"Red Flag Linux has turned out to be little more than a key bargaining chip in a high stakes game of commerce between the Chinese government and the world's largest software maker. Thanks to some major concessions on source code and a precipitous price drop, the Chinese government has now thoroughly embraced Windows and Office. And thanks to a major about-face in the way that it deals with piracy, Microsoft has also won over the Chinese people."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
I can understand your reluctance.
After all, there can be no debate that Winodws contains points of entry for external agents to have control over your system. Microsoft has left some of these for itself to use (such as WGA), and some for Microsoft partners (such as RIAA & MPAA).
The obvious conclusion is that Windows is NOT designed for the end owner of the system to have complete control over.
The pertinent observation is that since these known points of entry exist in Winodws systems, then even though they are arguably intended as entry points for Microsoft and partners to use to control your use of your system, they can potentially be subverted by any party for their use to control your system.
Witness botnets. These should, of course, more correctly be named "winbotnets".
Member since:2005-07-06
After all, there can be no debate that Winodws contains points of entry for external agents to have control over your system.
Ok. Point?
Microsoft has left some of these for itself to use
As has Linux and OSX. Point?
and some for Microsoft partners (such as RIAA & MPAA).
Actual proof or shut up. A website that makes a claim without providing proof itself is not proof.
The obvious conclusion is that Windows is NOT designed for the end owner of the system to have complete control over.
No, it's the convenient conclusion for you.
Witness botnets. These should, of course, more correctly be named "winbotnets".
Yes. That's a sign of poor security in the past in Windows. Other major operating systems have had vulnerabilities that would have allowed for similar things to happen in the past. Circumstances made it less likely for them though. This is not, however, a sign of intentional backdooring of their own operating system by Microsoft.
Any conclusion otherwise is mere speculation by someone with a clear agenda -- to put Microsoft in a negative light. They can do that well enough themselves, they don't need little fanboys like you making shit up and connecting dots that shouldn't be connected.
And no, I have no agenda here. I am not trying to put Microsoft in a positive light. They did not positive here (that is, regarding this "backdoor"/NSA crap). They simply didn't do anything.
Member since:
2005-07-06
a) Actually it was never debunked. NSA remained silent and only "debunkazation" came from MS press release where they stated "Trust us, that key isn't made for NSA" without giving any proof for that statement. The only issues is do you have or do you have not a faith in their statements.
The only "proof" is that a key was named "NSA" in registry. The burden of proof lies on those saying it's a backdoor.
The central argument, the one which you clearly avoided, was this: closed source software demands faith of their users that it will not contain any purposely designed security issues.
That was never the argument and I never avoided it. It's a completely seperate argument though, and I don't really want to get into that argument.