Why do Windows users put up with this crap?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

uTorrent does not fit the definition of "Free Software." When a FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) advocate uses the term "free software," the meaning is "free as in speech," not "free as in beer." uTorrent is not FOSS because they do not make their source code available for download.

But they were replying to a comment about freeware, not free software or FOSS. Now let's talk about FLOSS .

 

[George 152]

I get you now; maybe we should all just refer to it as The App Formerly Known As Acrobat Reader?

Which my Windows machine keeps trying to update

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Short of accosting random people on the street and shouting programming lessons at them, how do you get this information to the people who actually need it?

You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't need it.

Microsoft are partly to blame, for promoting their OS to the masses on the basis that they don't need programming lessons to use it - but only halfheartedly making it so.

But the real problem is the PC's architecture. Having everything on disk makes it extremely flexible, cheap, and easy to load in the software you want, but also makes it inherently vulnerable to malware. Microsoft can be faulted for supporting and advancing this architecture while not doing enough to make it secure. However they are not alone - all those smart alecs who think that stupid users are to blame are just as guilty.

There was a time when 'home' computers came with their OS in ROM, so they couldn't get screwed up. Software came on cartridges or write-protected disks that were guaranteed to be malware-free. But 'power' users wanted software that they could pirate back up, and an OS which could be customized with eye candy etc. Thus the relatively idiot-proof home computer concept gave way to using business computers as appliances for the masses, a role that they were never designed for.

 

[Rat]

Which my Windows machine keeps trying to update

And why would you not?

 

[dudalb]

I also understand that Macs have fewer secruity problems simply because there are a lot fewer Mac users,and that makes them a less tempting target then Windows users.
I also understand that might be changing and Macs are having some security problems these days.

 

[elgarak]

I also understand that Macs have fewer secruity problems simply because there are a lot fewer Mac users,and that makes them a less tempting target then Windows users.
I also understand that might be changing and Macs are having some security problems these days.

It has already been mentioned, but this view is incomplete. If it were, then things like Unix Apache servers (most used architecture used as servers, I think) would be more often attacked.

From my limited knowledge, I attribute this to the following facts: 1) Tools for attacking Windows are more readily available and usable by not very tech savvy bad guys. 2) The attack has a certain purpose. This purpose is NOT to compromise a specific machine, but is to build bot nets, collect personal data and credit card numbers etc. There are simply easy ways to make enough money without reverting to spreading malware on certain architectures (for instance, by writing software that fools people to give up personal data just by themselves). 3) The success of Macs has come at a time when the strategy of the bad guys has already shifted to those mentioned easier ways. The bad guys simply don't bother to write specialized malware since they have other ways to make enough money, while the 'old' way with Windows is still used since it's established to work.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

As I said, programmers need to eat. From the very Wiki article you cite:

Some people may be willing to do some work for free, and some companies may be willing to provide funding for some projects, but it would be naive in the extreme to expect this ever to become a de facto standard for all software. If you want people to work full-time jobs creating software, the money for them to do so needs to come from somewhere.

Yes, I agree that programmers need to eat, and they shouldn't be forced to work for free. If you look at the history of free software, there's been a steady moving of goalposts: first, it was believed there would be no successful free software projects, because hobbyists couldn't possibly create a product that could compete with closed source. Now that it's demonstrated that we can, the argument's become "Well, sure, maybe you can get some people to work for free, maybe you can get some corporate funding here and there, but it'll never become the de facto standard!"

Why not? If that's what users demand, then it must become the standard. Software companies can twist arms, it's ultimately the users who make the decision.

Obviously not, since the issue is not, in fact, malware. Take a look at the OP again. AVG is not malware, in fact it's the exact opposite. McAfee, while it doesn't exactly have the best reputation these days, is the same. Websteroids is a game. Just because a program comes bundled with something else does not mean it must be in some way malicious or dangerous.

Okay, not necessarily malware. I was being hyperbolic.

One of the most prominent advocates of open source software explicitly says that the concept is ambiguous and intimidating for businesses who pay people specifically to understand this sort of thing. The general public contains a lot of people who know far less about computers and software in the first place.

Open source differs from free software in ideology. As far as I can tell, the FSF's rhetoric was a turn-off for some people, so OS was just a re-branding.

Who exactly is going to do this explaining? Anyone actually interested in learning about this sort of thing can already do so, and probably already has.

