Re: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
Adam Smith on the invisible hand: But there are many misconceptions about the invisible hand, starting with the belief that Smith himself was a absolute believer in it. In fact, he was not. Smith actually viewed merchants with great suspicion: /People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. /Another misconception is that the invisible hand is a form of individualism. It would be hard to call the actions of a baker who spends all day baking bread for strangers individualism. A more accurate word is /exchange,/ and it represents a balance between individualism and collectivism, even if that exchange is ultimately self-interested. True individualism is taking from the group without giving anything back; true collectivism is giving to the group without getting anything back. Seen in this light, the exchange inherent in the invisible hand should deserve the full and enthusiastic endorsement of liberals. Unfortunately, today's conservatives have corrupted the meaning of Smith's term. They use it to suggest that the pursuit of self-interest in the economy will always (or almost always) result in group benefit, and that individuals should feel free to pursue it. Ted Roche wrote: Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. Isn't that something we should allow the invisible hand of the free market to drive? If customers believe there are alternatives that provide a lower overall cost of ownership by allowing software to be used over a longer lifetime, won't the customers make the decision to support those products with better ROI? And the responsive vendors succeed in the marketplace? Returning to your earlier analogy, is this like the government mandating seat belts, or more like them requiring a 5-year, 100,000 mile warranty? * If Windows keeps getting slower and slower in shipping new versions, won't that provide the longevity you want? It would be interesting to plot version against version and predict when Windows.NEXT will ship. It was five years between XP and Vista, three years between XP and 2000. I'm not sure how XPSP2 and 2003 could fit in there. How much longer should they go? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
You don't expect manufacturers to support your Ford when you have changed the ignition, run a different type of fuel, have added a turbocharger, put in an NO2 system, changed the seats and pimped it to a point where no one would recognise it. If we kept the PC exactly as it was sold to you then maybe they would be able to offer a longer warranty, but we don't so they can't. My laptop is two weeks old, in that time, I have removed Norton, added AVG, added Office, Visual Studio, GNU Backgammon, Termlite, Ghostscript, Acrobat, changed hundreds of settings on a product that cost £900 with an OS that probably cost me less than £100. If I had the option to do so many changes on my car and Mercedes still had to support it with no ongoing maintenance revenue, you can be sure the cost would more than double, maybe triple as a one off cost. People won't pay ongoing service costs for an OS they want a one off cost, so the only way to maintain revenue and fund bug fixes etc. is to introduce new versions. $0.02 ::a -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Schummer Sent: 05 February 2007 21:03 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade And since MS isn't going to be selling or supporting their legacy OSes any more, how are they going to do that? I warned you not to get me started on this. g We discussed this very issue after the DAFUG meeting a couple of months ago. I am not a fan of legislating every darn thing in our lives, but I am leaning more towards this one getting the governments involved. It is my believe that all operating systems are mission critical to almost every human being in some fashion, and like cars should be subject to recalls. There are laws to force auto manufacturers to supply car parts for a long time (I am not exactly sure of the length of time). There are laws regulating cars that have safety or engineering defects get recalled and fixed for free (consumers do not have to pay for the fix other than the loss of their car while the dealer makes the correction). I think the same type of rules can be applied to *all* operating systems. The operating system has bugs (engineering defects) that affect the safety of the users losing data and work product. The operating system obviously needs security patches (parts). I think the correlation between the two means companies like Microsoft, Apple, the Linux Open Source groups, IBM, DEC, etc. have a responsibility to their customers to support the operating systems we count on. ___ Associated Packaging is the trading name of Eurohill Traders Ltd. Registered in England and Wales : 1114987 VAT : GB210390611 Eurohill Labels Ltd Registered in England and Wales : 1372024 VAT : GB312955757 195 Vale Road, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1SU. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
