mbarrick | Annoyance

Someone out there who has both Elaine and I in their address books (which narrows it down to about a thousand people, thanks to the mailing lists we are on) has one of the newer wave of e-mail worms. I have received now two messages "from" Elaine bounced off the same zombie in Finland. So, that IP is blocked, the upstream ISP has been notified. I find it weird that the combination of the same "from" address and IP would appear twice.

This, however is indicative of a greater annoyance: Microsoft's no-updates-if-you-haven't-paid policy is a menace. All too many people out in the world have pirated copies of Windows that they can't update, and instead of this policy making money for M$ by forcing users to ante-up, it in fact costs everyone else money in all the lost time and extra traffic generated by these long-since-patched exploits continuing to exist in the wild on the sea of unpatchable machines out there.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

logik.livejournal.com

I have to say that I am in agreement with the no updates unless you pay policy. I know the trouble that it causes, belive me, but despite how I feel about their product, I do support their right to restrict full usage of the product to paid users. I must do the same with my products.

There are tons of free OS's out there that exceed the functionality of the M$ products, and can be downloaded, installed and updated for free. I strongly encourage individuals and businesses to use these alternatives while they pester M$ for source code or a BSD style licence so that people can write their own updates if needed.

Even if people did have free access to updates from M$ does not mean that they'd use 'em anyhow. Most companies take a very cavalier attitude toward security and performance in the tech world.

The real problem is that the vast majority of computer owners should not actually own computers. They should own workstation appliances that backend to systems run by real techs. SOmething along the lines of a ham radio licence type setup would go a long way toward cleaning up the mess that is the modern computer security nightmare.

Users do not need a general purpose computing platform, nor do I think that they should be sold something at full price when they will never use more than 1% of the potential of that thing. Why the hell ship an OS with a services like a web server, if the end user will not be able to use it? When it comes right down to it, the average person needs an gaming console, a stereo, a typewritter and maybe a fax. Pretty much strip down a system to just these services, and you get rid of 99% of the potential security holes out there. If someone needs more, they should be able to buy it as an add on.

That way M$ or whoever could release a wider range of products, and benefit from the ability to hit the lower market price points without loosing their market share.

Wanna kill priacy? Lower your prices.

How do you lower your prices? Sell 'em only what they need, rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.

Software sales could learn an awful lot from the automotive industry. Who the hell expects to pay for a Ferrari or a Vector X1 if all they really need is a car to run for groceries? Who's gonna pay for a 2600 horse power ford rig engine if they only want a small truck to move a kitchen table? And who the hell would buy leather seats for a jeep that will be used in a game perserve?

In my world, a full "computer" for the home costs less than 180 US, and looks like a stereo component (including cables and ports), is less than 4 lbs, and does everything a home user wants. (Check out mini ITX stuff(, with no sound or heat.

As much as I hate 'em, the current security nightmare out there, is not really thier fault. It is due to the consumer out there over purshaing for what they need. It is the same phenomena that makes otherwise rational city dwellers who spend all of their time in the downtown core buy gas-guzzling deathtrap SUV's designed for off road cargo delivery. It is just stupid.

The problem is not the tech or it's providers. It is people.

From:

mediavictim.livejournal.com

The problem with the stiped-down system I guess - what happens if there is someone out there who actually wants to learn and grow? Bob buys a computer, bob plays mp3s, bob goes on the internet

Bob gets exposed to music on the internet , bob wants to start making music, bob also wants to run a website to show off his music , suddenly a few of bobs friends get together and he wants to sell their cds on his website.

Should bob buy a brand new device each time he wants to expand his horizons? If people have to shell out top dollar every time the want to grow then it is likely that potential will never be reached , becasue either the pocketbook will suffer
or the landfills will suffer.

I think you are not taking into account the fundimental desire of people to have unlimited growth potential, I may never go to China in my life - but if someone tells me that I can't go
I would resent them. Computer sales are empowerment sales. Purchasing is an emotional
decision.

I guess the other issue is prometheus - you want to give fire back to the gods and take it from the people? You hate the idea of many people having access to information and tools they may not be qualified in your mind to use.

