate new ways to make their invalid versions of Windows 10 "Genuine" in the eyes of Microsoft and some of those hacks may make such altered versions of Windows 10 vulnerable to malware or implanted back doors, etc., and the vicious cycle of uncontrollable, vulnerable copies of Windows saturating the Internet continues which endangers all of us. |
| DrGeoffrey Mar 22, 2015 3:38 PM EDT |
"some of those hacks may make such altered versions of Windows 10 more vulnerable to malware or implanted back doors, etc." FTFY. OTOH, I'm not all that certain it is possible to make Windows more vulnerable. |
| ljmp Mar 22, 2015 4:39 PM EDT |
@cmost: I'm not sure Windows 10 itself is free to install. I believe Microsoft is simply giving away the upgrade to Windows 10. It's very unlikely that Microsoft will ever distribute a 'full' version of any future Microsoft OS, making it impossible for a pirated 'initial' installation of Windows 10+... But I haven't run an MS OS in years and years and years... so, I don't really know. |
| JaseP Mar 22, 2015 4:45 PM EDT |
Windows 10 is the "Lock-in" windows... They are giving it for free, as an upgrade, but the OS will require UEFI Secure Boot to be turned on,... AND Secure Boot is not only mandatory, but the "off switch" is optional for the OEMs (read: "MS is free to cajole OEMs into making SURE it cannot be deactivated."). So, while they might not be charging consumers for the OS, you gotta bet that they will be charging OEMs, and using "discounts" if OEMs don't allow consumers to turn off Secure Boot. After Windows 10, they will have an entire generation of machines in lock-in, and won't need to be generous. Giving it away to "pirates," will ensure that the unlicensed copies phone home, just like the licensed copies. Nothing MS does is done for good will, and everything they do is done with an ulterior motive. |
| gus3 Mar 22, 2015 5:52 PM EDT |
And then, when everything goes to pot, and IT managers realize they can't get rid of Windows without getting rid of the hardware itself, people's tolerance of Microsoft will suddenly and drastically shrink. I really do think M$ is setting itself up badly here. |
| ljmp Mar 22, 2015 6:49 PM EDT |
I don't agree that: M$ is setting itself up badly here.... There are security benefits to UEFI secure boot. It's a really good thing. The problem is the lack of ability to change the keys from MS keys to user or GNU/Linux distro keys. It's similar to the Chromebook thing... in which I got battered a bit... but changing the UEFI key or the TPM key is both a security problem for the OS provider and a freedom thing for the user. However, with Secure Boot enabled UEFI and a Windows Store --- MS is becoming similar to MacOSx or your friendly GNU/Linux distro... which is a really good thing for end-users and Internet security... I can't count the number of times my servers are hit with a distributed bot-net attack from malwared Windows desktops. Hopefully the Windows 10 update and Secure Boot help to lower the load compromised Windows desktops place on my servers. I don't use MS or Mac or Android for that matter... I build my own whiteboxed servers and desktops... and my next laptop purchase will probably be this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-laptop |
| JaseP Mar 23, 2015 2:50 AM EDT |
The security benefits of UEFI Secure Boot are minimal at best. Secure Boot is a joke, in terms of security. Not only have exploits have still managed to get around it, but the type of malware it was designed to prevent was never a major attack vector, even on Windows machines. MS did, and always has, intended pushing Secure Boot as a means to lock out other OSes... period. The whole, "it's to prevent malware," tripe is a lie. The simple fact that it was touted as a "security thing" made it necessary for Linux to support it... But it was always unnecessary from a Linux malware perspective. With Windows,... the malware will be there, always, Secure Boot or not. The only way you prevent getting malware on Windows, is limit your use of the platform. |
| Ridcully Mar 23, 2015 3:52 AM EDT |
I've enjoyed the above discussion, but I always come back to one thing: "Anything Microsoft does is designed to benefit the software monopoly Microsoft always intended...Oh, and increase the user base and profits, of course." Truly, for Microsoft, are there any other aims ? Malware ? I think Redmond's attitude is more or less that it's a nuisance rather than a catastrophe.....What the heck, they've now got massive user lock-in so the consumers are stuck with Redmond, malware or not. For instance, our Australian Tax Office has on-line forms - right - based on Windows software. I'd love to use them in July, but I cannot, unless I run Windows. The Health Department runs all the doctor prescriptions database.......on Windows.....try changing that little monster, and so it goes. And of course, Redmond moles are everywhere in the IT sections of government, ensuring that ONLY Microsoft versions of software are used or are in future contracts........even though our governments are now trying to save every penny.....It'd be hysterically funny - if it wasn't so darn serious. |
| ljmp Mar 23, 2015 11:43 AM EDT |
The 'Windows' format problem is really a standards compliant problem. The US Library Association was heading towards recommending ODF as a primary storage format... However, the appearance of OOXML muddied the waters enough to kill adoption of ODF. In most cases, at least in the US - probably similar in Australia or whatever - mostly free - society/country someone may live in, government contracts are not intentionally written so that MS formats are favored... rather -- there is a basic contract template that is just `copied/pasted`... Very few people care enough to change the format type. And so, much like PGP cryptography, it really comes down to public apathy rather than a conspiracy of some kind. In general, people don't care or want to care about things [anything at all] beyond their day-to-day life. It just doesn't matter to most people whether they use or run FOSS, actually open standards document formats, encrypted email, etc.. etc.. etc.. Reference for ALA Recommendation: ALA Recommendations (2006) `PDF`: https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/ref/dos_repteam_born_digital_document.pdf |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!