×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More MS EULA Fun

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the if-a-eula-falls-in-the-forest dept.

Microsoft 602

gray code writes: "The Register is reporting that Microsoft has placed an interesting wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 that asks for the same remote admin rights as the Windows Media Player patch that raised such an uproar. I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much." Update: 08/04 15:05 GMT by T : Helix150 writes that a separate EULA for W2K's SP3 "contains this nasty bit: 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' Hmmm..."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

602 comments

Shit Ya! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007607)

that sux

Re:Shit Ya! (0)

mAIsE (548) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007711)

yet another reason to buy a Mac, the unix workstation for the rest of us....

And if they didn't? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007608)

Microsoft is required to make this revision in their EULA in order for Automatic Updates to work. If it makes you wary (as if you actually use the OSes) then disable it. Control Panel > Automatic Updates > uncheck Keep My Computer Up to Date. (In Windows XP, the same thing can be found in the System configuration applet of the Control Panel.) Feel free to read the links on that property page to discover what Automatic Updates does, and in newer incarnations, Scheduled Updates.

I believe the fact that this is disablable makes it moot. Such functionality, I think, is almost required for any OS that will play the role of desktop OS. I personally haven't seen the behaviors that take place with Windows 2000 SP3, but Windows XP did alert me the first time it started and before it checked for any updates, permitting me to disable the feature entirely or select from a couple of notification options.

I'm not sure it is acceptable to assume that an end user will actively participate in the maintenance of the software on their system to ensure, above all else, security. Windows had the Windows Update icon sitting in the Start Menu since Windows 98, and it went ignored. As mentioned before, Automatic Updates was released as a part of Windows XP last October. It was also released as an individual update to Windows 2000 over a month ago.

And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.

In any case, justification is pointless. I know people don't like the idea. But, it can be disabled, and if you don't like it, I suggest doing so and updating manually.

Re:And if they didn't? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007612)

Gee that was fast, almost seems like u had it prepared.

Re:And if they didn't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007627)

Yes..... it seems as if it was prepared...

Way to fast, way to perfect (0, Troll)

Niadh (468443) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007662)

Can we get the IP of that AC? 207.46.230.218

thought so!

Re:Way to fast, way to perfect (0, Flamebait)

thefalconer (569726) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007760)

That man sounds just like one of the PR people from MS. That was produced way to conviniently fast to have been written by a member of slashdot. Plus it was written by anonymous coward, which is another good hint. No self respecting slashdotter would write that. Give it up MS. Your days as the evil empire are over. It's time to bring in Barney to take your place. There's nothing more evil than Barney the purple dinosaur. :)

Re:Way to fast, way to perfect (4, Insightful)

mickwd (196449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007800)

Yes, (s)he does.

I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates."

Hmmmmm, so you're experienced at running servers, are you? And you'd love to see some organisation you know little about randomly updating your servers with whatever code they like, whenever they feel like it?

Are security and reliability really your top priorities?

Re:And if they didn't? (4, Interesting)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007625)

The issue you microsoft loving moron is the EULA does not say that by turning off the Auto updates they wont do anything to your system..

The EULA gives them TOTAL power of your computer no matter what you do short of taking away any connection between you and them..

This means its within there power to say, Hey look hes got a pirated version of "Austin Powers The Spy Who couldnt come up with a second Orginal Movie and had to use the same old jokes over and over" and WIPE your system TOTALLY.

Its not the Ability to Auto Update.. ITS THE BROAD power there poorly worded EULA gives them.

Re:And if they didn't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007797)

And how is this a troll.. Alot of people seem to think the EULA is limited just to the Auto Updating ability which it is not..

This is something very important that everyone needs to realize.

Re:And if they didn't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007632)

for anyone stupid enough to implement MicroSnot Windoze for a server needs automatic updating, it should be manditory for those idiots, because there are still some Nimda & Code Red windoze IIS boxes out there still scanning for other IIS boxes with the vulnerability, so the idea of auto updating to help the helpless is not such a bad idea...

a better idea would be to wipe that Windoze crap Kludgeware OS completely off the computer and put Linux in it and then put some effort in to learining how to use it properly...

Re:And if they didn't? (2, Informative)

11390036 (158863) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007657)

Some people do use Windows as a server...

Using linux may indeed be a superior solution, but I think your neglecting the fact that business managers are the ones making the decisions to use windows over linux. Why don't you preach to them?

