Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA 297
nachoboy writes "After the fiasco surrounding the overly intrusive EULA for Windows 2000 SP3, it seems Microsoft has backed down a bit with the upcoming release of SP4. The section concerning automatic updates now states simply "You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them." The EULA then proceeds to list the five services liable to connect to the internet without explicit confirmation. A reference copy of the SP4 EULA may be found here. We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP."
Too little, too late... (Score:5, Interesting)
With this SP we also decided it was time to completely ditch them from operations and have been rolling out Linux and Mac OS.X workstations as existing systems reached their EOL.
Fortunately we may actually use SP4 for the existing Windows boxes (about 35% left now) -- but our budget for Microsoft products has been placed at -0- per the board of directors.
Too little, too late... (fp
Re:Too little, too late... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Too little, too late... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too little, too late... (Score:5, Interesting)
The remains Windows boxes are primarily used for AutoCAD work. I've yet to come across a product that comes close to what we would expect for other platforms -- the exception being a outside-our-needs $40K package.
Those remaining Windows boxes have long ago been on a segmented private subnet with NO ACCESS what-so-ever to the Internet for obvious security reasons.
Frankly -- I don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world does (to a point -- we still need to share data). The "TCO" for Windows is a hell of a lot higher than Microsoft would like you to think it is. A whole LOT.
Even when Windows was the #1 desktop on our network there has never been one (1) virus infection or outbreak. Of course Outlook and Explorer were banned from day one (which helped
I'm still amazed by the Windows weenies out there -- isn't it interesting that a guy like me doesn't like Windows? 20 years experience "in the business", multiple computer science degrees along with accounting and business management for that matter... I like Netware, BSD, Solaris, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, and OS X among others -- it's just so obviously how fundamentally flawed Windows is.
But I'm sure I don't know shit or what I'm talking about. Yeah, that's it.
Too funny.
Read up on Corporations... (Score:3, Informative)
In the case of a really small company with only a few shareholders, those shareholders (if even only 2 or 3 people) will typically make up the board.
Re:Read up on Corporations... (Score:2)
But not all businesses are corporations. Don't discount sole proprietors, partnerships and limited liability companies, non-profit organisations, as well as foreign businesses doing business in the US, or indeed elsewhere (the original poster didn't state which country he's in).
Re:Read up on Corporations... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that's not how it works. What happens is that whenever there's a vacancy, the existing Board of Directors nominates a candidate. Then the board issues voting materials (an info packet and a ballot) to shareholders, where you can either vote for the candidate, against the candidate, or in some cases abstain.
Now, these ballots are interesting in that FAILURE to vote usually means that your ballot is DEFAULTED to a vote FOR whatever the BoD has *already recommended* (and in 33 years of owning stock, I've never seen one that recommended a vote against any prospective or seated Board member). With such ballots, if you don't vote, it does NOT become a null vote; if you want to abstain, you have to specifically vote that way and return the ballot.
This is the procedure for seating new members, for reconfirming old members which is normally done every few years, routine issues like confirming selection of an auditing firm, and issues placed on the table by stockholders (which in my observation are uniformly nutty and are uniformly recommended against by every BoD).
Re:Too little, too late... (Score:2)
If government officials can look at open source and see value, why is it so hard for your to believe that a company's board of directors (some of whom might have been stung by MS's license audits with their other companies) would like to get away from paying money to MS?
Uh-huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes me feel very comfortable insofar as the veracity of the rest of your post is concerned.
Do post some more details...for example:
* What is your core "real business"?
* How big is your company?
* How big is your network?
* How long has your company been established?
You get the gist...really, just some sort of detail that, say, might lead me to believe this is anything other than a rather poor troll.
I love 2a, by the way. How did you present your offer to Microsoft? (Was it a formal business proposition, or an open letter posted on the local "MS-SUX" mailing list?) To whom did you present it? What were they supposed to get out of it? (My goodness, I'm just shocked that Microsoft wasn't falling over itself to take up your little proposal involving a whopping ten -- count 'em! -- workstations.) To whom did you present the same Linux-server-based contract?
(And it still gets modded up as Interesting. Good ol' Slashdot...)
real business is not an AC... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:real business is not an AC... (Score:3, Insightful)
ummm you DO realize IBM IS A LINUX VENDOR don't you?
Aprox. 6 months ago my wife's ex husband asked me a little bit about Linux. He advised me that IBM was truely planning to eventually phase out EVERYTHING and go all Linux and wanted my input (he is an IBM exec, was a programmer long ago, not 100% sure what he does now other than that it is a 12 word title, literally, and he makes 7 figures).
