Bitcoin Forum

yes im talking about windows, i simply can't understand why sooo many people cares so much about their privacy, and still uses windows.
the windows users have no way of knowing what microsoft does to them. i do not say microsoft does this things, im only saying they can do it!
can anyone please explain this for me? im simply incapable of understanding it.

use open source i say!

I personally can't be bothered with spending my whole weekend trying to get a webcam, scanner, or mobile broadband modem to work under linux, acquiring lots of technical knowledge that is practically worthless because it will be out of date in a few years.  I mean, don't you have better stuff to do in your precious free time?

I know that this  is not entirely the fault of linux but of the peripherals manufacturers who don't make drivers for linux, but what can I do about that?

Generally, linux sucks for multimedia stuff.

I like to use linux for coding though. But for that I can run it in a VM.

For secure stuff like online banking, I do use a separate linux netbook anyhow.

Why not benefit from the best of both worlds?

I don't know what you mean by explaining to you, your point? I probably misunderstood but back to your thoery that's why I have reason to believe that other platforms like linux and mac arn't so easy to break into(I do realise that because windows is more popular it will be attacked more often and that more security holes will be found, blah, blah,blah). Mainly becuase theres a bunch of junk tracking software embedded right into the core files and possibly ridiculously high compression rates for transmitting such data heck it probubly just laches on to port 80 requests and gets sent out with the data.

Anyways I dont know what your question had to do with pre installed trojans in connection with windows but thats the best I could come up with.
If you asking why do people buy windows computers with windows already on it preinstalled by joe-shmo, I would probubly say they are either knowledgable or not and would hopefully wipe the harddrive.

linux doesnot suck for multimedia stuff.
i actually found is better then windows, because of the drm lockin windows and apple haves.

it is not hard to get all the stuff working  you are talking about.
it works out of the box in ubuntu desktop(not using it very much, im using gentoo for laptop, and ubuntu for my server, it sould be opersite). i dont know about the scanner, i dont have one. but webcam and mobile broadband, it just works.

im think that windows is a trojan, plain and simple. its installed on nearly every sold computer in the world. therefor i call it a pre installed trojan.

again we can even take it a step further, why do people chose closed source systems like: BIOS, microcode, malware built in the processor. why not open source it all? and be free from the threat from closed source?

Well it's a question of thrust. Even if the source code is open, I don't have time to check it.

I trust Microsoft not to put trojan, they are under much more sructiny and have much more to lose than a guy in his basement producing open source software.

Plus on Windows 7 with the UAC activated it's probably harder to have some stuff installed without you knowing that on a Linux box.

Also, it's fun to annoy Linux geeks by using Windows  ;)

correct, but you don't have to check it, you know that some will screem if there was malicious code in linux.
 
true, but why trust anyone when you don't have to. and you gets the same out of it.

i dont think so, on linux you will need root privileges, before you can install anything harmful. you can also disallow a user not to execute anything, that is not whitelisted by root, this is not able by default.
but this is not what im talking about, im talking about that MS can invade your computer via windows update, if they want to.
true there are also auto updating features in linux distros, but they are opensource. you can see anythink with linux, but you dont have any clue what is happning on a windows.

LOL! yes linux geeks gets annoyed by it. im a linux geek, true. but right now im more curious, then annoyed. :)

Linux has found its niche. It's great for businesses which need to scale, that is to say, expand radically without the need to purchase extra licenses. Linux is a true success in that market.

For the mainstream user, well, are you so out of touch with soccer moms and the rest of the world?

I don't know about pre-installed trojans, but I wonder why people would pay 150€ (+license-software) for what they could get free. You trim linux once in to the shape and it's good for years (albeit updating more often is a good idea ;) ). With M$ you can hardly go three days without having to update. And funny thing is that on default the system tells you what to do, not the other way around.

i have tryed windows and mac and *bsd. i like linux best, it has more features. it is also more beautiful, then windows and mac. look at compiz.

im not out of touch with the world. you are dear windows user. did you ever try linux?

windows is the pre-installed (possible) trojan.
i also update often, there are security holes in linux too.

but with windows you need to trust microsoft, you don't have any clue about what happens on your computer, because windows is closed source.

as for buying computers, i wouldn't know - haven't bought anything but parts for over twenty years.

where OSs are concerned, i mostly use linux - but i keep XP on a VM, and i have a gaming hard drive ready to boot when i'm in the mood.

it doesn't really matter though - all OSs do the same thing in pretty much the same way.  it's more a matter of figuring out where stuff is, than anything else.

You tried to run Gentoo?

 Microsoft already pulls in billions of dollars with Windows.  What possible motivation would they have to install a trojan?  Are they going to steal your bank account infoz too? 



 

There is only one thing that companies and people with money want: more money.

And some companies do that by collecting and selling data.

its likely. gentoo is a good geek distro. but it absolutely not for noobs, or people who does not want to learn.

i did not say that. i just said that they can. and there are no reason to trust them.

