NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

QuoteFirefox 115 ESR gets security updates occasionally but no feature updates

What 'feature updates' you need from Web Browser? They seem all to be only about collecting more telemetry and user data.
"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

On my Windows 7 machine, I dual boot Deepin Linux.  I noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox. This is where Deepin Linux comes in handy as their built-in Deepin web browser is based on the latest Chromium open source project and always gets updated accordingly.

Good attempt, comrade major.

Quote"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

I pretty much agree but it would be foolish to expect everybody to have the same opinion as the two of us do, would it not. Besides, it usually is easy to turn off features that are useless or annoying.

QuoteI dual boot Deepin Linux

Oh, I know what that is. It looked lovely when I tried installing it a year or two ago, but did not at all run well on my budget, Celeron N3350-powered laptop. The music player would make screeching noises every few seconds when playing back MP3 files (I guess it was a DPC latency issue) and the Wi-Fi adapter would be slow as hell at just a hundred kilobytes per second. Worse still, every other device connected to the same network would become just as slow.

But, hey, as long as it works for you, why not.

QuoteI noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox.

Seriously? Why would they? Have you tried changing the user agent to something like Firefox 119?

I wouldn't trust a Yandex browser to begin with. And there are likely other forked browsers out there. But end of the day, Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates, so you should switch away anyways. If your system can't run newer windows, go with Linux

Quote from: Just someone from the WWW on March 28, 2024, 19:11:20

QuoteFirefox 115 ESR gets security updates occasionally but no feature updates

What 'feature updates' you need from Web Browser? They seem all to be only about collecting more telemetry and user data.
"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

The spec is ever changing. For example take declarative shadow dom which is only possible in FireFox 123+. It lets websites server side render the shadow dom for web components, which would increase page loading for those using web components

Quote from: Hunter2020 on March 28, 2024, 19:42:40On my Windows 7 machine, I dual boot Deepin Linux.  I noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox. This is where Deepin Linux comes in handy as their built-in Deepin web browser is based on the latest Chromium open source project and always gets updated accordingly.

All linux distros come with Chromium and FireFox for install that continues to get updates, this isn't limited to the Chinese government sponsored Deepin

There is no reason for websites to suddenly stop working with latest firefox unless they switched to some feature that isn't in firefox 115. But a website would be crazy to do that without deploying polyfills. Maybe it happened back when you had firefox 110? There was the weird thing where some software misread firefox's 110 useragent as IE 11 making it run some IE only code and breaking stuff but that issue has been fixed by temporarily locking it at 109

Quote from: A on March 29, 2024, 07:15:35Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates

A blatant and shameless lie. M$ continues to use taxpayer money, at least in the US, to create security patches for Windows. As part of supporting hardware on it for government agencies and the US Army.

It is immoral to create security patches (and possibly some functionality changes) using taxpayers' money and not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, this is immoral even in the case of patches made through a paid subscription to private companies around the planet. Simply because the work was done anyway and concerns safety.

Only the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

--
Hurry and shameless lies. M $ continues to create security patches for Windows for at least the US money for at least the US. In the framework of the support of iron on it for state structures and the US Army.

This is immoral - creating security patches (and possibly some changes in functionality), on the money of taxpayers, do not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, it is immoral even in the case of patches made by paid subscription to private companies throughout the planet. Just because the work has been done anyway and concerns security.

Only the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

As for the topic of supporting sites for Windows to a naive response from a participant in the topic "Just Someone from the www".

Literally this morning, I found in W7 that the site of a large marketplace in my country stopped showing pictures of goods in chrome 109, the last for W7. What forces will switch to W10, although it is disgusting as a system with its ugly and non -compact UI (compared to the classical theme in W7, which is perfectly compact) and much more inhibitory on the same gland. Which is also a proven fact.

Obviously, the reason for this was the illiteracy of stupid developers of the platform of this marketplace. Who do not care about compatibility even in such a primitive case. And they do not care, because the share of users on W7 has become not interesting for them. Despite the fact that W7 users were squeezed out from it initially on the filthy W10.

It is precisely such moments that lead to a forced transition of users to new OS, despite the fact that in reality the possibilities of even browsers are 5 years ago overlap all the necessary things on such marketplaces and other sites. Any screams that are not so - a lie of stupid and lazy sites of sites. They are so lazy that they cannot do elementary things without new heavy web frames.

I can write about even more idiotic things that happen on the Internet - I saw many sites that refuse to display correctly even in the last FF123, but perfectly displayed in chrome 89 (!) Versions, for example. What can be said about the developers of such sites? Only the fact that they are morons. Or rather, the owners of these sites who don't care about everything. And they do not care because Google is almost a monopolist in the market of browsers, with an overwhelming share, and FF has a smaller share, although this is clearly the best browser on the planet. It's just a browser. And the developer of the browser cannot survive without his ecosystem in the modern world, which Mozilla never had and did not have an attempt to organize it. And how the google rose (criminal methods) we all know well, because This happened before our eyes, except for generation Z, which then still wrote in diapers.

Google deliberately blocks normal work with his YouTube service in other browsers, especially FF. This is easily proving in practice and long -known facts.

