windows, piracy, security, certificates, viruses
On piracy, windows and security
Here, I will summarize my thoughts on electronic piracy, Windows OS development, its security and security of 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 behavior.
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 stupid men.
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 flavors 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 secure as much as I wanted it to be.
With Win 8/10, Microsoft desperately wanted to change that and become the owner of my PC, just like Google is the owner of my mobile phone - again, more control excused by security
at the expense of freedom.
Well, I'm not buying it.
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 that 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.
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 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. At least not until a new product is produced from 100% recycled materials and using energy renewable within
the life-cycle of the product.
Note that all energy is renewable, it's just a matter of period in which it will be renewed.
After I have realized that life on Earth has to exist deep in the mantle and what are blood arteries and veins of Earth, even oil should be renewable within much shorter time-frames than
currently assumed, although it may not be so renewable close to surface where, like blood, it may only be available during cultivation of precursor neuron cells of Earth.
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. Therefor, 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
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?
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
Thus, if one fears viruses mentally, one will soon be fearing them physically.
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
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