Windows 7 Sins - New FSF Campaign | Hacker News Reader

Windows 7 Sins - New FSF Campaign

windows7sins.org

21 pointstjr30 comments

Wow, that's a lot of overblown hyperbole. Free software actually suffers from variants of a number of these, at least to the same extreme that "Microsoft" does them in Windows 7.

This is the kind of stuff that avoids critical thinking in favor of "OMG WINDOZE"

I've never found subtlety to be the strong point of the FSF. The fact that this particular campaign suffers from hyperbole is...less than shocking.

This is particularly questionable:

"7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets."

The way this is phrased (and knowing the FSF, quite deliberate) is to paint MS as complicit in the spread of malware. This is patently false and I would like to see the FSF called out on this - this draws extremely close to libel.

Well, in specific instances you could make a case... Like not patching a huge vulnerability for months. But this claim is way too broad. Most of the security problems plaguing Microsoft today are the results of decisions made years ago. The Microsoft ship doesn't turn on a dime, and unfortunately their large codebase isn't the only thing causing this slowness (internal politics,redtape,etc).

{edit} s/cases/instances/ {/edit}

There's a difference between not patching vulnerabilities and "allowing" viruses to take over your computer. One is negligence, the other implies active collusion. The FSF is way out of line with that comment - but who am I kidding, this is hardly surprising.

The free software movement would be a lot better off if more tempered people were in charge of the FSF.

You're misreading the sentence.

""7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets."

It states that the "long history of security vulnerabilities" enables and allows exploits, which is true. The obvious inference is that Microsoft has allowed that long history to persist, thus enabling the exploits. This is an accusation of incompetence, not malice.

> Free software actually suffers from variants of a number of these, at least to the same extreme that "Microsoft" does them in Windows 7.

Could you be more specific? I don't see it.

Don't discount the possibility of windows people having the same lack of critical thinking. I had the same attitude towards firefox until years later when I reAlized they actually had a point. I mean, free software promoters don't have any monetary incentive to do this. So it would be wise to actually give their argument some merit instead of just labelling them as "OMG WINDOZE"

Linux is probably is probably less user friendly, but that's because microsoft is adamantly against ts consumer adoption. Their argument is if we switch off of proprietary, then more companies can create competing OSs. Heck Microsoft could create a new flavor of Linux that looks like windows. That's the true benefit of free.

I don't want Linux limited to looking like Windows, Microsoft doesn't want "looks like Windows but wont run your programs". Who would benefit from that? How much traction did Lindows get?

Yes but if we moved off of windows then microsoft would make programs that would run on whatever we move to right? IF we didn't have windows, who would make programs that run on windows? Who would benefit from that? You're missing my point. I'm not talking about switching to linux because it's the better alternative, i'm saying that windows is impeding the advancement of free software, which has the potential to be better for everyone by making everything more competitive.

I was going to say "mindless dribble", but "overblown hyperbole" will work too.

Hey at least they didn't use <blink></blink> (they used "text-decoration: blink;" instead!)

Ignoring the obvious flaws in the site design, they should rework the sidebar which states Microsoft's "sins". It states that they are education, DRM, security, standards, monopoly, lock-in, and privacy. At a glance, this is confusing. It's mixing positives (privacy, security, standards, education) with negatives (DRM, monopoly, lock-in). Now I understand that it explains it in the main text portion of the site (education actually being poisoning education, and so on and so forth) but at a glance it weakens their point.

I looked at the side and thought, one of Microsoft's sins is education? Well, I guess, according to them, Microsoft isn't that bad after all. It needs more clarity and consistency.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about Microsoft, but "trusted computing" is definitely BAD. No one wants that stuff.

The idea is that windows is working against the development and proliferation of free software, which supposedly has more potential than proprietary software. So it's not "switch to Linux because it's easier and better," it's "stop Microsoft so there can be more focus into free software because it can be better."

I'm glad they put their point about education at the top. Microsoft has pretty much guaranteed that any computer education a child in this country receives will be a lesson in how to use Windows or Office.

pretty much guaranteed

I leave America for a few years and suddenly programmers use Macs and K-12 education uses Windows? What kind of bizarro world is this?

Wow, this never occurred to me. Great observation. Funny thing is, I personally used a Mac until OS X, and not since. So, ever since they came up with a decent OS, I haven't used it.

