WTF M$

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Re: WTF M$

Post by Roja »

Hockey wrote:Seriously...they are starting to spend more time on preventing pirated use than they are...on preventing security issues, features, etc...
Microsoft, as a publicly traded company, must make a cost benefit analysis between preventing pirating (and by doing so, hopefully increasing sales), and inconveniencing users. Make no mistake - thats all they are doing, inconveniencing users.

At a high enough level of inconvenience, customers will decide that alternatives are more attractive. In many ways, thats the basis of the current push for Mac OSX. Their ads are emphasizing that convenience, that improvement over the competitor.

The problem with entrenched monopolies (and Microsoft is one - convicted and confirmed), is that they can choose to significantly increase the inconvenience for their customers - because the alternative comes with a substantial inconvenience cost. To switch a home PC from Windows to a Mac, or Linux, you have to convert not just the OS. You also have to switch games - what if they arent supported on it? You also have to switch browsers - what if your favorite browser isn't available on it? You also have to switch financial software, office software, the list goes on.

All of those "bundles" that require Microsoft's OS help reinforce the monopoly. Each makes it harder and harder for customers to consider alternatives. That allows Microsoft to increase their profits by cracking down on pirating - even if it causes customers inconvenience.
Hockey wrote:The reason I've always liked M$ is I still feel proprietary code is a good thing...slightly more favourable over patents...
I'm puzzled over the comparison. Software patents provide a legal enforcement means against someone implementing a method. A great example I like to point to is zip files. The LZW compression method (which can be expressed in under 200 lines of code) was patented. Anyone implementing that form of compression could be (and on multiple occassions were!) sued. Its a sledgehammer large corporations use to kill competition.

Perhaps you think 200 lines is reasonable. What if it were 100? 50? how about patenting 1==1? At some point, you have to recognize that patents become unreasonable. That point should be the basis to ask the question: How many truly unique solutions and methods are there for solving problems in computer science today?

Honestly, very few. That means that hundreds of programmers worldwide are violating patents - without even being aware of them. Imagine someone suing you because you used echo "hello world".

Proprietary code on the other hand offers *zero* legal protection. Keeping the code private does not prevent someone from coding the same thing, does not prevent people from writing interoperable replacements, and does not give any substantial advantage.

In fact, on multiple occassions, the *full* sourcecode for Windows and other Microsoft products has been exposed and compromised. It offers no protection.
Hockey wrote:Is Mac proprietary? Since they started using *nix and now Intels...do the OS become open source? What about the applications that run on it???
Mac OSX is proprietary. The underlying kernel is opensource (a BSD licensed kernel). The OS doesn't become opensource, and neither do the applications.

The fear of "viral" licensing is nothing but pure BS, spun out by Microsoft. Mac OSX is the perfect realworld counterexample that proves its a lie.
Hockey wrote:Can I write propritary applications for Mac or Linux, in that I don't have to release source code???
Of course, for both.
Hockey wrote:In anycase...this M$ move is yet another B$ move on their behalf :(
Until and unless users realize that the simple act of *using* microsoft products gives them the power to do so, it will continue. Our current administration couldn't effectively restrain their behavior, so it is left to customers to do so.
Daedalus- wrote:I play a couple of games with no support for OS's that are not DOS or Windows.

I still play alot of older DOS/Win95 games.
Keep in mind that whether the game maker supports it running on alternative OS's doesn't mean you can't run them. WINE, a windows compatibility program for Linux/BSD, allows you to run a number of Windows apps on non-Windows systems. The number of games that can run under Wine is huge, and growing. Then add in technologies like Transgaming, which is a subscription version of Wine with substantial enhancements, and you have a serious alternative. Almost every game I like to play on a regular basis runs under Wine - including WoW.
User avatar
Bill H
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:16 am
Location: San Diego CA
Contact:

Post by Bill H »

Microsoft has done some utterly fantastic things, and has developed at least one platform that is a work of art and an absolute joy to use. I refer to Visual C++ which I have used for years. The IDE is outstanding, and the desktop applications it produces are (if programmed properly) robust and user friendly. Debugging is actully fun.