CONGRATUALTIONS KIM... WELCOME TO "THE MAN" here is your badge, and your parking space , hawaiian shirt day is friday.

From:

logik.livejournal.com

Read my post again. This time with your eyes open, and think a bit more about the difference between the words "perceptive" and "offensive"

The whole post was about a way to make tech more useable, friendlier to the consumer, cheaper to access, and with the ability for people to grow their systems as they need 'em.

The other thing...

Try not to use references to material that you haven't actually read.

From:

mbarrick.livejournal.com

Ahhhh... brotherly love ;-)

From:

valerian.livejournal.com

When I bought my first computer, I had no idea what half the shit on it did. I think buying a computer should be a lot like buying a car: select option package A, B, or C, with the option to upgrade it later if you so desire. There was some shit on that machine I figured I'd never use, and as it turns out, most of it I didn't. Some programs I never even opened to see what they were. I got brave though, and started teaching myself HTML with one built-in program. But then most people aren't like me and are scared shitless by computers, and will never use it for *anything* but the most basic stuff.

And frankly, I think we shouldn't have to *buy* MS Windows in order to use it. Something that widely used and that full of bugs *ought* to be free!

From:

mbarrick.livejournal.com

Point taken. I like the OS:SUV analogy. *If* M$ created an home OS that wasn't bloated and full of holes I'd be more than willing to go with the get-what-you-pay-for approach. However, if they insist on selling their OS's with all the unnecessary bells and whistles included and turned on by default don't you think then the culpability resides with them to make the fixes available? If I were to leave loaded pellet guns lying around a school yard wouldn't it be partly my fault if some kid started picking them up and annoying the crap out of everyone by shooting them in the ass? Sure you could go around and unload them all or even remove them - if you knew they were there. If I was the contractor that built the school and I absolutely demanded as a condition of construction that you buy and the pellet guns, loaded by default, and leave them lying around the school wouldn't my responsibility go up? If the pellet guns were somehow self-loading, built into turrets that were an integral part of the construction, could be fired remotely by anyone that knew how, and you had to pay me extra to unload them, turn them off or disable or restrict the remote firing feature, wouldn't I be almost totally to blame? And if I refused to do provide any help at all in preventing innocent people from being randomly stung in the ass by pellets because you had acquired the school as a result of a coup and I would only deal with the legitimate owner of the school, how much would I be at fault then?

From:

logik.livejournal.com

> if they insist on selling their OS's with all the unnecessary bells and whistles included and turned on by default don't you think then the culpability resides with them to make the fixes available?

Yep, to those that actually purchased the product. I think that stealing a car that turns out to have a busted set of break pads, and then expecting the dealer to honour a warantee and replace the car is pretty foolish.

> If I were to leave loaded pellet guns lying around a school yard wouldn't it be partly my fault if some kid started picking them up and annoying the crap out of everyone by shooting them in the ass?

Yep, but if someone stole your pellet gun out of a locked cabinet and then left it on the school grounds...

>If I was the contractor that built the school and I absolutely demanded as a condition of construction that you buy and the pellet guns, loaded by default, and leave them lying around the school wouldn't my responsibility go up?

Excluded middle, We are comparing the OS to the pellet gun, and now you switch and say that it is the contractor who built the school. In principle I agree with you though. I think that the school bears the responsibility for the descison to purchase from such a contractor however. If they purchase from that contractor, then the school is accountable, not the contractor. The contractor's terms were set and the school agreed to it. If they didn't want schoolyard shootings, then they should choose another contractor. Given the wide selection of contractors (OS providers) in our case, and the fact that most of 'em are free, i think it very irresponsible of people to purchase from such a contractor as M$.

>If the pellet guns were somehow self-loading, built into turrets that were an integral part of the construction, could be fired remotely by anyone that knew how...

And if they came with giant robots with laser eyebeams that could transform into other robots, and could combine their powers to make mega-man, and the whole thing was done by manga entertainment...

Okay, we are into just silly here. There is only so far that you can take an analogy before it becomes Anime. I think this one's gone a bit far. The school still chooses to purchase from this lot, then the school is responsible. Caveat Emptor. It is an old problem. It is funny how often people don't read those licence agreements or any other legal document, and then get upset for agreeing to 'em.