Bastards in Google deliberately spoil people with muddy fonts, use erroneous black and white smoothing, which, again easily proved and I have proved many times, at least start reading the chain from here: www.notebookChat.com/index.php? Topic = 191611.45#MSG584618

So that all sites work normally and are compatible with old brothers at least at the level of basic functionality (like today's idiocy with chrome 109 and the inability to now see pictures of the goods on this marketplace under W7 due to the fault of stupid developers)
We need uniform standards and strong competition. And she simply is no longer there when monsters like Google reign on the market. Which had long been necessary to take away the YouTube and crush the company itself for a dozen others. Like Intel, like M $, as a bunch of other transnational corporations, which became dangerous for civil society and the real high -quality progress of civilization.

Quote from: NikoB on March 29, 2024, 13:48:23Bastards in Google deliberately spoil people with muddy fonts, use erroneous black and white smoothing, which, again easily proved and I have proved many times, at least start reading the chain from here

www.notebookchat.com/index.php?topic=191611.45#msg584618

Just look at the posted screenshots and one of them (zoomed by me) was taken by the clown Neenyah, who denied these facts and shamefully fled from that topic under the pressure of the facts!
These facts 100% prove that Google on PCs/laptops deliberately spoils the owners' eyesight with cloudy fonts due to the fact that it deliberately does not correct the incorrect grayscale font smoothing scheme in Chrome for many years.
And they have a lot of messages about this on their bug trackers, but they deliberately ignore it biggest bug in Chromium and Chrome.

Now unable to bear it, M$ herself began to edit the stupid Chromium code instead of the villains from Google, but again did not solve the problem at the root, as it should be done with correct gray-scale antialasing for fonts as was do it in XP.

As for the Yandex browser - never use KGB products! Neither Kaspersky nor Yandex. These are all companies owned through KGB front chains.

They are now trying to force the population, as previously in Kyrgyzstan and other former Asian republics of the USSR, to switch to state root-level "security" certificates, simply by disconnecting from state services all citizens who refuse to use their backdoor root certificates. And in much the same way they force citizens to give up foreign postal services, not allowing them to register on government and now private services. At the same time, the main email services in Russia - Mail.ru and Yandex force users to enter a phone number, de-anonymizing the owner in the legal field. Much the same as the villains at Google also force you to enter a phone number when registering (and as I wrote earlier, they meanly refuse to copy a backup ordered from an old account, without being linked to a phone number, for the absurd reason that double authorization has not been established, although the owner I've already logged into my account and can easily read everything that's there!). Or like the villain Pavel Durov, who lies to ordinary fools that his service is safe and anonymous. I lied like that from the start. Fools write seditious things there in Russia, and then these fools are imprisoned. As in Facebook/Instramm, which is officially banned in Russia, which does not prevent the totalitarian authorities of Russia from submitting requests to Meta and seizing people through forced linking of phone numbers to accounts at the request of Meta and the totalitarian Zuckerberg.

Or how Google blocks the return of opposition sites and data in search queries in Russia (by directly writing in the search results that some content has been removed at the request of the Russian authorities), despite the fact that it allegedly does not officially cooperate with the Russian authorities.

Or like the entire immoral Western business, which duplicitously declares that it does not work in the Russian Federation, but in fact remains there, 90% of companies, and 10% simply hide the fact of their presence and spending advertising budgets through shell companies.

And all these immoral things are being done in front of the "civil" society in the West. Which clearly shows that the majority of the Western population are the same mental slaves. like the population of Russia or China. Nothing better. Better is only a narrow layer of people who are being destroyed everywhere and who are becoming fewer and fewer in order to resist the duplicity and immorality of the majority of the population and the authorities they have chosen with their active or passive assistance.

Recently, Volozh, one of the creators and beneficiaries of Yandex, was immorally removed from the EU sanctions list. Under the pretext that he left Russia, but this is all a cynical facade, because... in reality, it was he and the other owners of Yandex who led to the formation of the Kremlin's totalitarian machine. And they are the ones responsible for this and should be under sanctions for the rest of their lives.

The West is quietly immorally merging, gradually eliminating Ukraine from the information field. They are no longer interested in it, once it has done its job in terms of informational cover for the previous scams of the kleptocracy of the West.

Normal people see and remember all this. The only question is: how many normal, respectable and principled people are left on planet Earth?

Quote from: NikoB on March 29, 2024, 13:48:23

Quote from: A on March 29, 2024, 07:15:35Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates

A blatant and shameless lie. M$ continues to use taxpayer money, at least in the US, to create security patches for Windows. As part of supporting hardware on it for government agencies and the US Army.

It is immoral to create security patches (and possibly some functionality changes) using taxpayers' money and not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, this is immoral even in the case of patches made through a paid subscription to private companies around the planet. Simply because the work was done anyway and concerns safety.

You are talking about extended support, which you have to pay a yearly fee per computer

QuoteOnly the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

I guess you naively believe that all software bought by the government should be free? Software is bought on a per license bases, the license includes security updates up until the EOL date. Beyond that, you have to pay an annual fee

There is nothing shady about this practice, Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code. You upgrade. But if for some reason you can't update, then you have to pay for Microsoft keeping staff to maintain old code. The cost of it is based on how many people they estimate would pay for it. If US government paying for it would mean everyone gets it free, MS would have to charge US government 100x the current cost

Even Ubuntu which is free, once it hits EOL you upgrade for free, but if you insist on staying on old version, you have to pay an annual fee for security updates

QuoteAs for the topic of supporting sites for Windows to a naive response from a participant in the topic "Just Someone from the www".