I think your analogy is flawed. I is more like loading with the kids, dog, driving it to work and taking it on a vacation. The OS is the vehicle you drive, the applications are the tasks you perform with the vehicle. If you were to rewrite part of the OS, that would be equal to added a turbocharger. Do you really think Mercedes would void your warranty or refuse to supply service after you did any of these tings with your car? I think not, but even if they wouldn't service the car, they would sell the parts so you could service the car. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Buckland Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:18 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject:RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade You don't expect manufacturers to support your Ford when you have changed the ignition, run a different type of fuel, have added a turbocharger, put in an NO2 system, changed the seats and pimped it to a point where no one would recognise it. If we kept the PC exactly as it was sold to you then maybe they would be able to offer a longer warranty, but we don't so they can't. My laptop is two weeks old, in that time, I have removed Norton, added AVG, added Office, Visual Studio, GNU Backgammon, Termlite, Ghostscript, Acrobat, changed hundreds of settings on a product that cost £900 with an OS that probably cost me less than £100. If I had the option to do so many changes on my car and Mercedes still had to support it with no ongoing maintenance revenue, you can be sure the cost would more than double, maybe triple as a one off cost. People won't pay ongoing service costs for an OS they want a one off cost, so the only way to maintain revenue and fund bug fixes etc. is to introduce new versions. $0.02 ::a -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Schummer Sent: 05 February 2007 21:03 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade And since MS isn't going to be selling or supporting their legacy OSes any more, how are they going to do that? I warned you not to get me started on this. g We discussed this very issue after the DAFUG meeting a couple of months ago. I am not a fan of legislating every darn thing in our lives, but I am leaning more towards this one getting the governments involved. It is my believe that all operating systems are mission critical to almost every human being in some fashion, and like cars should be subject to recalls. There are laws to force auto manufacturers to supply car parts for a long time (I am not exactly sure of the length of time). There are laws regulating cars that have safety or engineering defects get recalled and fixed for free (consumers do not have to pay for the fix other than the loss of their car while the dealer makes the correction). I think the same type of rules can be applied to *all* operating systems. The operating system has bugs (engineering defects) that affect the safety of the users losing data and work product. The operating system obviously needs security patches (parts). I think the correlation between the two means companies like Microsoft, Apple, the Linux Open Source groups, IBM, DEC, etc. have a responsibility to their customers to support the operating systems we count on. ___ Associated Packaging is the trading name of Eurohill Traders Ltd. Registered in England and Wales : 1114987 VAT : GB210390611 Eurohill Labels Ltd Registered in England and Wales : 1372024 VAT : GB312955757 195 Vale Road, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1SU. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
If we kept the PC exactly as it was sold to you then maybe they would be able to offer a longer warranty, but we don't so they can't. I am not referring to a warranty Adam. The operating system manufacturers do not support the other software you load on your machine today. All they support is the core OS and the applets that come with it. I am talking about security patches and holding all operating system manufacturers to a standard that they fix the discovered (and hopefully the undiscovered) holes for a longer period of time for the safety of their customers. You can trick out your car as much as you want. If the gas tank has an engineering flaw that causes the car to blow up under certain circumstances the manufacturer places a recall and it gets fixed. It has nothing to do with the fact you put in a new accelerator pedal. If you replaced the gas tank with your own they really can't fix it. Rick White Light Computing, Inc. www.whitelightcomputing.com www.rickschummer.com 586.254.2530 - office 586.254.2539 - fax ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
Rick Schummer wrote: If we kept the PC exactly as it was sold to you then maybe they would be able to offer a longer warranty, but we don't so they can't. I am not referring to a warranty Adam. The operating system manufacturers do not support the other software you load on your machine today. All they support is the core OS and the applets that come with it. I am talking about security patches and holding all operating system manufacturers to a standard that they fix the discovered (and hopefully the undiscovered) holes for a longer period of time for the safety of their customers. You can trick out your car as much as you want. If the gas tank has an engineering flaw that causes the car to blow up under certain circumstances the manufacturer places a recall and it gets fixed. It has nothing to do with the fact you put in a new accelerator pedal. If you replaced the gas tank with your own they really can't fix it. Sounds to me like it all comes down to managed computing---how much influence/control do you want the OS maker to have on your daily computing life? Some want M$ to handle all of it; others don't want anyone else's hands in the mix but their own. There are different kinds of users, obviously. -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
