Bill Gates has a net worth of 61 Billion USD. By comparison, the US National Debt is 16 trillion USD. If Bill Gates were to take on the current debt all by himself, he’s pay it off within 2 decades.
But, If Microsoft Windows’ users could claim US$1 for every time their computers hang because of Microsoft Windows, Bill Gates would be bankrupt in 3 years.
Proprietary Security is a security option included on a computer by a software vendor. Being proprietary, it means the vendor is in control of the security solution, the user rarely is in control of it (and in some cases, the user may lack control over even disabling the security if it proves to be unwanted.)
For example, Microsoft distributes a proprietary security program called Microsoft Security Essentials with every Windows computer it sells.
Here’s how it works… When you type a web address into your browser, Microsoft Security Essentials decides whether it wants you to visit that web site or not. It sounds like a laudable idea; one extra layer of defense! “If Microsoft thinks this site is bad for my computer it will tell me before I get there.”
A huge issue was brought to my attention by this post on UbuntuVibes which explains that the Free Software Foundation’s donation website has been wrongly blocked by Microsoft. The Free Software Foundation was labeled as a “Gambling” and “Illegal Software” website!
“If Microsoft’s “reputation” database can’t tell the difference between a gambling site and an independently audited registered nonprofit public-interest charity founded almost 30 years ago, it is certainly doing you and your business more harm than good.” - Quote from UbuntuVibes article
(Note: the article on UbuntuVibes didn’t mention the “illegal software” tag. I found that one on my own, trying to access the same website from my wife’s Windows7 computer. Windows7 Microsoft Security Essentials refuses to allow me to view any Free Software Foundation page, either using the front page of fsf.org or visit their donation site at donate.fsf.org on the claim that I am exposing the computer to illegal software.)
“Our story remains as a cautionary tale against using Microsoft’s proprietary software—we are fortunate enough to have a community of supporters to speak up for us, but how many other sites remain unfairly and wrongly labeled?” - Quote from UbuntuVibes article
That last question sounds like it needs an answer. So how many websites are mislabeled as threats on Windows?
I used two sources to verify sites: My wife’s Windows7 computer (updated this morning!) and Microsoft Reputation Services (the portal that Microsoft Security Essentials supposedly updates from {although from the above Windows7 experience I would dare say it doesn’t update nearly enough!}) I decided to find out by typing in random addresses and seeing what MRS had them listed as.
This is the website that started the whole thing… and it’s STILL mislabeled. My wife’s computer still insists that it’s a Gambling and Illegal Software website, and on MRS it is still red-flagged for distributing “shareware”
Red-Flagged for distributing “shareware”
Red-flagged for “Personal Network Storage” and “Shareware”
Red-flagged for being a “Personal Network Storage” site.
Although not red-flagged, it is mislabeled. It labeled a Social Opinion website which according to the Microsoft MRS Categories is a website that “provide information related to variety of social topics like movie reviews”
These are just five sites that I visit regularly which are HARMLESS. Would it be unfair to claim that Microsoft has malicious intent by mislabeling sites that are its competitors? I’m no lawyer, so I can’t claim that, but I will say it is downright suspicious!
Consider this, Microsoft Skydrive (the cloud-based portal which users can use to save files in the cloud operates on live.com) is NOT red-flagged for being Personal Network Storage. Ubuntu One, a clear Skydrive competitor is red-flagged for that!
The Free Software Foundation is very vocal about Windows on their home page. To take a quote from their main page: “The FSF advocates for free software ideals as outlined in the Free Software Definition, works for adoption of free software and free media formats, and organizes activist campaigns against threats to user freedom like Windows 7…” How utterly convenient that Microsoft would have fsf.org red-flagged first as a gambling site and then later as a shareware site!
Proprietary security software is an oxymoron — if the user is not fundamentally in control of the software, the user has no security. By pushing their obviously faulty proprietary security solution on people, by pushing the mandatory install of this faulty security software on new computer buyers, and by their mislabeling sites in their security software, Microsoft would make uninformed Windows users think it was risky to visit these sites, or it could even block these sites entirely!
Note who benefits from this! It’s not the consumer using Microsoft Security Essentials, or the business who uses the faulty proprietary security program. Mislabeling these sites only accomplishes Microsoft purposes, and it doesn’t protect the user at all.
When I asked several people why they liked GNOME3 or GNOME-Shell, the most common answer was “the extensions system that allows you to customize your desktop.” GNOME3 simply wouldn’t be popular without the extensions system that allows developers to write and publish desktop extensions.
Customization is at the heart of every Linux desktop. A long time ago, when GNOME2.0 was the standard, customization was openly allowed on Linux systems, and everyone used that freedom in different ways. Everyone tweaked their desktop differently, and made it feel like $HOME in different ways.
But recently there have been changes in two major Linux desktops that seek to limit customization and development. I’m going to call it what it is… if it seeks to limit development, it’s antidevelopment!
Antidevelopment is any change made to the user experience that is not beneficial and serves only to limit or restrict what the user wants to do, especially in the field of customization.