Literally this morning, I found in W7 that the site of a large marketplace in my country stopped showing pictures of goods in chrome 109, the last for W7. What forces will switch to W10, although it is disgusting as a system with its ugly and non -compact UI (compared to the classical theme in W7, which is perfectly compact) and much more inhibitory on the same gland. Which is also a proven fact.

Obviously, the reason for this was the illiteracy of stupid developers of the platform of this marketplace. Who do not care about compatibility even in such a primitive case. And they do not care, because the share of users on W7 has become not interesting for them. Despite the fact that W7 users were squeezed out from it initially on the filthy W10.

That is just poor developers, most likely outsourced. These days, most javascript is ran in bundlers and bundlers can automatically handle polyfills. Bundlers is what killed jquery 1.x as instead of everyone using old outdated code features, bundlers can automatically produce backwards compatible versions, so you can use latest features without worrying about backwards compatibility.

QuoteI can write about even more idiotic things that happen on the Internet - I saw many sites that refuse to display correctly even in the last FF123, but perfectly displayed in chrome 89 (!) Versions, for example. What can be said about the developers of such sites? Only the fact that they are morons. Or rather, the owners of these sites who don't care about everything. And they do not care because Google is almost a monopolist in the market of browsers, with an overwhelming share, and FF has a smaller share, although this is clearly the best browser on the planet. It's just a browser. And the developer of the browser cannot survive without his ecosystem in the modern world, which Mozilla never had and did not have an attempt to organize it.

Unfortunately, there are people who don't test on all browsers, even if there are tools to automate testing. On top of that, with outsourcing many developers have 0 commitment to what they make and just copy and paste code without a care or understanding.

A reason why something may work on Chrome 89 and not FireFox 123 would be things like:

They are using an experimental feature that never made it to spec and was replaced by something else. Examples would be things like websql

Or things needing a -moz or -webkit css

Dead standard that exists but needs to be activated via expiremental flags, like webgpu which has been replaced by webgl but firefox keeps it under experimental flag

Quote from: A on March 29, 2024, 22:56:52Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code.

You're contradicting yourself. If M$ has already released a patch using taxpayer money, then it has already done the work. And not posting ready-made patches for everyone, made with taxpayers' money, is immoral, at a minimum. This has nothing to do with licenses, but only with the immorality of M$ management.

The normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

But since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily post corrections made with taxpayers' money.

Good question - why hasn't this been done in the US yet? But A himself answered it earlier - this is the land of corporations and systemic corruption of legislators.

They all falsely and price-consciously scream in the press about public "security"; in reality, these deceitful creatures only care about money - they don't care about public security in society at all. Despite the fact that a person has old hardware and does not want to buy new one, on which only W7 works normally.

It's one thing to yell that it requires work and money, and it's quite another immoral, like our troll A, to pretend that there are no patches, although they already exist and are paid for by taxpayers in the United States and a bunch of other countries.

The normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

But since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily public post software/firmware corrections made by taxpayers' money.

Good question - why hasn't this been done in the US yet in law? But A himself answered it earlier - this is the «land of corporations» and this mean of systemic corruption of legislators.

Quote from: NikoB on March 30, 2024, 13:21:45

Quote from: A on March 29, 2024, 22:56:52Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code.

You're contradicting yourself. If M$ has already released a patch using taxpayer money, then it has already done the work. And not posting ready-made patches for everyone, made with taxpayers' money, is immoral, at a minimum. This has nothing to do with licenses, but only with the immorality of M$ management.

I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

QuoteThe normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

That is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

QuoteBut since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily post corrections made with taxpayers' money.

When a price is set per year on the license, companies calculate the estimate cost for them to maintain that cost and charge that amount. If software is to be maintained longer, they will charge higher prices. If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free means they will have to charge government a 100x higher price

I repeat again, government is not paying for the patches. They are paying for annual subscription per computer. If government pays for netflix for their offices per tv, you don't get netflix free.

End of the day, it isn't like your hardware is locked. If W7 reached EOL and you can't run the latest windows, you are free to switch to Linux

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

You have no sense of integrity and no intuitive desire to benefit society.

You simply do not have the mindset to distinguish between licensed software and the concept of "work" with public money, which has already been paid for and can easily be made publicly available as a result, because it does not require any additional work other than posting patches on servers for everyone to download .

The government doesn't pay 100,500 times for M$ to make the same patch for the same OS or software 100,500 times for each copy. Or is it not getting through again? The patch is made 1 (one) time for all 100,500 licensed copies.
If M$ considers that 100,500 licenses multiplied by the fee for each is not enough to develop 1 (one) patch, i.e. labor costs do not pay off with a profit, upon receipt of payment in the amount of a conditional $100 x 100500 copies, then M$ refuses to develop a patch or demands an increase in the payment amount. But if she herself agreed to the level of payment, she is obliged to develop a patch as part of the contract.

And once the patch is ready, it is already paid for by all taxpayers and M$ has received payment for this work and profit. Further, this patch must be posted publicly, because it improves public safety and allows owners of old OS to secure them, because M$ made this patch with the money of these people too.

But this does not mean that someone has the right to use the software if they do not have a license for its copy, although this can be argued if a certain fee is collected from everyone in the country, in favor of all copyright holders.

