They install the driver and check whether the device functions.
If the driver installs and the device functions, the driver is certified.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Inadequate? yes.
About the only reasonable way to do it? Unfortunately, unless you want to pay tens of thousands of dollars for Windows because they have to assemble every possible combination of hardware and test against every possible version of drivers for all of it.
People, do some reasearch, find out who had good drivers and buy from them. That's just part of the treatment for HUAS.
Microsoft did, in fact, dump their entire driver model and replace it with something better, with support for full user-mode drivers for certain classes of devices (such as printers, eh?). Hardware vendors responded by wrapping their existing drivers in a compatibility layer.
The same thing could happen on a Mac.
I will admit that Apple has stricter certification standards. This is a Good Thing(TM).
I guess you missed the part where nVidia only released a stable driver 9 months ago and the HP printer I purchased 5 months ago was still having driver issues.
Vista has been out and in a stable state for much longer than hardware vendors could have reasonably hoped for in beta.
Is it still Microsoft's fault that hardware vendors don't have their shit together?
I am not usually one for hacking into MS, I have worked with a number of businesses that have been quite successful using their software. On this occasion though, I have to call bullshit.
Good for you. Call Penn & Teller and see if they want to cover the issue, as well.
The fact of the matter remains that a number of these drivers did pass WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) testing. The fact that MS *SIGNED* the steaming brown stuff de-values the program considerably.
No, it does not. The program does what it is intended to do. It certifies that the driver will install on the OS, load and execute on the OS and allow the hardware it is written for to operate with the OS. Nowhere is it claimed that stability, security or code quality is audited before signing. If these things are important to you (and yes, they should be), it is your duty to make this known to hardware vendors.
Going back to NT4 and previous versions, there was MAJOR issues with quality of drivers, I know certain Xircom cards which would only work with very specific driver configurations as we found out places where the driver was hard coded to use specific ports and IRQs. This all changed with Windows 2000 and signed drivers.
And signed drivers will operate the hardware they were tested with for signing on Vista. Signed and certified drivers are intended to do just that; no mention of stability, security or code quality is made.
Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista.
Agreed. They should test every piece of hardware in a system with every other piece of hardware to make sure no two drivers interfere with each other. They should spend months probing every part of the driver to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities. They should have a system with every possible configuration, to ensure that the drivers are stable no matter what. Windows should cost tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it all, too. Right.
I know Microsoft only has a finite amount of resources, but they should have known that people were having trouble getting drivers signed and my outsider (un-informed) view is that they should have made more of an effort to work with the OEMs for drivers to work on day 1.
They did. Most hardware vendors, however, did the bare minimum to get the drivers to work in Vista (mostly wrapping the existing code in a Vista-compatible layer), with the mindset of "we'll fix it later." Not Microsoft's fault. If hardware vendors want to release a shoddy product, let them, to their own demise.
I clearly state that I used the included Anytime Upgrade DVD to perform a full, clean install. No OEM disc, I can use that same disc to reinstall Vista Ultimate on my desktop, by simply entering the correct license key.
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
I never said they had no fault or no control at all. Address individual points in my post and point out where they have control where I say they don't.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista,
Stock prices were slipping. Unfortunately, they had to release to protect their own asses from prosecution by stockholders. Right? Certainly not. Side effect of being a publicly traded corporation? Unfortunately, yes.
and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't.
There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible.
They did push. Further, how do you propose, so they can do so in the future, that they let their customers know that hardware vendors are lying when they put the Vista Compatible logo on their boxes? Technically, if there is a driver that will load into Vista and operate the device, no matter how poorly written or unstable, the hardware is Vista Compatible.
They knew exactly what they were doing,
One would certainly fucking hope so!
and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate,
It's perfectly appropriate for the x86 platform, for which it was released.
and before the appropriate drivers existed.
Because it's so easy to write and test drivers for a nonexistent OS
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap).
Yes, and watch no OEM adopt their program. That would do wonders for market share and stock price.
This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen.
Nor should it be. It's an issue between end users and OEMs.
It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market.
No, it wasn't on their radar screen because it's not their issue. If end users don't like the crapware, they should make note, return the computer and buy another brand. They all have crapware? There are a lot of mom and pop shops that don't, with competitive pricing, nonetheless.
They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Except that those installations simply don't exist for Vista. The garbage software is left off the systems because a large number of them come with blank disks. Kind of hard to install crap software when the OS isn't installed yet. These installations typically come with a box full of licenses and a set of CDs or DVDs with a system image to be loaded onto them, which is tailored to the client's specifications, or created by the client themselves. Had the large, thousands-of-seats clients jumped to Vista right away, they would have dealt with the same driver issues we all have. I'm sure, though, that hardware vendors would have fixed them sooner were this the case. Again, without Microsoft having anything to do with it.
I also work as the Communications Director for a Real Estate staging company and do contract work for a web host.
Do I, now, have to say that I only work most-time at Home Depot?