Just a though

Re:And if they didn't? (5, Insightful)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007643)

Bzzzt, wrong. The passage (as quoted from the article) is: "You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer." With the automatic update functionality both in Windows 2000 and in Mac OS, you actively check if there are updates available for your system. This may happen through a cron job (whatever that's called in Windows), but it is your computer that checks. The new passage of the EULA says that _Microsoft_ may check _your_ computer, without your notice, and then "upload" their "fixes". This is, if you haven't noticed, the other way around. The automatic update can be disabled (it is on my working machine), but this? Since you gave _them_ the right to mess around with your computer, I doubt that you can disable this "push update". Furthermore, this may constitute a serious security problem: if MS can upload what they want on your system, some other people could do, too.

Re:And if they didn't? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007734)

In order for this to happen, our XP and SP3 computers must be listening on some port... AND inform microsoft of their IP on boot or at some other time. With any decent packetsniffing, it shouldn't be too hard to figure this out...

posting as AC because I just modded parent up ;)

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

thefalconer (569726) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007783)

Well this is easily negated with a firewall. If it is MS that has to initiate the connection, just simply block all but the nessisary inbound ports and their little EULA becomes moot. Add the extra security of monitoring, then blocking all MS initiated outbound ports and they haven't a databyte to stand on. Unless MS wants to hire hackers to enforce their DRM, they're kinda screwed. The only people they're gonna catch are the people dumb enough to get caught.

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007651)

I absolutely agree that for future desktop system is this "must-have" (also for Linux!). BUT you should always be able to see what's going to be updated BEFORE it happens and/or disable/enable what kind of updates do you want (e.g. I want to update kernel security fixes but no newer versions of any service)

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007672)

You can inform the auto update program to simply download and prompt, not auto install.

I just say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007653)

Crucify them! Crucify them!

In the great words from the computer game: State of Emergency.

Destroy the Corporation :-)

Re:And if they didn't? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007654)

You said it. For most users this system of automatic
updates will work perfectly, because most people feel
their computers should be as easy to use as a toaster.
-
-
I don't want. I don't use it. But, everyone in my
family will take advantage of this feature. In fact, most
computer users would prefer someone took security
concerns out of the equation entirely, and the only way
to do that is for Microsoft to worry about the problem.
-
In fact I have stopped taking care of my families systems
entirely. I don't build for them. I am NOT available
for midnight mercy phone calls. They have to buy
their systems from someone that has service contracts and
they MUST go to the store that sold them the system. Not
only that they must go elsewhere to keep their systems
secure. I am NOT responsible for their security
problems, especially now that they have started banking
and trading stocks online, there is no way I will set
myself up as the angel of mercy to save them from
hackers.
cheers
let the whining commence.

Re:And if they didn't? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007663)

If you actually read the article or the EULA you would realize that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC UPDATE. The line in there "WITH OUR WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT" should make that pretty fuckin obvious. This is probably for DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT updates. Or for the update that will supposedly render all of us XP pirates offline. When you click the OK button you agree to EVERYTHING in the EULA. Including that MS can install and update programs WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

Re:And if they didn't? (5, Informative)

19Buck (517176) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007763)

Yes, it DOES have to do with the Windows Automatic Updates.

I checked the Automatic Updates Control Panel Applet, It was clearly unchecked, as in "Don't check for updates".

Yes, when I checked my system services, there was Automatic updates set to Start automatically and currently started and running even though It was clearly disabled in Control Panel.

Set to manual, stop the service, that should do it.

Nowhere did I see the Eula state "with or without your consent" either. Stop making stuff up.

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

sgtsanity (568914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007708)

Blizzard does this too when you connect to Battle.net. Are they back to being evil now?

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

ryepup (522994) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007739)

They have a damn good product (Blizzard), and I have a lot less problem with the makers of a superior product keeping it up to date to give me the best gaming experience. I trust Blizzard to update their game correctly. I don't trust Microsoft.

Re:And if they didn't? (1)

Audiophyle (593650) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007743)

Blizzard has done this for ages, but the Blizzard updater only patches the game and nothing else, and you can choose to do this on your own if you would like as well. In M$'s case, Windoze Updater "updates" the OS in whichever respect it wants to, and since this piece of sh!t OS controls your computer for the most part, there is some cause for concern.

auto updates suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007762)

Ever use a recent edition of Quickbooks? It does this both for tax tables and for the app. Every time you start it, you don't know how it's going to act.

A perpetual learning curve. The sooner Intuit follows WorldCon, the better.

Re:And if they didn't? (2, Insightful)

imnoteddy (568836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007822)

And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9.

Mac OS checks for updates automatically, then allows you to decide whether you want to update.