Re:Too little, too late... (Score:3, Funny)
Like, uhh, not using Hotmail for your email account, f'rinstance?
I bet SCO is behind this... (Score:2, Funny)
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate posting about M$. Last time i got modded to Flamebait. DOH!!!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently you aren't the only person who hates your postings about Microsoft, then.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the previous EULA was worded that way so people were forced (by law) to update their machines, and not leave them unpatched for months. I think it was made that way so that Moft didn't end up with lawsuits (or bad rep) saying their machines weren't safe.
(I think ideally, they wanted all of the machines on the net to get patches as soon as they came out, so that once a bug was announced on a full disclosure list or the such, if they deemed it dangerous,
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.
This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.
passing the buck.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The new clause tells the user that the feature can be disabled, passing all responsibility from Microsoft to the user.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Stand up and fight as a citizen.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
As a citizen, I have no power. I couldn't convince him - not even me and a thousand of my friends - to vote one way or the other on a piece of legislation to curb Microsoft's behavior. Legisliation, incidentally, that was probably drafted by lobbyists for Microsoft.
As a consumer, I have plenty of power. When I ask a vendor to sell me that system without an OS, or to sell it to me without a hard drive, they can either sell it to me on my terms, or I'll turn around and take my purchase to a vendor who will.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. A vote that goes into a cash register is just as powerful as one that goes into a ballot box.
Microsoft does not want to control the world. They just want to make money. Controlling the world is one strategy that would allow them to keep making money yes, but that doesn't change the company's core reason for existing.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you understand Microsoft's tactic. They ALWAYS did the same thing:
1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.
This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I don't know how much the "power of the people" had to do with this. I suspect it was simply one form of corporate greed fighting off another. The people are bystanders as usual, but this time the piñata threw some candy our way, too.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Published benchmarks still "illegal?" (Score:5, Interesting)
'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?" (Score:2)
As if the EULA mattered (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the EULA say that the Internet Explorer reports all web domains to the MSN search engine if it can't resolve them?
Oh, so you can turn it off alright. Does that change anything?
People don't trust Microsoft, and for good reasons.
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah maaaan! Microsoft - and therefore the government - now has a huge list of misspelled and non-existant website addresses! Just imagine the kind of horrific infringements of privacy that can take place now!! It doesn't bear thinking about, does it!
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:2, Flamebait)
They also have your IP address, time of day, frequency of Internet use, possibly your location (via traceroute), and what kinds of websites you are looking for. Based on the websites, they can even infer your age group, sex, and "secret habits".
Don't forget that it is unknowable what kinds of IE backdoors are in place to look at your portfolio of cookies, browser history, browser
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:2, Funny)
Every site i`ve ever visited has my IP address.
>time of day
MY TIME OF DAY?! OH MY GOD!
>frequency of Internet use
They could just set up shop as an ISP. So could the government for that matter.
> possibly your location (via traceroute)
Now your pushing it.
>and what kinds of websites you are looking for
And, as i`ve pointed out, how good your spelling is, given that only incorrect ones go to microsoft for resolution - and then only if you have the feature ena
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:5, Funny)
If this shit goes into a database it just becomes another dot on a graph. There isn't some guy sitting at the MSN office saying "Hey look! pmz is looking at deep anal porn at 3 AM again! Let's go to his house and rape his mom!"
I've said it before and I have a feeling I'll be saying it until I'm lying in my grave...Nobody cares about you! They're not sitting in your closet watching you surf the internet in your spiderman underoos. You still have your precious privacy!!
Now what? You don't want to be a target of some ad campaign?? I only wish I was targeted more instead of being bombarded with those fucking X10 camera ads everytime I go to a webpage or tampon commercials everytime I turn on the TV.
Disclosing URLs IS dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
Example: A VPN user enters https://user@password:internalserver.company.com
IE then proceeds to send the URL to the search engine of choice. NOT good.
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, well, until the next security update, bugfix or service pack...
(ever notice how the msn redirect gets put back, outlook express {I've got a kixscript to kill it} and a few other annoyances every update?)
You are correct, IMO.
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:2)
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:2)
Re:As if the EULA mattered (Score:2)
Do you believe that MS spies on you at all, or are they just covering their own butts for the new services they've added?
Yeah, "We at Microsoft are monitoring over 400 million people. We know what you're up to!"
the catch is.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the catch is.... (Score:3, Informative)
You could link your 2000/XP box to a linux firewall and set iptables to drop any and all traffic concerning certain M$ spyware/snooping/DRM crap. Prevent media player from sending anything to M$ to get around that snooping/IP police force nonsense they add.
Block the ports that M$ tries to use, block offensive traffic. Screw the EULA.
