Slashdot Mirror
Are End Users to Blame for OS Flaws?
tomsHH writes to mention OSWeekly author Brandon Watts claims that really it is end users who should be blamed for many OS flaws. "Believe it or not, as users, we also have a large role to play in the evolution of an operating system. We use what's been created, and this means that we're the best people to turn to for judging what works and what doesn't. Passionate communities that are supportive aid development, and when users join their efforts to make their voices heard, this benefits everyone. Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input? Nothing changes by staying the same. Companies are listening, and as taboo as it may seem, most of them want to make their users happy, so if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard. If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development."
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, but the OS should be robust enough to deal with clumsy endusers.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Doesn't an OS flaw mean OS problem by definition, rather than user problem? /. users responsible for seeing this message I just saw: Nothing for you to see here. Please move along?
Are
We've been complaining about that message for quite some time now, it didn't go away.
You can't handle the truth.
Nope
Short Answer: No
Why would the end user be responsible? That's just silly. With that outlook Linux is going nowhere, thankfully most people will agree that this is crazy.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
No! Every mass market product needs to be made easy enough for most of the population to use. Blaming end users for not being IT majors is just ridiculous. If you needed an IT education to be able to use computers then they would still cost in the $10,00o's.
Blaming the end users is simply a cop out.
I found that to be an odd little opinion piece. It has something of the "chicken/egg" to it what with blaming users for not speaking up stridently enough... about the problems they have with the OS that... they didn't speak up stridently enough about?
I think that most OSes receive PLENTY of feedback, strident and otherwise about perceived flaws and issues.
This article is basically content free.
This article is nothing but flamebait intended to garnish click-through revenue regardless of whether you click on that Dice banner ad.
.they're just unpopular features!
I can't speak for others, but EVERY time I call support, I let them know if I think this was a crappy design, or oversight.
If it's a common issue, there will be plenty of people that do the same. The REAL issue, I think, is that the organizations I see DON'T use customer support calls as places to look for ways to improve the product.
I think most companies just see support as a neccesary evil, and not an easy way to see what your customers are wanting.
Most users don't know what the alternatives are. Though they know is that the bloated POS that they're using sucks, but they don't have the words or expertise to convey exactly how it sucks. I think what most users want is an OS that's fast, easy, works every time, and isn't ugly to look at.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Linux users have another option not mentioned that isn't available to Windows or Mac-OS users... they can quietly/publicly vent, and then write a patch to fix the problem.
I work on a program with somewhere between 100,000-400,000 users. That's a relatively small market compared to OSes. Even with relatively few users, there's far too many voices for suggestions to listen to. Users ask how to submit wishes, but it's really not worth it for us to make it easy. There's already far too many wishes just from our beta testers, not to mention that many requests are either contradictory, would break the database model we've developed, or are in fact already in the program and they just haven't realized it. And that's not counting the fact that my fellow developers, marketers, and I have our own "brilliant" ideas on how to best improve the program.
So I can't see blaming the users; I couldn't listen to all of them even if they were trying to tell us about their problems.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about making you or I happy. They care about corporate customers with support contracts and umpteen-hojillion seats.
Even if you are heard, however, you're likely to be ignored. It's only when hundreds or thousands of voices in chorus ask for the same thing that any major developer gives a damn.
This is an exceptionally ignorant thing to say, unless we're speaking exclusively about Open Source or Free Software or something, and we are not. Linux is driven by two groups; one is the major companies which cater to paying customers. If you have purchased a large support contract, they care about you. Otherwise not. The other group is the hobbyists. They want to implement first those things which they think would be cool, second those things which they think are necessary (these may be swapped depending on sensibilities) and third any other feature they think is cool, or would teach them something, or which would get them some props. This last can be the most powerful motivator but usually the competent are not the greatest seekers of glory.
Compare this to a commercial corporation that only cares if you are important to the bottom line, and you will see how lame the comparison is.
Let me tell you what companies actually care about: Money. No one cares if you say that you want the product to do X, unless lots of other people said it. But if a product comes out that does what you want and you buy it, well, that sort of thing tends to be noticed. People will then emulate that product, trying to give you what you want.
Vote with your dollars. End of story, unless it's a free-as-in-beer Linux, and then you're either stroking someone's ego or helping their bottom line by growing their installed base and making their distribution look more desirable to corporate customers. If it's free-as-in-beer, vote with your feet, same concept. By all means tell people what you want, but don't expect to get it because unless everyone else wants it, you're probably not going to get it - again, if it's commercial.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If every OS and app was perfect and foolproof then gazillions of us techs would not be needed.
See where I'm heading...!?
AT&ROFLMAO
Seriously. People demand flashy new features, even if it means occasional (or even frequent) crashes and problems. Nobody says "I will only buy the upgrade to this operating system if it is more and stable." They say "I will only buy the upgrade if it supports more games, or more digital cameras, or has more flashy eye candy."
I'll leave it as an exercise to the interested reader to figure out how to get people to change their attitudes.
Now Microsoft might not be to blame for the mismanagement of Atari and Commodore, but they are certainly to blame for the massive efforts they have expended on controlling the expectations of their key markets. For more than a decade computer users thought it was perfectly acceptably to use buggy software that crashed often because they didn't know any better. To accuse the end users of not being better educated is a sad excuse that seems short sighted in the extreme. What are they suppose to expect when software that crashes frequently is all they have ever known? Are they suppose to all run off and study the history of computers so they can more critically examine the market and cast better informed economic votes?
I'm certainly not against the idea of having better educated consumers. I can't help but see education doing anything but helping most situations. Yet in most cases people view a computer as an appliance like a toaster or a refrigerator. They don't want to know how it works, they don't want to hear about regular maintenance plans or upkeep schedules. They just want it to work. And I really don't see that as being a horribly unreasonable expectation.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
How is Linux progressing proof that companies are listening?
For an OS, I would say that is to avoid intentionally running undesired code. If the OS doesn't clear this hurdle (MS clearly does not), then all the feedback in the world will do nothing.
No, instead it's irresponsible coders.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO BE AN OPERATING SYSTEM EXPERT.