Im waiting for Windows to be like some Cars.. (3, Insightful)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007611)

The old "Your door is a jar" bit..

Come home after a long day of work and sit down at your computer.. Turn your monitor on ( because no real geek turns off his computer ) and get a screen that says

"Your computer is trash" then in small fine print "Microcrap was so nice as to try to upgrade me for you however the patch they installed had a fatal flaw and I am now toast, I am sorry you where not around to approve this stupidness"

Re:Im waiting for Windows to be like some Cars.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007669)

No real geek turns his monitor off either. Your monitor
should have power saving features that turn the usage down.
Not only that but turning it on and off is hard on it.

Re:Im waiting for Windows to be like some Cars.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007686)

> Turn your monitor on ( because no real geek turns off his computer ) and get a screen that says

Hmmm... I know this is a offtopic, but is it really needed to keep the computer on all the time? Fair enough if you're doing something on it(hosting websites or seti at least), but just for the sake of it... Does it make you any less geek to be slightly less wasteful?

Microsoft... (2, Funny)

eventhorizon5 (533026) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007613)

Just block them (Microsoft) with your firewall. No more worries :)

Re:Microsoft... (1)

11390036 (158863) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007636)

What about MSDN, most organizations wont simply block an entire site without justification?

It also seems as if it would be easier to simply disable auto-update on each Desktop than to perform a block at the firewall.

What about future software releases with anti-DRM-circumvention software included?? How can I get sometimes needed system updates without having to consent to such BS?

What happens when SP4 will seek & destroy DRM circumvention s/w???

You don't understand. Microsoft wants control. (2)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007671)


"Just block them (Microsoft) with your firewall."

You don't understand. Microsoft is giving itself complete power to do anything on your system. They can and do invent new protocols that bypass firewalls. Or they can send email or communicate by HTTP.

Read Windows XP shows the Direction Microsoft is Going [hevanet.com] for more Microsoft issues.

Re:You don't understand. Microsoft wants control. (2)

davmoo (63521) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007807)

Okay, Microsoft can invent new software/protocols that bypass firewalls on Windows systems. Fine. Put a friggin Linux box in between your Windows box and the net. End of problem, and Billy can go f--k himself.

Can someone please improve linux quickly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007619)

So we can credibly leave windows behind for good?
Someone? Anyone? .. h e l p

Re:Can someone please improve linux quickly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007799)

It has little or nothing to do with the amount of improvement linux recieves. When the demand rises the big vendors will follow.

If windows is going to be left behind, people are going to have to start leaving it behind. The only one who can help you is you. So stop whining, suck it up, and LEAVE. If you (slashdot reader) don't, Joe NEVER will, and we'll all be stuck with windows forever.

Pull your god damn part of the load and stop dumping it on everybody else.

You're assuming too much (1, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007621)

Most people just click OK and are done with it. Microsoft never comes to pick up their first-born. The users just go about their business making money with Windows.

It's really only the people who are afraid of having their warez/MP3 collection deleted or who are pirating Windows itself that are afraid of these remarks in the EULA. Most users are not worried about those things because they have nothing to hide.

Re:You're assuming too much (1, Troll)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007635)

I have a large collection of mp3's ripped from CD's that I OWN I'd appreciate it if Microsoft can not being able to delete the mp3's I spent hours ripping and normalising.

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007640)

Do you really think that Microsoft is going to delete all of those files?

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

(void*) (113680) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007719)

They don't need to delete those files, they'll just upgrade the player so it wouldn't play them anymore.

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007722)

And you think there's a way to delete MP3 players? You give Microsoft way too much credit, my friend.

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

unoengborg (209251) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007824)

Perhaps it's not possible to delete or disable
nonapproved mp3 players on your current computer,
but it will be no problem to do that once
you have a Palladium enabled CPU.

And even if they didn't remove it, it wouldn't
run anyway as it's digital signature wouldn't be
approved by your CPU.

So watch out when you buy a computer next time.
Make sure that it does not contain any DRM
circuits, in the CPU or elsewhere.

The salesperson will tell you that it protects you
from viruses, but the real purpose is to make it
impossible for you to excerise your fair use rights.
And if you tamper with it, there is always DCMA.

Re:You're assuming too much (2, Insightful)

11390036 (158863) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007665)

The EULA states that they have the power to essentially seek & destory digital rights management circumvention techniques....

I don't think they are out to destory a persons personal files.

Why don't you have a look at the EULA itself, then make your judgements.