That's kind of like saying "Anybody who likes sushi is already eating it!" Well, sure, the people who've tasted it and liked it are probably still eating it. But the people who've never tasted it don't know if they like it or not. Likewise, if somebody's never been exposed to the free software philosophy, you can't say whether they accept it or reject it.

However, you can say that somebody who likes Japanese food will probably like sushi, so somebody who supports other kinds of rights and freedoms (e.g. freedom of speech) might support software freedom as well. It hasn't occured to a lot of people to look at software that way.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I would bet they may not care. At all

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't need it.

Microsoft are partly to blame, for promoting their OS to the masses on the basis that they don't need programming lessons to use it - but only halfheartedly making it so.

But the real problem is the PC's architecture. Having everything on disk makes it extremely flexible, cheap, and easy to load in the software you want, but also makes it inherently vulnerable to malware. Microsoft can be faulted for supporting and advancing this architecture while not doing enough to make it secure. However they are not alone - all those smart alecs who think that stupid users are to blame are just as guilty.

There was a time when 'home' computers came with their OS in ROM, so they couldn't get screwed up. Software came on cartridges or write-protected disks that were guaranteed to be malware-free. But 'power' users wanted software that they could pirate back up, and an OS which could be customized with eye candy etc. Thus the relatively idiot-proof home computer concept gave way to using business computers as appliances for the masses, a role that they were never designed for.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You've clearly not tried installing uTorrent lately.

If I had, I don't see how one piece of software bundling things in with it would dispute my assertion that in my experience most doesn't.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

There was a time when 'home' computers came with their OS in ROM, so they couldn't get screwed up. Software came on cartridges or write-protected disks that were guaranteed to be malware-free.

I think by the time there were enough of them for malware to become an issue (or even a word) the golden, idyllic days of ROM only OSs was long gone.

But 'power' users wanted software that they could pirate back up, and an OS which could be customized with eye candy etc. Thus the relatively idiot-proof home computer concept gave way to using business computers as appliances for the masses, a role that they were never designed for.

At the stage you are talking about the "home" computer was never "idiot proof" because there weren't any "idiots" trying to use them. Only hobbyists. You know, like Wozniak and Gates (those sorts of idiots).


"Power" users wanted to be able to do things like manage IO and device handling. I had to use debug to patch my copy of DOS 2.11 because I needed a larger memory allotment for the environment space. That would have been tough to do with a ROM. Nothing to do with "eye candy" or software piracy.

Most of the hobbyist "power" users I socialized with were relatively respectful of copyrights. They could afford to be, they knew where to find low cost or free substitutes. (I used PC Write for a decade or so, until I had to get Word because the young-uns' school only accepted Word files for homework. )

Business computers moved from being room sized monsters to desktop "Personal" PCs. This was the shift in the landscape. The personal computer needed the business market to be profitable, but as far as "home" or "business" was concerned there wasn't any functional difference. (Well, until "the computer for the rest of us" came along, but that's a different discussion.)

The IBM PC and its relatives were just very advanced and affordable (for their time) desktop computers. Gates used his "home" computer savvy to put a feature rich, affordable OS on them.

Jerry Pournelle was advocating "One desk, at least one CPU.)

It wasn't businesses he was talking about.

The game market wasn't anywhere near as big at the time. Dollar for dollar and machine for machine the main culprits in software piracy were the businesses.

It's no coincidence that Orrin Hatch championed a bill back in the early Nineties to set $250,000 federal fines (and jail time) for software piracy. WordPerfect and Novel were only two (albeit the largest) of the hundreds of business software developers in Utah. (N.b., he is a Utah senator. )

It wasn't home computers he was going after. Or "power" users.

I worked for a construction company that had WordPerfect loaded on every one of its computers in all of its field offices.That is, when they finally got computers in their field offices. All the copies were registered to the same person. (And no, it wasn't a business license.) I expect their home office was the same, although I never logged on to one of those machines.

The only (closest thing to a) "power" user in that outfit was me. Which wasn't saying much, but at least I didn't pirate software. The management of the company was stunned ("Shocked, I tell you.") when I suggested they might be doing something wrong.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Which my Windows machine keeps trying to update

Uninstall Acrobat Reader, and download Sumatra PDF.

And why would you not?

Update Acrobat Reader? Because it's bloatware, comes with unwanted extras, may crash your computer, and probably has security holes that hackers are waiting to exploit.

Also you may be prompted to 'upgrade' to the commercial version, and it's not open source - but it is the de facto standard!

 

[Cuddles]

Why not?