Users should use computers as tools. There are responsibilities. But users are hapless. My aunt doesn't have to know about overhead cams to drive to work, and people shouldn't have to know about 64-bit Vista WiFi drivers to logon.
Plainly, some people are irresponsible and you can't catch idiocy no matter how you try-- nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious. But OS makers have a hallowed responsibility to make their targeted users both produtive and protected. To say otherwise, is hubris.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Microsoft tried that late in Vista development at the Shell: Revealed forums. We voiced many concerns, only a few of which got any attention, much of it hand-waving. No one from MS has posted there in a while now, so users have stopped too. A post about the new backup program, sdclt.exe and how much functionality it lacks compared to the old one, ntbackup.exe, was even deleted.
Someone at Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to get some public feedback on Vista development. Late, but good. But then, they didn't listen to our feedback. Some of the stuff we brought up should have been pretty easy to fix, but was blown off instead.
I remember reading the column Antigravity in SciAm one month.. it was about mob mentality.
I can't remember the details well, but the general idea was that there was a sunken submarine and two ways were used to find it.
The first was a sort of mob mentality method. A bunch of brilliant minds were brought together and asked to come up with one location they thought the submarine could be found at.
The second was an interesting twist on the mob mentality. They asked each person individually where they thought the sub would be found. They then averaged all the locations together and used the answer as the final location.
Guess what? The first group was way, way off on finding the sub.
The second? They were within less than a miles of the exact location.
I leave interpretation of these reults as they relate to this article up to you.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
yes, yes it does.
It depends, consider opening an infected email attachment. That act is the user's fault and problem.
Worse still there is a certain OS that pretty much requires the user to constantly be in a super-privileged mode, or else have to log in and out to achieve certain tasks (I know they tried to fix that with a "cancel or allow" but that only forces more responsibility on our poor user).
Now consider the damage that can be done to this OS from a user's mistake, and then compare it to the damage done on a system where they only have authority over their own files.
This argument can then be extended to say that the files most users care about are pictures and movies instead of the system itself (much like a house). But I'm not sure if any OS has a feature that allows a user to not be able to write over their own files (kind of like a root only for a user's home directory instead of the whole filesystem)
A question like this does not have a black or white answer.
There is an ad there?
I mean, nobody knew ahead of time that WinXP's vulnerabilities would make it ideal for creating an army of bots. If somebody only told Microsoft, they'd sit up and listen.
In all fairness, he was wrong. A bot probes my internet address every few minutes. And most of the addresses come from my local ISP's block. It's no secret which computers are compromised, just as it's no secret the ISP doesn't care. It's cheaper to turn a blind eye and provide the bandwidth for patently illegal activity then it is to turn off the offender's accounts, and deal with angry, uneducated end-users.
If they keep buying flawed operating systems.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
but my grandma is unable to debug the TCP/IP stack in Windows Vista. She relies on other people to provide her decent networking protocols so she can play online bingo with my great aunts.
If nobody RTFA then there would be no click through revenue and this type of crappiness would go away.
Anyway, this is slashdot. You don't need to RTFA to express an opinion!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
OS flaws are inherently flaws in the code itself. The end users are not the ones that are the ones that programmed the OS in the first place.
:)
Regardless, the end users actions often do bring their problems on themselves. They do this by opening email attachments with exe, bat, etc... extensions. They do it by surfing the web with Internet Exploder. They do it by not having Antivirus/Anti-Spyware/Basic Firewalls set up to prevent this.
People do not need to be IT professionals, they just need to have a slightly more cautious experience online. This means not opening spam email, not clicking on attachments from people you dont know and most of all installing 'The Basics' (Spybot, Avast Anti-Virus, turning on Windows Firewall as sucky as it it)... Or they could switch to Linux and the problems would end up 'How come I cant play <insert video game here>'
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
You know, I did exactly just that and offered Microsoft a few ideas as to how they could improve Windows Vista (done during their beta program). And you know what Billg said to me? "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft."
The developers are listening to the wrong people.
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
Good luck getting you point across on the first level!
Or - the other option: Email to support over a web page.
About three email exchanges, you may be lucky to hit pay dirt!
You may be heard, if you threaten legal action - otherwise, just forget it!
That's for corporate efficiency. Who pays? The customer with his/her time.
If you wear a skirt that short, you deserve to get Windows Media DRMed.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I wouldn't go so far as to shift the blame for poor OS design on end-users. The problem may partly be with the end users, but I wouldn't think mostly or completely so. Furthermore, I would state that the lack of change in OS design is something we can blame end-users for largely. Fact is, people generally do not like change, and are too often far too short-sighted and unreceptive to improvements that may significantly benefit them long term.
...its Microsoft, in which case its the stupidest idea he's heard since he started working for Microsoft.
lol: You see no door there!
I don't know about software, but I think glue usage is responsible for this article's shittyness.
So if I download some software for the first time, and it's faulty, I'm to blame for not having downloaded it and filed bug reports in a past life?
On bugzilla.mozilla there was a feature that allowed users to vote for particular bugs they felt required attention. However the mozilla developers *never* responded except to close the bug (unfixed or unimplemented) at the bottom of two hundred pleas. The only exception was to implement the suggestion of the high-vote bug to 'remove the voting system from bugzilla' as it gave the false impression that users had any influence on development.
This Breaks OS's
I don't mean all users, but every year I expect that much more from my computer/OS and in general user demands are rising.
Computers aren't a stable technology - in the sense that they aren't done evolving by any means, and user demands are high enough to create scarcity in the 'computer resources' available, forcing the continued expansion of OSs. It's a good thing that Users are Too Blame for the bugs in OSs, that's what's driving the evolution of the market.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
let's suppose an IT manager of a 200 person company has the choice between windows and OSX (I'm assuming mostly non-technical lusers hence didn't offer linux); the former requires a team of 20 people (providing extended hours support) and a budget for hardware and software of say 100,000; the latter needs only 8 people and one half the budget.
now, if this is a typical corporate, the IT manager's status/influence is proportional to his budget and staffing, so is he really going to go for OSX, shrink his department and budget? Sure, he'll win kudos for a short while, but one year later when there's far less support activity, the desktop apps are more reliable, crash less, need less anti-virus emergency activities etc, the directors will question the need for a big-shot manager and recruit someone cheaper.
it's in the interests of a typical corporate IT department to have imperfect systems and build up a big team. have you ever been anywhere where IT departments *voluntarily* shrank?
aside: ever noticed how personnel ("HR") departments never shrink, even when there's a hiring freeze or even the business is shrinking? Of course not, most admin departments become a circular chain of work generation and recruitment.
