There are three kinds: those that spy on the user, those that restrict the user, and back doors. Windows has all three. Microsoft can install software changes without asking permission
Don't most people consider automatic updates a feature? It's rare to hear someone say say "Boy, I really hate that chrome has automatic updates". And, if you don't like it, you can disable it. If he's referring to phones, my Linux (Android) phone automatically updates itself, and, if you recall the CarrierIQ debacle, the spyware features were disabled on iOS devices and enabled and some Android devices.
The term "back door" is misleading and deliberately inflammatory. The "back door" into windows that causes security updates to be installed by default saves people who don't obsessively download security updates from having actual back doors installed on their machines.
How does Windows spy on users? Is he talking about crash reporting or perhaps the malicious website tracking that some browsers now do, something that prevents actual spyware from being installed?
I use Ubuntu on two personal machines, and I really wish that it had a "back door" as nice as Windows Update. I've upgraded Ubuntu three times and it's broken software that I use daily every time. In one case, I had to recompile something from source, and in two other cases, I had to edit some obscure config file. I like free software, both philosophically and practically, but you're not going to win over users by telling them that features that make it possible for non-technical users to have a secure system are handcuffs.
I dislike this sort of demagoguery because it makes it harder to convince moderates. There's a guy like this at work; he makes it almost impossible to convince people of anything that's even similar to what he believes, because you have to first convince them that you're not a radical extremist before they'll listen at all.
Your criticism misses the technical points, either because stallman don’t always explains them, or because he assumes that people who needs the detailed facts will be able to find them out.
The back door feature of windows is not that users can receive automatic updates. Automatic updates are great. The problems is that users can not turn it off completely. Even if you disable automatic updates in windows, some updates will still be pushed regardless. Windows has demonstrated this in the past, and said (when asked about it) that they wont use that feature other than when "needed", but that fact that they can do this mean that they can turn it over to who ever, when ever, and for any reason that makes business sense to do so.
How does Windows spy on users. Over the time of windows history, users has found out that windows sends back a list over installed programs, encrypted to Microsoft, through I do not remember if they included statistics over usage. Now days, a default installed windows 8 machine will a) inform Microsoft each time you install a new program (to check for malware), and b) each time you visit a website with IE (to check for malware again), and c) your IP address each time you connect to the internet (to check if your internet connection works). You might be able to turn of some of those "features", but honestly, I don't know. In Windows xp, you could not disable the statistics gather of installed programs, as Microsoft said they needed that to improve the experience of windows. Now they turned it to a dual statistics and security feature, so maybe... maybe...
Here are those that I could easiest find. If the slashdot articles are duplicates of any of the two above, then sorry. I just made a quick search for what I remember since 2007, which was a bit back ago :). If someone has a comment by microsoft in regard to any changed behavior in later versions of windows, that would be very interesting to read.
I use Ubuntu on two personal machines, and I really wish that it had a "back door" as nice as Windows Update.
Well at least Ubuntu, when it offers updates, offers updates to all programs installed on the machine in one central place in a sensible way.
My experience with windows is that every application has its own upgrade checks, or even a background process specifically to check for upgrades for that application. This hogs down the machine, and ofcourse they all require rebooting every single time there's an update.
(which would be ok-ish if it was just once, but as it's not coordinated they all want you to do it in turn)
I think people implicitly trust Microsoft and Apple to not install anything dodgy on their computers, and it's no different for Linux users.
As Mark Shuttlworth said, regarding integrated Amazon search, "Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update." (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182)
There is a difference between having updates, and having updates you can't disable or turn down.
Ubuntu has no updates that are forced onto the users after the users disable automatic updates, but Windows does it. Apple? I do not know if apple has ever pushed an update that has ignored the user setting, so I will put that down as a maybe. Iphone, doubtful if apple can't push updates regardless of any user settings.
A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at Microsoft’s site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
“Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself. It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is installed, Windows Update won’t work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed.”
Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
“7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific issues found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is available.”
The driver for my wired Ethernet card is not included. I hoped it would be when I upgraded from 12.04 to 12.10 but there it was, finished upgrading and no wired connection.
Since it is a work development box, where I am usually in the middle of a sprint, I will put off all future upgrades as long as possible.
Without a strong guarantee that my system will work exactly like it does before the upgrade I have no incentive to up grade ever again as long as I can get my stories done by the end of the sprint.
I don't think this is comparable. If you buy an iPad, you're getting hardware that is certified (and more) to run iOS. If you want it to compare this with Ubuntu, at least use a machine that is certified to run Ubuntu.
