Slashdot Mirror
The Self-Modifying EULA?
An anonymous reader asks: "Years ago, when I first installed Windows 2000, I accepted its EULA. Despite serious defects in the product, I resisted installing Service Packs because they modify the original EULA. Now even Homeland Security is on my back to upgrade and install a fix. I would be happy to install SP4 and all the security patches BUT ONLY IF IT IS DONE UNDER THE ORIGINAL EULA. Otherwise, Microsoft has made me an unwilling zombie. The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?"
That certain parts of the update required some sort of change to the EULA? Possibly a new feature or option that was not covered by the original?
Then again, you could always just not accept the EULA and not install it... despite what DHS says. That's why there's another option to select.
Every time I've tried Linux (Debian, Ubuntu and currently Suse) I've faced hardware problems as well as stupid things you need to hack some Make file or the kerner to get it to work. No thanks.
And every time i've used windows, i've faced viruses, nagging, spyware, intrusive spying, and massive inefficiency.
I guess it depends on which aggrivation you want.
Personally I'd prefer one time aggrivation of having to compile and configure things the hard way than continued slowdowns, viruses, hacking, and spyware.
The closest thing out there is OSX but it has the hardware vendor-lock-in problem
this is myth. OSX is a bsd derivitive. This means you can, with the installation of a few libraries (like libgtk), install most unix or linux apps if you don't like apple's stuff.
Granted i'm still quite paranoid over the TPM's on their new intel line, but I've temporarily gotten around that buy buying the last top of the line PPC. It works well, and 3/4 of the software I use is open source.
no i'm not a fanboy though.. if apple's software continues to lose efficiency and usability as has happened with quicktime and itunes on osX I will defect to kubuntu ; )
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't think it's quite that simple. For example, if the product was originally advertised as coming with "free security updates", then one could argue that Microsoft is obligated to provide the free updates they advertised under the same terms as the original product. If the EULA isn't enforceable for the original product, then it's probably not enforceable the the service pack. Another example is if you lawfully received the service pack without agreeing to an EULA beforehand (such as if you get an update CD from Microsoft). Or, certain terms in Microsoft's EULAs might also not be enforceable because of their the company's monopoly status.
I'm not actually saying that I *know* that an EULA wouldn't be enforceable, I'm saying that it's not wise to just assume that it is in all cases. Again, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
http://outcampaign.org/
Transport company X has a fleet of brand Y trucks. It is time to replace a portion of them. So they buy a handfull of brand Z trucks, park them at the entrance then invite the sales rep for brand Y to come by for a talk. "Well we have been thinking of upgrading our fleet of trucks. We are looking for offers, by the way have you seen those new Z trucks? Nice aren't they? So what kinda of deal can we expect from you?"
Then ask them wich OS they buy and how they deal with their OS seller. Watch them be confused.
It is sensible business. If you are a fleet manager and you would come to your boss saying, "Hi boss, I completely standarized on brand Y trucks, our repair shops can repair nothing else, our drivers can drive nothing else, our loading stations can accept nothing else, we are now one hundred procent at their mercy of brand Y. Oh hi Mr Sales rep from Brand Y, why are you grinning like that?"
Such a fleet manager would be fired in an instant.
In IT, that is what has been taking place for the last decade. The same trucking companies that do everything to get their trucks with the cheapest discount hand over their IT to companies selling just one solution and totally tie their entire company to just one supplier.
Insanity but when it comes to IT common business rules do seem to apply.
In holland the goverment tries to keep monopolies from happening. Market forces can after all only work if there is more then one player right?
So we get silly stuff like the attempt to run more then one company on the dutch rail system (crowded in a crowded country) or Shell being stopped from owning more highway gas stations. Or even sillier stuff like privatizing stuff like gas and elec even medical insurance. All meant to drive down price and all the price does is skyrocket up.
And what is done about the ultimate monopoly? Shit all. Forget Shell owning 80% of dutch highway gas stations. Try MS owning 9*% of all the worlds desktops.