This strikes me as a little FUDdy.

Windows has huge security holes. Being closed source, only MS can vet it. So yes, It's not as safe as Linux.

But a pre-installed trojan? Might be a bit much, don't you think?

a little bit, maybe. but microsoft can control any windows computer.
im not saying they do it, but they can.

It seems to me that once Microsoft activates their hidden trojans and starts to spy on ordinary users, the financial loss from future windows sales would be a lot more then what they can get out of people.

I'm more concerned with all the pirated copies that can't get updates, and thus, are literally dangling in the wind for hackers to come along and take over. Allowing security updates on 'non-genuine' copies of windows would kill probably half the world's spam, and 3/4 of the DDoS attacks.

and your point is?

they haves no motive. BUT THEY CAN.

People buy PCs and laptops with Windows preinstalled because almost all PCs and laptops come with Windows preinstalled. It's as simple as that. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to attempt to install a different operating system than what came by default.

seriously, installing ubuntu from a cd is free and is all point and click

I disagree.

The problem is not that people don't have the technical knowledge required, but that they THINK they don't have the technical knowledge required.

Honestly, installing something like OpenSuSE is just as point-and-click as installing any emoticons-and-cursors malware-ridden toolbar (yes, I'm looking at you, SmileyCentral and CometCursor) you can find for Windows. The issue is that people never do it, and thus assume it must be something complicated, as none of their peers did it either, so it must be something out of their knowledge field. Which is just plain untrue.

Most users are simply afraid to do things with a computer, afraid to break it or otherwise mess it up.

+1

this is one reason most corps use both.

and people do try to watch what is leaving their network, that is how the first "spyware" was found in realplayer.


but more than corps, you might have noticed countries are worried about the us government control over MS.

I guess it depends on how sensitive you think your data is.

for 99% of us, windows is the least of our worries.

People also get windows as that is what their friends have, they also get windows cause they know a kid down the street that can fix windows, not many are lucky enough to know a kid who knows linux. This is key. When windows goes bad, you have someone you can call. ANd it is hard enough to get people to update their browsers, and you want them to install ubuntu? lol

yeah I think that if computers, came with linux preinstalled(like some netbooks) a good bit of people wouldnt even notice but if you ask people what they want, they want windows and office, the dont want linux and libreoffice or open office, (farken drives me nuts, i can show them it works fine for every document on their system but they hear stories about it not working sometimes and nope they just want office.)

and in a corporate world trying to change anything is like pulling teeth, their are corps with win95 systems still running their custom apps.

Unless you're saying that the operating systems themselves are infected (I think someone would have noticed by this point), I always ended up reinstalling the system on the machines I purchased anyway, due the amount of bloatware many have on them. As a result, even if I were to suspect that, it wouldn't be a factor in the end.

But if you do find some sort of malware on a pre-assembled machine - I'm sure you'll have quite a few lawyers willing to take up the case for nothing, as you'll have quite a check waiting for you by the end of the proceedings!

windows is not infected, it is the possible malware!
microsoft can gain access to any networked windows system, via the preinstalled trojan downloading system called windows update.
and you would have no knowledge of it.

let my simplify the question, why are people using closed source?

Is it the thread where ppl insult windows cause they think it's still windows 3.1?

First you call windows a trojan and now you say that you just want to know why ppl use closed source.

In page 3 you will again change the point of the thread?

possible trojans, i did not say it was.
3.1? no 7
3.1 has in fact less trojan-like attitude, beacuse there was no auto update feature(trojan downloader feature).

you may say that most linux distros also have autoupdate features, but you can always read the source, and ensure there is no trojans.
you can't read the source of windows, becuase its closed source.

my points with the post was:
a) to make windows users aware of what they are using and how much control they have over their computers.
b) to learn how they justify being paranoid(many users here have 3 layered tinfoil hats) and use windows at the same time.

maybe calling windows a trojan was a overkill, yes true. but i did it to show the contrast. microsoft can actually install whatever they want on your computer, again im not saying they does it, only that they can.

Best place to DL?

to DL what?

linux ultimate edition 2.8

http://ultimateedition.info/ultimate-edition/ultimate-edition-2-6/#download

by torrent i think.

So anything that has an autoupdater is by default malicious? What evidence do you have that Microsoft is installing spyware, viruses, or other forms of malware on customer operating systems that you so strongly insinuate?

I use closed source operating systems because it's hardly any different from using other closed source software - or do you not use any of that either? Open source is nice, but I'm not going to expect everybody to follow through with that standard (I have published my own open source software on sourceforge, if that helps to back up my own credentials on discussing this topic). You certainly have the right to despise any operating system you choose - but that isn't a justification for spreading hearsay or other false information.

any closed source autoupdater can by default be malicious. do you disagree?

none! but they can do it. please see what words i use. i do not say that they do, only that they can.

i did not write any false information, please read my posts again.

