This isn't a matter of improved APIs with obsolete and troublesome OS calls removed; it's not about protecting users from faulty drivers; it's not even about MS' intentions.
Pure and simple, its about intrusiveness, paternalism and contempt for users' property and privacy. A U.S. government agency which managed to arrange the same degree of access and control of citizens' computers (and was caught at it) would be nailed on Fourth- and Fifth-Amendment violations in a heartbeat.
It isn't Microsoft's damned business what protections I want from unstable drivers. If they want to offer a service and let me opt-in to it, with it made very clear beforehand exactly what parts of my system will be visible to them and what consequences my choice to use it might bring, that's one thing. To quietly back-door their OS' and offer an opt-out is morally unconscionable.
We frequencly hear of product recalls of various kinds because something has been found defective and dangerous. Should we allow some kind of Product Safety Police to have the right to enter our homes whenever they like to search for dangerous products, requiring us to go to trouble to "opt out" of their services? Come ON!
My computer(s) is/are as much my private domain as is the room they're located in. Unless I consciously and deliberately ask someone to enter "for my own good," they have no moral right to do so. Period!
In Dave Barry in Cyberspace, the author offers his notion of a typical M$-ish EULA which I'll edit for brevity and in the hope of staying within fair-use guidelines:
By breaking this seal, the user hereinafter agress to abide by all the terms and conditions of the following agreement that nobody ever reads...and such other terms and conditions, real and imaginary, that the Software Company* shall deem necessary...including the right to come to the user's home and examine the user's hard drive, as well as the user's underwear drawer if we feel like it...
The Software Company apparently doesn't know that this is a joke.
*(The actual name of The Software Company is changed to "The Software Company" to protect The Software Company from censure, antagonism and flaming. Attempts to identify, or even hint at the real identity of, The Software Company shall subject the offender to legal action crafted by The Software Company's landsharks guaranteed to keep the offender in court so much that the offender has to pay rent to stay there.)
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't Microsoft's damned business what protections I want from unstable drivers. If they want to offer a service and let me opt-in to it, with it made very clear beforehand exactly what parts of my system will be visible to them and what consequences my choice to use it might bring, that's one thing. To quietly back-door their OS' and offer an opt-out is morally unconscionable.
We frequencly hear of product recalls of various kinds because something has been found defective and dangerous. Should we allow some kind of Product Safety Police to have the right to enter our homes whenever they like to search for dangerous products, requiring us to go to trouble to "opt out" of their services? Come ON!
My computer(s) is/are as much my private domain as is the room they're located in. Unless I consciously and deliberately ask someone to enter "for my own good," they have no moral right to do so. Period!
In Dave Barry in Cyberspace, the author offers his notion of a typical M$-ish EULA which I'll edit for brevity and in the hope of staying within fair-use guidelines:
The Software Company apparently doesn't know that this is a joke.*(The actual name of The Software Company is changed to "The Software Company" to protect The Software Company from censure, antagonism and flaming. Attempts to identify, or even hint at the real identity of, The Software Company shall subject the offender to legal action crafted by The Software Company's landsharks guaranteed to keep the offender in court so much that the offender has to pay rent to stay there.)