OSDev.org

Tbh, this shows how Microsoft is considered a 'Villain' to most Linux users....

And to MacOSX, BSD, AmigaOS, Solaris, etc. etc. etc. users too, not to mention their own Win users.

Just ask these questions to yourself:
1. has M$ used dirty tools against its rivals? (Think about Commodore)
2. did M$ illegaly force the market to accept it's monopoly? (Think about government scandals in many countries)
3. did M$ had questionable acquisitions? (Think about VMS developers and WinNT)
4. does M$ collect telemetry on it's users without their consent? (Since GDPR, this is literally a crime in the EU)

(If it may seem I'm against M$, let's make it clear that I think Canonical, RH, G, FB, Apple etc. are equally evil. Come on, do you think it's a coincidence that G had "don't be evil" removed from their slogen??? Hahaha).

Any organization that thinks profit is more important than moral or following the law is evil, period.

Cheers,
bzt

ps.: and no, one cannot seriously expect an avarage user to know how to use wireshark and port blocking. That would be equal to expecting every car driver to know how to fix the carburator.

Every time I hear evidence of how evil Microsoft are, there's evidence I haven't heard before.

I'm not sure it's possible for a publicly-traded company to be not-evil any more; not the big ones anyway. All their shareholders and the traders representing them would have to be moderate people with modest ambitions.

bzt wrote:ps.: and no, one cannot seriously expect an avarage user to know how to use wireshark and port blocking. That would be equal to expecting every car driver to know how to fix the carburator.

Very much agreed.

eekee wrote:I'm not sure it's possible for a publicly-traded company to be not-evil any more

Which is possibly a more interesting observation to look at than simply pinning Forum's Favourite with the problem.

The real question is: can you actually be at the top without leaving bodies somewhere? Are there correlations and causalities between corruption, plutocracy, the disappearing middle class and the political system (of the US in particular. Face it: all the names mentioned come from there). Hard evidence is difficult with all the interdependencies, but there seems to at least be a self-sustaining "evil" embedded in the system.

At least my opinion is that raging against microsoft is wasted effort for the real problem.

Combuster wrote:The real question is: can you actually be at the top without leaving bodies somewhere? Are there correlations and causalities between corruption, plutocracy, the disappearing middle class and the political system (of the US in particular. Face it: all the names mentioned come from there). Hard evidence is difficult with all the interdependencies, but there seems to at least be a self-sustaining "evil" embedded in the system.

True, and unfortunately this is not an US-only problem, although it seems evil is largely fueled by US companies all around the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ce-extract
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2016-11/2 ... 791599.htm
https://observer.com/2017/11/apple-ille ... -x-orders/
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/worl ... china.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... ommission/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rivacy-law
https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ (on Intel violating Minix license, not to mention the security concerns about running a hidden OS without user's consent)

Not a representative list, it can be that mostly abuses related to US companies are given a large publicity. Does not mean there are no others.

At least my opinion is that raging against microsoft is wasted effort for the real problem.

True, it won't solve the real problem as a whole. But that's not a reason to give up either. It is not a wasted effort in any way imho, fight the devils you know. #deletefacebook too.

Cheers,
bzt

Combuster wrote:At least my opinion is that raging against microsoft is wasted effort for the real problem.

I believe so. In fact, I believe what the Bible says at 1 John 5:19, "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." That being the case, it's no wonder that the major power structures and influences on this world should reflect the Devil's attitude.

I wouldn't say Microsoft is "evil" (at least no more than any other large corp), they just don't write very good software.

hoss wrote:I suggest these golf rangefinders to beginners and wouldn't say Microsoft is "evil" (at least no more than any other large corp), they just don't write very good software.

Vote with your dollars. That's all any of us can do, really. And spreading the word doesn't hurt. But Microsoft is an angel compared to Facebook, for example.

Dunkelberg wrote:Vote with your dollars. That's all any of us can do, really. And spreading the word doesn't hurt. But Microsoft is an angel compared to Facebook, for example.

The type of evil is different between Microsoft and companies like Facebook or Google, even if Microsoft have adopted some of the evil of the companies like Facebook. Historically the evil of Microsoft has been of the anti-competitive type. There are plenty of examples where Microsoft have used anti-competitive methods, most obvious one is the "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" which Microsoft is so well known for (Examples like Java, Sendo, Nokia and many more). Furthermore they have other methods as well for example the Netscape vs Explorer debacle. In short Microsoft is business juggernaut that goes in like a bulldozer and crushes competition, often bad for consumers.

The evil of Facebook, Google and other companies is different. Here the evil is of political nature. Facebook and Google gather information and use the information in order to censor, silence and doxing in their view political dissidents. Google is also heavily tied with US intelligence (was a DARPA project from the beginning), which makes it a semi state owned company. This information can also be sold or even given to third parties for whatever reason that we don't know, this is even more dangerous.