Re:the catch is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Better yet, use Windows Media Player 6.4. Even after you "upgrade" to later versions, it's still there...even on this WinXP SP1 box I'm using right now. It plays all of the same stuff that the later versions play (at least I haven't found anything that wouldn't play), the interface is much less obnoxious, and it doesn't "phone home" every time you start it up. You should be able to find it as c:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\mplayer2.exe. Use right-click and "Open With..." to associate media files with it instead of wmplayer.exe.
Or better yet... (Score:3, Informative)
Kjella
let's check that assumption. Yep, that's valid. (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft actually did what it says, you would not have to turn your computer off to keep it from spying on you, but you would not be able to listen to music, bank, check school and government records, watch movies or just about anything. Of course, M$ is a dishonest company, so we can imagine it will store all the information until you say, "uncle root me!", and then send it all up.
This is a natural continuation of M$ practices. They already kept lists of songs and movies, now they will have your explicit permision to collect them. No, they did not really tell you what they were going to collect, they just told you that the features will have to talk to work. We can imagine they will say whatever M$ wants them to.
Windows Media Player 9 alters my files? (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that I found interesting though, is that I unchecked the "Update my music files (WMA and MP3 files) by retrieving missing media information from the Internet" (which has an accompanying help link that explains that it would be used to add information to both the media library database and tags within the actual files), yet all the files that I played in WMP were actually still modified. Their modification dates and file sizes changed.
Now that is enough for me to decide not to use their software for playing my music, because the way that I see it, any info that is used by the media library (such as song ratings, number of times played, etc.) belongs in the separate database that it uses, and my files should not be changed unless I click a "save" or "apply" button somewhere.
So does anyone know what is being added to these files by WMP? I don't like the idea that it is changing my files just to add some stupid "This audio file was played by Windows Media Player" tag.
Re:the catch is.... (Score:2)
I hope your scissors have rubber hand-grips!
Legalese (Score:5, Insightful)
Haha... Yes, I consent to the operation of features I bought and left on. I don't consent to those I turn off or don't use. But could I consent to the actions of those I turn off? If I don't operate them can I give permission for them to operate? This is such a wacky sentence it's funny. I give permission for the features which are turned on to operate and don't give permission to those which are turned off to operate. I know it's legal mumbo-jumbo, but could this statement ever not be true?
consent: 2. To indicate or express a willingness; to yield to guidance, persuasion, or necessity; to give assent or approval; to comply.
Re:Legalese (Score:4, Insightful)
This statement is not as idiotic as some posters are interpreting it as being.
It's basically saying that the onus is on the customer if they wish to opt out of operating certain features. Let's say the service pack contains an "automatic windows update" service that runs once a night and automatically downloads and installs the latest system patches.
By installing the service pack, you're under no obligation to run that service. You can take it out of the list of active services if you want. What you CAN'T do, the line of thinking goes, is leave it running and then sue Microsoft on the grounds that you don't want it to be running. It's you job to hit the off switch, not theirs.
(IANAL and who knows whether such a EULA is enforceable anyway)
EULAs are a PITA (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I don't... I just go with the sheeple principle which goes something like this:
Windows is a very popular product, sold around the world to millions of people. They all seem happy with the licence agreement therefore I'll go along with them. Safety in numbers.
That is all.
Not a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
My virus scanner updates itself without my knowledge, as does my weather bar and e-mail client. How do I know they aren't doing nefarious things? But in the end, they make for a more convenient product.
Fear not! (Score:4, Funny)
so would SP4 meet HIPAA guidelines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so would SP4 meet HIPAA guidelines? (Score:2)
No, really, it is!
Retroactively? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I agreed on SP3, can a further SP change my rights?
I mean, I already said yes to all that invasive stuff.
Seems like a PR-move for me.
I figured that's what they initially meant anyways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw (Score:2)
Amazing! You obviously don't belong here.
Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw (Score:2)
No more than Tim McVeigh did when they gave him a flu shot on death row....
This may help in the future (Score:5, Informative)
I can't wait til this is done, as I use 98lite for the pentium 233 here at work.
Speedy goodness, and I feel a bit better about the saftey of my midget porn.
Does this have anything to do with SP4? I don't know. I just wonder what SP4 will break.
Re:This may help in the future (Score:5, Funny)
You can't remove evil from Windows, it's a feature of the Operating System. Kinda like Internet Explorer.
Re:This may help in the future (Score:5, Informative)
The project probably turned out to be bigger than the software coders could chew, as removing the crud from 9x is a far easier task than removing it from 2000 & XP.
In other words, expect XP Lite to be released the same day as Duke Nukem Forever.
Re:This may help in the future (Score:2)
Migrating from Linux to XP (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.