Windows, imho, in all of its iterations has actually been a decent product. Could it be better? Of course it could. But given the size of the product, it seems to me that it has always functioned fairly well. I make applications that are about 1/1,000,000 the size of Windows and I know how hard it is to make them "bulletproof."

So I absolutely do not hate MS. I don't like some of the things they have done to increase their market share to the point of total control, and I dislike their attitude of wanting to be in control of the market -- not because it's Microsoft but because I regard it as unhealthy for the marketplace to have one vendor in control of it.

That said, I refuse to buy XP. Not because I think "they are wrong" to install the infringement protection process, but because I am exercising my market right of chioce. That process imposes inconvenience on the consumer (me) to protect the producer and I choose not to buy the product for that reason. Is it a huge inconvenience? Probably not, but I don't care. The fact that they are willing to impose that inconvenience on me for their own ends is enough for me to decide to "vote with my pocketbook" and not buy the product. This is not in any way an effort to "hurt" MS, I am well aware that it doesn't do so, I just don't want the product on those terms.

I will continue to use the MS products I have purchased in the past, and I will be open to buying other MS products in the future that do not impose similar restrictions. They are a fine company with some fine products, but there is a limit to the conditions under which I will purchase from them.

My products, by the way, do not have any form of copy protection. They are dead simple to install because I want it to be transparent and simple for the people who buy them. If some get pirated, so be it, that is simply part of the cost of doing business.
User avatar
MrPotatoes
Forum Regular
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:42 am

Post by MrPotatoes »

OSX is partly built on FreeBSD and that is on the BSD licence. basically it's my favorite licence. i dispise GPL and LGPL is only nicer. i have many problems with Open source licences currently.

MS protecting thier investment is smart but making bloated insecure and slow software is lame. honestly i'd rather have Vista have the ability to only load network, sound and video drivers and the rest of the system is completley bare. not even notepad, IE, and half the crap that is in the windows folder because i never use it. and if i could compile it specifically for my computer *creme*

but that's never going to happen for one or more retarded reasons.

but making it check multiple times a day? i mean seriously, invade my privacy much. people are only going to figure out how to hack it and then get to my <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> even better. no wai.
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

Well I think it's clear that these decisions are costing Microsoft money, which I think is a key to getting them to reconsider.
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Re: WTF M$

Post by alex.barylski »

Perhaps you think 200 lines is reasonable. What if it were 100? 50? how about patenting 1==1? At some point, you have to recognize that patents become unreasonable.
While I agree that software patents are occasionally granted for silly things...like NetFlix patenting thie rbusiness process of mail delivery or whatever it was...

Many patents are IMHO qualified...LZW is a good example...

It's easy to say, even RLE is too obvious to patent...but hindsight is always 20/20...

Based on my understanding of LZW, Huffman, RLE, etc...it's easy for me to say: "RLE would be rediculous to patent - it's to obvious" but the reality is...Everything is easy once you understand it

I understand some peoples frustrations with patents...but IMHO it's not so much the idea of a patent...but rather the patent office being bombarded with patent requests, overwhelming them and forcing them into permitting silly patents...

Anyways...regardless...

I think the number of lines of code is a poor way of measuring patentability...

What can be done easily in PHP can take alot more work in C/C++ and even more in ASM...I'm sure your aware of this...I'm just saying...200 lines...10 lines...doesn't matter...

What matters is how "Outside the box" the idea is...if the technology is matured and and there are many existing libraries...and all of a sudden you think of a idea which is drastically different...the by all means...permission granted - use a patent...

The problem is...how do you determine "when" to grant a patent...not why you should grant a patent...

For example...template engines...

They are work at the same fundamental level...the HTML template has replacer variables which are replaced by content...

Prior to this technique...many developers used a hodge-podge hack by programaitcally calling objects members which contained HTML, building a HTML output object...

Perl has a library that does this exactly - if I remember correctly...

This is analogus to programming Windows API in C/C++

The point is...when developers started to use the template approach instead of API...was that worthy of patenting???