I read an interesting post the other day from deviantART user half-left. He recently had a falling out with GNOME3 because of the same antidevelopment I’ve seen in GNOME3 and Ubuntu Unity.
half-left journaled it this way: “Apparently, GNOME upstream thinks their users don’t customize their desktop… because they are so detached from their user base.”
I would extend this to include both GNOME and Ubuntu Unity. GNOME3 and Ubuntu Unity seems to be completely detached from their user base. Why are they so detached from their users?
The GNOME team has made such puzzling changes in the past year that it is clear that they aren’t connected in any way, shape, or form to their users.
Mouse cursors? - You can’t change them and expect the change to stick. When I filed a bug about the problem with mouse cursors, I was told “Don’t change the mouse cursor. DMZ-White is good enough for every user. Problem solved.” That’s the solution! Don’t change anything; just stick with default… and there’s no problem.
Changing the mouse cursor can be more important than just the desire to tweak a new theme. What about users who have trouble seeing the DMZ-White cursor and need to change to a larger cursor? This could be considered a bug in Accessibility. Because mouse cursor changes have been ignored and largely removed by GNOME3 and Unity for the last 2 years, I claim that this is antidevelopment!
Screensaver? - What screensaver? Oh, the GNOME screensaver? There is no screensaver, anymore. For many years the GNOME screensaver was frustrating because it had no user controls to set screensaver properties. Now… all it does is blank the screen. There are no controls or screensavers left in the screensaver package! GNOME has apparently decided that its users don’t like using screensavers so they took all the controls out! This is antidevelopment!
Themes? - What themes? There are 5 themes provided in Ubuntu, and only 1 theme provided in GNOME. Only recently did Unity add the ability to change between the 5 themes that came installed on it. But no ways have been provided in either Unity or GNOME to import user themes. This is antidevelopment!
Extensions? - Ubuntu Unity does not support extensions at all, period!
GNOME3 maintains the veneer of supporting extensions, but once you start digging you realize the truth… GNOME3 extensions are barely supported at present. Many extensions only work with older versions of GNOME3. My favorite piece of evidence that GNOME isn’t supporting extensions is this: There is a website which explains how a user can make and submit an extension to GNOME, but it’s completely out of date! It explains how to make extensions for GNOME 3.0 and there’s a link to how to update the extension to 3.2… but, we aren’t using 3.2 any more! GNOME is at 3.4! And there is no documentation at present on how to update extensions to be compatible with the current version. Which means, every time GNOME updates, ALL the extensions break! This is antidevelopment!
One user explained the frustration this way to me on IRC: “I get the feeling that the so called gnome-developers do things in ‘their perspective’ rather than the ‘Gnome users’. The most important problem I see is that many of the other “modern” desktop environments are forks of GNOME…”
Another themer said: “…they even want to delete the applications categories selection. Pretty soon there will be nothing left in GNOME3 to theme.”
When you are too stuck up to listen to your users who are asking for the ability to customize their desktops, and you are actively developing the desktop in ways to limit the user experience… you are stuck in antidevelopment.
When it comes to changing themes and cursors… you can do more with Microsoft Windows than you can with GNOME3.
Microsoft listens to its users. Sometimes changes don’t come for years, but at least they listen. The same can’t be said for Ubuntu or GNOME3 though. They are currently stuck in antidevelopment.
Imagine that! Information overload as a privacy violation…
In today’s world we are spammed with massive amounts of information. There’s actual spam, of course. My email spam folder gets hundreds of messages a day. Every now and then, I like going through my spam folder to laugh at the spam taglines. My spam folder has even been used in the creation of odd poetry.
But when I think of information spam, the first thing that pops into my mind is advertising. Targeted advertising displays adverts you might be interested in based on your search. There’s also advertisement overlays on video sites like YouTube (don’t you just hate not being able to see the whole video screen because of an advert that just won’t go away!). Advertising is everywhere, spamming us with an overload of information targeted specifically for us.
Today is International Data Privacy Day. When people think about privacy, their thoughts almost always turn to things which they feel threaten their privacy, things like SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, or H.R. 1981. While these may be legitimate threats to privacy, is that all you think about when the subject of privacy comes up?
Bill Gates said something 10 years ago, in a Microsoft email where he promoted Trustworthy Computing. What is Trustworthy Computing? I quote from that email:
“What I mean by this is that customers will always be able to rely on these systems to be available and to secure their information. Trustworthy Computing is computing that is as available, reliable and secure as electricity, water services and telephony.”
And how does privacy fit into Trustworthy Computing? It’s an integral part, according to Bill Gates.
Privacy: Users should be in control of how their data is used. Policies for information use should be clear to the user. Users should be in control of when and if they receive information to make best use of their time. It should be easy for users to specify appropriate use of their information including controlling the use of email they send.
Trustworthiness is a much broader subject than security or privacy. When we think of things that violate our privacy, we generally relate it to things that violate our sense of security.
But this line: “Users should be in control of when and if they receive information” Wow! Even though information overload isn’t necessarily a breach of security, it is a privacy violation.