Any software in general can be malicious - but the fact that something includes an updater does not make it any more malware than it makes me a criminal for running tor. It can be used for good or bad purposes - I have yet to see any evidence from your camp that would even remotely persuade me that Microsoft intends to use this tool for illegal or malicious purposes.


Lots of things can happen through all kinds of mediums - Apple could decide to collect and redistribute personal information on iPhone users through an implicit agreement, Sun could, effective immediately, charge royalty for all Java programs produced henceforth, and the operators of Deepbit could decide to capitalize on their pool monopoly by doubling their use fee. Furthermore, the world could end tomorrow.

However...there is no evidence to suggest any of these hypothetical situations will actually occur. To insinuate that they will with no evidence for my stance would be alarmist and irrational.


You can hide behind the banner of "that's not what I said" all you like - but anybody reading your posts knows you are trying to persuade people through fear to switch systems, based on an unfounded and implicit claim that Microsoft would have some strange reason to completely destroy their own business. You are a propagandist - and a very poor representation of the linux community.

His issue is not with the autoupdate, but with the closed source nature of everything it downloads. Antivirus programs have numerous times caught and considered actual system files as virii. With no way of looking into the source for those binaries, there's no way to be sure that the program wasn't right. (note, this is just my tin hat speaking, I hate windows for completely different reasons)

Open source is inherently safer, due to the fact that you can examine the source, and see what it's actually doing.

and people know this, and are scared of it. look at facebook, people are crying and screaming about privacy issues.
but they don't know what microsoft or apple can do with their computers. people are just ignoring/unknowing the fact that they can have access to their computers.

on this forum some people are paranoid that the governements or corporations are gonna rape them in the ass, but they still use windows or mac, not knowing what they can do if they like.

open source are not suspicious, you can read the source, and verify that it is not malicious. you can't do that with closed source.

I agree it is - my qualm is not with open source (as I've said I have released my own small open source software before), but with the way in which he is presenting it. His insinuations are dishonest at best and self-serving at worst.


You've probably read my reply to myrkul - it also applies to this post. It is illegal to install malicious software on a machine or otherwise gain unnecessary access without the owner's consent - this is usually through a EULA or some other terms of use agreement. As a result, you can, under the protection of law (at least in the US) feel reasonably comfortable that any corporation is going to think twice...or three or four times before abusing their trust. Moreover, even without the laws protecting you, the backlash against the company would be enormous and would hurt them financially. It should go without saying that it would be a very poor business decision if the abuse were ever to come to light.

I agree, this whole thread reeks of FUD, but I think he's just a little overzealous in his championing of Open Source.

FUT - Fear, uncertainty and truth
FUD - Fear, uncertainty and doubt

there is no doubt in my posts, only truth.
the only doubt there is if microsoft has or has not put malware in windows computers, which i don't know, but i don't think they would.
oh. see now im protectin microsoft! it is based on logic, it would be very very stupid of them to put malware on computers, bad bad PR.

but still, they can do it if they like, there is nothing to stop them.

Exactly my point - so you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, I like linux systems, I just don't use them because it's not practical for me to do so. Perhaps as computing advances open source solutions will become more popular.  :)

the question still stands: why do paranoid people on this forum use windows or mac or any other closed source os? (windows and mac are the most popular)

If it had been phrased like this, I don't think there would have been nearly so much confusion. Why, indeed, to all these tin-hat wearing paranoid bitcoiners use windows, the LEAST secure operating system out there?

How many trojan threads are there?

i could make a trojan to linux if i wanted to, no problem! (obfuscated python script, or precompiled 'miner')
why the hell use a possible-trojan os? (sorry if sounding overzealous)

You could, but it would be discovered almost immediately.

maybe, but not if i was smart enough, and did include an secure autoupdate(covert communication channel) feature.

1. make obfuscated trojan with secure autoupdate.
2. let it be installed on many machines.
3. send malicious 'update', that sends the wallet to me, via the covert channel.
4. profit.

very simple.

Then what's your problem with windows, if the same method can be used on any other OS?

only if you do something stupid(install closed source apps). and of course there are stupid users, that would do it.

windows is possible trojan os, it already haves autoupdate feature.
microsoft can push anything into a windows computer, and not being caught, they can push executable code directly into your computer.
Linus Torvalds can't push anything into a linux computer, he can push it to the source tree, where anyone can read/verify his code.

of course most distros also have autoupdate features, but they are open. yes they do push executable code into you computer, but you can always get the code yourself and compile it, and there is nearly always a reason along with the update, and explanation why its needed. there is also often a open debate about the code before it gets included in a update.

open source is peer reviewed, and therefor secure.

get the point?

Oh, I get your point. If Bill Gates wanted to, well, not Bill anymore, he hasn't touched windows code in years, but if someone in Microsoft wanted to, they could slip a trojan into pretty much any software update they wanted to.