Knowledge talks, Wisdom listens

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007639)

That is wrong..

Example.. The cops having the right to search my car is one thing... But giving the cops the right to not only search my car any time they want but to "Upgrade" My seat covers because they dont like them anymore WITHOUT MY APPROVAL is another..

I am all for protecting the rights of artists and copyrights but not at the Expense of my own freedom to setup my machine how I choose...

Heres a good example..

A year from now Microsoft releases Windows Media 99x and Announces that its totally incompatible with any other media player, So they AUTO UPGRADE YOUR MACHINE MY REMOVING ALL OTHER MEDIA PLAYERS BUT THERES...

Now while this example may seem beyond realistic at this point in time.. THIS IS THE POWER THAT THERE EULA GRANTS THEM..

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007709)

The US constitution grants rights, yes, but they protect you from our government, not your corporation. Workers ballance loss of freedom vs. gain of paycheck every day they work. It only becomes insulting when the ballance of power is such that the scales are tipped overwhelmingly one way and there exists no alternative.

Re:You're assuming too much (2, Insightful)

Datafage (75835) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007785)

Actually, to a great extent, no. The Constitution does not solely restrict the government. If this were true, slavery would be perfectly legal as long as the enslaver was a private party. We certainly do have rights against corporations, not only freedom from slavery but also freedom of privacy and others. Keep that in mind.

Re:You're assuming too much (1, Offtopic)

Pedersen (46721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007641)

Actually, I don't fall into any of you categories of illegal behavior. And yet, I won't upgrade to SP3. Why? Microsoft has shown a quite dangerous ability to trash my computer (and everybody else's) just by doing a system upgrade.

I have some custom apps that I've written, some apps I need for work (not written by Microsoft), and apps I need because I'm going to start my own business. And I'm going to give control of this machine to somebody else? Especially to a company which has shown that they are, to put it mildly, able to destroy a system (even by accident)?

No, I don't think so. My data means a little more to me than that. Once Linux satisfies my video editing needs, all Windows partitions are gone. Hmmm, maybe it's time for me to start researching that a bit better. Gotta go!

Re:You're assuming too much (2, Interesting)

Melantha_Bacchae (232402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007771)

Pedersen wrote:

> Once Linux satisfies my video editing needs, all
> Windows partitions are gone. Hmmm, maybe it's time
> for me to start researching that a bit better.

The best (and now probably the cheapest) digital video editing system I ever used was iMovie 2 on a Snow iMac. You can pick a 500mhz (the same one I have) one up on EBay these days for a bit over $200. Use that for video editing, and blow away those Windows partitions. That way you can have the little iMac's hard drive dedicated to video editing, and still have your entire PC hard drive for Linux. If the iMac has OS 9 on it, and you want to use as much open source as possible, later versions of iMovie will work with OS X.

Just a suggestion.

"What I'm thinking is different from what you are."
Belabera, "Mothra 3" 1998

Uh-huh (1)

Floyd Turbo (84609) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007645)

Sure. Just trust Microsoft, they'll look out for our best interests. No need to worry our pretty little heads about that.

And the government never goes after anyone who isn't a criminal, so there's no need to worry about things like warrantless searches and wiretapping.

Are you sure you didn't intend your nickname to be "oblivious guy"?

Re:You're assuming too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007646)

You are also assuming if you leave your front door unlocked when you leave your house, no one will come in and clean out your belongings.

I would assume you might have some perfectly legal information about yourself that you would prefer to keep private.

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007655)

I hope you apply as secure a lock to your data as you do your house.

For the millions of PC users who exists, only a small fraction of them have any data that anyone gives two cents about.

Moral: use the right lock for the job.

Re:You're assuming too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007647)

Sure sure, but you're still giving M$ root privileges over your box - that's the sweet part of agreeing with this new EULA.

Are you okay with this too?

z

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007652)

I would feel a lot better if the people like Gates and McNealy and Ellison who keep telling us to "get over" this privacy hangup would put up a public web site with their medical and tax records. After all, they only need to worry if they have nothing to hide.

Since you seem to feel the same way, why don't you add your records to the site? I'm sure someone here has enough spare server space to find a temporary home for the info until the three individuals mentioned above can find their checkbooks.

Re:You're assuming too much (0, Offtopic)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007667)

Obvious Guy:

Name: Last Guy;
First Obvious;

Known diseases:
Asthmatic as a child, no signs of asthma in adulthood;

Allergies:
Some mushrooms;
Fleshy melons - honeydew, canteloupe, etc. (cucumber, watermelon, squashes fine)

Sincerely,

Obvious Guy

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

Pedersen (46721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007703)

And your tax records and info? Where's that? Oh, and that's hardly a complete medical history. I can guarantee that any doctor you've visited has a lot more information than that. Come on, you don't have anything to hide, do you?