For example, in my country, all storage media are subject to such a tax automatically at the state level, and this automatically excludes the average person as a defendant from any claim for the use of content (video/music, etc.) from the network, except in cases where this citizen receives from this, a clear profit - and the profit will have to be proven to the copyright holder in court, as a plaintiff.
Those. a legal entity will still have to pay to obtain the right to use the content for business purposes. But an individual can receive any content for free for personal viewing. Because the government itself forced everyone to pay a content tax and copyright holders lost the basis for lawsuits in courts against individuals, but not against entrepreneurs - because for entrepreneurs, it is possible to prove profits, and therefore losses, of the copyright holder.
If someone paid FOR WORK, which is socially useful to everyone and is copied simply by pressing a button (and not by labor costs for copying), then not posting ready-made patches with taxpayers' money is IMMORAL.

And it is immoral that US legislators have not yet passed a law on software security, according to which any company that has performed work for government agencies and services to develop patches with taxpayers' money will be obliged to make this patch freely available to everyone.

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23hat is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

You're stupid? It has already been explained to you several times that no licensing has anything to do with this. The patch is made not for the license, but for the software as is. It certainly amuses me to watch you bang your head against the wall in your stupidity.

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free

You are lying. I never wrote that. We are only talking about patches and fixes to the system and software that people legally own.

You really are from that cohort of dishonest people who, unfortunately, have filled the entire planet. You have no understanding of integrity and the desire to benefit society. Apparently your parents and teachers raised you with such an ugly mentality. I am very sorry that you mentally cannot understand what is obvious to any sane person, because you simply don't have common sense or rational thinking.

Quote from: NikoB on March 31, 2024, 22:32:41stupid

I think Microsoft is currently making way too much money from cloud/AI and subscription services to care about the 3% desktop marketshare that is win 7.

I don't care what M$ management thinks.

The fact is that they are already making, at the expense of taxpayers in different countries (and not just private companies), security patches for the OS that are not officially supported. And it is immoral for the authorities not to oblige them to post such patches to the public, just as it is immoral that the M$ management does not post these patches on its own. The work has already been done, the patch exists - make it publicly available. If they don't want to, they should be forced to do so by law. Like all companies, without exception, who make these corrections at the expense of taxpayers' money.

Quote from: NikoB on April 01, 2024, 10:46:01I don't care what M$ management thinks.

You should though because ultimately it's the leadership that's in charge of making such decisions.

Quote from: NikoB on April 01, 2024, 10:46:01at the expense of taxpayers

If there is any miss managed taxpayer money involved, isn't it up to the government to rectify this as they're ultimately the ones responsible directing where it flows?

Quote from: NikoB on April 01, 2024, 10:46:01immoral

Companies have never been moral. And since when has the US government ever used tax payer money for moral purposes? Have you seen the bombing of the Middle East for the last couple of decades? The funding of Israel's army to pretty much commit a genocide?

I get that you're upset by this but I don't understand the surprise.

Quote from: NikoB on April 01, 2024, 10:46:01they should be forced to do so by law.

Good luck with this one. As far as I'm aware, M$ has a pretty good relationship with the current US administration. This isn't 1998-2001 anymore where M$ had several anti-trust lawsuits against them led by the US government.

Quote from: Quack Therapist on April 01, 2024, 13:15:35Good luck with this one. As far as I'm aware, M$ has a pretty good relationship with the current US administration. This isn't 1998-2001 anymore where M$ had several anti-trust lawsuits against them led by the US government.

You should wish good luck to the people of the USA...they will need it.

Quote from: NikoB on March 31, 2024, 22:32:41

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

You have no sense of integrity and no intuitive desire to benefit society.

You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff. But even I who supports open source, open hardware and things not going to trash disagree with you. Not because I don't think things should last longer, I'd be happy if W7 were supported longer. But your argument is fundamentally wrong

QuoteYou simply do not have the mindset to distinguish between licensed software and the concept of "work" with public money, which has already been paid for and can easily be made publicly available as a result, because it does not require any additional work other than posting patches on servers for everyone to download .

The government doesn't pay 100,500 times for M$ to make the same patch for the same OS or software 100,500 times for each copy. Or is it not getting through again? The patch is made 1 (one) time for all 100,500 licensed copies.
If M$ considers that 100,500 licenses multiplied by the fee for each is not enough to develop 1 (one) patch, i.e. labor costs do not pay off with a profit, upon receipt of payment in the amount of a conditional $100 x 100500 copies, then M$ refuses to develop a patch or demands an increase in the payment amount. But if she herself agreed to the level of payment, she is obliged to develop a patch as part of the contract.

And once the patch is ready, it is already paid for by all taxpayers and M$ has received payment for this work and profit. Further, this patch must be posted publicly, because it improves public safety and allows owners of old OS to secure them, because M$ made this patch with the money of these people too.

What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

And this why the copy left provisions of open source licenses are so important, because they insure that if you receive a copy of something, you are entitled to both the source code and have the same rights to redistribute it to others

QuoteBut this does not mean that someone has the right to use the software if they do not have a license for its copy, although this can be argued if a certain fee is collected from everyone in the country, in favor of all copyright holders.