IMHO...not so much as the idea is fairly obvious...

There is very little scientific merit...
Honestly, very few. That means that hundreds of programmers worldwide are violating patents - without even being aware of them. Imagine someone suing you because you used echo "hello world".
I agree...that would be rediculous...but thats nothing compared to the complexity that has gone into LZW or even Huffman...

Patents...IMHO should almost require some theorteical thesis...

There is very little theory that goes into echo "Hello World"

Many solutions are obvious once you understand the problem...but as is the case with Computer Science...there are usually many ways to skin a cat...and when the obvious is improved upon so much so it becomes not obvious...at this point..I blieve a patent is appropriate...

It's difficult to give solid examples without totally going off the deepend...which I may have already done...

But many solutions are obvious...once you understand the problem and understand the technology...these are solved at a purley technical level...but can often be improved by people who think outside the box...

It's hard for me to explain... :P
Proprietary code on the other hand offers *zero* legal protection. Keeping the code private does not prevent someone from coding the same thing, does not prevent people from writing interoperable replacements, and does not give any substantial advantage.
The reason I said what I said...is because...patents are time consuming, costly and a PITA...compiled code (machine code not byte code)...on the other hand requires very talented people to properly re-assemble/reverse engineer...

Most people/programmers couldn't be bothered or capable of re-assembling machine into readable form...discovering techniques, etc...

Call me greedy...but sometimes...I like to keep my solutions to my self while still offering some kind of end user product :)

I like open source too...but I'm still in favour of proprietary code as well :)

Patents...and proprietary have very little else in common outside of the fact...IMHO they both somewhat protect your idea/technique, etc...that was my point :)
In fact, on multiple occassions, the *full* sourcecode for Windows and other Microsoft products has been exposed and compromised. It offers no protection.
I was ware of some code being leaked...but not the *whole source*

That was more of an internal problem...as a single developer...I need not worry about that :) Once the code is compiled and built as a release...I can take comfort in knowing...again...not many people would be capable of reverse engineering what I have done...
Mac OSX is proprietary. The underlying kernel is opensource (a BSD licensed kernel). The OS doesn't become opensource, and neither do the applications.
I thought they used Linux kernel??? Interesting... :)

Maybe i'll switch to Mac
The fear of "viral" licensing is nothing but pure BS, spun out by Microsoft. Mac OSX is the perfect realworld counterexample that proves its a lie
Viral licensing??? Not sure I know what you mean here... :?
Of course, for both.
Really...

So if I use say wxWindows and port an MFC application over to Linux and compile it...I can sell that software for Linux and never have to release the source code???

I thought...you had to release the source for everything your released on Linux???
User avatar
mabufo
Forum Commoner
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:11 pm
Location: Orland Park, IL
Contact:

Post by mabufo »

astions wrote:Well I think it's clear that these decisions are costing Microsoft money, which I think is a key to getting them to reconsider.
I really doubt it. The few people who actually stop using windows because of this won't even cause a ripple in their pockets. I think they have every right to protect their software - and have every right to update their software - in order to keep the pirates away. If you guys want to fight it, great - more power to you. Though, if you want to fight it and not understand how big of a problem software piracy is - than you are probably a pirate yourself.

If they want me to validate windows, I will. Even if they make me install an update. I really don't think it's that big of a deal to have them install piracy protection.
User avatar
MrPotatoes
Forum Regular
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:42 am

Post by MrPotatoes »

i didn't notice someone posted the same shti did about OSX and the BSD licence. haha, awesome
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

I refer to Visual C++ which I have used for years. The IDE is outstanding, and the desktop applications it produces are (if programmed properly) robust and user friendly. Debugging is actully fun.
I agree...I enjoy Visual C++ IDE...and I enjoy MFC...but that doesn't discount the fact their <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> me off by making the WGA a mandatory thing...I don't want that on my system :(
Windows, imho, in all of its iterations has actually been a decent product. Could it be better? Of course it could. But given the size of the product, it seems to me that it has always functioned fairly well. I make applications that are about 1/1,000,000 the size of Windows and I know how hard it is to make them "bulletproof."
Again, with complexity comes problems...but your protecting Windows here for the wrong reasons...