Sounds to me like it all comes down to managed computing---how much influence/control do you want the OS maker to have on your daily computing life? Some want M$ to handle all of it; others don't want anyone else's hands in the mix but their own. There are different kinds of users, obviously. Agreed Michael, but as users we all have choice over accepting and not accepting updates to the OS. Same with upgrades. I just want the choice to be extended longer than what we get today with respect to patches to existing operating systems moving forward. The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life is way longer than what operating system manufacturers are supporting from a security patch perspective. The built in obsolescence is not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not that the OS is not working and providing hardware services, it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. Rick White Light Computing, Inc. www.whitelightcomputing.com www.rickschummer.com 586.254.2530 - office 586.254.2539 - fax ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
Several times over the years I've wagged this dog, trying to point out that what we need is the equivalent or better of IBM's methodology for maintaining the OS, which is called SMP. It's a database application that generates and installs the operating system on a new machine, and then manages not only the OS, but most of the products installed (it can be bypassed). Typically, adding software and maintenance to the OS is handled by the systems programmer using SMP processes to receive and then apply the maintenance/new products to the OS. To accommodate SMP, IBM and many vendors package software and maintenance in SMP's format. The systems programmer typically receives these products and maintenance into the SMP database, and then uses SMP to study and implement selected maintenance, thus giving the installation control over what goes into the machine and what doesn't, on a detailed basis. It also helps give vendors equal access to the OS because their products and maintenance are handled in exactly the same way as IBM's. Learning (and controlling) the products and maintenance installed in this fashion is a simple matter of using SMP information and processes. Microsoft knew about this mechanic since day 1, but chose to ignore it - at our and the industry's great peril - and to centralize the packaging and distribution of their OS's so end users and software vendors would survive at MS's convenience, not the other way around (which is what SMP can be said to accomplish). I don't know what plans IBM has for Linux packaging/maintenance, but if/when they retrofit it to work in this fashion, MS will either have to catch up or be gone. Bill Sounds to me like it all comes down to managed computing---how much influence/control do you want the OS maker to have on your daily computing life? Some want M$ to handle all of it; others don't want anyone else's hands in the mix but their own. There are different kinds of users, obviously. Agreed Michael, but as users we all have choice over accepting and not accepting updates to the OS. Same with upgrades. I just want the choice to be extended longer than what we get today with respect to patches to existing operating systems moving forward. The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life is way longer than what operating system manufacturers are supporting from a security patch perspective. The built in obsolescence is not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not that the OS is not working and providing hardware services, it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. Rick White Light Computing, Inc. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
On 2/6/07, Rick Schummer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed Michael, but as users we all have choice over accepting and not accepting updates to the OS. Same with upgrades. I just want the choice to be extended longer than what we get today with respect to patches to existing operating systems moving forward. Which operating systems, Rick? Operating systems manufacturers are businesses, and they have to have a justification for wanting to maintain older products, as well as a need to innovate new products and support for newer technologies, like 802.11n, SATA drives and Firewire-800. Are you arguing for some sort of government intervention to alter the behavior of the free market? The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life is way longer than what operating system manufacturers are supporting from a security patch perspective. The built in obsolescence is not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not that the OS is not working and providing hardware services, it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. Which providers? Apple seems to have addressed this issue by offering OS upgrades at a cost of around $130 each year or so. Microsoft's model seems more out with the old, in with the new at a every-slowing rate*. RedHat and SuSE and Ubuntu have long-term support plans, and the Open Source community offers many means of accessing free or inexpensive patches to keep software up-to-date and secure. So which provider is failing to support the needs of their customer base, Rick? How long would you want software supported for, and at what cost? Would users be required to pay for 5- or 7-year support contracts? Would the vendor have to include that in the price of the package? Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. Isn't that something we should allow the invisible hand of the free market to drive? If customers believe there are alternatives that provide a lower overall cost of ownership by allowing software to be used over a longer lifetime, won't the customers make the decision to support those products with better ROI? And the responsive vendors succeed in the marketplace? Returning to your earlier analogy, is this like the government mandating seat belts, or more like them requiring a 5-year, 100,000 mile warranty? * If Windows keeps getting slower and slower in shipping new versions, won't that provide the longevity you want? It would be interesting to plot version against version and predict when Windows.NEXT will ship. It was five years between XP and Vista, three years between XP and 2000. I'm not sure how XPSP2 and 2003 could fit in there. How much longer should they go? -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