I would say the evil of Facebook and Google is much higher than Microsoft. Microsoft is a large company with questionable business practices but do so for their own profit and Microsoft is not alone doing this. Facebook and Google the other hand are doing things that are beyond the interest of the profitability of their companies, they are political and there is no profit chasing political dissidents (other way around, all the people censoring cost money for example) so there is only evil involved here.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Google / Facebook are not engaging in anti-competitive tactics.

Have any of you payed attention to the whole "article 13" debate regarding the upcoming EU copyright rework? This motion is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and it's not difficult to see who's behind it.

The motion is that content enablers -- like YouTube or Facebook -- will, in future, be accountable for copyright infringements by their users (as opposed to now, where the enabler is accountable only when notified of such infringement and not taking timely action). This means that content will have to be checked for copyright infringement before the upload.

The big players can afford this kind of upload filtering. They could also afford, for example, paying people to swamp any newcomer with questionable uploads and drowning said newcomer in a hailstorm of copyright lawsuits.

What software patents were for Microsoft, copyright law will be for media platforms.

Solar wrote:Have any of you payed attention to the whole "article 13" debate regarding the upcoming EU copyright rework? This motion is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and it's not difficult to see who's behind it.

The motion is that content enablers -- like YouTube or Facebook -- will, in future, be accountable for copyright infringements by their users (as opposed to now, where the enabler is accountable only when notified of such infringement and not taking timely action). This means that content will have to be checked for copyright infringement before the upload.

The big players can afford this kind of upload filtering.

That idea doesn't really fly, because they can't afford it. They might believe they can, but if they really are the ones behind it, it is going to backfire mightily, because their algorithmic systems are very leaky sieves, prone to both false negatives and - more importantly - false positives. If applied a priori, most content - regardless of source or copyright - will be blocked, undercutting the very existence of these platforms. If all that is getting out is material pre-vetted by major 'content producers' whom YouTube and Facebook 'trust', they will lose their user bases - the entire reason they succeeded as platforms was because they allowed ordinary users a place to post things, and if that stops happening, people will stop using them, and go back to television and other diversions.

Which isn't to say they aren't behind it; if they want to outlaw their own business model, that's their mistake, not mine.

Solar wrote:Do not make the mistake of thinking that Google / Facebook are not engaging in anti-competitive tactics.

Have any of you payed attention to the whole "article 13" debate regarding the upcoming EU copyright rework? This motion is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and it's not difficult to see who's behind it.

That is true, but it isn't these two. The ones who want all the money in the world -- despite deserving none of it -- are the GEMA and similar companies. They see their relevance reduced by the internet at large (why should I buy a CD in a store when I can download the entire album and pay the artist via PayPal, so only their provision is deducted?) and make a desparate power grab. Hopefully it doesn't go through, because if it does, a VPN will be all but mandatory for using the internet in the EU. What a world -- using the Internet in the EU will require as many precautions as in China.

This is not merely a conspiracy theory, BTW. The work of these copyright holder lobbyists is well documented. Facebook and Google do not stand to gain from this legislation, at least not directly. They stand to loose a whole lot of business, though, as people seek other solutions to the problem, which will likely include circumventing both of these companies.

Solar wrote:Do not make the mistake of thinking that Google / Facebook are not engaging in anti-competitive tactics.

Have any of you payed attention to the whole "article 13" debate regarding the upcoming EU copyright rework? This motion is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and it's not difficult to see who's behind it.

The motion is that content enablers -- like YouTube or Facebook -- will, in future, be accountable for copyright infringements by their users (as opposed to now, where the enabler is accountable only when notified of such infringement and not taking timely action). This means that content will have to be checked for copyright infringement before the upload.

The big players can afford this kind of upload filtering. They could also afford, for example, paying people to swamp any newcomer with questionable uploads and drowning said newcomer in a hailstorm of copyright lawsuits.

What software patents were for Microsoft, copyright law will be for media platforms.

Article 13 has zero to do with copyright infringements (as already mentioned, handled by GEMA and other organizations). It's a justification of installing internet filters, similar to China. Censorship with another word. They want to block political memes and other political sensitive material. Good example of this is the infamous photo of Macron having an intimate party with some naked Africans. This photo was taken down at Facebook because of "nudity" but we all know it is just a cop out. Other way to go is to claim the photo is copyrighted and you are not allowed to upload it.

It is a losing game though as people will adapt and be creative.

What's new here is the politicization of the internet and the entire IT sector, not to be confused with any previous economical measures.

Hi,


Concerning Article 13 (now Article 17): It's sad to see it being voted for (it passed along with the entire Directive on 26th March). At least Linus's father opposed it (if only he could persuade some more MEPs to at least consider amendments...)

There are indeed issues of illegal sharing of media on the Internet. But what the Directive indirectly asks for (automated filtering) is not implementable without both false positives and false negatives. As an example of the former, I have talked here about facebook rejecting an original Bach performance because somehow it got falsely identified as a copyrighted recording by someone else.


Regards,
glauxosdever