Re:You're assuming too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007733)

Allergies: . . . Fleshy melons . . .

That's got to be a bummer.

~~~

Re:You're assuming too much (0, Offtopic)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007741)

It's a real bummer. I got hold of a musk melon from the wife's parents the other week and had myself a slice while she was asleep.

I managed to come away from the experience with only a constricted throat and full body hives for an evening.

I haven't told anyone yet because I hope to get another melon soon. God, the pain is so worth it.

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

Zapdos (70654) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007702)

Then remove your bathroom door, you have no need of it, since there is nothing to hide. You may as well remove all your interior doors while you are at it.

Personal privacy includes digital privacy.

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

foo12 (585116) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007788)

What? And leave just the external door? Actually with Microsoft it's more like a screendoor with half the screen come unstapled :p

Somewhat somplistic, aren't you? (4, Insightful)

theolein (316044) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007723)

I agree that most users never read the EULA anyway, which is their fault, but they might just read it if it were understandable. How about saying no to the EULA box and mailing Microsoft for clarification on what exactly the EULA means? Surely this is within one's rights as a customer, or is it against the law in the USA now (unpatriotic?) to ask to understand what the EULA is requiring of you?

I have no "warez" on my machine or MP3's for that matter, and I do use my Windows machine to "make money" but I don't think I want to allow Microsoft access to my computer for other reasons. The reasons include Microsoft changing the OS to a subscription model without my consent, Microsoft having access to company and private information which would constitue a breach of my and my company's privacy (small company, no corporate versions) and Microsoft modifying the OS to exclude me using competitor's software without warning me in advance.

I think this is a case for the EU commission on privacy and legality of contracts here in Europe. I don't know about the USA though (OI assume that obviously such contracts are legal in the USA).

Re:Somewhat somplistic, aren't you? (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007736)

I guess it would be interesting to send Microsoft a notice of the meaning of their EULA that they haven't already thought of. Hubris knows no bounds, I always say.

Do you think that your data files are of any interest to Microsoft? Do you truly believe they are systematically uploading your data files and perusing them for any anti-Microsoft messages hidden therein?

The price of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007767)

...is eternal vigilence.

Maybe I have _legal_ mp3s? Like from CDs I own, or downloaded off web sites _of the artists_ who want to be heard.

But according to some.. "Downloading music from the internet is a crime."

Is this harmless today? Maybe.
Will it stay harmless for tomorrow? History says no.

And yes I run Win2K.. for now.
Maybe linux on the desktop isn't ideal, but damn Mandrake (or your favorite distro) is looking mighty good about now.

My money paid for My hardware so it runs by My rules. Microsoft "helping" me is electronica non grata.

Re:The price of freedom... (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007782)

I've been IP banned, so this may not show up.

It isn't the fact that you've got MP3's on your HD that makes any difference.

It's simply the defensive mentality of criminals that is what my comment is about. If you are doing something wrong (stealing music, stealing software), then, sure, you'll feel MS is out to get you. Otherwise, you'll realize that MS has no beef and is simply making empty threats.

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007784)

Most users are not worried about those things because they have nothing to hide

Just because something is hidden, does not mean it's illegal or bad.

Sure, most users won't care. And that's there choice and right. The important thing is to have the that choice.

Re:You're assuming too much (1)

jtharpla (531787) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007795)

Why is this +3 Insightful? I'd like to suggest -1, Naive on that.

I mean, sure Microsoft is going to collect your first-born if you install SP3, but this is not just a clause to deal with what the writer obviously believe are the "bad" people of the world. Rather this is yet another small milestone in a gradual expansion of the power of an EULA.

I think someone else hit the nail on the head--why should it be legal for a required patch to have an EULA that can remove some of my rights to a previously purchased software whose EULA I agreed to. I think it's probably a bad wording anyway...I shouldn't have to issue a blanket license to Microsoft to install updates on my computer if that functionality can be disabled. A small additional clause stating that the update includes Automatic Update software and my use of said software (ie, leaving it enabled) constitutes license for Microsoft to install updates on my computer would have been sufficient without being infringing.

And to those who say just don't install it, WAKE UP. I admin IIS servers...the number of hotfixes required post Win2K SP2 make this necessary, or do you think I want to be responsible for another IIS worm at my company. :-P For now, the declared standard procedure at work is to install SP3 then disable the auto-updates.

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007806)

