0 23 2020.12.03 2024.07.05 2024.07.05 Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatiamljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com computer science and engineering windows, piracy, updates, security, certificates, viruses homo.cancerous https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7263464 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits On piracy, windows, updates and security Abstract Lies have been spread and lies continue to be told. All in the name of centralized profit and control. Initially, many projects (eg. early computers, early software, early internet) start uncorrupted. Quality and usefulness are prioritized. But it appears everything that grows in human society eventually gets corrupted, infested with lies, ultimately contributing to rising inequality and centralization of profit. Intro Here, I summarize my thoughts on electronic piracy, Windows OS development, software updates and security - of software and electronic communication. Rights to piracy I support fair use and will always pay for the work of others that I use myself or find valuable in any way. Thus, I support electronic piracy too. It offers a fair (and often the only) way to try the product before purchase. Downloading is not stealing, contrary to what some say. Taking without giving back is cancerous, but no damage is done with the sole act of downloading, cloning or copying. Piracy is generally good for quality products because for these it becomes free advertising. It is not good for bad products - and that is a problem for those who want to sell bad products too, as they spend a lot of money advertising and lying about how good these are. Without piracy, you would never know what you're buying, you would have to trust advertisements and reviews. And these are hard to trust even with piracy, let alone without it. Not only that, the enforcement of copyrights stifles innovation and progressive evolution. Instead of assessing damage from piracy, it would be wise to assess damage from the enforcements of such stupid policies instead - cancerous policies encourage cancerous behaviour. That is the real issue one should be dealing with. Piracy is not a real issue, it is a virtual issue blown out of proportions, for the same reason everything else is inflated in this society - for the short term profit of few greedy, lazy and short-sighted people. My desktop is not your property After DOS, my primary desktop OS was always Windows. I have used Linux often, but on server platforms, without a GUI. That is where Linux shines and where I would never replace it with Windows. But, over the years, I have forced myself to try different flavours of Linux on my home PC too. And... it sucked. Always. That probably means I will still be using Windows 7 for the foreseeable future. I have tried Windows 10. It sucked too, but for different and more important reasons. Up to and including Win 7, my PC was my property and it was as secure as much as I wanted it to be. With Win 8/10, Microsoft desperately wanted to change that and tried to become the owner of my PC, just like Google was the owner of my mobile phone - again, the excuse for control at the expense of freedom is security.
Any software that collects data about one for free but makes profit on that data should either be free too or share that profit with one. In any case, one should be well aware of what's going on, and one's consent should be conscious, not manufactured. The same goes for control.
Well, I'm not buying it. This is the same politics as one forced by governments on people - where security is an illusion, priority is control (and data). Secured abuse Security certificates I don't like it when good things get banned at the excuse of a possibility for abuse, but in reality, it's due to lack of control by 3rd parties. That's the case with self-signed certificates too - they are practically banned. While it is true that self-signed certificates can be used to abuse, they are not inherently bad and nothing less secure than CA-signed certificates. In fact, they are more secure - simply due to the fact that only you know the private key of your certificate. If you would want to engage in most secure communication, you would use self-signed certificates. With CA-signed certificates, the CA (Certificate Authority) generates your private key and you have to trust they will not spy on you or let someone else (like government) spy on you. Updates It is a big fat lie that one needs to have the latest version of Windows and keep it updated in order to be secure from trouble. On server platforms, yes, one would probably want the latest updates (although even here it's most about proper configuration of firewalls and services), but on a home PC it is not you who needs it - it's those who want to control and own your PC and your self. After all, a new update may fix some stuff but it will often introduce new problems.
A culture of updates stems from industry based on infinite growth. You have been effectively trained to buy and like new stuff simply because they are new. In most cases today new product is not better, its worse, it just looks different. This affection for modernity is unsustainable and bad and I will not support it.
I have Windows 7 installed on several machines, and on my main PC for over a decade. After the installation of Service Pack 1 (SP1) I have disabled all updates. 10 years after, that PC is still working flawlessly. Never had any trouble nor need to reinstall the OS. Instead of worrying about updates its better for one to educate its self about social engineering, phishing, viruses and malware because these are the methods and tools which are to blame in almost all cases of trouble for home users. And no OS or update can protect you from these. If your PC is working good for you there are generally no reasons for updating. For a home PC, a good anti-virus and an educated brain is all one needs.
However, no one should be forced to keep himself or his machines safe from infections - those who fear infections should protect themselves but it is selfish to force others to do the same. My philosophy is such that I have no fears of death or disease, and my science has proved to me that karma is real. Therefore, I will not trade my freedom and quality of life for someone's, from my perspective - irrational, fear. It is utterly cynical of homo.cancerous to make this a matter of responsibility. Are all animals who do not wear masks irresponsible? Certainly not - they, at least effectively, believe in karma and do not fear invisible threats, so, naturally, they don't waste energy on such stupidity (and that makes them more resistant to both, viruses and stupidity). There is a reason why viruses are invisible and I shall leave the beings of my organism who can effectively see them to deal with them if they want to do so - I will not force them either to fight. After all, how can someone, who is a disease for the planet consider its life worth more than that of a virus - which is actually helping the planet by regulating populations? The anthropocentric short-term responsibility is the reason for long-term irresponsibility and I have no interest in unsustainable short-term and deceitful profits. The determination to fight the invisible and care for inflated instead of real values of your scale might be a precursor to reduction in scale, to one on which you will be able to see and fight the invisible directly - although, to a place where homo.cancerous is going, it is likely for viruses to increase in scale rather for homo to decrease, but the result is effectively the same. Thus, if one fears viruses mentally, one will soon be fearing them physically.
Added chapter The optimum state. Small updates elsewhere. The optimum state Whether you should update your software depends on the case but, in my experience, there is always an optimal point - last update, after which one should stop updating. In the old days (eg. DOS days) priority was quality - software was simply not released until it has been thoroughly tested and working as intended, programmers were highly skilled and not so specialized. At that time, there were no updates at all - they simply weren't needed. However, with time, priority has shifted - the average programmer today doesn't even know about Boolean algebra and his priority is not quality nor security, and someone else is choosing priorities. These priorities are profit, control and data. I have found the optimum state in all applications I use - for Win7 it was the SP1, for Chrome it was version 103.0.5060.134, for qBittorrent version 4.2.5, ... Sometimes however, the optimum can be the latest and last update for particular software, especially with open source - this may be rare, but there are still some programmers who prioritize quality. The smaller is the team producing the software the greater is the chance that updates will prioritize quality, although this is not a rule. I'm still updating Firefox, for example, I feel it's still worth it even though I do not like latest interface changes. Stop manufacturing consent I don't want to be forced to install applications through something called App store or whatever, I don't want forced updates. I don't want anything forced. I want PC to stay a PC - Personal Computer, otherwise stop advertising an NPC (Non-Personal Computer) as a PC. Advertise it as NPC, so others can continue building PC's. I understand that most people feel good about Windows 10, for the same reason they support their governments. But there's a growing number of us who do not want to be governed and don't feel good about it. For that reason, if Microsoft doesn't want to develop and manage two separate branches of Windows, it would be good to make it possible for others to continue the story. Make Windows 7 open source and free (or Win2000, perhaps even better). Not for me, do it for the sake of choice and innovation, I will never upgrade to Windows 10 anyway... I'd rather use the bloody Linux.
Inverse references (signals)
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992), M. Achbar et al