Another poster in this thread suffering from HUAS. They always seem to pop up whenever Windows and Linux are being compared; especially when something good is being said about Windows or something bad is being said about Linux.
Let's be honest here and give credit where credit is due. It took me 9 months of use to get it running stable (read: for nVidia to provide a stable driver) and decide that I like Vista.
This is why Windows users are afraid to try Linux. We won't try something new and different more than once without judging it as bad, yet we expect them to do just that.
Running x64 with 2GB here and doing quite well with it. Then again, that system won't support more than 2GB (chipset limitation, I had to make a quick purchase to get everything back up and running a while back and don't use it enough to really care to upgrade it again right now).
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I can personally attest that everything he said is true. I own an Acer laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. I also own an HP laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. Upon formatting both drives, partitioning them more sanely and reinstalling Vista (Home Premium) on both, using the included Anytime Upgrade (or Reinstall) DVD, Vista ran wonderfully.
I still installed Kubuntu on both. Windows is nice to have around if you ever need it (BIOS updates on the HP, or calling for tech support on either machine, for example) but really not right for daily use for me.
The Acer has Intel graphics. All is good and will with Vista there.
I've had the HP (ok, it was originally a Compaq, which they warranty-replaced with a better HP model when it completely failed -- though both have the same video hardware) for a year and a half, now. For the first 9 months, the nVidia drivers were crashing the damn thing fairly regularly. It wasn't until 9 months ago that they released a driver that didn't crash this laptop.
I also run a desktop, which I use for music production, running Windows-only software (it runs in winE, but not as a fully functional application). I run Vista Ultimate (free from MS for participating in a "spyware" program, which I installed on a laptop which was used only for YouTube and other cutesy flash crap) on this machine. I've had both ATI and nVidia cards in this machine. The ATI still doesn't have a workable driver. The nVidia, same as with the HP laptop, no good driver until 9mo ago.
I purchased an HP printer for that desktop system. It literally took me a week to get the damned thing to install.
Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate. Now that I have stable video drivers and the printer actually works, neither of which were Microsoft's fault, it's wonderful. Being a retail install, it never had any OEM shartware installed on it.
Runs smooth and quick.
And yes, UAC is poorly implemented. That's Microsoft's fault, all the freaking way.
$0.02 from a full-time Linux user and fanboi. Vista has its place, even in my home. My HTPC runs Linux, though; the DRM in Vista still scares me.
I think it would be a real freakin' eye opener if terrorists (or freedom fighters*1, whichever) were to sneak water bottles full of explosives in with a shipment, to be brought on board planes by other terrorists (or freedom fighters).
It'd almost be great to see terrorists do it. It would surely be great if it were done by freedom fighters, who may be inclined to detonate them away from others, but still in public view. Prison time? Yes. But it kills/harms nobody and gets a strong point across.
We're less safe now than we have ever been.
*1 - defined as anyone willing to give up some of their freedoms so that others may keep them
What if everyone who wants to vote outside the two parties thinks the same way you do?
What if there's enough of you that, were you to actually all go vote, you could make a difference? (If not this election, then in the next)
What if morcego (see the other reply to grandparent) is right and you can manage to at least get your candidate (and, more importantly, parties other than R and D) noticed in this election? Non-(R/D) parties will be noticed more and more with each election in which this happens.
And if you're wrong? If the majority wishes to vote for the same candidate as you?...but that majority doesn't vote because they fear their vote won't be counted?
What then?
Get. Off. Your. Fucking. Ass. And. Go. Vote.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. You predict what will happen if you don't act, then you don't act.
I could do the same thing by standing in the middle of the road during a snow storm and looking for a city bus to come my way. When I step into the lane it's in, I proclaim that the bus will hit me, so I may as well not even try to get out of the way.
The bus can't stop fast or swerve on the slick road. If I don't act, I was right, the bus hit me.
What happens if I get the fuck out of the way?
Maybe I don't get hit, right? But, maybe a tire blows, the bus spins out of control, rolls over and still hits me.
>>If patents are abolished, then how will people who take a chance and do lots of work get any profits?
>trade secrets, first to market. We dont need the government to perform socialist control on ideas.
That doesn't account for the brilliant hobbyist who makes some startling discovery but has no way to bring it to market. It doesn't cover the borderline-insane guy who spends every night in his garage laboratory, coming up with new devices and whatnot, who has only very limited means of production and no other form of protection from theft of his ideas.
Are you an executive at a large company with the ability to mass-produce and market things people invent, by chance? Who do you think would be first to market with your garage-lab discovery, without paying you a single red cent, if you weren't able to patent it?
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (x) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (x) Technically illiterate politicians (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
So they go from spam to identity fraud, which they're probably already doing with all the personal information they gather while billing for their wares. That really won't work.
Where's that "Your spam solution won't work" form?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I'm a MS shill?
Read through my post history.
I own one system which runs Windows as its primary OS. I own many which run Linux. Do the math.
Care to elaborate?