For example, in my country, all storage media are subject to such a tax automatically at the state level, and this automatically excludes the average person as a defendant from any claim for the use of content (video/music, etc.) from the network, except in cases where this citizen receives from this, a clear profit - and the profit will have to be proven to the copyright holder in court, as a plaintiff.
Those. a legal entity will still have to pay to obtain the right to use the content for business purposes. But an individual can receive any content for free for personal viewing. Because the government itself forced everyone to pay a content tax and copyright holders lost the basis for lawsuits in courts against individuals, but not against entrepreneurs - because for entrepreneurs, it is possible to prove profits, and therefore losses, of the copyright holder.
If someone paid FOR WORK, which is socially useful to everyone and is copied simply by pressing a button (and not by labor costs for copying), then not posting ready-made patches with taxpayers' money is IMMORAL.

We have no such tax here in the US. Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

QuoteAnd it is immoral that US legislators have not yet passed a law on software security, according to which any company that has performed work for government agencies and services to develop patches with taxpayers' money will be obliged to make this patch freely available to everyone.

The thing about this is MS pretty much makes W10+ a free upgrade. Even if such laws were passed, as I mentioned above it would do nothing, the patch would do nothing as it would see you have no license for extended support. If anyone sues, they will just point to W11 and say to upgrade for free

Quote

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23hat is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

You're stupid? It has already been explained to you several times that no licensing has anything to do with this. The patch is made not for the license, but for the software as is. It certainly amuses me to watch you bang your head against the wall in your stupidity.

And it has already been explained to you several times, they aren't paying for patches, they are paying for annual licenses for extended support per computer. The patch is made for the license.

Look, did you know that if you have a computer with 2 cpus instead of 1, you need to buy 2 windows licenses? Yes, even though it is the same computer

Quote

Quote from: A on March 31, 2024, 03:35:23If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free

You are lying. I never wrote that. We are only talking about patches and fixes to the system and software that people legally own.

You did, you just don't realize it yourself what you wrote because you don't understand how licensing and contracts work. What you said is no different than someone saying "I am not stealing, I am borrowing without consent or plans to return it"

QuoteYou really are from that cohort of dishonest people who, unfortunately, have filled the entire planet. You have no understanding of integrity and the desire to benefit society. Apparently your parents and teachers raised you with such an ugly mentality. I am very sorry that you mentally cannot understand what is obvious to any sane person, because you simply don't have common sense or rational thinking.

You are talking about yourself here, you are too stuck up with going "me me me" you don't realize that society is built on a foundation of rules. Breaking such rules for quick conveniences never turns out well. Which is why if you actually cared about benefit of society and honesty, you would push for open source like Linux. The open source licenses give people rights under the legal framework of maintaining proper rules. Demanding that MS hand over their stuff to you when no such agreement has been made is immoral. And again, this is coming from someone who doesn't like MS. Because unlike you, I actually have integrity to know right from wrong

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58But your argument is fundamentally wrong

Again pointless nonsense, without arguments. Your point of view versus mine is nothing more. Only I have much more arguments and they are rational.

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

Issues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

Upgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software. But you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

But you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Even in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

A - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

QuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

QuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

QuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

QuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

QuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Yandex! Yandex! Ya-Ya-Ya-Ya-Ya-Yaaaaaaaaaaa!

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06

Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

QuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

QuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

QuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

QuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

QuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Officially no.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows fixes are made with the money of all US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06

Quote from: NikoB on April 02, 2024, 14:17:53

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58You say some weird stuff considering you bashing open source software and pushing proprietary stuff.

Again, an obvious lie, those who have been reading me here for years, and you are a green newbie here, know that I am for open source code and GPL with both hands. But I always strongly point out the mess in open source projects and the real many times greater security risks, as well as the extremely difficult setup of a normal level of security in an open source environment. You have personally proven (as a supposed apologist) that this is true by losing all the arguments on this matter.

I've been around here longer than you have. And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58What the government pays for is EXTENDED ANNUAL SUPPORT per computer, not per patch. This includes more than just patches, but patches are part of it. And the licenses on the patches are for those who pay for the extended support. That is why the government can't give it to you for free, they would be violating their license and opening themselves up for lawsuits.

Again nonsense. The government - the executive branch cannot. The legislature can. And corporations will have to put up with this if the law is passed.

That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government

That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences. Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

Quote

Quote from: A on April 01, 2024, 23:07:58Albeit our laws put more legal burden on distributors than receivers, and I'd imagine your laws aren't different. If your government were to distribute software patches that their contract and licenses don't allow, they would be open to lawsuits

What are we even talking about? In the United States, individuals can be prosecuted for piracy. The courts in my country have proven that it is essentially impossible for copyright holders to grant individual rights to use software, music, videos, etc. for private use. For legal entities, as I wrote above, everything is different, as for individual entrepreneurs, i.e. falling under the definition of an entrepreneur. By the way, the law on the protection of consumer rights applies only exclusively to individuals who do not fall under the legal status of an entrepreneur. Although in any country, even in the USA, this is a rather murky and vague definition in the law.

You can sue people for piracy in US, but that is a civil dispute, not a criminal one. Only if you distribute it to others can you be prosecuted criminally. Generally it isn't worth going after individuals because you will lose more money than it is worth other than once in a while "set an example"

QuoteIssues of attempts to block use are entirely the problem of the copyright holder. Let me remind you that M$ has not intentionally fixed the gap in the Windows activation system for almost 9 years, because it is extremely beneficial for it from the point of view of maintaining an overwhelming share in the desktop operating systems market. And this leads to geopolitical benefits for the US authorities. That is why they have been turning a blind eye for more than 20 years to the fact that M$ is an arrogant monopolist in the x86 market, having risen there through non-market methods and, in fact, criminal ones at the time.

