The 2008 blog post argues that Windows wasn't truly "free" for businesses, despite the common perception. While the OS itself came bundled with PCs, the associated costs of management, maintenance, software licensing (especially for Microsoft Office and server products), antivirus, and dealing with malware significantly outweighed the initial cost of the OS. The author contends that these hidden expenses made Windows a more expensive option compared to perceived free alternatives like Linux, particularly for smaller businesses. Ultimately, the "free" Windows license subsidized other revenue streams for Microsoft, making it a profitable, albeit deceptive, business model.
In 2008, amidst controversy surrounding its initial Chrome End User License Agreement (EULA), Google clarified that the license only applied to Chrome itself, not to user-generated content created using Chrome. Matt Cutts explained that the broad language in the original EULA was standard boilerplate, intended for protecting Google's intellectual property within the browser, not claiming ownership over user data. The company quickly revised the EULA to eliminate ambiguity and explicitly state that Google claims no rights to user content created with Chrome. This addressed concerns about Google overreaching and reassured users that their work remained their own.
HN commenters in 2023 discuss Matt Cutts' 2008 blog post clarifying Google's Chrome license agreement. Several express skepticism of Google, pointing out that the license has changed since the post and that Google's data collection practices are extensive regardless. Some commenters suggest the original concern arose from a misunderstanding of legalese surrounding granting a license to use software versus a license to user-created content. Others mention that granting a license to "sync" data is distinct from other usage and requires its own scrutiny. A few commenters reflect on the relative naivety of concerns about data privacy in 2008 compared to the present day, where such concerns are much more widespread. The discussion ultimately highlights the evolution of public perception regarding online privacy and the persistent distrust of large tech companies like Google.
The Kaminsky DNS vulnerability exploited a weakness in DNS resolvers' handling of NXDOMAIN responses (indicating a nonexistent domain). Attackers could forge responses for nonexistent subdomains, poisoning the resolver's cache with a malicious IP address. The small size of the DNS response ID field (16 bits) and predictable transaction IDs made it relatively easy for attackers to guess the correct ID, allowing the forged response to be accepted. This enabled them to redirect traffic intended for legitimate websites to malicious servers, facilitating phishing and other attacks. The vulnerability was mitigated by increasing the entropy of transaction IDs, making them harder to predict and forged responses less likely to be accepted.
The Hacker News comments on the illustrated guide to the Kaminsky DNS vulnerability largely praise the clarity and helpfulness of the guide, especially its visual aids. Several commenters reminisce about dealing with the vulnerability when it was discovered, highlighting the urgency and widespread impact it had at the time. Some discuss technical details, including the difficulty of patching all affected DNS servers and the intricacies of the exploit itself. One commenter points out that the same underlying issue (predictable transaction IDs) has cropped up in other protocols besides DNS. Another emphasizes the importance of the vulnerability's disclosure and coordinated patching process as a positive example of handling security flaws responsibly. A few users also link to related resources, including Dan Kaminsky's own presentations on the vulnerability.
Summary of Comments ( 32 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43246403
Hacker News users discussed the complexities of Microsoft's "free" Windows licensing model for businesses. Several pointed out that while the OS itself might not have a direct upfront cost, it's bundled with hardware purchases, making it an indirect expense. Others highlighted the ongoing costs associated with Windows, such as Software Assurance for updates and support, along with the costs of managing Active Directory and other related infrastructure. The general consensus was that "free" is a misleading term, and the true cost of Windows for businesses is substantial when considering the total cost of ownership. Some commenters also discussed the historical context of the article (from 2008) and how Microsoft's licensing and business models have evolved since then.
The Hacker News post titled "Windows Is Free for Business (2008)" linking to davegutteridge.com/windows_is_free_for_business has a modest number of comments, primarily focusing on the nuances of the original author's argument about the "free" nature of Windows for businesses.
Several commenters challenge the premise that Windows is truly "free," highlighting the associated costs like hardware, support, and software licensing for other necessary programs. One commenter points out that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for Windows includes not just the OS itself but also the ecosystem around it, which can be substantial. This is echoed by another who mentions that while the OS might be factored into other costs, the real expense lies in the necessary Microsoft Office suite and the compatibility constraints it imposes.
Some comments discuss the shift in perception of software costs over time. One commenter reminisces about the days when software was a significant expense and how it's now often bundled or perceived as a less prominent part of the overall IT budget. This leads to a discussion about how hardware costs have comparatively decreased, making the software component seem more significant in some contexts.
Another thread of discussion centers on the comparison between Windows and Linux in a business context. One commenter contends that the "free" argument for Windows is misleading, particularly when considering the potential cost savings and flexibility offered by Linux alternatives. This sparks a small debate about the practicalities of switching to Linux in established business environments, acknowledging the potential benefits but also the challenges of migration and compatibility.
A few comments also touch upon the role of piracy in the perception of Windows' cost, suggesting that widespread illegal use might contribute to the idea that the OS is somehow "free" for businesses. However, this is not a dominant theme in the discussion.
Overall, the comments offer a critical perspective on the original author's claim, emphasizing the hidden and indirect costs associated with Windows in a business environment. They explore the broader context of software costs, comparing them to hardware expenses and alternative operating systems, while also acknowledging the evolving perception of software value over time. The discussion remains largely focused on the financial aspects, without delving deeply into technical comparisons or specific use cases.