Posted on 01/06/2003 4:00:44 AM PST by chilepepper
From the title of this paper you may have guessed that I am less than pleased with the guys in Redmond. One might even say that my dislike for Microsoft is a pet hate gone out of control in an almost quixotic fashion. Why is this?
Of course I have been accused of personal antipathy, of being jealous of Bill Gates and his billions, and of being prejudiced against all things Microsoft without any reason whatsoever. But none of this is true. I have nothing personal against Bill Gates. Why should I? I don't know the man, I've never met him. I agree with those who say he might be the most succesful salesman in history. And I've always thought that even one billion in almost any currency is more than I could reasonably spend.
No. It's rather his business practices, and that of his company, that I am opposed to, for a large and still growing number of reasons, most of which are plain, verifiable facts. Let me explain.
Microsoft controls the current software market and has a de facto monopoly on the desktop. This monopoly has not been achieved and is not being maintained by offering the user community better products than Microsoft's competitors can offer. On the contrary, Microsoft has earned a reputation for selling unreliable software.
Windows is a technically inferior operating system with a seriously flawed architecture, weak security model and sloppy code, while other Microsoft applications are equally kludgey. New Microsoft products offer no essential improvements over previous or competing products, and their Return On Investment is between small and zero, in spite of Microsoft's boasts about being innovative and customer-driven.
Instead of making better software, Microsoft has focused on using brilliant but doubtful marketing tactics to force their products upon the user community in order to establish and maintain their monopoly. These methods include a tight integration of applications into the operating system, the bundling of applications with Windows to force competing application vendors out of the market, the mandatory bundling of Windows with new computer equipment, deliberate limitations in the compatibility of their own software with competing products, contracts that prohibit third parties to do business with anyone but Microsoft, and retaliatory practices against non-cooperating vendors. In addition to this, third-party developers are induced, through cheap or free development kits and the sabotaging of alternatives, to develop applications that contain proprietary system calls, are virtually non-portable, and are therefore bound to the MS-Windows platform. These methods only serve to further inflate Microsoft's already obscene profit margins, at the price of the interests of the user community, the IT market and the field of computer technology as a whole.
(Excerpt) Read more at euronet.nl ...
I doubt MS would be interested in that information, particularly since that would indeed constitute an invasion of privacy.
The privacy statement clearly spells out what it collects.
Doesn't say all that much. Only the blurb about "collects no Personally Identifiable Information from you"... it doesn't really enumerate what it collects. And since it concerns DRM, MS isn't likely to spell that out IMHO. I've told you that I consider an IP to be personally identifiable and I've told you why; if MS doesn't think a particular datum is personally identifiable, then it can collect whatever WMP throws at it and still make that declaration.
It's a fundamental truth that, if you're connected to the Internet, you need a firewall. There are plenty of choices for the average consumer that make it easy to decide what to allow to pass through and what to stop. If you don't trust the kernel, get an external hardware firewall. Do the filtering on the external box.
Don't act naive, dude. You know as well as I do that on a NAT firewall, an outgoing packet opens up that port to receive anything coming back from the destination address/port. A properly adjusted firewall is essential, but it is not going to save you from every bad thing -- as many who have been burned by remote-access-trojans and spyware will tell you. The safest thing to do is to turn that box around and unplug the network cable, but how many people are going to do that? Especially when playing content from the Internet?
You're going to have to find a new mantra: People just aren't worried by your scare tactics anymore.
Don't tell me it can't be done.
Yes, but he is such a geek, even with BILLIONS of dollars had to marry a woman who worked FOR him...
Not really. We've been doing it for years. We were an SCO Unix (previously Xenix) reseller and we never had a problem getting a system without an OS.
No, you are not going to get one from Dell. But there are plenty of other places. Get a copy of Computer Shopper magazine.
Ah, thanks, just what I was looking for.
Windows Media Player at no time requests from you any "Personally Identifiable Information" (information that personally identifies you, such as your name, address, and phone number).
In general, WindowsMedia.com does not collect personally identifiable information, such as name, address, or telephone number.
So now we know what MS considers to be "Personally Identifiable Information". That's a start.
WindowsMedia.com automatically collects certain standard information about your computer hardware and software when you visit its site and stores this information in a log. This standard information can include: your IP address... WindowsMedia.com retains its daily logs for 12 months.
So what happens to any data "mined" out of those daily logs?
WindowsMedia.com may share aggregate information with other Microsoft websites and services, and third parties. This aggregate information will not contain any information that can personally identify you such as your name.
... or address, or phone number... note that this does not include IP addys. Oh, there's more:
Personal information collected on WindowsMedia.com websites and services may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Microsoft or its affiliates, subsidiaries or agents maintain facilities, and by using WindowsMedia.com websites and services, you consent to any such transfer of information outside of your country or region.
Aha... so lets define "using the services"...
WindowsMedia.com consists of a family of websites and web based services.... The WindowsMedia.com services are utilized by Microsoft Windows software such as Microsoft Windows Media Player...
Beauty. Simply by loading Windows Media Player, you have given Microsoft & Friends your permission to use any information the client can grab any way they want. So if someday WindowsMedia.com falls over and everybody's media viewing habits shows up on a web site somewhere, with IPs and all, nobody can sue because nobody has a leg to stand on since everybody implicitly said it was OK for MS to collect and store all of that data.
And the NBMers just sit and wonder why nobody trusts Microsoft.
Look, before you go ballistic on me, understand that I'm NOT saying that this is happening. I'm only saying that it's POSSIBLE. There is a RISK. The technology is there. The legal CYA disclaimers are there. Think about it.
And be careful out there.
Translation: "I'm hopelessly paranoid and believe in unsupported conspiracy theories."
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
After multiple installs with five different distributions, I came to the conclusion that Linux is not ready for prime time, at least on my hardware. Handling a 1024 X 768 16 bit display seems to be rocket science. And all the ballyhoo about how it's lean and mean, and usable on older hardware is utter hogwash. Performance was glacial in comparison to Windoze 95 and NT, and DOS made it look frozen in time.
While I'm not a Microsoft cheerleader, Linux just isn't a viable alternative yet.
Oh, right, you're incapable of rational thought. Okay, fine. I get paid to analyze possibilities and to plan for them. It's a simple concept known as "better safe than sorry".
Seek treatment. You might need an anti-anxiety medication. The signs are all there.
Practicing psychiatry without a license again? tsk-tsk.
73; Out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.