Think twice about Vista
Shortly, an expensive publicity blitz will try to convince PC owners to "upgrade" to a new operating system (OS), MS-Windows Vista. It's a bigger threat to our rights and to progressive organizing than losing "net-neutrality." Don't do it.
You'll be told it's more "secure" than previous operating systems. Perhaps; each Microsoft (stock ticker symbol MSFT) OS gets a little better about that. But the real security "enhancements" in Vista are about securing the property rights of transnational media corporations. Vista tries really hard to stop you from copying proprietary "content": computer programs, movies and music. It's full of "kill switches," triggers that disable application programs and even hardware devices when the system detects an attempt to breach copyright. If you try to use MSFT Word, and your system can't verify through the Internet that your copy of MS-Word is paid for, you can't edit or create new files any more.
The trouble with kill switches is they're available to anybody MSFT hands the keys to. Does anybody believe this backdoor won't be misused? Give Homeland Security the keys to Code Pink's computers. Think they won't use them? What happens when the crackers figure out how to hit them with a virus? Wouldn't the far right find a virus like that useful? Wouldn't Al Queda, for that matter?
Why aren't we hearing as much about this as we've been hearing about "net neutrality?"
Here's an interesting backgrounder on the problem.
The amazing 1986 novel Nature's End (Whitley Streiber and James Kunetka, more famous for The Day After Tomorrow) described a personal computer with exactly these lockout switches. Part of a larger big brother scenario, and uncannily accurate so far.
Technorati Tags: 
I don't know as much of the inside of Vista as Cameron does, but in general it is unwise to upgrade to any new OS during its first year in real use, and you can start multiplying that figure when it comes to Microsoft. They just make shitty software. Add to that what Cameron is saying about security, and it's a bad idea all around.
Personally, I just upgraded to Windows 2000, from 98SE, and I'm quite sure I do more with my computer than 95% (at least) of the readers of this blog. By the time W2000 is unable to meet my needs, I'm sure I'll be using Linux (I should be already, but use Photoshop for business reasons-- I'll be switching that out for an open-source photo-editing program like GIMP in the not too distant future).
It looks lik GP UK has taken a position on Vista.
http://news.cnet.co.uk/desktops/0,39029662,49287326,00.htm
As far as the kill switches I see them more as an escalation than something new in Vista. For the longest time with XP I could not get my burner to work because I uninstalled their preferred program. Last time I had to reinstall XP I called to get a new code and they told me sure but it be $200 for the service center to solve the problem.
I have no problem with Microsoft making unworkable pirated copies of word. What I am more concerned about are kill switches that say a .doc cannot be opened in any app but word.
I think that Vista might be Windows downfall. This is the first time I have no desire to upgrade. Unlike others, users really need to buy a new top of the line system to Vista. I have seen numbers where 75% of businesses are ill prepared for Vista. Here's to hoping for environment and privacy sake that Vista will allow open source to flourish.
proletariat, this sounds like a good time to reconsider not only your software, but your file format. Microsoft controls .doc, as you spell out. Happily, you have a slew of other choices.
The closest to what you're used to is OpenDocument. This is a format used by OpenOffice.org, AbiWord, KWord, and (assuming your work isn't highly confidential) Google Docs. In fact, all these can convert freely from .doc to .odt and back. Three of the four run on every platform you could name, and KWord is coming along nicely.
Other choices include plain text, RTF and HTML. Each has its stregth and weaknesses, but one strength they all share is that you don't need (or want) MS Word to use them.
I have used Open Office for years. I wouldn't open a .doc file in anything else. I do at times need to open files at work in a word program so I save my files as .doc.
The good thing about Open Office is the .doc files are not bloated and I have never had a problem opening them in word.
"I have never had a problem opening them in word."
One of MSFT's more nefarious little tricks is to name its products with common dictionary words. Word, Access, Excel, Works, Windows. That's an attack on the English language. George Orwell warned us the bad guys would do that.
The name of a software "title" is a proper name, like the titles of any other major artistic works: novels, movies, sculptures. When you refer to one of those MSFT titles in written conversation, please distinguish it from the common word it appropriated. It's not "word," it's MS-Word. It calls attention to the proprietary nature of the product, and you're resisting the attack.
If you're writing in a medium that supports typefont variations (bold, italics, size, family...), titles of minor works (essays, sketches) are shown in quotes, major works (feature films, paintings) in italics. HTML has a tag just for citations. For example, Free Software Foundation's "GNU cat(1)," Microsoft's MS-Word.
I'd appreciate it as a personal favor. thanks.
BTW I believe it's perfectly appropriate to call Microsoft Corporation by its stock ticker symbol MSFT. It emphasizes the nature of the damn thing, and distinguishes it from the public relations projection of "Bill Gates."
Cameron