But its not their fault the OS has holes. Nor should they be 'techie' enough to understand how to avoid them.
"i installed this new program i got in an email" which turned out to be a worm is just part of the world today. But getting hit with a buffer overflow and turned into a spambot just from viewing a image on a webpage, shouldnt be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I first read that headline as "Are End Users to Blame for OS Wars?"
...For a minute I actually pondered it. What the hell is wrong with me?
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
What a ridiculous little ad-filled blurb this is. This is a "column"? My mother could have written a more insightful technology column, and she doesn't even use computers.
More infuriating is his use of the term "OS". What exactly are these user level features you are adding to your "OS"? Oh, right, things like internet browsers. Of course.
This reads like it was written by grade school student.
This wouldn't even pass as an insightful technical column on CNN. What is it doing here?
while you are at it, to make a bug report to Microsoft. I have never been able to find it. If they want to hear from the users, how about opening a channel?
This is a stupid argument.
The users don't work collectively. Nor can we do anything except complain about the software flaws, which is a method that manifests itself by blaming the developers.
So the argument seems to be we shouldn't blame the developers. We should blame ourselves for not blaming the developers.
When did I become a programmer for Microsoft?
It's my fault for finding the errors, okay.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
As long as end users are receiving messages like this this blaming the end user is still a bit of a stretch. What will really make a difference is when competition returns in full force to the operating system market. It took over a decade of the Big 3 auto makers making the automotive equivalent of a turd before the Japanese auto makers began to see large market gains, and the drivers didn't need to become mechanics in order to make that happen.
Suggesting that the end user, the same people that answer "Word" when you ask them where they saved their file, could offer meaningful programming suggestions isn't very practical. End users aren't programmers and beyond feature requests or UI suggestions I can't really see them offering much. I apologize to those that like more in depth car analogies. It's been a long day and I just couldn't bring myself to try harder.
load "$",8,1
What a silly question! End users include the adult industry, who produce erotic materials and various other distractions that [raises voice here] cause stupid programmers to waste all their time jacking off and forget checking input string lengths thereby introducing remote root vulnerabilities in the OS kernels! Why did I never think of it before? Pure genius.
The question should be: which *type* of design flaws is thinking-about-the-users responsible for? And is it actually possible to overcome this?
Let's take any random end-user. Now out of the total population of end-users, how many know how to code? How many have the time to learn how to code? Very little, and not many more. Now let's say you have the option between using 3 operating systems: Windows, Mac, and *NIX/BSD. If neither operating system has a feature that you suddenly desire and you are already using one, let's say Windows, is it your fault if that feature doesn't exist? Hardly. It's only your fault if you switch from one place to another when the feature doesn't exist in either place and then refuse to do anything about it other than bitch. If OSX10.5 doesn't have some feature that you needed after you started using OSX10.4, it's only your fault if you switch to 10.5. It's not your fault if you stay with 10.4. Likewise, it's not your fault if Windows Vista doesn't have drivers for some piece of hardware, but it is your fault if you switch from XP to Vista when XP did everything you needed/desired other than the specific driver support.
Re: "Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input?"
Why, yes, yes I have. Microsoft, I would like all your software to be placed under the GPL.
Apple, you, too.
This solution is offered constructively with the full knowledge, based on experience, that GPL'd software is better, in so many ways.
Thank you for heeding my suggestion.
How are end-users to blame for ActiveX? Or the .wmf vulnerability? Or just the general fact that Windows allows remote computers to put settings in the registry without the user's consent? Oh, sure, there's plenty that can be done about these flaws, and MS finally patched the .wmf vulnerability after several years, but the fact that these "features" are there in the first place show that security was way down the list of priorities for a long time. If security had been a priority at all, at the very least allowing registry changes, running Active X or a .wmf would have required the user to input the admin password, just like in the entire world of Unix years before Dos even existed.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I found a bug recently in an administrative template that shipped with the initial release of Office 2007. I spent a lot of my own time determining that there was a bug, and exactly what it was. I *fixed* the bug.
/all..."
I went to Microsoft to report the bug and offer the fix. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the front door. There was one little door off to the side, but the bouncer wanted almost $200 to get through it. I found a large group of people congregating in the parking lot around a few guys with "MVP" badges. Figuring that the MVPs must be representing the company somehow, I told one of them about the problem. He repeated everything I said back to him, and then read something out of a manual. I explained to him that I wasn't having trouble understanding how the software was supposed to work, but I was there to report that the software was not working as documented. He repeated everything I had just said, then everything he had previously said, then everything I originally said, and then asked me about my network settings. I said, "no no, you don't understand. Here's the problem, and here is the fix." I handed him a copy of the exact instructions to fix the problem, and awaited his response. Perhaps a big smooch on the cheek and a check for $50!? No, he just stared off blankly for a while and then started asking some other guy for his network settings. "Click start. Click run. Enter cmd and press enter. Type ipconfig
I was a little disappointed that I didn't even get a hug or anything for solving a problem for the company who I had just given 24,000 dollars to earlier in the year, but I went away certain that the trustworthy MVP personally delivered my complaint to the proper executives once he had ascertained his daily quota of network settings. I mean, the MVPs can get past the bouncer, right? Of course, of course.
You know, sometimes bitching on the web 2.0 is all we got.
I do not agree. Most companies make it far too difficult to make contact with a real living breathing person. A recent problem with Yahoo mail led to a string of three near identical robo-messages, all of which explained patiently how I should configure Internet Explorer to work best with their service.
