Windows 7 Sins - Bad Vista 6.1

Despite Microsoft going for the Windows 7 moniker as the official brand for its latest Windows client release, the actual version of the operating system is 6.1, while Windows Vista, the previous version of the platform, was 6.0. The build string of Windows 7 RTM is in fact 6.1.7600.16385. But it is not only Microsoft that’s insisting on the intimate connection between Windows 7 and Vista. The Free Software Foundation is also introducing its latest anti-Windows push, dubbed Windows 7 Sins, nothing more than a Bad Vista version 6.1. It was the FSF that launched the Bad Vista website in 2006, efforts that have evolved into the Windows7Sins.org.

”The new version of Microsoft's Windows operating system, Windows 7, has the same problem that Vista, XP, and all previous versions have had – it's proprietary software. Users are not permitted to share or modify the Windows software, or examine how it works inside,” reads a message on the website. “The fact that Windows 7 is proprietary means that Microsoft asserts legal control over its users through a combination of copyrights, contracts, and patents. Microsoft uses this power to abuse computer users.”

Sure enough, attacking Windows 7 is a move designed to generate as much publicity as possible, but fact is that Windows 7 Sins is focused on the now proverbial “Evil Empire” rather than on the operating system itself. Microsoft is accused of poisoning education, invading privacy, monopoly behavior, locking-in end users, abusing standards, Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), and threatening user security.

The FSF even wrote a letter to 499 of the Fortune 500 companies, Microsoft excluded of course, warning that “With the release of Windows 7 in October, Microsoft is selling the new version on a combination of fear and threats. They threaten to stop supporting older versions of Windows in the long-term, and because their system is proprietary (not free/libre), you are dependent on them to provide regular security updates and fixes. With the threat to withdraw their support, they try to strong-arm you into adopting new versions of their software even when you don't need them and may have a negative consequence to your ability to operate, once again abusing its monopoly position, explicitly inducing vendor lock-in.”

First off, sending a letter to 499 out of the Fortune 500 companies hoping that they would scrap Microsoft products altogether and go fully open source is as idealistic as it is infantile. It is a common business practice in large corporate IT environments to run mixed source solutions. Microsoft itself has tailored its software solutions to play nice with rival products, including open-source software in heterogeneous environments. The partnership with Novell over SUSE Linux and Windows Server interoperability, and the collaboration with Red Hat over virtualization solution support are illustrative examples of the fact that the Redmond company adapts itself to customer needs, customers that are running mixed source environments, namely open-source and proprietary solutions side by side.

At the same time, the sins identified for Windows 7 are a mix of half-truths and blatant lies. Microsoft has indeed been found guilty of breaking antitrust laws, most recently in the EU with the Windows and Internet Explorer bundle. But the company is taking necessary measures to correct the problem, and will offer a browser ballot screen in Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP, letting users choose their default browser. And yes, the software giant is enforcing DRM, as a way to both protect intellectual property but to also allow Windows to play copyright protected content.

As far as Microsoft poisoning education goes, back in 2007, the company started an initiative designed to deliver a taste of IT to rural areas in China via InfoWagons. Microsoft planned to let 150,000 people in 6,000 villages in Henan and four neighboring provinces learn the basic skills necessary to use a PC. Yes, poisoning!

When it comes down to Windows Genuine Advantage, the invasion of privacy claims has been addressed by Microsoft in the past. The company noted that it did not collect information that would identify end users. Furthermore, users had to agree for the WGA to be installed on their machines.

“Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions,” the FSF claims.

Microsoft continues to support Windows XP, an operating system that was released back in 2001, and will continue to offer extended support for the OS until 2014. In fact, there are voices calling to Microsoft to cut off Internet Explorer 6, which enjoys the same support as the Windows operating system it is part of, in order to force users to upgrade – a move that the Redmond company refused to make, indicating that it was committed to honoring support for both Windows XP and IE6.

FSF also accuses the software giant of “abusing standards: Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats, because standards like OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over users via proprietary Word formats. They have engaged in underhanded behavior, including bribing officials, in an attempt to stop such efforts.”

The FSF is obviously little aware of the interoperability efforts done by Microsoft. It is also apparently in the dark when it comes down to Office 2010 embracing ODF standards, for the sake of interoperability. And the FSF chooses to ignore the fact that neither Word 2010 nor Word 2007 use proprietary formats, but Open XML, which, just as Open Document Standard, is an ISO certified open standard.

Microsoft is “threatening user security,” the FSF says. “Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems – but Microsoft has its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.”

Yes, Windows does have a long history of security vulnerabilities. So does any other piece of software. It is a grave example of irresponsibility to indicate that only Windows, or only Microsoft’s products, are vulnerable, when in fact it is not the case. Security mitigations introduced by the Redmond company such as User Account Control, Address Space Layout Randomization, Kernel Patch Protection, IE Protect Mode are of course (!) obvious examples that Microsoft is not working to secure Windows. Obviously!

“Free software operating systems like GNU/Linux can do the same jobs as Windows, but they encourage users to share, modify, and study the software as much as they want. This makes using a free software operating system the best way for users to escape Microsoft and avoid becoming victims of these seven sins. Software and computers will always have problems, but by using free software, users and their communities are empowered to fix problems for themselves and each other,” the FSF reveals.

Personally I have been using open-source software, including various Linux distros, and indeed there are valid alternatives to Windows available on the market. It’s a matter of preferences and choice, but to advertise open source as the panacea for inexistent and false Windows sins is not the way to promote Windows alternatives. Users should be convinced by the software, and not by a marketing doctrine that bends the truth irresponsibly.