Microsoft's "Software BILL of rights"

jamie

I dont expect anyone to actually buy into this - Mission from Dude idea..( remember Man from Uncle? Wink

but if by accident... you do.. what things should be added to this list?

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

How about:

"MS Corp must make and release updates one week within the finding of any security holes and/or any non-security problems for any and all of their products."

I know MS isn't going to do this, but come on MS, you could at least try!

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Loadsgood wrote:
How about:

"MS Corp must make and release updates one week within the finding of any security holes and/or any non-security problems for any and all of their products."

That's not even a good idea. Updates do take some development time, and are also tested pretty intensively. I'd rather wait a week longer for an update than have a poorly tested one mess up my system.

That said, they do sometimes take too long for no good reason.

mikekol
What is WRONG with you people!??!?!?

Agreed with Sven. The only reason the Linux camp etc. can release patches with such a short turn around time is because their software runs on such a tiny number of systems. It's not that they're better at seeing where the bugs are. Microsoft has to regression test a lot more throughly to ensure that there isn't something out there that relies on Windows functioning a certain way that would be broken by the fix.

I'm not saying I don't want the turn around time to increase, though I do like the monthly patches idea. All I'm saying is that the notion that open source projects (and open source project participants) are better at finding bugs is a fallacy.

Also - I really don't understand what the issue is with software patents, people. Guess what? Microsoft thrives on capitalism. If they have a patent for something, chances are they're going to try to make money off of it. I know... how dare they?!? Trying to make money off of something they spent time and money into researching and creating. Wow... that's pathetic.

Seriously, though. This "everything should be free" crap is getting old. In case you missed it, the USSR fell.

Rossj

mikekol wrote:
The only reason the Linux camp etc. can release patches with such a short turn around time is because their software runs on such a tiny number of systems. It's not that they're better at seeing where the bugs are.
All I'm saying is that the notion that open source projects (and open source project participants) are better at finding bugs is a fallacy.

Woah there nelly. Care to back that up? It's unwise to assume that just because it takes Microsoft months to release patches instead of hours that somehow the OSS guys can't possibly do this safely. You are assuming that people that write OSS are somehow either unprofessional or stupid - and neither of those generalisations are true. If this were true then the number of patches released quickly by OSS developers would be breaking servers and the occassional desktop left right and center - which is not happening.

mikekol wrote:

Also - I really don't understand what the issue is with software patents, people. Trying to make money off of something they spent time and money into researching and creating. Wow... that's pathetic.

Will you still be saying this when Microsoft get stung for billions of dollars by Kodak simply because Kodak's business model is failing. Ask your local neighbourhood shareware developer thinks about being asked to pay thousands of dollars in license costs because somebody patented an idea that has been around for decades.

mikekol wrote:

Seriously, though. This "everything should be free" crap is getting old. In case you missed it, the USSR fell.

Ahh you're American - darn those pesky ruskies. OSS is not about cost - it is free as in freedom and not free as in free beer. People are quite entitled to charge money for some applications written under Open Source licenses as long as you provide freedom with that application. If you truly believe free software refers to the price you are either:
a. Deliberately trying to muddy the water.
b. Badly mis-informed.

mikekol
What is WRONG with you people!??!?!?

Rossj wrote:

You are assuming that people that write OSS are somehow either unprofessional or stupid - and neither of those generalisations are true.

No, I'm not - you heard what you wanted to hear. They have smaller marketshare, so they don't need to worry about extensive regression testing. Any change they make is statistically less likely to be a breaking one.

Rossj wrote:

Will you still be saying this when Microsoft get stung for billions of dollars by Kodak simply because Kodak's business model is failing. Ask your local neighbourhood shareware developer thinks about being asked to pay thousands of dollars in license costs because somebody patented an idea that has been around for decades.

I'll be saying it as long as it's true. Would it be nice if shareware developers didn't have to worry about it? Sure. Do I feel sorry for them that they do? Not especially. That's the nature of free enterprise. Deal with it.

Rossj wrote:

Ahh you're American - darn those pesky ruskies. OSS is not about cost - it is free as in freedom and not free as in free beer. People are quite entitled to charge money for some applications written under Open Source licenses as long as you provide freedom with that application. If you truly believe free software refers to the price you are either:
a. Deliberately trying to muddy the water.
b. Badly mis-informed.