Problem was I was using a Mac, which hasn't had IE since version 5.5. No way could I get robo-support to acknowledge that important detail.
Customer support is viewed as an expense, not an investment, and the less people who make it past brain dead on-line help schema, user forums, and hidden e-mail links the less has to be spent responding to them.
In any event, if you're selling a critical application like an Operating system then yes, I have every right to insist that it does what you say, in the manner that you say it will, and that you will disclose any known problems or dangers in a forthright fashion.
If I'm using freeware or open source products I gladly help out with bug reports and beta testing.
If, as is the case with most major software packages, I am being asked to pay several hundred dollars I expect that you should maintain a well trained staff whose job it is to find and fix problems. That's part of what I'm paying for.
Three Squirrels
I spent a good amount of time on the phone with Microsoft maybe the day before yesterday, trying to raise some issues with the Intellipoint software. First there was the thorough questioning regarding my identity and product (Microsoft optical trackball, I have purchased over a dozen the past several years because I will use no other input device and therefore require backups should my current devices-in-use ever fail) and tried to mention this fact in passing so they would know I've been a loyal customer who's sent a good amount of money their way. Finally when I got to speak to somebody about the issue, it was clear he was powerless to do anything other than treat it as if it were a personal issue. I informed him that the outdated version 4.1 of the Intellipoint drivers I possessed on my disc worked for gaming universally in my experiences, but with every version since including the current 6.2 there are problems with many games if they don't natively support five button input devices. Attempting to use Intellipoint to assign keystrokes to the buttons for game functions _does not work_. With XP I was fine installing my old drivers, but with Vista they have forced the upgrade which breaks numerous games old and new (the recently released Penumbra Overture demo being one example). I could even provide them with a workaround I'd found: if you alt+tab out of the game then back in, the buttons will begin working. The problem--as I attempted to explain to him--was that no Windows PC game developer will support alt+tab. In every readme I've ever browsed, it explicitly says alt+tab is not supported, and for good reason: many games become unstable and therefore this workaround does not help me but perhaps it could help the developers address the issue for future versions. Intellipoint still works with Windows applications like Paintshop Pro, afterall. I had already searched the support site and found no solutions, so I knew that attempting to solve it at the moment was futile and attempted to point this out. Still, he wanted time to look into it and would call me back an hour or two later. It's worth pointing out that the support representative was kind and sincerely wanted to help, he just didn't seem to grasp everything I was explaining nor understand the implications of what I was calling about. To illustrate this, he suggested things like reinstalling the software (been there, done that. Done it on numerous clean installations as well); reciting the steps to assign the keystrokes to buttons (kindly reminded him that this the issue in the first place); informing me that my particular pointing device was no longer in production (yes but the issue appears to be with the general Intellipoint, not my specific trackball because it's just one of the recognized devices Intellipoint incorporates). Again I tried to explain that all I was looking for was some avenue that I might raise this to their attention so _just maybe_ it can be addressed when they look to release their next version. It's worth noting that over on the Adobe support forums it has been recently discovered that a conflict exists between Photoshop CS3 and Intellipoint specifically, causing Photoshop to crash, therefore I get the feeling that a new version is not long away. But despite this one nice guy who genuinely wanted to do his job, no such avenue exists and this issue was essentially falling on Microsoft's deaf ears. So in my personal case on record it's noted as an unresolved issue which doesn't relate to anybody apart from myself and does not solve anything in having it examined and perhaps even remedied. So even when you have a reproducible issue and try to give them complete information on it, I don't believe it's often possible to get that information to the right people so it can be addressed.
I am no more qualified to offer constructive input on say... the vexing issue of BSODs than a typical Microserf programmer is qualified to suggest design improvements to the combustion chamber in the engine of the next generation Honda. Sorry I'm not gonna sit here and take ANY blame for Win95,98,ME,NT,2000,XP, or Vista.
-- QED
What? What planet does he come from? Ever tried to find a feedback form on a major software co's site? And don't cheat by using the sales enquiry area. You may get a pay-per-incident phone no. at best. And hope that you don't get placed on hold.
OK.
NOT!
Thanks for the choice.
I do resist being held responsible for the flaws in Windows. Windows was not made according to user specs. It's made according to industry specs. And no, not the industry that wants to use it. The various small and (more) large conglomerations that want their "rights" protected, and of course MS that wants its interests protected. Or could anyone tell me why a user of the product would want DRM, or would want to have the parts of the system so intermingled that you can't replace or remove the parts you do not want or you want from a third party?
In OSS, the user has actually a voice and more often than not, it gets heeded. Especially since some OSS developers open themselves to funding from their users. Of course, many OSS projects first and foremost follow that their inventor had in mind. That's a given. Funny enough, it often also matches the needs of their users. And many, larger, projects implement what their users suggest.
For those bugs, I do gladly take the blame. But certainly not for software that was made with completely different needs in mind than mine, or that of any other user.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"It just works"
"Easiest version ever"
"Simple as 1, 2, 3"
"Point and click"
"Set up for wireless in minutes!"
Seems to me that the companies are to blame for the gap between what the marketing guys say and the reality, not the users.
Last time I checked, nobody told me my car could withstand 60 mph head on with a bridge embankment so I don't treat it that way.
Likewise, last time I checked Microsoft and Apple could give two shits about what the knowledgeable geeks had to say about it and went for the dumb grandma dumb enough to pay full retail for the box at WalMart.
If it's an OS, people ARE told to treat it that way and it doesn't always work out so well.
So fire your marketing department, or make a better OS, or shut the fuck up cuz it sure as hell is not the users fault.
Only the FreeOS guys get anywhere close, "oh just [execute obscure and difficult to find script on some oddly formatted config files here] and it will work". With them, at least I know what the tasks are.
Please don't put the blame on the end user, it's not their fault that software sucks.
Windows - This OS sucks because it's made by a company that doesn't give a shit about the end user. All Microsoft cares about is money.. and it doesn't matter to them if their crapware works as advertised. Vista anyone?
Linux - This OS is awesome.. most of the time. There are Linux developers who write software and then rely on the community to do the testing - which is entirely wrong. It's not the job of the community to fix your bugs.