I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

QuoteUpgrading to W11 from W7 is not free.
Moreover, the transition to W11 officially requires the purchase of new hardware with support for TPM2, UEFI BIOS and another request for hardware. No corporation has the right to tell an individual what to do with their property or how to use software.

W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free. Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

You can go around the TPM2 requirement

QuoteBut you couldn't dispute the fact that this private individual paid taxes, which the government uses to buy the development of security patches, and you couldn't give any real rational explanation why security patches couldn't be made publicly available to improve security on old computers with W7.

It is this vile scheme that is in fact immoral on the part of both the government and corporations.

You are making up imaginary scenarios that never happened. The government doesn't pay for security patches, they pay for support contracts per computer. And that support includes security patches, many of which are custom tailored to the client's need. Even the government can't take a patch they paid a support contract for 1 computer and put it on another computer they didn't pay a support contract for

QuoteBut you yourself once wrote to me that the USA is a country of corporations and systemic corruption (recognizing this indirectly as a result of that thread). Those. They themselves confirmed that the rules are set not by the people of the United States, but by corporations, i.e. a narrow layer of wealthy beneficiaries-manipulators of the US state.

Then why should the population in the United States comply with these a priori false and unfavorable "rules" from corporations and their lobbyists in the government, who easily implement everything they need in reality?

Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

QuoteEven in the current vile scheme adopted in the United States, nothing blocks Microsoft from releasing to the public access security patches already made with the money of all taxpayers, of their own free will.
And nothing prevents them from posting them also if they were made with the money of taxpayers of other countries, if their government ordered this support on a paid basis.
Which once again proves that Microsoft is NOT a company of good will, and neither is its greedy management. They simply have no concept of conscience and no desire to improve the lives of ordinary people, where it essentially costs them nothing. Their goals are exactly the opposite. After all, no one forces them to provide support to individuals for these patches; it is enough to simply open access to them. However, this is a question rather for a significant part of American society (mentality), and all others. If someone does not see the immorality of such a practice, he clearly has mental problems. Your lack of understanding of this immorality automatically places you in the same population group.

Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

It costs Microsoft money, and opens them up to lawsuits. The cost to maintain a team to create the patches isn't free. The cost is divided amongst all the customers that they think will buy it and is set. And if a patch breaks something, they can be sued. Not to mention some of these patches are custom tailored to the customer

Again, you have the option to upgrade for free. You chose not to for one reason or another. They are under no obligations to maintain old software if they are giving out new versions for free as crappy as the new versions are

QuoteA - I have another question for you that will give an understanding of your mentality - do you support writing off student loans in the USA at the expense of all taxpayers' money?

No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters
[/quote]
Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

Poorly written scripts for the forum ruined everything. But here is a clean answer without errors from the scripts of this forum.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

By the way, here is a quote from a comment by a Slashdot member with the nickname WaffleMonster regarding the cynical and immoral "support" system for W10 after the fall of 2025 (tech.slashdot.org/story/24/04/03/1757230/microsoft-reveals-subscription-pricing-for- using-windows-10-beyond-2025#comments) (at the same time, M$ is obliged, according to old promises, to support LTSC 1809 until 2028, LTSC 2021 until 2026 and LTSB until 2026 for free - how does this fit in with this?):

QuoteMicrosoft should be thrilled about the prospect of being able to fix safety defects at distribute those fixes electronically at low cost to themselves. Instead they've chosen to monetize their own failures and incompetence by charging people for the privilege of having the vendor correct their own safety defects. This practice is disgusting and (should be) illegal.

Quote from: NikoB on April 03, 2024, 14:28:11Poorly written scripts for the forum ruined everything. But here is a clean answer without errors from the scripts of this forum.

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I've been around here longer than you have.

You're lying as usual, bot. If you were here longer, show off your lines at least 4 years ago.

You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06And BS, you only care about stuff that benefits you, but could care less about anyone else or benefit of society. And you have a terrible habit of always declaring yourself the winner even when everyone else disagrees with you.

Everyone who has been reading me for years knows 100% that you are a filthy liar. And it is you who are against normal society, which you have proven many times even in this thread.

Nope, you never cared about society. You just always had a bad habit thinking your voice is the representation of society even when it clearly wasn't. You also have a bad habit of declaring yourself the winner in everything even when you are not.

Even in your response your bad habit of trying to speak for everyone leaks out.

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06That isn't true. The executive branch in theory can set requirements for those who work with it. This would force any company who wants to work with the government to comply with certain rules, if they don't they won't get any business with the government
That said, regardless of if you are passing a law or using executive action. Things have consequences, and worded poorly can cause huge consequences

As usual, you lost the thread of the conversation. I was talking about the possibility, and not about how it was done deliberately and vilely now. People of good will would have changed everything in the right direction long ago, eliminating the immoral aspect.