why should it be legal for a required patch to have an EULA that can remove some of my rights to a previously purchased software whose EULA I agreed to ?

Good question. Isn't this the main impetus behind adopting "Free" software?

But then again, the GPL also states that any software so licensed is bound to any future revisions of the GPL.

Re:You're assuming too much (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007798)

M$ never comes to pick up the first born? No, they take a limb with each upgrade cycle.

The users just go about their buiness making money with Windows? Hmmm, for most all of the money making parts of an operation there are OS replacements that work just as well. M$ rules the desktop because they support more GAMES than anyone else.

It's really only the people who are afraid of having their warez/MP3 collection deleted or who are pirating Windows itself that are afraid of these remarks in the EULA? Well, you are right that the Warez/MP3 collectin' copyright violators don't want M$ poking around on their computers. You forgot that there are some other folks who don't want M$ poking around too --- anybody who could be working on any product that could compete with any component of the M$ fiefdom for example.

Most users are not worried about those things because they have nothing to hide? Cool, can I come over and look at your checking account statements -- why would you want to hide them -- I promise I won't access your accounts. Can I have someone come on over an catalog your CD collection and then sell the list under the table to Columbia House record scammers?
Each and everytime someone claims that people who have nothing the hide also have nothing to fear, I flash back to the 30's, see the Nazi flag rising, hang my head and realize that the purpose of many people's lives is to plumb the depths of (repeat) stupidity.

Re:You're assuming too much (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007826)

You forgot that there are some other folks who don't want M$ poking around too --- anybody who could be working on any product that could compete with any component of the M$ fiefdom for example.

Haha. If the product ever becomes big enough to be noticeable, it will be incorporated and the company will be put out of business. Who are you kidding?

Cool, can I come over and look at your checking account statements -- why would you want to hide them -- I promise I won't access your accounts

Sure. I haven't had visitors in a while. You figure out how to come to my house, I'll turn over my bank records.

Can I have someone come on over an catalog your CD collection and then sell the list under the table to Columbia House record scammers?

As long as you can find a way to do it from outside my front door, sure.

I flash back to the 30's, see the Nazi flag rising

Now that's not fair. Invoking Godwin at this stage isn't very sporting.

You sorry bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007628)

I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much."

Why do you even have any version of winblows!

Get a man's OS or get out of OUR website.
You scummy pile of crap!

Re:You sorry bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007650)

Some people use windows... i don't see how ripping on windows users really solves anything

Re:You sorry bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007682)

Hey, why don't you troll a Windows supporters web page.

We use Linux and look down on scum that don't.

You are either with us or you are against us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007748)

You seem underestimate the important role that the "us vs. them" mentality plays in rallying public support for the war on terror. Now more than ever, it is time for all true patriots to embrace hatred of diversity.

Re:You sorry bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007712)

tit

Can you say Intel processor serial's deja vu? (1)

chemguru (104422) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007656)

The EULA also states that it can pull OS version and Product ID info along with IE version info, Plug&Play ID numbers, and more.

How much hell did Intel get for playing this game?

--JamesT

SP3 and DirectX 8.1 (2, Interesting)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007676)

Was playing with SP3 last night. Its reports at least 10 different modules in DirectX as "untrustworthy".

I just sat and laughed.

How get this effect?

Load W2K, Load SP3, Load DirectX

Odd (2)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007750)

I've win2k with sp3 and directx 8.1 (4.08.01.0881) and 0.0 files being untrustworthy.

MS can't help it when you load a crappy Soundblaster driver which has untested/beta modules or a non-tested, leaked nvidia driver.

Re:Odd (1)

cfreeze (146454) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007804)

I will back jackb_guppy up on this. I bought a brand new laptop this weekend and went about upgrading w2k to all the latest patches. I installed SP3 before upgrading the DirectX drivers. Same thing happened, files from DirectX were flagged as unknown/untrustworthy versions.

Perception (5, Interesting)

Raven-sama (527194) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007693)

I think that the main problem people have with this whole idea of the change in the EULA is that it's not exactly well publisised by Microsoft. Every time they bring out a point release or a service pack, there is always some subtle difference in wording, or a little thing added.

Windows has a reputation for being insecure, and thing's like this aren't going to help. If Microsoft can upload and install things on your PC at will, who's to say that someone else couldn't do the same thing? The reason Windows Update was a manual process was so you can keep track of what you install.

Install without permission yea ok (2, Insightful)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007694)