If you write software, you should know your own code, and that means you know where the bugs are. If you release buggy software, you're simply showing how well you'd fit in at Microsoft.
Blame end users for OS flaws? That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft...
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
That's the last line of the article. Really.
If I tell Microsoft that this feature shouldn't be doing this and instead should be working this way do you honestly think that Microsoft is going to listen and then make the change? No they won't. They will only make the change if enough users complain about and the change and it will be made in 6-12 months if you are lucky. Our company has complained to Microsoft about windows update going to 100% cpu for 5-10 minutes and crashing on laptops because they can't handle it (we are using WSUS). This has been reported as an issue by many users 6months+ ago yet Microsoft still haven't released a fix. I have heard that it will be fixed in windows update 3, but still the fact is Microsoft don't care about the end users, only it's profits.
> It's not as much as restricting them but actually minimizing damage control.
I wonder. I mean, we've already got UAC whose main function seems to make sure that the user is to blame for clicking the wrong Allow button out of the many they get pestered with, while simultaneously training them, in Pavlovian fashion, to click Allow to every prompt they see just to get it to leave them the hell alone.
I think that:
1) No: Robustness and good design are done by engineers, not users. If you don't design well from the beginning, you will not get good software.
2) Yes: Users, by their choices in which software to use affect which programs live and die. They help engineers understand what they need.
The customer is not always right. If they were, I would not have customers. But the customer is *always* the expert on what the customer needs.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
End users should vote with their feet and wallets, well - so should drivers. But in the face of marketing, the disconnect between consumers and decision makers, the resistance to do things right (airbags, abs, etc.) IP issues (intermittent wipers)... Good luck with that.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Years ago, my boss asked me to write a program. I did, and I presented it to him. I asserted that it was finished, and he confidently mashed keys into the input and... core dump. The argument that as a user, he should at least have an idea what needs to be put into that field didn't fly at all. Nor should it. My program was broke, and I had to fix it. This went on a few times before I realized that, "if my program breaks, it's my fault not the end-users. and if I'm so bold as to ask the user for input, I had better be able to deal with anything they might enter. it's never safe to assume when dealing with ignorance or that many unknowns."
If a program breaks or has a flaw, it's not the end-users fault. Period.
End users - real people - are hardly to blame - Microsoft gives their needs short shrift when compared to volumne corporate IT users. It's those idiots with million dollar orders that cause MS marketing to force developers to rush out changes without concern for their impact on security. So, it's corporate IT and their ill-cosidered requests compounded by MS marketing's naked aggressive pursuit of the almighty dollar componded by just average outsourced OS development shops where the blame lies...
Oh. We're discussing software markets. Sorry about that slip-up.
(I'll save you all the trouble: -1 Troll)
Have gnu, will travel.
Nor the royalties i impose on my copyrighted drm'd fixes for them :)
You don't want end users designing software. I drive every day - does that mean I know the best way to make a car? Developers can modify systems based on user feedback, but what's more important is watching someone actually use the system and see how it works for them. Most people just accept what they're given and don't think about it.
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
>> Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input?
OK.
1)
Dear Microsoft,
Please fix Vista so it doesn't use 11GB of disk space and 750MB of ram with no apps running. You can do this by removing all the redundant apps and other bloat from the default install that you've added since XP, which didn't take anything like all those resources yet still contains nearly all the fucntionality that Vista does.
Please add a "I'm not a beginner" mode to windows, so Windows stops bugging me everytime I do anything, and so I can put my files anywhere I like and not where Vista tells me.
Also Marketing were wrong. please put the drive choices and graphical progress indication back in Disk Defrgamenter gui.
Love,
Niz.
2)
Now according to you, I just need to wait for the fix because Microsoft pays attention to its users, right?
My damn automatic cupholder quit working. I called Dell but they just laughed at me.
What kind of company just laughs at their customers???
End users should be heard.
And the developer should be the one to init this process. The should show their respect at least on the support forum.
The only purpose of OS is to serve end-users! Yes, through the applications in the client environment, and through the serving (or storing) correct data as a server OS.
If OS is made for the user, it has to be usable by the user, and has to be strong enough to withstand all the abuse that the user would naturally through at it!
Most end users (normal people) don't know what OS stands for; think Windows is computers and that Mac is quite freaky (no offense, but it is.) Crashes are, to them, a normal side effect of using computers. If the "end users" don't give a damn, why should we!
Tron showed us this. How dare you question the sacred word?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
"If your Aunt buys her PC with all the features she wants, and vista installed, she shouldn't have to install any drivers. It's only when she installs her own wifi card that she needs to get into drivers."
And here's the problem with the "It's too complicated under hood" argument. Those drivers could already be located on the card in firmware. The only thing the OS writer would have to worry about is keeping a consistent interface.
"To return to your car analogy -- if you want to install your own stereo system, you're either gonna have to know something about stereo systems, or you're gonna have to take your car to a qualified professional. The same applies to computers -- either you need to know what you're doing, or take your system to a qualified professional."
Or have a physical design that allows one to take the stereo out, and insert another in. True PnP.
"Modern technological tools are complicated."
The problem isn't complexity. It's how complexity is handled that's the problem. Remember when VCR's needed their clocks set. e.g. the blinking 12:00? Now they either read the Boulder Colorado clock, or a timebase the network puts out. Remember when you had to have to fine-tune channels using tiny knobs? Now we have PLLs. Saying something is complicated is just an excuse to throw one's hands up and give up instead of even trying for a solution.
Your aunt wasn't just given a car and told "have fun!" Driving a car is insanely complicated. There are thousands of little rules and laws to remember, all kinds of crazy crap going on all around you at all times, and you have to be aware of all of it while piloting a 3000 pound piece of metal at 70mph down a congested freeway. And that's just to drive it! To keep it running you have to know to get the oil changed every so often, and when it starts acting up, you wouldn't just take it to the mechanic and say "Car stopped working" or "The car's broken" -- you'd describe what sound it was making, when it started, and under what conditions it occurs.
