Group tries to hold MS responsible for crapware apps and oses

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11518

Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.

Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

Jbob wrote:
> Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
> and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
> it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>
> Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>
>
The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....

Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
for something else, doesn't apply here.

"Jbob" <nobody@SpamCox.net> wrote in
news:Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com:

> Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
> access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
> glass because it was breakable? Well no you of course!!
> Hypothetical.
>
> Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.


Some time ago I read about a US college student who, while mooning folks
out his dorm window, fell out. He sued the college for unsafe windows (not
"moon-proof" I guess). He won!

Regards,

Jbob wrote:

> Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
> and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
> it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>
> Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

No, but if I leave the front door open (and leave some cookies on the table
for you) and I get robbed It is my fault for being stupid.

Understand now?

optikl wrote:

> Jbob wrote:
>> Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>> and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
>> because
>> it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>
>> Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>
>>
> The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
> their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
>
> Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
> for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
> be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
> for something else, doesn't apply here.

Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they would
have to test it before releasing it.

Imhotep wrote:
> optikl wrote:
>
>
>>Jbob wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
>>>because
>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>>
>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
>>their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
>>
>>Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
>>for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
>>be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
>>for something else, doesn't apply here.
>
>
> Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they would
> have to test it before releasing it.

They do test it; just not sufficient enough to find all the security
flaws and correct them. The reason they get away with this is because
users let them. Microsoft customers continue to reward Microsoft by
buying their products (and in fairness to Microsoft, lots of other
software vendors copy this business model) in spite of the long history
of embedded security flaws. In fact, many are happy to participate as
beta testers, hoping they'll get to find something amis, before it's
released. As long as folks continue to tolerate the current Microsoft
business development model, nothing will ever change. When Microsoft
home users start moving in droves toward other OSes, you will see a new
religion take form in the Church of Microsoft. Evolution occurs only
when unprecedent change repeats itself enough times to get noticed.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
<nobody@SpamCox.net> in
<Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:

>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>
>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.

But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
and spams?
--
Matt Silberstein

Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

Cliff on Cheers

optikl wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> optikl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jbob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
>>>>access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
>>>>glass because
>>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>>>
>>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
>>>their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
>>>
>>>Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
>>>for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
>>>be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
>>>for something else, doesn't apply here.
>>
>>
>> Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they
>> would have to test it before releasing it.
>
> They do test it; just not sufficient enough to find all the security
> flaws and correct them. The reason they get away with this is because
> users let them. Microsoft customers continue to reward Microsoft by
> buying their products (and in fairness to Microsoft, lots of other
> software vendors copy this business model) in spite of the long history
> of embedded security flaws. In fact, many are happy to participate as
> beta testers, hoping they'll get to find something amis, before it's
> released. As long as folks continue to tolerate the current Microsoft
> business development model, nothing will ever change. When Microsoft
> home users start moving in droves toward other OSes, you will see a new
> religion take form in the Church of Microsoft. Evolution occurs only
> when unprecedent change repeats itself enough times to get noticed.


Agreed. However, Microsoft is trying to force user to NOT have a choice.
Look at the so-called "IP" laws. Look at what they do with protocols. They
take a protocol modify it so it does not work with other standards then
slap an "IP" claim on it. Why? To enforce that you need a MS Web browser to
view an MS web site, etc, etc. All of this is to force people to buy their
products. An the stupid "sheep" buy into it...

In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat and
lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
innovation...and will continue to.

Imhotep

Imhotep wrote:

> In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat and
> lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
> innovation...and will continue to.
>
> Imhotep

I guess I'd have to disagree with your analysis. No one in their right
mind would invest in technology development if they couldn't stake a
claim to it. What do you think drives venture capital investments?
Altruism? I'd suggest that if you got rid of IP laws the reverse of what
you claim will happen. Now that's just my opinion based on my
experience. We won't know what really would happen without eliminating
IP laws.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
> <nobody@SpamCox.net> in
> <Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>
>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>
>
> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
>
> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
> and spams?

One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
might risk life or limb.

They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
for the software any time for just about any reason.

Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
fitness.

Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.

I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.

That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
break the litigants with fees. Any bets?

Winged

optikl wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>
>> In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat
>> and lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
>> innovation...and will continue to.
>>
>> Imhotep
>
> I guess I'd have to disagree with your analysis. No one in their right
> mind would invest in technology development if they couldn't stake a
> claim to it. What do you think drives venture capital investments?
> Altruism? I'd suggest that if you got rid of IP laws the reverse of what
> you claim will happen. Now that's just my opinion based on my
> experience. We won't know what really would happen without eliminating
> IP laws.