Re:Migrating from Linux to XP (Score:5, Funny)
Windows XP costs money? Where did you download it from?
Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.
Re:Copyright? (Score:3, Funny)
So all we have to do is get Microsoft to claim copyright over their EULAs, which would then negate them as legitimate binding contracts.... Now, how do we accomplish that!
This is nice (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Liability (Score:3, Informative)
SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
What a cumbersome way of saying NO LIABILITY.
(the text you're reading now is just to fool /.'s lameness filter which claims that I'm yelling due to CAPS - well, actually it's Microsoft who's yelling.)
Interesting, interesting... (Score:3, Redundant)
I still think that eventually MS will have to come out and admit that there are fundamental flaws at the heart of their security infrastructure, and basically make the same admission they made about NT4 about all their NT codebase OSes. But it's good that the patches are now available without having to bend and spread too far.
Someone mentioned the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in another post. I suspect that is the motivation behind the EULA change. With all those health insurance companies, doctors offices and hospitals screaming bloody murder about SP3 leaving them open for citation under HIPAA, they had to do this.
Certainly consumer outrage isn't the issue. That has never motivated MS before.
Re:Interesting, interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they remove the "lose your soul" clause? (Score:4, Funny)
Man, I always hated that clause, but at least they took out the bit about your firstborn child...
Stupid Legal Bull.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's about as effective as saying:
Re:Stupid Legal Bull.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes me sad.
I'm impressed (Score:5, Funny)
"Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
. .
Hannibal Lectar: "Love the title" (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but did it hurt when they did?
Encouraging (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're an OSS zealot who hopes MS's bad behavior will be their downfall.
Who cares about MS License Agreements? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who cares about MS License Agreements? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most EULA's start by claiming that the software is provided with no warranty. In most of Europe this is not permitted, something must be fit for the purpose.
Claiming that it's a licence and not a sale doesn't help either, many countries treat anything that is sold as a product as a normal sale and subject to normal laws on purchasing.
Has anyone ever actually read an EULA anyway?
Uhm, official SP4 EULA?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'm going to make-up an SP5 EULA and post it on my site, and then submit it as a Slashdot story. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing real will come of this until there is a real and major abuse by MS, and the story is picked up by the major media. Then there'll be congressional hearings and 'something will be done' - most likely something useless.
now it's sun's turn: java 1.4.1+ has same problem (Score:4, Interesting)
that's right, mozilla 1.4final and up will need java 1.4.2+ (due to gcc3.2.x),
which means you need to agree to those terms if you want java. see mozilla bug 204236,
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20423
(bugzilla blocks direct links from slashdot; you'll have to copy & paste.)
Re:great (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you never looked at Windows Update enough to realize that you can control the order of the installation. Want to do driver updates first? No problem. Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.
Re:great (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
Re:great (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgoing all the above,
Why should the end user be responsible for parsing the prereqs and figuring out what goes first? Why should you have to control the order?
A big "world class" software developement organization, full of "the best" people
Re:great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:great (Score:3, Informative)
Re:great (Score:2)
Never use drivers from Windows Update. I have never seen a case where an 'updated' driver from Windows Update did not cause some problem with the system! I've had their sound card drivers hose the sound, mouse drivers reduce the functionality of the mouse, video drivers cause havoc that needs safe m
Re:Mod me redundant... (Score:2)
Re:Does Microsoft still support Win2K?? (Score:4, Informative)
This means they will still have the signed driver program and WHQL certification program in place for the next 30 months. I expect Microsoft to offer at least up to Service Pack 6 for Win2K before the official support program ends at the end of 2005.
Besides, Windows 2000 Professional is a very nice OS, with very good stability and decent security if you apply all the proper security patches (something that should be done on all operating systems on a regular basis).
Who is .Bruce Perens? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not as good as it seems (Score:2, Informative)
Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. (IANAL, though.)
Re:Not as good as it seems (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on how you obtained the product. Volume Licensing users automatically have this right.. (search for downgrade) [microsoft.com]
Retail purchasers are supposed to ask for permission. [microsoft.com]
Re:Not as good as it seems (Score:2)
I'd love to hear you legal explanation for how my downloading SP4 and agreeing to a click-through EULA for SP4 suddenly causes me to also be aggreeing to a click-through EULA for 3 prior service packs, despite the fact that I did not download or install those.
Re:Not as good as it seems (Score:2)
Re:Not as good as it seems (Score:5, Informative)
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) and the CAL or TS CAL (if applicable) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA.
Re:ok, so i just have to turn it off.. (Score:2)
The more I learn IP chains for the web problems and open source for killing hitchhikers, the more I prefer open source software. The cruft is be