To keep it legal you have to remember to get insurance, keep that up to date, maintain a sane policy, get your tags renewed every so often, get your license renewed every so often.. the list is practically endless.
Your aunt isn't a mechanic, but she sure as fuck wasn't born knowing any of this. She, like eveyrone else, accepted the fact that to operate this device you have to learn some things.
With computers we take the opposite approach. People see it as perfectly acceptable to take a multi-thousand-dollar machine and go "Heeee, I'm not a computer person! I don't need to know anything!" No one is asking them to know how to compile their TCP/IP stack or write software drivers. We're asking them the equivalent of knowing "This is the brake, this is the gas, if you have a problem pull over, and don't forget to change the oil." They don't even have to know how to change the oil themselves -- as long as they can describe what needs to be done to someone else. Which most people can't. (Aren't we all tired of hearing "the system is broken" from users?)
Guys, this isn't 1980. People who live in first-world countries and are old enough to have jobs are old enough to know a bit about computers, the foundation of the modern business world, without which most people wouldn't even have jobs. And among those who use computers only in a non-professional capacity you still have to wonder why they thought they could just latch on and not learn anything in the past ten years.
Operating systems all have a way to go; they annoy even the most technologically savvy among us with their various quirks. But as anyone who has ever worked a help desk can tell you, 95% of user problems are caused by the user. A computer may be a tool but for some reason people accept that to use any other tool, knowledge is required. Somehow we don't let that carry over to the computing world.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
sure... helping helps the open source process.
But for Proprietary Software..... FUCK NO! I've had it with that trip of debugging someone else software where they insist they won't help the feedback loop but then want me to pay them for the software they improved due my debugging efforts. There is of course a spectrum here, where some few are decent enough to give back to those who have helped.
I think everyone who deal with proprietary software should NOT provide feedback. If proprietary development is so Fucking smart (grabbing patents on what some customer probably suggested to them), then why need I do anything to benefit them and their bias when paying them for their buggy user unfriendly software is enough.
IS there really this sort of problem with Open Source?
If there is I suspect its because proprietary software companies have polluted the minds of those complaining and not helping Open source with Feedback. Or its a long buildup of frustration with proprietary software with no outlet that open source now provides an outlet.
The thing is that users don't complain about the same sort of things we of the technological elite complain about. They don't care about security flaws and software drivers and open versus closed source and incompatable codecs and all the rest.
No, users complain about much more mundane things, and call them flaws. "The computer is slow!" they cry. "I can't find anything!" they gripe. "Whaddya mean my internet is slow, I got broadband!" they whine.
Then we sigh and look and sure enough, the computer is "slow" because the user has ten IE windows open, fifteen random things in the systray, god knows what kind of crapware in the background, and it's anyone's guess when this thing was last defragged.
They "can't find anything" because their desktop is a solid mass of random documents, icons, shortcuts, and whatever else. If they actually remember to save it somewhere other than the desktop it's usually in My Documents, with such descriptive names as "Copy of Research Report of TPS Quality(1)(2).doc" or "New Text Document.txt".
Their "internet is slow" because they have ten computers connected via a hub to a router which goes to another router "because the cable was too short", their intern or kid is torrenting all kinds of stuff, someone is sending a fifteen meg email attachment, and all kinds of malware is sending who-knows-what to who-knows-where in the background.
My point here is that the things users complain about are things the users usually bring on themselves. Of course, they don't realize this, so they blame Microsoft, Windows, "the computer", or the IT staff, but their perception doesn't change the facts.
So, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "shortcomings" of an OS. The qustion here is somewhat loaded, as it presupposes that the user is the one making the complaint, in which case the user is almost always the one to blame and the OS is doing exactly what was asked of it. Whether that's a "flaw" of the OS depends on your point of view, but on the rare occasions that the OS tries to curb a user from doing stupid stuff we mock that, too. ("Cancel or Allow?")
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
You say:
"Operating systems all have a way to go; they annoy even the most technologically savvy among us with their various quirks. But as anyone who has ever worked a help desk can tell you, 95% of user problems are caused by the user. A computer may be a tool but for some reason people accept that to use any other tool, knowledge is required. Somehow we don't let that carry over to the computing world."
That's what I'm getting at. Imagine an OS that would let an application infect it. Imagine an OS that would let a user-inserted component be introduced that would render it as a bot. Imagine an OS that contains a program that would let one accidently format the storage upon which it rests. Imagine the third party industry that's grown around not letting users hurt themselves with the operating system. Those shouldn't really exist.... along the lines that Bruce Shieir (sp?) believes that the security industry would be downsized dramatically if OS makers reduced the attack profiles of their kernel and core utilities. There's something to that. Even when things ostensibly work, they can blow up days of work. Or they can allow someone in St Paul MN to logon to a WEP network and infect a corporate computing system that allows millions of dollars worth of credit card records to be stolen (the Marshall's-TJ Max scandal).
It'll never be a perfect world. But there are few on slashdot that haven't had to nurse someone's sick Win2K or XP system back to health for them-- or have indeed encountered the results of poor quality OS design. And it's not limited to Windows, OSX has the same problems, and it's wicked-easy to have a supposedly trained user do something dangerously stupid with Linux in any incarnation.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"...if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard. If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development."
That's the real problem - the squeaky wheel gets the grease, or in other words, strong personalities tend to dominate, regardless of their technical knowledge or ability. It worked that way with 386BSD, it worked that way with Linux, and it's worked that way with almost every other software project out there, open source or not.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Whoever wrote this article is clueless. The end user has no fucking interest in software development or suggesting improvements or bug fixes. They want a tool that works to do a job that for most users has nothing to do with software development.
Do you buy a hammer, then when it breaks criticise the user for not mailing the company about it? If you did would you expect them to change their manufacture process? No, it's a shitty hammer and you don't buy another one from the same company. You have no interest in making hammers better, just driving in the nail to accomplish a task.