Sure we do know what it would be like without IP, we did not have IP laws
(like they are being used now) during the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s. We
also saw some of the most explosive growth of the Internet and PCs during
this time. Coincidence? I think not.

First as a person who, partally, owns a small software company I will tell
you that I am still against software IP laws (in there current form). I am
obviously against software piracy also. However, IP just does not make
sense. MS is trying to copywrite, via IP laws, IM smileys. Come on! You do
not see how this is getting way out of hand? As a software developer how
can I develop when everything under the Sun is protected by IP laws, that
were not even invented by the company trying to copywrite it. Does that
make sense?

This is how you correct it. IP laws only cover a product for 5 years. It
must be shown that it is truly unique to be covered by the IP laws. You
MUST publish ALL APIs to you software. You do not need to publish your
software, only the APIs to interface with it. After 5 years it is no longer
covered. This should also be applied to hardware as well.

Furthermore, if you write software the APIs should be publically accessible.
You can hide the code of you algorithm but you must provide your APIs to
interface with it.

Imhotep

Winged wrote:

> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
>> <nobody@SpamCox.net> in
>> <Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
>>>because
>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>>
>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>
>>
>> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
>> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
>> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
>> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
>>
>> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
>> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
>> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
>> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
>> and spams?
>
> One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
> warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
> not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
> might risk life or limb.
>
> They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
> for the software any time for just about any reason.
>
> Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
> fitness.
>
> Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
>
> I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
> fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
>
> That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
> lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
> believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
> expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
> MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
> break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
>
> Winged


I think what would be great is to see the publicity from it. M$ might win
the case but they are getting more and more bad press by the day. It is all
building up...watch.

Im

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:21:08 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
<Winged@nofollow.com> in <52dc4$42fab656$18d6d91e$32516@KNOLOGY.NET>
wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
>> <nobody@SpamCox.net> in
>> <Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
>>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>>
>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>
>>
>> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
>> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
>> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
>> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
>>
>> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
>> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
>> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
>> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
>> and spams?
>
>One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
>warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
>not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
>might risk life or limb.

And those licenses have never been tested in court. If will be
interesting to see how they stand up. I suspect that the software
companies will get themselves a special law if the EULA ever get to
court.

>They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
>for the software any time for just about any reason.

Which I think weakens their case. If it is their software that causes
the problem, then they have liability.

>Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
>fitness.

Again, not tested in court. You don't get to see the EULA until after
you have made the purchase. It is not clear that there is a valid
contract.

>Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
>
>I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
>fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
>
>That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
>lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
>believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
>expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
>MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
>break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
>
Likely, but it would save them money to buy off a few senators.



--
Matt Silberstein

Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

Cliff on Cheers

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:21:08 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
> <Winged@nofollow.com> in <52dc4$42fab656$18d6d91e$32516@KNOLOGY.NET>
> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
>>> <nobody@SpamCox.net> in
>>> <Q66dnZ2dnZ3cq2iwnZ2dnfYGZN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
>>>>access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
>>>>glass because
>>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
>>>>
>>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
>>> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
>>> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
>>> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
>>>
>>> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
>>> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
>>> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
>>> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
>>> and spams?
>>
>>One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
>>warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
>>not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
>>might risk life or limb.
>
> And those licenses have never been tested in court. If will be
> interesting to see how they stand up. I suspect that the software
> companies will get themselves a special law if the EULA ever get to
> court.
>
>>They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
>>for the software any time for just about any reason.
>
> Which I think weakens their case. If it is their software that causes
> the problem, then they have liability.
>
>>Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
>>fitness.
>
> Again, not tested in court. You don't get to see the EULA until after
> you have made the purchase. It is not clear that there is a valid
> contract.
>
>>Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
>>
>>I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
>>fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
>>
>>That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
>>lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
>>believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
>>expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
>>MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
>>break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
>>
> Likely, but it would save them money to buy off a few senators.
>
>
>


Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
purchase...

Imhotep

Imhotep wrote:

> Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
> purchase...
>
> Imhotep



Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.

"By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using
the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA.
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
with Manufacturer's return policies."

Hrrmm I wonder if I can ask for a refund?

But I came across another clause that I found curious.

"The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made
through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
or aggregates connections."

Last time I went to CNN I believe more connections than this were
aggregated through the connection...Ok folks turn your XP versions over,
you violated the EULA (actually I am safe as my system refused to
connect to the other sites :-P).