And what is the right direction? Who decides that? You not liking it does not making it immoral. And just because there is corruption doesn't mean this specific issue is it. If they didn't give free upgrades or locked down devices, sure, but they don't. But even then your statement about government paying for licenses for extended support should mean it is handed out is ridicilous

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Like the stuff you propose without understanding the implications

I understand any consequences many times better than you. It's not a question of consequences, but of goodwill. They don't have it. Neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the beneficiaries and management of corporations. Those. this is all an absolute axis of evil.

The consequences you ask for would bring up costs for everyone. Because you are demanding that if government buys licenses, than it must be given free to everyone. Which means that MS would have to raise prices to government 100X fold, which then would be paid by us the tax payers

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06I won't disagree there, but I will point out MS makes more money on services and office than windows. So they don't care about windows as much as you using their services

BS again. Windows is what has the maximum geopolitical influence on other countries. M$ only cares about it. Even if it brings losses, the authorities will subsidize M$. How they are ALREADY subsidizing bankrupt Intel. Year after year.

You can see how little they care about it by the fact that they promote Linux on Azure and how they worked to standardize hardware drivers which helped linux a lot. We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue. Of course they did this so they could shrink windows bloat, but there is no way they wouldn't realize the side effects

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06W7 upgrade to 10 is free and to 11 is free.

Complete lie. It was free many years ago for W10 only.

They gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023 which was when the extended support for windows 7 ended. W10 to 11 is still free

That said, you can still fresh install unactivated copies of w10 and w11. And as I explained, unactivated w10/11 are free minus a few features

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not only that, MS has pretty much got rid of the activation stuff and you could load W10 on any computer without a license. They just set minor restrictions like a watermark and can't use GUI to customize some preferences(which can be done via command line or 3rd party software)

This is cheap demagoguery. Officially no. And unofficially, 90% of the world is running officially pirated Windows. And Windows all version Home-Pro is paid OS.

Before you had to cracks or workarounds to get windows working, while MS officially claims they are paid they make the unactivated windows usable without going out of your way

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Because if there are faulty rules, they have to be fixed properly and in a way that doesn't have even worse consequences. 2 wrongs never make a right. You seem to think it is okay to break any rule as long as it doesn't favor you as an individual, but that is wrong

I never thought so, which is proven by everything I have written.

But this is what Joe Biden, the "leader" of the "free" world thinks, directly flouting the rules and the US Constitution, as well as the decisions of the US Supreme Court for the sake of his base interests of re-election. People look at this duplicity and think - why stick to the rules? The one who breaks them in his favor wins.

So end of the day you say you would sacrifice your morals for winning?

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06Not a single patch was made "with the money of taxpayers", what was bought was support contracts per computer which happen to include patches. The same contract that everyone pays be it government, corporations or individuals. And this is for Windows 7 enterprise and smb editions, not home edition

Well, bot A has just admitted his complete inadequacy to reality. All these Windows patches are made with the money of ALL US taxpayers. After this, you have only one recommendation left - contact a psychiatrist.

I don't get why you have a hard time understanding the difference between being paid by the year for support contracts per pc, and being paid for patches. I kind of wonder what your job is to have such an awkward take on reality

Quote

Quote from: A on April 03, 2024, 03:15:06No, I think any company who did crap like on purpose leaving 1 penny in their accounts or on purpose delaying acceptance of payment or making people pay down interest with nothing going towards principle should just be tried for fraud and all balances owed 0d out without need for tax payers to pay fraudsters

Ahahaha, I actually foresaw this slippery and two-faced answer. I don't even have anything to add. If the topic is read by adequate and rationally thinking people, they understood everything. Oh, you will have to change your nickname again, although you have already changed it several times, making comments under others. Q.E.D.
=)

What part of my post is slippery and 2 faced?

While I have at one point changed my name, mostly cause I don't remember the old one as I didn't post for years. But I have never posted with 2 different names and again, even this name has been around longer than you have.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

Once again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45Nope, you never cared about society. You just always had a bad habit thinking your voice is the representation of society even when it clearly wasn't. You also have a bad habit of declaring yourself the winner in everything even when you are not.
Even in your response your bad habit of trying to speak for everyone leaks out.

Pathetic troll, you can't prove it because you're just lying. It's your word against mine. The trouble for you is that mine is more significant, taking into account everything I have written even here over the years. You are simply insignificant compared to me.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45And what is the right direction? Who decides that? You not liking it does not making it immoral. And just because there is corruption doesn't mean this specific issue is it. If they didn't give free upgrades or locked down devices, sure, but they don't. But even then your statement about government paying for licenses for extended support should mean it is handed out is ridicilous

I decide. As an adequate and decent person. And people like me. It is my personal right to make such a judgment and give reasons for it. Which I proved with arguments. After which you troll shamefully disappeared into the ditch, without providing a single argument why this is not immoral.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45The consequences you ask for would bring up costs for everyone. Because you are demanding that if government buys licenses, than it must be given free to everyone. Which means that MS would have to raise prices to government 100X fold, which then would be paid by us the tax payers

Stupid lies and a priori false statements, like all the above, not supported by anything. Proving that you are an arrogant and deceitful troll.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45We went from you being lucky linux boots to linux booting on 99% of hardware without issue.

Again a lie, not confirmed by anything. Deceitful troll.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45They gave upgrades from w7 to w10 for free up until sept 2023

Lie.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45So end of the day you say you would sacrifice your morals for winning?