I call bull. It's all nice to have a cute little saying like that, but you need to face the facts. The vast majority of people who consume software don't care what the ideology behind the software is - they care about the cost. Businesses couldn't care less if the software is "for the people" - they care how it impacts their bottom line. If two programs were technically identical in functionality and ease of use, and one was closed source and the other open source, do you really think open source would be more popular by virtue of having a "moral" doctrine? If so, you're only kidding yourself. The general public isn't that altruistic.

Tom Malone

There are loads of different types of linux, theres redhat, suse, gentoo etc.. then there are thoose people who have old versions of these that then have been patched etc. to stay up to date, and people who have built there own systems. I have never heard of a case of these people breaking their systems from installing an update patch, except for a whole new version.

In fact the only os i have had problems in patching is ms, and they are the professionals with all the money and potential testers.

Software patents are a mess, no one is stopping microsoft protecting its assest, but why not use copyright and trademarks, why stop people using the concept, this is also quite bizare as the company has grown from copying others ideas, windows is a copy of the work at xerox park. IE is very simmillar in apperance and functionality to netscape.

If microsoft had to pay for patents for these windows would be more expensive or not as good so the only person to really pay is consumers
either in higher bills or lack of choice.

Rossj

Mikekol,

We're both apparently too set in our ways to see things the same way, I guess I will just have to agree to disagree because I don't think I am bright enough to argue against your points - not being a businessman and all. You apparently know so much more about what the public think than I do ... although I'd like to point out that if what you say in your last paragraph were true Linux would probably not exist.

rasx
Programmer/Analyst III, Emperor of String.Empty

I like the whole thang, baby. I am straight stealing "We're on a mission from dude." It's a perfect mantra of postmodern imperialism, Wild West Style!

jamie

rasx - thanks i liked it too Wink

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

I'm sorry I caused an arguement. All I ment was that MS should hire more people, thats all. I know its probably impossible to release a patch in the first week of finding the problem, especially since they probably would have to give the Governments and to evryone who works at Microsoft the patch, before they release it to the public.
Maybe they should release public beta patches... Just a thought.

TechStuff

MS software will check for updates and patches in the background whenever they run. (This will NOT be done using resource sucking always-on Watch4Update daemon programs that auto-launch during system startup!)

jamie

Microsoft will publish new specs to a "Privacy Sandbox" for applications like error reporting and windows update to use - plainly showing that ONLY GENERIC NONAME info about you or your machine are sent to Microsoft

Rossj

jamie wrote:
Microsoft will publish new specs to a "Privacy Sandbox" for applications like error reporting and windows update to use - plainly showing that ONLY GENERIC NONAME info about you or your machine are sent to Microsoft

Jamie, a quick question. Of all the good ideas that you have come up with in the forum - including this, and the IE 6.5 update - how many have Microsoft responded too? How many of the Channel 9 team have responded to them or contacted you about them? I am just curious because they seem like sensible enough ideas ... and it's great having a place where people get a chance to talk to Microsoft, it just sometimes seems a little one sided.

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

jamie wrote:

but you can tell they read them cause on many there's like 2000 to 4000 reads ( like the Windows 2006 software box / battleship posts) and not too many replys

Yes Jamie... They read your threads...
Don't believe him everyone! It's a trick!
You (or someone else) as probably used my method of clicking a lot of times on the link to the thread which makes the c9 website think that the article is getting a lot of people reading it, when it's just one person clicking a lot of times on that link.

jamie

none

but you can tell they read them cause on many there's like 2000 to 4000 reads ( like the Windows 2006 software box / battleship posts) and not too many replys

* i understand it's probably hard for them to reply to some - like addressing the google business model threat .. the privacy stuff .. the smarmy marketing

we wouldnt want lenn or jonathanh to get fired by agreeing with me! Wink

I'm on a mission from dude! "fly in the ointment Hans"

no worries

jamie

LG - (i still think you're steveb in disguise on C9!)

but i can guarantee you - i dont click on posts except to check on edits. So I dont think 3 or so hits adds anything meaningful to those totals.

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

No Jamie, you can click hundreds or thousands of times and the c9 website will still think that hundreds or thousands of people are reading that article.

No Jamie, I'm not steveb in disguise on c9. Would I laugh at myself here? (Last paragraph). No I wouldn't.

Or would I?...

Microsoft's &quot;Software BILL of rights&quot;