**********separate issue*******

What I found most interesting however is immediately after doing a local
search for the EULA txt file on my local machine, explorer.exe
repeatedly attempted to access the Internet, though it is not allowed to
connect to the Internet by MS XP settings and firewall block.

The user has chosen to "block" communications.
Outbound TCP connection.
Remote address,service is (sa.windows.com(207.46.248.249),http(80)).
Process name is "C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE".

This irritated me however as my firewall was not supposed to ever see
explorer.exe.

I googled the remote site and found out the search assistant contacts
MS..you know to assist you..

I found the info below on the issue:

http://www.neuro-tech.net/archives/000345.html
*******************
Unwanted Windows XP connections to sa.windows.com

This is probably an old piece of information, but it was fairly new to
me. I've found that my computer was periodically connecting to (and
attempting to connect to) a site called sa.windows.com. After many
Google Groups searches it appears that the Windows "Search Assistant" is
constantly updating itself through a web service located at that
machine. Thankfully it's easy to turn off. Go to the registry key
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Explorer\Cabinet
State" and add a String key named "Use Search Asst" with the value "no".
Do it for all the users on your system that login.

This is one of the things that piss me off about web services - they're
a total ***** to block with a firewall since they all use port 80 and
most of them use the system URL fetching utilities.

**********************

I couldn't agree with the author more! The information above was new to
me too.

I told you I didn't use the search feature often..lol

Winged

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:49:55 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
<Winged@nofollow.com> in <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$7980@KNOLOGY.NET>
wrote:

>Imhotep wrote:
>
> > Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
> > purchase...
> >
> > Imhotep
>
>
>
>Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.

If it is not a legitimate contract it does not matter if it claims
that it is a legitimate contract.

But thanks much for the rest.

--
Matt Silberstein

Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

Cliff on Cheers

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:49:55 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
> <Winged@nofollow.com> in <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$7980@KNOLOGY.NET>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Imhotep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
>>>purchase...
>>>
>>>Imhotep
>>
>>
>>
>>Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.
>
>
> If it is not a legitimate contract it does not matter if it claims
> that it is a legitimate contract.
>
> But thanks much for the rest.
>
We'll guess we'll have to watch. I will be very surprised if the courts
overturn precedents.
Winged

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$7980@KNOLOGY.NET>, Winged wrote:

>Imhotep wrote:

>> Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
>> purchase...

I'm surprised someone from Europe hasn't chimed in on this - such a
license is illegal in many jurisdictions. Some countries (the UK being
one) also have a implied warranty of fitness. You bought it, you have
an enforceable expectation that it will do something useful.

>Hrrmm I wonder if I can ask for a refund?

google is your friend - it's been tried, not very successfully. The
normal wiggle is that the manufacturers policies require the software
as part of the hardware purchase. Don't want the software? Fine, you also
have to return the hardware. It's a rip-off, especially for those of us
who don't use windoze. That's one (of many) reason we build our own
systems from parts.

>But I came across another clause that I found curious.
>
>"The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made
>through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
>or aggregates connections."

My understanding is that refers to connection sharing on your end, not
on the other end. IANAL. YMMV.

>What I found most interesting however is immediately after doing a local
>search for the EULA txt file on my local machine, explorer.exe
>repeatedly attempted to access the Internet, though it is not allowed to
>connect to the Internet by MS XP settings and firewall block.

They're just trying to make your Internet experience more enjoyable ;-)
And maybe see that you don't have any illegal software or anything.

>Remote address,service is (sa.windows.com(207.46.248.249),http(80)).

If you do a whois for 'MICROSOFT' at ARIN, you get something like 190
address assignments, just in "North American" IP space. RIPE, APNIC,
LACNIC, and AFRINIC are not as convenient to use, but microsoft has more
address space from them as well. Note that I am NOT including the proxy
services like Akmai (which hosts some windoze updates servers among
other services). ARIN has assigned close to 3/4 million addresses (the
equivalent of 11.22 "CLASS B" or /16 networks) to microsoft, in blocks
as small as /29s (8 addresses, six usable) up to a pair of /14s (262144
addresses). These are scattered from 4.42.190.0/29 to 216.222.104.224/29
for some reason. Because of Classless Inter Domain Routing (so-called
Class A, B, and C were deprecated in 1993, and replaced with those /nn
style), and variable sized network masks, you'd need to block 174 different
networks just to get these 735 thousand addresses in North America alone.

>Process name is "C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE".

Hmmm, what is this "C:\" crap? ;-)

By the way, in another article in this thread, you reprinted the microsoft
EULA - did you get permission from them, or are they gonna come after you
for violating their copyright or something ;-)

Old guy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Imhotep sent the following transmission through subspace:

> Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
> purchase...