No vile troll, it's you above who proved, with the question of student loans and in a bunch of other comments up to this point, that you are two-faced, just like the criminal mafia Biden administration, which flouts the law because it can with the connivance of the stupid crowd. So I just pinned you against the wall and you disgraced yourself and you know about it, like all the readers of this forum. It's not I who meanly change nicknames, but you who are the troll.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45I don't get why you have a hard time understanding the difference between being paid by the year for support contracts per pc, and being paid for patches. I kind of wonder what your job is to have such an awkward take on reality

Again, creating the appearance of misunderstanding where the i's are dotted and the lying troll is already backed up against the wall.

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45What part of my post is slippery and 2 faced?

You are two-faced in that in one case you cannot answer on the merits, but in fact you justify these immoral forgiveness of student loans (and with stupid and completely inadequate arguments) at the expense of the money of all US taxpayers by the criminal Biden administration, which is flouting the law and the decision of the US Supreme Court on prohibition of such payments, i.e. who recognized that this is a direct violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, i.e. those same, so you, supposedly beloved RULES for everyone, and in another case, when the patches are already paid for and made with the money of ALL US taxpayers, you duplicitously pretend that you do not notice the immorality of such behavior of private companies and criminal US officials who enter into They are similar immoral contracts.

If you do not notice, or rather diligently justify the immoral behavior of US officials and politicians, you, troll "A", yourself prove that you are immoral. After all, for you this is the NORM. But not for normal people who understand that everything that has been done with the money of all taxpayers, especially in the field of public safety and improving support for old software, should a priori be publicly posted and accessible to everyone.

Only a criminal conspiracy between corrupt US officials and the greedy US business environment allows this to happen.

My task is to identify this and show everyone how immoral the whole system is.

Quote from: NikoB on April 05, 2024, 13:06:10

Quote from: A on April 04, 2024, 00:47:45You could search for posts made by "A", while not all of them are me, you can pretty clearly tell which one is me, including my response to one of your posts 4 years ago "15W Ryzen 5 4650U demolishes 25W i7-10710U in leaked FireStrike graphics bench: Vega 6 iGPU is 80 percent faster" of course I have earlier posts like "Mozilla to replace Firefox on Android with new browser, dubbed "Fenix"" which was 5 years ago

Once again it has been proven that you are a liar. You cannot provide a single link even from 2-3 years ago. You hide under different nicknames and your new nickname appeared quite recently. And as much as possible to confuse others. You're a pathetic troll.

I quite literally gave you the name of the threads and also offered that you actually search for my name. If you would have done that you would have realized you were wrong. But like always even when all evidence goes against you, you resort to baseless nonsense

But sure, here are links:

This is one of my first in 2018 using the name A:
notebookchat dot com / index dot php ? topic=96787 . msg354756

Here is me responding to you in one of your first threads 4 years ago:
notebookchat dot com / index dot php ? topic=107908.0


Now will you apologize and admit that you are a liar?

This will be a test to see if you actually have any morals or simply as I mentioned before someone who is self centered and could care less about morals


I will address your other points once you show your "morals"

Considering that you are a lying troll hiding behind the short and non-unique name A, you will have to work hard and find at least one long enough chain of reasoning in the past to confirm your characteristic way of thinking, to prove that it was not another forum visitor who put such a short nickname. In the meantime, you are just a talker and a liar, and this has been proven many times.

By the way, Google is introducing a paid subscription for heavy queries to "AI", as I predicted - because the cost of energy consumption for one such query exceeds the cost of an ordinary query in their search by several orders of magnitude. But the real level of complex queries, as I predicted, will not be available even with this regular paid subscription.

And it is for this reason that I have proven that LLM in small amounts of memory and computing resources is a stupid and useless toy in practice, suitable only for entertainment and teaching novice students on the topic of expert neural networks.

Quote from: NikoB on April 06, 2024, 14:20:53Considering that you are a lying troll hiding behind the short and non-unique name A, you will have to work hard and find at least one long enough chain of reasoning in the past to confirm your characteristic way of thinking, to prove that it was not another forum visitor who put such a short nickname. In the meantime, you are just a talker and a liar, and this has been proven many times.

Thanks for demonstrating that you will throw out your morals out the window and resort to any lie if it means trying to prove your selfish point

You asked me for links, I provided them. You knew full well that the "A" name was used by a few people and I even told you this in advanced (though not that many, there is a recent guy who uses my A name, and there was someone who used it way way back, otherwise 90% of them are mine)

Now that I actually provided it, you try to weasel your way out

But I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself.

This one is from 2019, you don't need AI speech recognition to realize that is me:
notebookchat dot com / index . php ? topic=101291 . msg365371

Quote from: A on April 07, 2024, 01:00:25notebookchat dot com / index . php ? topic=101291 . msg365371

There is no such topic. And why spoil the link? Just remove the "http : //" header.

Nobody stopped you from answering to the point. No censorship. You simply lost yourself pathetically and shamefully, because in reality you have no moral considerations. How did you prove that you are immoral, i.e. your way of thinking.

Quote from: NikoB on April 07, 2024, 13:46:34

Quote from: A on April 07, 2024, 01:00:25notebookchat dot com / index . php ? topic=101291 . msg365371

There is no such topic.

https://www.notebookchat.com/index.php?topic=101291.msg365371#msg365371 (https://www.notebookchat.com/index.php?topic=101291.msg365371#msg365371)