The principle is simple really. Caveat Emptor.

Responsibility for something that is owned, should be to the owner. In so far as the M$ licence agreement is a licence to use for paying parties, they do accept responsibility for the use of their product and provide a facility to update and repair faulty product. Enter windows update. For those that steal instead, then the responsibility for the results lie entirely on their shoulders.

M$, though selling a crap product, has no ethical or legal requirement to assist or protect theives of said product. It does have both a legal and ethical obligation in my opinion to maintain and repair said product for legitimate customers of that service.

Software is a service, not a product. Check your agreement. There are clearly things that the service is not meant to do or provide, and there are things that it is. M$ for as much as I hate the bastards are very very good at living up to their service agreements. For those that do not agree to the service agreement of microsoft, I belive that they are criminally liable for the results of the use of those serivices.

Pirated software exists primarily because legitimate customers break their serivce agreements, and make and redistribue illegal copies. In the case of your school, a better analogy would be to say that the school "borrowed" the security system from a military prision, and then left the door to the guns room unlocked because they didn't want to be bothered learning how to use it.

From:

mbarrick.livejournal.com

You missed the analogy a bit. The school is the operating system and the guns are a feature the owner neither needed nor wanted. The kids being shot in the ass have no service agreement (i.e. users that are getting battered with worms).

I agree, the owner should be responsible for what they own, so take a look at your own argument about the service agreement. Quothe the EULA, "The Product is licensed, not sold" ergo M$ remains the owner.

Let's try another analogy that's maybe a better fit to the zombie computer scenario, and hopefully makes the point: You rent an apartment, your landlord owns it but you have a lease. Your apartment has a "feature" that you didn't know about or bargain for: a hole in the ceiling over the bathtub. Your upstairs neighbour installs a camera and sets up nakeddjbathtime.com. Your fault?

OK, fair enough that the landlord isn't going to fix the hole if you don't pay the rent. Which is your point. I'll cede that point for the moment.

But what if the landlord knew about the hole and failed to tell you? What if the landlord's "solution" was to demand that you buy bathing suits (i.e. buy third party software to deal with his problem)? What if the only place in town to get a bathing suit just happened to be owned by your landlord? What if any attempt to fix the hole yourself violated your rental agreement (i.e. not open source, no reverse engineering allowed)?

Now, imagine your landlord also owns a skid-row hotel with holes in the ceiling (third world). The hotel manager, who isn't supposed to rent rooms by the hour is illegally doing just that for local hookers and keeping the rent for himself (software pirate). The hookers are well aware that the hotel shouldn't be doing this but need the rooms to get by (impovershed users). Sure they could rent rooms by the hour in the hostel across town, but their customers won't go there and they can't afford to rent rooms at the legitimate day rate and still make a profit (alternate operating systems are not an option and the user can't afford the legitimate lisence). Your nefarious upstairs neighbour clues in that if your landlord isn't going to fix the hole in your building then the hooker hotel is probably full of holes. He sneaks in and sets up all sorts of cameras (script kiddie). He starts taking pictures of the hookers and stuffing you mailbox full of flyers for his "Hooker Voyeur" magazine (spam). Every day your mailbox is so stuffed full of pictures of hookers that you have to check it every hour day an night and clean out the junk mail. Your landlord offers to do it for a fee or you can hire an assistant to do it for you. You demand that the landlord fix the holes in the hooker hotel but he says he won't do it unless he gets proper rent for the rooms. You demand that the landlord throw out your nefarious upstairs neighbour but the landlord claims that he has not violated any part of his rental agreement so it's not his problem. You demand then at the very least he fix the hole in your ceiling to which he replies, your apartment is obsolete, your can either buy a bathing suit from him or move into his new apartment building that doesn't have holes for only 20% more rent. Movers will cost $10,000 and none of your old funiture will fit through the door. Your landlord also owns the only furniture store in town that makes furniture that will fit in the new apartment and has a school that trains "Mover's who Carry Stuff Easily (MCSE)".

That's Microsoft.