In my country (Norway) such an EULA is invalid and not enforceable.

If the seal on the software says that by breaking the seal
you accept the license inside, which you must break the seal to read,
you are not legally bound by the license agreement
and the software company therefore can not pursue you
for not abiding by the license (EULA).

- --
Solbu - http://www.solbu.net
Remove 'ugyldig' for email
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC/sBbT1r***pocyQRAuwtAJ9z6tQs+Xw2oPypXuHRH9yEIwQGhAC gpICF
fMoeJqlXCE36XAnQz6mVkIQ=
=9Hsy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Moe Trin wrote:
> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$7980@KNOLOGY.NET>, Winged wrote:
>
>
>>Imhotep wrote:
>
>
>>>Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
>>>purchase...
>
>
> I'm surprised someone from Europe hasn't chimed in on this - such a
> license is illegal in many jurisdictions. Some countries (the UK being
> one) also have a implied warranty of fitness. You bought it, you have
> an enforceable expectation that it will do something useful.

hrrrmm hadn't thought about it. Is Europe Eula different?
>
>
>>Hrrmm I wonder if I can ask for a refund?
>
>
> google is your friend - it's been tried, not very successfully. The
> normal wiggle is that the manufacturers policies require the software
> as part of the hardware purchase. Don't want the software? Fine, you also
> have to return the hardware. It's a rip-off, especially for those of us
> who don't use windoze. That's one (of many) reason we build our own
> systems from parts.
>
>
>>But I came across another clause that I found curious.
>>
>>"The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made
>>through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
>>or aggregates connections."
>
>
> My understanding is that refers to connection sharing on your end, not
> on the other end. IANAL. YMMV.
>

Yup, however lotta crud if you look at addies are making connections to
the local machine, shucks a lotta spyware tries to do connection sharing
lol..Thinks about friend recently that had 32 trojans..Guess he needed
those trojans getting sexed like that.
>
>>What I found most interesting however is immediately after doing a local
>>search for the EULA txt file on my local machine, explorer.exe
>>repeatedly attempted to access the Internet, though it is not allowed to
>>connect to the Internet by MS XP settings and firewall block.
>
>
> They're just trying to make your Internet experience more enjoyable ;-)
> And maybe see that you don't have any illegal software or anything.
>
>
>>Remote address,service is (sa.windows.com(207.46.248.249),http(80)).
>
>
> If you do a whois for 'MICROSOFT' at ARIN, you get something like 190
> address assignments, just in "North American" IP space. RIPE, APNIC,
> LACNIC, and AFRINIC are not as convenient to use, but microsoft has more
> address space from them as well. Note that I am NOT including the proxy
> services like Akmai (which hosts some windoze updates servers among
> other services). ARIN has assigned close to 3/4 million addresses (the
> equivalent of 11.22 "CLASS B" or /16 networks) to microsoft, in blocks
> as small as /29s (8 addresses, six usable) up to a pair of /14s (262144
> addresses). These are scattered from 4.42.190.0/29 to 216.222.104.224/29
> for some reason. Because of Classless Inter Domain Routing (so-called
> Class A, B, and C were deprecated in 1993, and replaced with those /nn
> style), and variable sized network masks, you'd need to block 174 different
> networks just to get these 735 thousand addresses in North America alone.
>
>
>>Process name is "C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE".
>
>
> Hmmm, what is this "C:\" crap? ;-)

In Vmware You establish your hdd starting with C:\Windowz. I guess I
could have set the VM to do elsewise, just never bothered. It would be
safer against some critters, however if something looks at the
environment variables it don't matter much. Keeping disk drives limited
creates a bit more space in VM (petty I know, but..)
>
> By the way, in another article in this thread, you reprinted the microsoft
> EULA - did you get permission from them, or are they gonna come after you
> for violating their copyright or something ;-)
>
> Old guy


Guess they can sue me, can't get blood out of a turnip.

Winged

Solbu wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Imhotep sent the following transmission through subspace:
>
>> Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
>> purchase...
>
> In my country (Norway) such an EULA is invalid and not enforceable.
>
> If the seal on the software says that by breaking the seal
> you accept the license inside, which you must break the seal to read,
> you are not legally bound by the license agreement
> and the software company therefore can not pursue you
> for not abiding by the license (EULA).
>
> - --
> Solbu - http://www.solbu.net
> Remove 'ugyldig' for email
> PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFC/sBbT1r***pocyQRAuwtAJ9z6tQs+Xw2oPypXuHRH9yEIwQGhAC gpICF
> fMoeJqlXCE36XAnQz6mVkIQ=
> =9Hsy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Europe is getting big in the Linux World. Keep up the good work. Do not let
the American money influence your laws.