Also got to think about whos doing this.. Microsoft has a long history of putting out products with bugs and security issues...

You want to risk your Quicken database with all your bank info being stolen because Microsoft installed some software with defaults on that allow anyone access to your computer?

They have released software/patches in the past with this issue, How do you know they wont do the same with some Forced update?

If so Im for hire, I will change the tranmission in your car for a one time fee of only $500 and I promise you "wink wink" that There will be no problems with my work.

Re:Install without permission yea ok (2)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007819)

You want to risk your Quicken database with all your bank info being stolen because Microsoft installed some software with defaults on that allow anyone access to your computer?

Quicken's a really bad example actually. I use that, and to run it you have to have admin rights. That's right - the daft installer doesn't grant enough permissions over its DLLs or whatever to allow normal users to access them.

There's a script floating around on the net somewhere to fix this - but it's ridiculous that a fix is even needed. Quicken were told about this problem when NT4 came out. It's still there in XP.

Daft.

Cheers,
Ian

Before you click that link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007705)

...say aloud:
"I acknowledge and agree that the Register may automatically check the version of the Browser Product and/or its components that I am utilizing and may provide files or scripts to the Browser Product that will be automatically downloaded to my computer"

Re:Before you click that link... (2)

theolein (316044) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007777)

I'll bite: In case you didn't notice, YOUR browser is making the request not the the server. Your browser is not doing this automatically. You have to click on that link. Understand?

Read the msft docs...then make your call (4, Interesting)

rochlin (248444) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007707)

The good and real question is: Should I go to SP3 from SP2. An important point -- MSFT's automatic updates can be disabled Read the docs [microsoft.com]. That means that you may give away the right to MSFT to abuse your computer, but from a practical point of view, you can disable the means for them to do it.

A lot of time on Slashdot is spend carping about bugs in MSFT software. SP3 fixes hundreds above and beyond previous hotfixes. Check them out for yourself [microsoft.com] and decided whether you would rather have a better functioning Windows or stand up for civil liberties.

Both are legitimate practical considerations. One might be more pressing depending on your current state of employment...

Re:Read the msft docs...then make your call (5, Interesting)

kubla2000 (218039) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007729)

SP3 fixes hundreds above and beyond previous hotfixes. Check them out for yourself [microsoft.com] and decided whether you would rather have a better functioning Windows or stand up for civil liberties.

That makes no sense at all!

Wtf should I have to make that choice?

Apple pie is much better than a grenade up your arse. Read the recipes for both and decide whether you would rather have apple pie or blow yourself up.

It's a bloody operating system for christ's sake! It's supposed to work *for* the consumer, not force him/her into a "Hobson's Choice".

Re:Read the msft docs...then make your call (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007751)

How about a compromise.. An apple pie up your ass :)

Re:Read the msft docs...then make your call (2)

Apreche (239272) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007749)

Absolutely right. The reason so many /.ers hate windows they complain about it being unstable, or insecure. I never have windows crash. Software chrashes within win2k, but win2k itself wont go down. And there is no security problem I'm aware of, I don't use outlook and I don't download e-mail attachments from weird people. Windows only works properly if configured properly. Part of configuring it properly is updating it. You are entirely too paranoid if you think Microsoft is actually going to go around to every computer running windows and delete everybody's mp3s. Even if they had the technology to do it. There's somethign called a firewall.

(notice incoming connection to port XXXXX from mp3delete.microsoft.com application NT Kernel, accept? ALWAYS BLOCK)

There are so many windows users that somethign like that just isn't possible. Besides the EULA says that they can upload FIXES to you. First of all just don't install the automatic updater. There's a good chance that whatever they need to give you new "fixes" is in there. second, if they do indeed upload a fix to you, and you find out, what are you going to say? they fixed a bug in my computer? The EULA specifically says they can upload fixes or updates. If something they upload is not a FIX but is a BREAK you can sue and win easily.

Use linux to develop software, it has superior free compilers and superior code editing tools, text editors.
Use Windows 2000 for everything else. It never crashes, it runs everything, it's secure enough for me, its easy, its fast, its pretty, all my hardware works with it. What more do I need?

Re:Read the msft docs...then make your call (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007773)

You're missing the point:
You either allow M$ the right to OwN your computer in order to "protect" it, or you forego security patches. To argue that it means "nothing" to accept the eula, accept the patches, and the firewall off
microsoft from access to your machine simply
demonstrates that you do NOT understand the legal