Software ships every day with heinous and obvious bugs to meet an arbitrary deadline. It's correct to blame the developers and testers for choosing meeting the deadline over fixing the product.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Does this pretty well. At least much better than earlier versions of Windows. Often the buttons themselves are large and give a description of what they do on the button, and not just a yes or no answer to a question. My grandparents actually bought a new PC with Vista and they...like it better than their old one. Which is completely backwards, since they're 70+ and had learned just enough to use the old one...and with so many changes I figured they would give up and stop using it altogether. (Granted, they did upgrade from Win ME, which even Balmer or Gates would probably publicly admit was total shit.)
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input?
There's three problems with this concept:
The first is that you're ignoring 20+ years of technically competent people telling non-technical people that they are morons for not being able to understand the systems, this has lead to a lot of people assuming that they are immediately wrong.
The second is that often end users have been making awesome suggestions for decades, but developers don't understand or don't care to understand what the users are saying.
The third problem is that computer systems are often so complex that users don't truly understand what they want, just what they don't want. It can be exceptionally hard to clearly and definitively make a technical suggestion when you don't understand the technical problem space that you're dealing with. They need people who can interpret what they want to developers. Every other industry has them, why not ours?
Companies are listening, and as taboo as it may seem, most of them want to make their users happy, so if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard.
Companies are starting to think that it might be a good idea that maybe they should listen to someone that they consider might be a user, or perhaps that that they are listening but, in while reality they are not. Most of them don't even understand the difference between Business Process Requirements and User Requirements.
If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development.
Bad example. Until very recently, most nix distributions couldn't give a flying hoot about the end users experience. Can't you remember the 'in crowd' jokes that went along the lines of "Linux is very user friendly, it's just picky on who it's friends are"? Really, caring about non-technical users is extremely new in *nix care factor, and it's only there because they need non-technical users to get general acceptance in the home market.
For software developers, perhaps you could develop an attractive solution, and for users, maybe you could put forth more of an effort to speak up and become involved with this tool that you use everyday so that you can make it better now and for the future.
There is only one way for that to work, software developers have to bother to listen to them in constructive ways and in general the way that software developers listen to customers at the moment is very, very poor.
I've been a Usability Specialist for a few years now and before that I spent a lot of time in Customer Support. Customers have been complaining for years, upon years, upon years. The real fault lies at the heart of the problem, the people who make software don't listen to their users - for whatever reasons.
Are automobile drivers responsible for the design flaws in their cars?
I worked for HP between 1979-1989. When I did my "induction", one of the things I was introduced to was the "HP Way". This was basically the 10 commandments as spelled out by Bill and Dave.
There were lots of things in there about customer satisfaction and quality and stuff, but guess what was number 1?
MAKE A PROFIT
I don't know if this has changed at all, but I guess it's still a valid way to run a business.
I'm in to sadism, bestiality and necrophilia. Am I flogging a dead horse?
The problem is simply that no one is held responsible for crap they sell. Go back all the way to the original 1987 internet worm that propagated through a flaw in the sendmail version distributed by Sun. Sun should have been held responsible for the problem in their expensive OS distribution instead of pretending that all internet users would always be polite and never do that again. Instead, we set the stage for a vendor with even less concern for security to freely dump its wares on everyone's desktop without a thought of responsibility for the subsequent problems.
...and you know what the biggest problem is with end users, besides the lack of comments? Spaghetti code. Have you ever TRIED to unravel a strand of DNA? I think we need to rewrite users from the ground up, get rid of all the legacy code, institute better security measures and coding practices from SQUARE ONE. Only THEN will open source software gain ground on the desktop. Also, as a side note, we need to make sure that the human genome conforms to the LKML coding style, because once end users are accepted into the kernel, guess who has the responsibility to maintain them for the next 20 years? Too many people think that as soon as the Kernel programmers allow them to be born they can just give up trying to improve this contribution to LINUX. This attitude needs to be corrected. Remember: LINUX kernel programmers are doing you a favour, and LINUX is free and open source and these people are donating their time. If you don't like their end user requirements, there is nothing preventing you from forking off into the afterlife.
Q. Are End Users to Blame for OS Flaws?
A. Yes. It's their own fault for buying a computer with a flawed OS, instead of a Mac.
[ducks]
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Microsoft certainly would like you to think that they are.
Why, yes! I AM new here.
Who should decide whether a piece of code run in user/kernel space?
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Yes! The Users get what they want. I was more than once in a situation when I wanted, as an administrator, a decision from my boss about somthing which clearly is a decision he has to make (e.g. how long should we keep archives/backups. Who should have access to our systems?). Instead of asking me to explain what he needs to decide he gave me the "freedom" to decide.
As long as the users avoid even principal responsibility to their system, but make buying decisions based on the color of the default background of the gui, they will get the same crappy software which they get now.
To me it's like they would buy cars without brakes just because there are nice colors for the seats. Finally it's the users who accept the crap instead of going back to the shop slamming it to the desk an shouting to the person who sold this smilingly while explaing that there will be no problems.
The author of this article doesn't realize that Linux was created by a Community not companies. If companies were actually listening Linux wouldn't be so popular. Businesses decided to push one OS Microsoft Windows and as a result Open Source got its wings. It was a rebellion from companies that didn't listen to people when they said we want something more reliable then what your offering.
My favorite line:
Nothing changes by staying the same.
I would like to also point out that up is not down, the Pope is Catholic, firetrucks are red, and Ron Jeremy is not a virgin.
LFG for raid on MSDN Mountain. Level 20+. Can provide [gdb].
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Thousands of times, my Microsoft Internet Explorer crashed on legacy HTML/CSS code.
I agreed when the popup "would you like to send a backtrace to Microsoft" raised up. I did that for 5 years and *none* of these bugs were fixed. A quick Google search shows that tons of other people experienced the same bugs and they probably sbumitted a crash report as well. But what for? Even IE7 still crashes on the same bugs. What did I pay for? When talking about proprietary versus free software, the "good thing" in proprietary software is always described as the support offered by the company. Ok, I bought Windows, I reported obvious bugs for 5 years, these reports were ignored, nothing was every fixed. So when you buy Windows, what do you pay for?
{{.sig}}
Please, make products that:
a. Dont crash.
b. Are manageble without 6 different shell languages.
c. can be backupped.