Alternatively, go ahead and complain that Ubuntu doesn't work well for you on non-certified hardware. But please don't conflate this with upgrade deficiencies.
All I know is that for the last six months, whenever I up grade my ubuntu box I spend anywhere from an hour to a day getting it back into the state it was so I can use and work with my code base - be it the wired driver, the over writing of java, or changes to the php.ini and on and on ..
I guess what you are saying is that I should reinstall windows and install the development tools I need on there? I should tell my (start up employer with a limited budget) that we need Ubuntu certified machines for all developers?
I'm not the only one win this problem - honestly you comment is the first time I have heard of an Ubuntu certified box. However I do know that other developers who have experienced similar issues take the same approach - I know of one person who is on 10.11 still. Not because he doesn't want an Ubuntu certified box or because he doesn't want to up grade but because he has work to do and upgrading gets in the way of that.
Why not go the other way, only install Ubuntu on certified hardware, keep me from using it on my hardware unless they can support it.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that if you want to run a Linux computer with a seamless experience you need to do a bit of research on hardware in advance, at least this problem is nowhere near as bad as it used to be.
You could argue that you would have the same problem with OS X, it's just made easier for you because they designed the OS not to run at all on anything that wasn't 100% compatible. Running Ubuntu on random hardware is really more like running a hackintosh.
Now you could argue about who's "fault" this is. Canonical's for not making clearer which hardware is supported or pushing for better support, Yours for not doing the research or the hardware manufacturers for not providing better drivers out of the box but it is basically academic.
I actually remember an interview with Linus somewhere where somebody asked him "why is Linux not more popular on the desktop?" and his response was that the desktop is hardest because you have to try and support every printer that somebody might happen to plugin.
FWIW Lenovo and System76 computers seem to be the ones that people have best results with for running Ubuntu.
You make good points. My choice not to upgrade is more pragmatic than anything else ... Work to do and so many hours to do it in. And I agree, knowing about the certification makes it more like running hackintosh - one dev does that here and he has had several issues with Xcode that I do not on my mpb.
I also learned Linux on the command line mainly interacting with the typical LAMP app running on AWS. They were mainly Red arhat or CentoS and I never had to interact with a Linux desktop until about six months ago and I guess I just assumed that it was 2012 - surely the desktop/upgrade issues of the ninety's and aughts.
I don't think it is anyone's 'fault' it is just a difficult problem to solve. Knowing that there are Ubuntu certified desktops out there is useful info I can pass along to my boss before they buy an new device box.
I haven't even found that to be the case. I have several ARM boxes including Raspberry Pi, several desktops, a few Macbooks, etc, and have yet to have to build a driver from source. Worst thing I've had to do is go wired to install Broadcom stuff in Fedora because it didn't do it for me.
No offense but if you had built in and then did an in-place upgrade to a newer kernel, etc, I would not be surprised that things break.
These days, I'm as likely to do an in-place upgrade in Linux as I am in Windows. It's far too insanely easy to just have a separate /home partition and do a clean install. Apt makes it easy to restore packages.
You still have to rebuild the wifi module, but it shouldn't be any more work than the first time.
Don't most people consider automatic updates a feature? It's rare to hear someone say say "Boy, I really hate that chrome has automatic updates". And, if you don't like it, you can disable it. If he's referring to phones, my Linux (Android) phone automatically updates itself, and, if you recall the CarrierIQ debacle, the spyware features were disabled on iOS devices and enabled and some Android devices.
The term "back door" is misleading and deliberately inflammatory. The "back door" into windows that causes security updates to be installed by default saves people who don't obsessively download security updates from having actual back doors installed on their machines.
How does Windows spy on users? Is he talking about crash reporting or perhaps the malicious website tracking that some browsers now do, something that prevents actual spyware from being installed?
I use Ubuntu on two personal machines, and I really wish that it had a "back door" as nice as Windows Update. I've upgraded Ubuntu three times and it's broken software that I use daily every time. In one case, I had to recompile something from source, and in two other cases, I had to edit some obscure config file. I like free software, both philosophically and practically, but you're not going to win over users by telling them that features that make it possible for non-technical users to have a secure system are handcuffs.
I dislike this sort of demagoguery because it makes it harder to convince moderates. There's a guy like this at work; he makes it almost impossible to convince people of anything that's even similar to what he believes, because you have to first convince them that you're not a radical extremist before they'll listen at all.