Imhotep

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<cebba$4301506a$18d6d91e$15173@KNOLOGY.NET>, Winged wrote:
>Moe Trin wrote:

>> I'm surprised someone from Europe hasn't chimed in on this - such a
>> license is illegal in many jurisdictions. Some countries (the UK being
>> one) also have a implied warranty of fitness. You bought it, you have
>> an enforceable expectation that it will do something useful.

>hrrrmm hadn't thought about it. Is Europe Eula different?

I don't think so - I think it's just flat out ignored. I suspect no one
has gone after microsoft on the implied warranty of fitness because it's
not worth the time (your and the courts) to nail them.

>Yup, however lotta crud if you look at addies are making connections to
>the local machine, shucks a lotta spyware tries to do connection sharing
>lol..Thinks about friend recently that had 32 trojans..Guess he needed
>those trojans getting sexed like that.

Even if "I did go to those "interesting" sites, my system is not compatible
with the trojans/spyware, never mind that I don't have access to a browser
that auto-installs things while I'm using the computer one-handed. ;-)

>> Hmmm, what is this "C:\" crap? ;-)
>
>In Vmware You establish your hdd starting with C:\Windowz.

Not running VMWare - and the only microsoft product I have are a couple
of the old 'Dove Bar' mice. No, correct that - there is a box in the
store room that has an Everex 286 motherboard and two Seagate ST-251s
(42 Meg MFM drive), and I did see the original manual set there - and that
_should_ still have the two 360k floppies with MS-DOS 3.30. One of the
computers still has a 5.25 inch drive - dunno if it still works though.

Old guy

Moe Trin wrote:
> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <cebba$4301506a$18d6d91e$15173@KNOLOGY.NET>, Winged wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm surprised someone from Europe hasn't chimed in on this - such a
>>>license is illegal in many jurisdictions. Some countries (the UK being
>>>one) also have a implied warranty of fitness. You bought it, you have
>>>an enforceable expectation that it will do something useful.
>
>
>>hrrrmm hadn't thought about it. Is Europe Eula different?
>
>
> I don't think so - I think it's just flat out ignored. I suspect no one
> has gone after microsoft on the implied warranty of fitness because it's
> not worth the time (your and the courts) to nail them.
>
>
>>Yup, however lotta crud if you look at addies are making connections to
>>the local machine, shucks a lotta spyware tries to do connection sharing
>>lol..Thinks about friend recently that had 32 trojans..Guess he needed
>>those trojans getting sexed like that.
>
>
> Even if "I did go to those "interesting" sites, my system is not compatible
> with the trojans/spyware, never mind that I don't have access to a browser
> that auto-installs things while I'm using the computer one-handed. ;-)
>
>
>>>Hmmm, what is this "C:\" crap? ;-)
>>
>>In Vmware You establish your hdd starting with C:\Windowz.
>
>
> Not running VMWare - and the only microsoft product I have are a couple
> of the old 'Dove Bar' mice. No, correct that - there is a box in the
> store room that has an Everex 286 motherboard and two Seagate ST-251s
> (42 Meg MFM drive), and I did see the original manual set there - and that
> _should_ still have the two 360k floppies with MS-DOS 3.30. One of the
> computers still has a 5.25 inch drive - dunno if it still works though.
>
> Old guy
>
LoL I still have many old things archived...Even the Bar is an old DEC
chassis. MFM...Didn't think any of those still lived...lol Though if
ya need a copy of old PC DOS 1.0...Won't argue OS's I have to be able
to deal with a wide range of stuff and flavors...RISC and CISC. I even
have a big box of 8 inch floppies that work...But keeping MFM
drives...thats retentive :-)

Winged


Winged

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<qpo5g1lm9sbrs61dho6rk7ut9muamrgpnn@4ax.com>, Jim Watt wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:35:50 -0500, Winged <Winged@nofollow.com>
>wrote:
>
>>But keeping MFM drives...thats retentive :-)
>
>Can't get an ATA conroller for my Northstar Horizon.

I thought that used 8-Track cartridges. Or did you have the server version
that used Beta-Max? Having trouble finding certified data tapes now?

>and the paper tape isn't presently working on the pc

Sheesh, Jim - get with the program. We stopped using paper tape back in
the 1970s. We use Mylar instead. ;-)

Old guy