"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3318827.NNOcVBL2xL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html?nav=rss_technology
http://tinyurl.com/r474d
I appreciate how the author was willing to admit that it's not all
Microsoft's fault:
<quote>
Consider stability, the single biggest selling point of XP. The operating
system was meant to stop individual programs from crashing the system, and
it succeeded. It takes an especially malignant program to send my copy of XP
to a "blue screen of death."
But that's not the only way XP can crash. Drivers, the software that lets XP
communicate with hardware components, can still lock up the system. If
you've seen an XP laptop fail to wake up from standby, you can probably
blame it on buggy drivers.
Microsoft doesn't write most of that software, so it asked the companies
that do to submit their work for its own testing. And if users tried to
install an untested driver, Windows XP would flash an unmistakable
don't-install-this warning.
</quote>
I can't come up with a better solution than what Microsoft came up with:
Have an in-house rigorous testing facilities for new drivers, and digitally
sign the ones which pass. Allow the user to install the drivers if they
really want to, but show a warning clearly showing the dangers of doing so.
I know it's "hip" and "cool" to call Microsoft programmers incompetent,
but honestly, what more could have been done at this point? To outright
refuse to install any drivers which aren't signed?
The author makes similar statements about installer guidelines (third
parties abusing the system by dumping icons on the desktop, the system tray,
and not providing an adequate uninstaller), and the admin-user (third
parties not developing their software in such a way so that it can run under
a user with limited rights).
- Oliver
|
|