Face it. IT doesn't follow normal rules. No you would not accept a new EULA (or any EULA at all) when your car company recalls your car to have your brakes fixed. In IT MS owns your ass and they can do whatever they want.
But it easy to buy another brand of truck. For proof, just look at your big local trucking company, they almost always got a handfull of trucks of another manufacturer. Keeps your supplier on its toes and the costs are trivial. Now try doing the same with computers. Oh it used to be done. Only a very BAD IT manager would not make sure that his IBM datacenter did not have a couple of Sun machines installed in plain sight. But when it comes to desktops we have come to accept lock-in (says a linux user and someone who refuses to answer personal ads that accept only .doc cv's) and we all can see the result.
Accept lock-in and get locked in. Yet the old trick does work. Look at munich. MS sales rep fell all over himself when he came into his clients office and saw the linux trucks parked outside. In fact MS wherever there is a rumor that a linux truck is even passing MS sends its sales reps with freebies and special deals. And still, the majority of sales meetings with MS go like this. "Ah thank you for your replying to my outlook email, can we shedule a meeting in outlook, I will get your details from access, to meet up and discuss us buying 100 more licenses, I will send you the details in a Word document, btw what kind of pricecut can we look forward too?"
You can hardly blame MS for it can you? Not their fault that everyone has their head up their ass when it comes to IT.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In any reasonable market, flaws impacting the safe use of a tool for its intended purpose should be fixed at the manufacturer's expense in a reasonable length of time.
If Microsoft isn't providing secure software (and yes, they aren't), then they should be providing free security fixes under the same terms they provided the original software. To do otherwise is (IMNSHO) to be an accessory to any illegal activities which occur as a result of the flaws.
You're ignoring the fact that the patch exists to fix flaws that are defects in the original product. The patch is released because the original was not as it was supposed to be.
I guess it would be helpful to know what modifications you're complaining about?
.NET3 for XP, - Which will differ how from WinFX for Vista?
I thought s/he made it clear enough - Any of them. When first installing any version of Windows, you have to agree to the EULA. Why should the terms of using the software change for a frickin' patch to repair their bugs?
Spoken like someone who has never written software of any consequence. All software has bugs. Do you consider every piece of software you own to be defective?
I've written in the gamut from firmware for bill accepters, to thinclient frontend code that runs on one of the world's major lotto machine vendor's hardware. Some might say that counts as "of consequence". And yes, all software has bugs.
The difference between me and Microsoft, I don't have the arrogance to say the bearer of my paycheck has to renegotiate every time someone finds a bug. In some markets, they call that "extortion". "Gee, really awful that your bill accepter sees the new $5 bills as $100s... Someone should patch that for you ASAP! I'd do it, but I already know what a nightmare the code looks like - But if you toss a new house my way, I suppose I could suffer throught it. Say, could you set me up with that new VP's cute daughter?".
OTOH, Microsoft's biggest problem here doesn't even come from the original product... They actually have the arrogance to use their "fixes" to beta-test their next-gen products on live systems in the wild. Consider just how different a fully updated 2000 looked from XP when XP first came out - Practically identical, I didn't even bother upgrading until my 2k box needed reinstallation (and even then, after XP SP2, it still looks and feels almost the same). And the most recent, we have
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Windows is only being modified in the sense that a Honda Civic is being modified when they replace a defective water pump with a working one. If there is a warranty then they are required to do it. Even if there isn't a warranty and there is a major defect in manufacture they might still have to do it (this is more of a gray area).
The windows box didn't advertise that it contained buffer overflows - this wasn't a feature that was purchased. The consumer wanted a working version of the software - this is what they paid for.
Now, paying for Media Player 10 vs Media Player 7 would certainly fall under the category of an enhancement. However, asking for a fix to a buffer overflow in Media Player 7 (without upgrading it to a later version) would not.
Basically, the issue is whether products are required to meet some basic standard of security for some period of time after release. Patches for 10-year-old Windows NT are one thing. Patches for software that was purchased six months ago are something else. Companies should be required to support software with security patches for at least a few years after they sell the last copy.