Rufus: Microsoft is blocking Windows ISO downloads
ghacks.net
ghacks.net
While I had to login to get the link to the ISO, once I had that link there doesn't seem to be any requirements to log in again. All the installs are in trial mode unless you get a key, which does require MSDN, but it would be nice if MS just had a convenient place to find these other than people using some 3rd party service. At least it would give people confidence that it's a genuine download and not been tampered with at all.
https://software.download.prss.microsoft.com/dbazure/[...]Why no more? I'm sure they could script it as part of their build process. Even PowerShell is bound to have an inbuilt get-md5 or get-sha function.
even has a checksum.
Rambler TOP 100? MyNickName.com? WTF is that?
I would never trust an admin who puts such shit on his website.
Rambler TOP 100, then, is a website popularity rating from back when voluntarily placing such things on your pages using was cool and you showed them off using these buttons. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it on an English-language page (that wasn’t an obvious translation) before. Apparently it still survives in some form, though I’ve no idea who is in charge of it now.
That is to say, I have no idea why anyone would include that on their pages in this day and age, yet it is hardly nefarious. (Not that you’re supposed to know that, but if you publicly claim it is people will naturally expect you to have done some research beforehand.)
And amusingly this isn't an easy task in Firefox.
This is only for responsive design mode in which FF mimics iPhone (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/604.1.38 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12.0 Mobile/15A372 Safari/604.1)
There is no straight way to just change the useragent like I could do with IE10 *grin*
I don't know where you got that information, but if i go to the Windows 11 download page[0] right below the download button there's a "Verify your download" section with all checksums for all ISOs in all languages
[0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/software-download/windows11
It's hard to believe that the request is accidentally rejected if your referrer is not Microsoft's download page.
Oh.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10I...
> Which is a weird thing that takes a long time and assembles an ISO from who knows what (it seems to take parts from your PC and to download other parts).
It doesn’t use your PC’s files, it does recompress the install image into 2 parts in a different Windows disk image format to fit on FAT32 (4GB file limitation), so that you could use the ISO on a USB flash drive without needing a secondary bootloader.
It got actively programmed to be shitty. This is not an accident.
I don't think a non-admin can loopmount anything in Windows.
If a user was able to discover and find Rufus, they should be capable of discovering and finding the legitimate download on the Microsoft website too.
The article and my quick test say it is still possible.
Because of that, for the last several years my source of ISOs has been random websites I found by googling or by torrent sites. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/software-download/windows11
There is a section titled Download Windows 11 Disk Image (ISO)
> This download is a multi-edition ISO which uses your product key to unlock the correct edition
It is annoying that it is a generated link only valid for 24 hours, but no login is required.
Quick edit: Maybe they tested requiring logins at one time? Could this change based on user agent or something else? Would they do something that ridiculous? Firefox on Debian on my end.
I don't think I have ever been logged in, mainly because I end up using a different browser with a fake macOS user agent to make it give me the ISO instead of trying to get me to download their exe.
It is not uncommon for this kind of mix messaging
That was a big thing years ago with Linux users wanting to get refunds for the Windows License they were forced to buy, and it never really changed.
That said, I'm skeptical of OP's idea that this makes a difference for how Microsoft offers ISOs. I don't really think it does; Microsoft OSes all have activation and they freely offer ISOs. macOS's lack of activation is attributable to the fact that they license the OS with the hardware, but I don't think it's a relevant detail for Microsoft's ISO downloads. I'd tend to think some minor speedbumps in the download process are just because Microsoft would prefer people to use their fancy Media Creation Tool instead of downloading an ISO. The Media Creation Tool replaces both the ISO download and Rufus; it's much easier to use and I can see why Microsoft would direct users to it.
We kinda are if we are talking about a comparison with MAC...
Further if your position is windows needs to block this for piracy reasons due to server sales, anyone buying an enterprise server 99% chance they have a EA, MPSA, or some other licensing agreement already and are not using Rufus to create their Windows 11 USB Keys to install of windows
Pointing to the Server market is just a weak as the defense using MAC...
>Microsoft would prefer people to use their fancy Media Creation Tool instead of downloading an ISO. The Media Creation Tool replaces both the ISO download and Rufus; it's much easier to use and I can see why Microsoft would direct users to it.
I dont think that is it at all, this a classic hallmark of legal trying to find something to do, or some one in marketing wanting people to see all of the ads for Office 365 and other services before downloading the ISO
Dragging a specific legacy system up to current required an early version of 10 (version around 1707 I think? Maybe 19xx?). It would just silently fail to upgrade with a meaningless error on the current one.
Same is true for Git
This makes it hard to move out of the non-open ecosystem
For Linux 90% of their commits is about locking people into Azure
In both cases they are building a separate community around their flavors of the projects not the projects themselves. You use "Github" not git, you use "AzureLinux" not linux, etc etc etc
I know young devs that have no idea that GitHub and Git are different things
Open Source software, like social media and most other human endeavors has a network effect to it, that is why these companies want to control the users and do not embrace open protocols,
This idea of "well just run your own git server" is fine, i do that, but if I want to have a SUCCESSFUL, and POPULAR open source project today, it almost has to be on github at this point, the idea that I would get 100's or even 10's of people to commit, used, interact with my project on a random site running gitea is just not realistic
That is the point and desire of EEE, I am not sure why people do not understand this, why people refuse to think about the network effect, etc
Hello have you heard of gitlab.com?
I’d also like to note that GitLab has a number of the same possible concerns in the sense that it is not completely opensource, libre, and standard. There are paid features and features that are specific to GitLab that people rely on.
Perhaps things like SourceHut or CodeBerg (gitea) are better examples from that perspective. And I think those often fit the few projects that actively benefit from not being on GitHub due to those factors and the platforms’ views aligning more with potential contributors, etc.
For personal, private use and such, Gitea has been what I have used for years. I find it has fit my needs better than GitLab, but I would still be hesitant to use it for much else, other than internal repos as a company, etc.
edit: it only occurred after hitting submit that you might’ve been saying that GitLab itself is popular and successful despite not being on GitHub, not that GitLab brings the same benefits/negatives of GitHub. I’ll leave this post as is, though.
Let me break this down easier
Git == Embrace
GitHub == Extend
Microsoft, through github is EXTENDING the functionality of GIT adding features and creating an entire ecosystem around those extended features making project non-portable so people can not just pickup their repo and move them to a GitLab or Gitea...
That is the 2nd part of EEE.... Of course they are not going to add those features to the GPL version of Git, that would not enable them to EXTINGUISH Git...
I am not sure what your argument is here, at some point it seems you fail to fully understand what EEE is,
From Wikipedia: "Windows 3.0 is the first version of Windows to perform well both critically and commercially. Critics and users considered its GUI to be a challenger to those of Apple Macintosh and Unix. Other praised features were the improved multitasking, customizability, and especially the utilitarian management of computer memory that troubled the users of Windows 3.0's predecessors. Microsoft was criticized by third-party developers for the bundling of its separate software with the operating environment, which they viewed as an anticompetitive practice. Windows 3.0 sold 10 million copies before it was succeeded by Windows 3.1 in 1992."
10 million copies is pretty good for a DOS world.