I wasn't claiming Windows to ab en inferior system...although in some ways it is...for the most part...it's like the better system...

My point was...their crummy tactics in preventing priating... :P
Is it a huge inconvenience? Probably not, but I don't care.
Not sure what your developing...but debugging Windows shell extensions on Windows XP is much more plesant than on Windows 98...

If you want to remain a competitive Windows developer...you kind of have to stay uptodate with technology...

Cheers :)
User avatar
mabufo
Forum Commoner
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:11 pm
Location: Orland Park, IL
Contact:

Post by mabufo »

Hockey wrote:


My point was...their crummy tactics in preventing priating... :P
If you have a better idea, maybe you should apply for a job there? Do you think it's possible they are adding this feature to ever single version of XP as a standard feature? If so, what is there to complain about?
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

mabufo wrote:
Hockey wrote:
My point was...their crummy tactics in preventing pirating... :P
If you have a better idea, maybe you should apply for a job there? Do you think it's possible they are adding this feature to ever single version of XP as a standard feature? If so, what is there to complain about?
The problem is that anything MS comes up with is eventually going to be cracked and it will not mean a thing to anyone that is pirating Windows while what MS has added will cause all kinds of headaches for legitimate users.

Windows Update requires a valid CD Key before it will install Service Pack 2. That was cracked almost as soon as it was added. Plus there were Service Pack 2 downloads available everywhere that would install on ANY version of Windows XP. There have been activation cracks available for years that disable Windows XP's activation checking. There have been cracked versions of Windows XP home and Professional floating around for years that have the activation code completely removed.

This new WGA will also be cracked within a short period of time so it nolonger polls MS and your windows will continue to run with full features no matter what. Anything that MS comes up with will only HARM the legitimate windows owners and do absolutely NOTHING to stop the piracy of the Windows Operating System. Any programmer with half a brain understands this but who said the board members at MS had half a brain. :twisted:
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

The problem is that anything MS comes up with is eventually going to be cracked and it will not mean a thing to anyone that is pirating Windows while what MS has added will cause all kinds of headaches for legitimate users.
Thats what I was trying to say...just it came out differently :)
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

Hockey wrote:
The problem is that anything MS comes up with is eventually going to be cracked and it will not mean a thing to anyone that is pirating Windows while what MS has added will cause all kinds of headaches for legitimate users.
Thats what I was trying to say...just it came out differently :)
Yep, it's almost like Microsoft wants to punish all of their legitimate Windows owners. :D

You bought it and now we are going to may you pay and pay and pay and... :twisted:
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

The final straw with me was when I replaced a motherboard and they (tried) told me that the Windows install was licensed to the Motherboard. I said well it's still using the same CPU, RAM and Hard-drives, what part of the motherboard is it licensed to!?!? After getting a supervisor on the phone they gave me an activation key. Uck.
User avatar
Bill H
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:16 am
Location: San Diego CA
Contact:

Post by Bill H »

Hockey, I'm not "protecting Windows." I'm saying that, imo, Microsoft has tended to make good products and Windows is one that I count among them. I do not feel that putting the anti-piracy measure in XP makes them a bad company, per se, it just makes that product one that I do not want to buy.

I admit that I do not care for the attitude that caused them to put that measure in that product, but... I still enjoy using their other (good) products.

As for it costing them money: well, I would love to know answers to the following (which is impossible to know).

1. How many people who would have pirated XP purchased it instead?
2. How many would have pirated XP if the anti-piracy measures were not in place?
3. How many who (like me) decided not to buy it because of the anti-piracy measures?
4. How many got so ticked off they swore off of MS altogether?

(Note that #1 and #2 are not the same.)
User avatar
mabufo
Forum Commoner
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:11 pm
Location: Orland Park, IL
Contact:

Post by mabufo »

Would someone explain to me how this could possibly be an inconvenience?
Post Reply