The reality in the business world is a machine's useful life is way longer than what operating system manufacturers are supporting from a security patch perspective. The built in obsolescence is not hardware, it is the OS, and it is not that the OS is not working and providing hardware services, it is security patches the operating system providers are stopping. Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or appropriate. Actually, I think the variety and intensity of security attacks on an OS or other vulnerable piece of software roughly follow a sort of bell curve as time passes. When the software is new, there are few attacks. As the software becomes popular and widely distributed, the attacks multiply very rapidly. Then as the next new thing comes out, attacks on its predecessor wane and the malware writers focus on the new thing. So after the peak of the curve has been reached, the older your OS or other software is, the less risk there is in continuing to run it--even after the manufacturer ceases to issue patches. From my point of view, the real issue is communication with other entities. There's no earthly reason for my agency to stop using older OSes and versions of Office--but eventually the entities my agency has to communicate with will drink the Kool-Aid and start sending us stuff in formats that my software can't read, and claiming that they can't read what we send them--at least, not unless people on both ends change their behavior and take extra steps to convert between formats. And it's highly unlikely that people are going to do that instead of demanding that I cave in and drink the Kool-Aid too; after all, it's my job as IT guy to make their lives easier, not more difficult. How difficult and ethically insupportable my job gets is not important to them. And eventually we reach a point where the old OS won't run the new application software, so that forces an OS upgrade. The reality is, only a relatively small number of enterprises have a real internal business reason to move along to bigger and better hardware and operating systems as you suggest--even if I agreed that any significant number of these moves has been in any sense better, which I do not. The vast majority of them do it because everybody else is doing it and it gets harder and harder to hold the line over time. This is, indeed, planned obsolesence. It's a form of consumer fraud, and it's immoral and unethical. Those are sufficient reasons for it to be stopped. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[NF] OS Recalls, was: The Ultimate Vista Upgrade
And since MS isn't going to be selling or supporting their legacy OSes any more, how are they going to do that? I warned you not to get me started on this. g We discussed this very issue after the DAFUG meeting a couple of months ago. I am not a fan of legislating every darn thing in our lives, but I am leaning more towards this one getting the governments involved. It is my believe that all operating systems are mission critical to almost every human being in some fashion, and like cars should be subject to recalls. There are laws to force auto manufacturers to supply car parts for a long time (I am not exactly sure of the length of time). There are laws regulating cars that have safety or engineering defects get recalled and fixed for free (consumers do not have to pay for the fix other than the loss of their car while the dealer makes the correction). I think the same type of rules can be applied to *all* operating systems. The operating system has bugs (engineering defects) that affect the safety of the users losing data and work product. The operating system obviously needs security patches (parts). I think the correlation between the two means companies like Microsoft, Apple, the Linux Open Source groups, IBM, DEC, etc. have a responsibility to their customers to support the operating systems we count on. So the argument made against this was simple: other members asked me if I was going to support my software forever and fix bugs and make patches available. Strange, I already do. I also understand the realities of perpetual fixes and terms like support forever and ever not being a good thing for all businesses. The reality of this can also be equated to the auto industry. If I have a 84 Chevy I can still get parts and can still find someone to fix my car. I can't really count on a recall to get something fixed, but I can hire a mechanic to do so for me out of my own pocket. I think there is some realistic time lines that can be applied to operating systems. I just think 10 years is too short for security fixes. But I am not a person who is even remotely inclined to run for legislative office, and I am not qualified to begin to understand all the ramifications involved with an idea like this one. But that has not stopped hundreds of others from doing so in Washington and the 50 states here in the USA and in governments around the world. Rick White Light Computing, Inc. www.whitelightcomputing.com www.rickschummer.com 586.254.2530 - office 586.254.2539 - fax ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