system of the U.S. You are advocating breaking the law. You are the reason why people like Jack Valenti, the RIAA, the MPAA, and others have so much bowel control problems --- : you break the law all the time.

Linux users prefer to abide by the law, BECAUSE only the law can ENFORCE the GPL and open source licenses. Linux users are NOT the lawbreakers. It's the windows users who would rather sleep with their devil and try to cheat him that ARE the lawbreakers. Think on that.

Re:Read the msft docs...then make your call (1)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007814)

Well, I agree with you. I think I'm going to get SP3, and I'm not worried Microsoft will mess around with my computer.

You have no choice (5, Interesting)

rehabdoll (221029) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007726)

There is no point in not updating to SP3. You could either run Win2k with known security issues or patch/install sp3 with the new EULA. This is not unique to SP3/SP1, since all new patches contains the same EULA as SP3/1.. give or take.

I find it interesting that this is legal, to change the conditions in PATCHES.

Why dont they just add the line "..and every microsoft employee may get to have sex with your partner"

Not new (1)

SkipToMyLou (595608) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007744)

That clause has been in the Media Player EULA for ages.

Yeah, it's bad, and it's always been bad.

It was quoted in the DOJ trial against MS. See the 12th paragraph [usdoj.gov] of this document.

Control Panel guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4007747)

dont you guys look in control-panel? you can disable the auto-update stuff off in w2k+sp3, easy. Stop trying to hype this lie further. If you linux fruits cant get your head out of your ass and see this...then you dont deserve to own a computer let alone a non-MS OS.

A case for the EU commission (5, Interesting)

theolein (316044) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007759)

I posted this further down as a reply to someone else's post, but I'd like to reiterate that I will be emailing the EU commision investigating MS's business practices about the legality of this EULA. I don't know about the USA (the laws semm to be more relaxed towards privacy there) but I have an idea that this contravenes privacy laws ere in the Europe. As was staed in the EULA, it has beeen changed to specifically state that one allows Microsoft access to your machine and nowhere states what the definition of an upgrade or fix is. On top of this it nowhere states that Microsoft will *NOT* damage, access or delete private data (is this part of an upgrade or fix?). In short there are, AGAIN, no guarantees that Microsoft will NOT compromise my company's or my data.

I think that at the very least, Microsoft should be required by law to provide an EXACT definition of what constitutes an upgrade or fix and what Liability Microsoft has. It really is time that software companies were made 100% as liable for their shoddy, devious and deceptive practices as car manufacturer's are for example.

The wrong Focus... (2, Interesting)

vofka (572268) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007765)

<PARANOIA MODE="ON">

IMHO, most people are focusing on the wrong aspect of this change. Sure, this change in the EULA gives MS the power to connect to, scan, and update the OS Software on your PC - and with their past record with releasing buggy, security-flaw ridden software, one should think that having the most recent patches installed ASAP would be a good thing (though MS Have been known to go from bad to worse with some of their patches!)

However, you all seem to be missing a more obvious implication - if MS can connect to your machine to load Legitemate updates, How long do you think it will be before your local 3v1l Hax0r d00d works out how to spoof the mechanism to his/her own ends?

It's not necessarily what you are allowing MS to do that you should be worring about - it's what you will be allowing the rest of the world to do that should worry you!

<PARANOIA MODE="OFF">

MS has some legal obligations. (1)

red_gnom (545555) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007772)


When I was making a purchase decision concerning Windows 2000, I was also taking under consideration the license agreement, and future bug fixes. Microsoft is under legal obligation to support the product, to allow me to download the patches, and service packs for the product for which I paid, without forcing me to do, or not to do some other things, which were not discussed in the original license agreement.
They are really becoming a pain in the ars not only for their competition, but now also for their customers, which is stupid. Such abuse of power, and trust (or rather what was left of it) by Microsoft will anger, and turn a lot of users away. There are reasonable alternatives to most of MS products on the market right now, and they are getting better, and more attractive every day.

The days are counted.

Might as Well Read... (1)

Nashville Guy (585073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4007809)

"You agree to allow Microsoft to become your default corporate network administrator. We will decide, without regard to the stable PC images you built and deployed, and regardless of any specialized applications you may be running, what patches will be applied to the OS on your production machines. If your non-Microsoft, mission critical software stops working after that, you need to get with your software maker."

This is new EULA is Microsofts way, in my mind, of saying "Hey, you people that don't patch your systems, even in the face of known flaws, are making us look bad. Screw this, if you won't do it, we will!"

hubris (hyoobris) also hybris (hibris) n.

Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris" (McGeorge Bundy).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...