Because, once again, programmers need to eat. You can get some free (as in beer) software because some people are willing to spend their free (as in spare) time on hobby projects, or because some companies are willing to spend some money supporting it. But if all programming were expected to be done for free (as in beer), how could programming even exist as a job? Someone needs to do the work, and someone needs to pay them for it. Either than money comes from the end users paying up front, or it comes from somewhere else. Bundled software and adverts are the main ways that "somewhere else" is currently implemented. If you don't like them but still want free (as in beer) stuff, the money is still going to have to come from somewhere. There's no such thing as a free (as in lunch).

If that's what users demand, then it must become the standard.

No. If users demand something they can't have, they simply won't get it.

But the people who've never tasted it don't know if they like it or not. Likewise, if somebody's never been exposed to the free software philosophy, you can't say whether they accept it or reject it.

You have not understood my point. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people will accept or reject anything. As I explicitly said, the problem is with the "if you explain it to them". How and where will you explain it, and who will do the explaining? There are already plenty of resources on the internet to learn about these concepts. The vast majority of people don't care and have never looked at them. Most people don't even understand what the difference between an operating system and other software is (seriously, I've spent years trying to get my mother to understand that you cannot say "I opened Windows" when what you mean is "I opened Word"). They're not even capable of telling the difference between a genuine game and an obvious scam in an app store. Expecting them to make any effort to learn about the difference in philosophy behind the creation of some bits of software would be incredibly naive.

Again, if you explain it to them, many people will understand and agree. But most people don't learn about it themselves, they don't take computer lessons, and they're almost never in a situation where it would actually be appropriate for someone to actually explain things to them. Most people know sushi exists, they just don't care and are never in the position where a random stranger can persuade them to try it.

 

[quadraginta]

If I had, I don't see how one piece of software bundling things in with it would dispute my assertion that in my experience most doesn't.

Cnet is one of the worst offenders (IMO). Anything you download from them comes packaged with a whole gaggle of extra crap, carefully phrased to make opting out as confusing as possible. If I see something they recommend that I want to check out I look for someplace else to download it. (FileHippo usually has whatever it is, and they vet their stuff pretty carefully.)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I think by the time there were enough of them for malware to become an issue (or even a word) the golden, idyllic days of ROM only OSs was long gone.

Malware cannot survive on a ROM only OS, so it obviously wouldn't become a problem until ROM only OSs were 'long gone' (though there were plenty of viruses around when home computers had ROM-based OS's, only disk-based PC's were seriously affected).

At the stage you are talking about the "home" computer was never "idiot proof" because there weren't any "idiots" trying to use them.

I owned a computer shop for 10 years and sold plenty of "home" computers to idiots. They were virtually "idiot proof". It wasn't until I started selling PC's that the troubles started. When Windows XP was released I gave up - sick of cleaning viruses and other malware off my customer's machines.

The personal computer needed the business market to be profitable, but as far as "home" or "business" was concerned there wasn't any functional difference.

The 'personal computer' (PC) may have needed the business market - but most "home" computers were used for entertainment, while "business" computers were designed for business use. There was some overlap, but the two markets were quite different. In fact it took a lot of enhancements to the PC architecture to make it powerful enough to replace advanced "home" computers, and even today the average 'gaming' machine has a higher spec than is required for most business use.

The IBM PC and its relatives were just very advanced and affordable (for their time) desktop computers.

I remember when the PC was first introduced. The joke going around at the time was that IBM could have offered a piece of balsa wood with their logo on it and people would buy it. In fact the original PC was not very advanced at all - it was basically a copy of the Apple II, but with a cheap '8/16' bit Intel CPU (IBM wanted to use the much more advanced 68000, but it was too expensive). Despite the cost cutting, it was still significantly more expensive than a similarly spec'd "home" computer.

The original IBM PC came stock with 64k RAM, an 80 column monochrome text display, BASIC in ROM, and software storage via an audio cassette interface! Everything else was an optional extra. What it did have was a big case that could take plenty of expansion cards and disk drives, and a potential upgrade path to full 16 bit operation (8086, 80286 etc.). However it wasn't until development of the 386 CPU and VGA card that PC's were able to match advanced home computers such as the Commodore Amiga and Acorn 3000, and it wasn't until Windows 95 was released that the software caught up.

And let us not forget that IBM's own path to advanced personal computing, the PS/2, was a dead end. It fixed many of the errors and omissions of the PC-XT/AT, and gained a proper multitasking OS. But Microsoft and the clone industry decided that they would rather stick with inferior hardware than pay royalties to IBM.

