__/ [ Peter Hayes ] on Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:54 \__
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> > User pain may mean Windows cracks
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> >| Microsoft's attempts to keep the next version of Windows secure could
>> >| help promote the free software ethic, says technology commentator
>> >| Bill Thompson.
>> > `----
>> >
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5271386.stm
>> >
>>
>> Microsoft are utterly wedded to the locked-down model. No customer will
>> or should ever get access to what they've "licensed".
>>
>> As they go further and further down this road, and the security problems
>> continue to spiral, surely there will be a point where it's quite clear
>> that the approach is not working, in spite of all the FUD; but will MS
>> be able to approach things differently ever?
>
> Their business model has proved a resounding success so far, so don't
> expect change.
>
> It's actually getting better from their point of view. They're now
> selling the user a security package designed to secure the user's
> machine against flaws in their software - what other major industry
> would tolerate such an approach?
The closest analogy I can think of is travel insurance. But the 'failure
rate' is rather low in that case. Now, imagine this... the airline sells you
the insurance and intentionally (e.g. by defective design) crashes a few
planes to create a scare factor and urge more people to pay for insurance.
This does not make sense yet, so allow me to close the gap. Who is it that
is responsible for cleaning an infected machine and spend hours in vain? As
the EULA suggests, Microsoft takes no liability. That's the equivalent of
the airline pulling the insurance funds from a third party, e.g. the
government/treasury.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
For governments that eavesdrop, here is a quick list of tags: Communism,
Hawaiian shirts, China, Suitcase, Martha Stewart, Encryption, Prison,
Stalin. Thanks for tuning in.
|
|