Thank you.
Was that all there is too it? Sjees should have thought about that 15 years ago.
Every GPL license should be supplied not only by contact e-mails, but also with URLs of web-based UIs to free GPL compliant bug databases, where users can submit bugs.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"I've been a Usability Specialist for a few years now and before that I spent a lot of time in Customer Support. Customers have been complaining for years, upon years, upon years. The real fault lies at the heart of the problem, the people who make software don't listen to their users - for whatever reasons." - by typidemon (729497) on Monday May 07, @10:21PM (#19031011)
v ermakesgooglehappy.html
I find that interesting, because you are a usability specialist, and for years now!
THIS SOFTWARE:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhate
Was developed by myself, as far back as Windows 98SE, and has run essentially unmodified (as far as its base engine/algorithm) since then, all the way up thru successive builds of Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, and now, VISTA, "bulletproof & bugfree"...
(And, it IS the product of listening to years & years of user input/feedback as to its useability and interface design - I have found end-users incredibly useful in this regard, & they get what they want: EXACTLY what they want & request)
The main thing is, that I follow & use this concept into my job as a database programmer/MIS/IT/IS coder as well, and users do truly like that: P
Putting in their ideas for design in the user interface.
(Fact is, many end-users over time during my career have commended me on that in fact, because as you stated? Many coders DO NOT LISTEN TO THEIR END USERS (they ARE the process experts, not the coders) & I have even heard some call end-users "stupid", and that is just ignorance!)
It is fully error trapped vs. abend/crashes of itself as well (a mark of any good program, because making the OS have to counter for an application's misbehavior is what I call "putting a bandaid on a bulletwound", and the wrong thing to have to do. The application itself should be constructed in this manner - handling its own mishaps, correctly, saving any data & exiting gracefully after doing so).
Try it out, because I think you are somebody who has enough saavy @ this level to make commentary as to its useability and featureset!
(The latter being the BEST there is, bar-none! In fact, in regard to my statement there, the program has been tested vs. other programs like it from Microsoft, Symantec, JV RegCleaner, & more AND with user's own registry data unmodified (unlike others who had users insert a fake test dataset to "rig" a test, as Juoni Vuorio did for 'testing' his JV RegClean vs. my own & others like it (lame, that is rigging a test)).
APK
Excuse me!?! Why should we be blamed for DRM?!!!
End Users do post about OS flaws. They get answers like this one. As long as hardware snobs out there keep telling the rest of us to "get a better computer" whenever the Open Source community hasn't come up with drivers for economy hardware, then flaws are not the fault of the end user.
To submit a bug report to Microsoft? It's impossible. Here's my story:
--- This
Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution?
Microsoft has well-paid employees whose job it is to come up with solutions to problems with Windows. Why should I be expected to do that job for free?
Even if I did want something to be improved, it would take a hundred thousand people saying the same thing as me for it to be worth Microsoft's time to listen. And because of the psychology involved--many users have a feeling of "experts designed this, so if I have a problem with it it's probably my fault instead of theirs"--that critical mass is unlikely to ever be reached.
If I make a suggestion to MS and they implement my great idea, what do I get out of it? They get a better product to sell to people and I still have to pay them for it. Where's the ROI? With an open OS I get the benefit of lots of peoples suggestions and contributions and can make some money off it myself... but why would I ever contribute to a proprietary OS? It's their product, let them figure it out for themselves....
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
open soruce comunities work this way yes, however when was the last time that MS asked you how to make windows better. If there was a resaonable alterative to windows this might be the case. Example: Vista, No one asked that the new os require and out right insane about of resources to run in its entierty. Who the hell said" ya know, i want to be forced to buy a video card to use my new operating system". In reality (i work in industry with eviromental controls) most people don't have or want top end systems. Most of the computer users i meet want to suff the net and use word. It is moveing more twords digital media like cameras. Windows needs to make a lite version of vista, a unbloated clean OS that you build off of. Also dont get me started abuopt price. GFYS MS the OME pricing jsut seems to scream "screwing people who dont shop at dell".
Only the LSASS can grant authorization tokens to processes. Things like Winlogon (what you see when you login and also lock the screen) and the Run As... service run as Local System at startup. Only Local System stuff has the privledge to ask LSASS to create tokens that allow sub-processes to run with other identities; i.e. "Administrator" or whatever user you use when you login. It is also needed to do things like verify passwords. Normal programs can't actually ask takeyour Windows password, hash it, and verify it themselves... only LSASS can actually do that.
So you have LSASS which is started by the kernel at boot time, and it handles all of that stuff. In addition, any process which parents processes which run at a low authority also gets started by the kernel with Local System permissions as well (i.e. csrss, winlogon, the service host)
No suexec or anything like that is available... NT doesn't use "execute through" methods for assigning security tokens to processes.
This is in contrast to Unix; while processes can certainly drop down in privledge as in NT, and many services are modeled that way, it is also essential in Unix to "privledge up". That is, to be able to start processes running as an unprivledged user and call into a executable image running as a different user (presumably with internally coded policy that enforces security from the respect of the original running user, take the "passwd" command for example). But this leaves room for a lot of security issues, and so the push now is to severly restrict what files are chmodded "+s" and to audit them closely.
A number of software packages have changed how they operate (especially those that interact with hardware). Many of them at some point were suexec-root based, to talk to audio, video, or serial devices and such. Now such software is usually broken into parts, one half runs at boot time in a privledged mode as a service- providng the other half (UI) an API which can run as an unprivledged user.
Other software packages changed their installation instructions, informing the installer that they would need to change permissions on certain devices to let end users manipulate them with software running in an unprivledged mode.
Still others don't check at all, but assume the login scripts for the system change the permissions on commonly used devices to the current logged-in user (through the use of facilities such as PAM). This only works for the user sitting at the device, but it's a good assumption, since it's the usage scenario that most end-users care about when using software that interfaces with local hardware.
Wow... I really went on a tear there.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Yeah. I noticed this when looking over the article to decide whether or not to read it more closely. Sort of reduces the credibility for me. I decided not to read it.