The game market wasn't anywhere near as big at the time. Dollar for dollar and machine for machine the main culprits in software piracy were the businesses.

Business software was often grossly overpriced, but most businesses who needed it could justify the cost. If software piracy was 'dollar for dollar and machine for machine' mostly businesses, it was only because the prices were so steep (of course having a disk-based architecture that makes software piracy incredibly easy didn't help).

Home computer users were not willing to pay thousands of dollars for business software that was of no use to them, but game piracy was rampant. In terms of the sheer number of illegal copies made, I would bet that "home" piracy was much more prevalent, but at lower value per copy the total loss was probably less (not that Microsoft and Co were interested in those figures anyway, so they weren't making a big deal of it). In fact the home computer gaming industry was virtually sunk by piracy.

 

[Dancing David]

You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't need it.

Microsoft are partly to blame, for promoting their OS to the masses on the basis that they don't need programming lessons to use it - but only halfheartedly making it so.

But the real problem is the PC's architecture. Having everything on disk makes it extremely flexible, cheap, and easy to load in the software you want, but also makes it inherently vulnerable to malware. Microsoft can be faulted for supporting and advancing this architecture while not doing enough to make it secure. However they are not alone - all those smart alecs who think that stupid users are to blame are just as guilty.

There was a time when 'home' computers came with their OS in ROM, so they couldn't get screwed up. Software came on cartridges or write-protected disks that were guaranteed to be malware-free. But 'power' users wanted software that they could pirate back up, and an OS which could be customized with eye candy etc. Thus the relatively idiot-proof home computer concept gave way to using business computers as appliances for the masses, a role that they were never designed for.

Seriously?

So what machine was that exactly and when was it produced?

And so no updates unless you flesh the ROM?

 

[Dancing David]

Malware cannot survive on a ROM only OS, so it obviously wouldn't become a problem until ROM only OSs were 'long gone' (though there were plenty of viruses around when home computers had ROM-based OS's, only disk-based PC's were seriously affected).

Un huh?

And so the alleged OS is capable of what exactly, how many bits was the processor?

 

[Dancing David]

If I had, I don't see how one piece of software bundling things in with it would dispute my assertion that in my experience most doesn't.

Well Flash and Java sure do, curse Norton!

 

[Rat]

In fact the home computer gaming industry was virtually sunk by piracy.

When? I have often heard that PC gaming was about to be killed off, usually by consoles, but I've never known it to be remotely true.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Because, once again, programmers need to eat. You can get some free (as in beer) software because some people are willing to spend their free (as in spare) time on hobby projects, or because some companies are willing to spend some money supporting it. But if all programming were expected to be done for free (as in beer), how could programming even exist as a job?

How indeed? How do you explain the existence of Linux, Firefox, Chromium, LibreOffice, and all the thousands of other free software products? I have not yet heard of any of these programmers starving to death.

Someone needs to do the work, and someone needs to pay them for it. Either than money comes from the end users paying up front, or it comes from somewhere else.

I don't have any problem with programmers being paid.

Bundled software and adverts are the main ways that "somewhere else" is currently implemented.

For freeware, yes. Free/open source software doesn't do this scammy bundling stuff. Even if it did, there'd be an easy way to avoid it. (Just create and distribute an alternate bundle, without the extra software or ads.) This is because the licensing for free software is different from freeware. Freeware doesn't give users the option to unbundle and re-distribute alternate binaries like free software does.

If you don't like them but still want free (as in beer) stuff, the money is still going to have to come from somewhere. There's no such thing as a free (as in lunch).

Nobody has said that programmers shouldn't be paid. Not I, not Stallman, nobody. Getting money for programming is fine. The problem is when your software infringes on user rights.

Free software is defined by the Four Freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

As you can see, there is nothing in there against getting paid.

Again, if you explain it to them, many people will understand and agree. But most people don't learn about it themselves, they don't take computer lessons, and they're almost never in a situation where it would actually be appropriate for someone to actually explain things to them. Most people know sushi exists, they just don't care and are never in the position where a random stranger can persuade them to try it.

Any movement has this kind of problem, but throwing in the towel won't solve anything. In fact, if only a small percentage of them actually "get it", it's worth the effort, because a small number of intelligentsia can influence others and make big changes. Indeed, they already have. That's why we have so much free software today. We doesn't need to convince everybody and their dog that we're right. We need to convince other computer geeks, who are the decision-makers for these kinds of things. Looking at it that way, it's a much simpler proposition.