I couldn't believe this ham-handed site was actually created by the FSF until I read it on their page. Don't they know that apple is the new microsoft?

Windows gets updates, bad! Windows has security vulnerabilities, bad! Seriously? This is why no one takes these people seriously. The one valid argument about standards completely overlooks IE and instead focuses on OpenOffice, which has no significant marketshare.

They mention the OpenDocument format, which is a great example of Microsoft actively resisting the adoption of an open standard, arguably for business reasons. Yeah it's Sun's baby and so naturally OpenOffice supports it, but I don't think that or their marketshare are relevant to the point.

Oh, stop it. They say that Microsoft "forces updates on it's users" and list some examples. They aren't complaining about windows updates. And how is an OS with security vulnerabilities not a problem? Windows does have a history of poor security. Using a linux distribution is undeniably less of a security risk than running windows. Why wouldn't this be a disadvantage of windows?

And I'm not understanding the mindshare argument. Your point is that locking standards work out is only a problem if you're not (!) successful at it?

To your point, all software has vulnerabilities, its just that Windows is more often the target (if not almost exclusively much of the time) because its a considerable market share. At CanSecWest, the MacBook was the first system hacked, and Vista was hacked on the last day of the conference (soure: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html ). Having a virus/worm targeting windows will have a higher number of infected machines than other OSs, even if another OS has a higher infection than the infection rate of windows, because windows outnumbers the others. Last time I heard, OS X has a 10% share... Disclaimer: I use XP at work, and OS X at home

For the record, Windows 7 isn't crippled to stop it from being used on netbooks. I run Windows 7 Ultimate on my Asus EEE 1000HE, and it works flawlessly... it's not noticeably slower than XP, and I even get all the eye candy.

Nobody said that Windows 7 Ultimate wouldn't run on a netbook, what they said is that the version of Windows 7 that comes with netbooks is "crippled". I don't recall the details but I believe it has been limited to running 2 applications at a time.

That is true, it's Windows 7 Starter (see wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions). It does not seem to limit the number of programs though. I don't think the Starter edition is a particularly evil thing from Microsoft, because this edition is cheaper.

"Nearly every computer purchased has Windows pre-installed -- but not by choice."

There isn't much choice. Nothing else is as good. It just isn't.

1) Make free software better than Windows

2) Problem solved.

"Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office"

The last time I tried to do a CentOS yum update on a little used server it failed with an unhelpful error message. Turns out it was to old and the repository mirrors had been moved.

By the way, you can freely download the Office 2007 Compatability Pack for Office 2003. Don't let that get in the way of a good rant though, will you?

"Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats, because standards like OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over users via proprietary Word formats"

And they've also opened up the new Office document formats for anyone to use. Yes, they do have fields like "interpret this control character as Word for Mac 3.1 did", but that's the same problem that means they can't "just switch to Open Document Format". It's not (necessarily) malicious, just the culmination of decades of program specific cruft.

"Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities"

Yeah and so has Apache, OpenSSH, and virtually all software with the possible claimed exceptions of Ranum's custom code and OpenBSD.

Good thing Microsoft delayed the release of Vista while they changed their development processes to focus more on security, eh? Like how they block network connections on a fresh install until you do a Windows Update (or tell it to unblock them), and how Outlook blocks script and executable attachments unless you explicitly allow them, and how they put UAC in to address the problem of people running as administrators, and how they include Windows Defender in Vista and nag you to install AntiVirus and switch on Automatic Windows Updates and reduced website privileges in IE8 ...oh, yes "a long history of security vulnerabilities" that sounds bad, let's make it a Windows Sin.

This makes using a free software operating system the best way for users to escape Microsoft and avoid becoming victims of these seven sins.

The best way to ensure you can't open people's email attachments, the best way to ensure your staff haven't a clue how to use their computer anymore, the best way to lose an awful lot of business advantages that Linux et al can't replicate.

Look... I would be on your side, if you weren't so smugly hawking the same old same old all the time. 2001 wasn't the year of Linux on the desktop, nor was 2002 or 3 or 4 or ... nor will 2009 be at this rate.

One company I saw yesterday who had broken away from the Windows mould? Mac + Firefox + Zimbra + Google Docs. Another I know of? OpenOffice ... on Windows. All the customers I deal with who evade the usual Windows way of doing business computing are Mac Laptop users.

I had forgotten that Windows existed. A campaign may be counterproductive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com