Mods?? It's ok, I forgive you. Metamods will back me.
They install the driver and check whether the device functions.
If the driver installs and the device functions, the driver is certified.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Inadequate? yes.
About the only reasonable way to do it? Unfortunately, unless you want to pay tens of thousands of dollars for Windows because they have to assemble every possible combination of hardware and test against every possible version of drivers for all of it.
People, do some reasearch, find out who had good drivers and buy from them. That's just part of the treatment for HUAS.
I... just... don't know where to begin...
Microsoft did, in fact, dump their entire driver model and replace it with something better, with support for full user-mode drivers for certain classes of devices (such as printers, eh?). Hardware vendors responded by wrapping their existing drivers in a compatibility layer.
The same thing could happen on a Mac.
I will admit that Apple has stricter certification standards. This is a Good Thing(TM).
I guess you missed the part where nVidia only released a stable driver 9 months ago and the HP printer I purchased 5 months ago was still having driver issues.
Vista has been out and in a stable state for much longer than hardware vendors could have reasonably hoped for in beta.
Is it still Microsoft's fault that hardware vendors don't have their shit together?
Diagnosis: HUAS.
Thanks for piggybacking on my thread.
Mods?
I am not usually one for hacking into MS, I have worked with a number of businesses that have been quite successful using their software. On this occasion though, I have to call bullshit.
Good for you. Call Penn & Teller and see if they want to cover the issue, as well.
The fact of the matter remains that a number of these drivers did pass WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) testing. The fact that MS *SIGNED* the steaming brown stuff de-values the program considerably.
No, it does not. The program does what it is intended to do. It certifies that the driver will install on the OS, load and execute on the OS and allow the hardware it is written for to operate with the OS. Nowhere is it claimed that stability, security or code quality is audited before signing. If these things are important to you (and yes, they should be), it is your duty to make this known to hardware vendors.
Going back to NT4 and previous versions, there was MAJOR issues with quality of drivers, I know certain Xircom cards which would only work with very specific driver configurations as we found out places where the driver was hard coded to use specific ports and IRQs. This all changed with Windows 2000 and signed drivers.
And signed drivers will operate the hardware they were tested with for signing on Vista. Signed and certified drivers are intended to do just that; no mention of stability, security or code quality is made.
Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista.
Agreed. They should test every piece of hardware in a system with every other piece of hardware to make sure no two drivers interfere with each other. They should spend months probing every part of the driver to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities. They should have a system with every possible configuration, to ensure that the drivers are stable no matter what. Windows should cost tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it all, too. Right.
I know Microsoft only has a finite amount of resources, but they should have known that people were having trouble getting drivers signed and my outsider (un-informed) view is that they should have made more of an effort to work with the OEMs for drivers to work on day 1.
They did. Most hardware vendors, however, did the bare minimum to get the drivers to work in Vista (mostly wrapping the existing code in a Vista-compatible layer), with the mindset of "we'll fix it later." Not Microsoft's fault. If hardware vendors want to release a shoddy product, let them, to their own demise.
Read the whole post, please.
I clearly state that I used the included Anytime Upgrade DVD to perform a full, clean install. No OEM disc, I can use that same disc to reinstall Vista Ultimate on my desktop, by simply entering the correct license key.
Yes, I've tried it. Yes, it worked.
Another case of HUAS.
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
I never said they had no fault or no control at all. Address individual points in my post and point out where they have control where I say they don't.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista,
Stock prices were slipping. Unfortunately, they had to release to protect their own asses from prosecution by stockholders. Right? Certainly not. Side effect of being a publicly traded corporation? Unfortunately, yes.
and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't.
Troll much? What about marginal AMD systems? I'm an AMD guy, myself, the Intel-base laptop my fiancée uses, though similarly spec'd, simply can not keep up with my AMD-based laptop. That said, the same thing happened with AMD systems.
There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible.
They did push. Further, how do you propose, so they can do so in the future, that they let their customers know that hardware vendors are lying when they put the Vista Compatible logo on their boxes? Technically, if there is a driver that will load into Vista and operate the device, no matter how poorly written or unstable, the hardware is Vista Compatible.
They knew exactly what they were doing,
One would certainly fucking hope so!
and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate,
It's perfectly appropriate for the x86 platform, for which it was released.
and before the appropriate drivers existed.
Because it's so easy to write and test drivers for a nonexistent OS
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap).
Yes, and watch no OEM adopt their program. That would do wonders for market share and stock price.
This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen.
Nor should it be. It's an issue between end users and OEMs.
It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market.
No, it wasn't on their radar screen because it's not their issue. If end users don't like the crapware, they should make note, return the computer and buy another brand. They all have crapware? There are a lot of mom and pop shops that don't, with competitive pricing, nonetheless.
They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Except that those installations simply don't exist for Vista. The garbage software is left off the systems because a large number of them come with blank disks. Kind of hard to install crap software when the OS isn't installed yet. These installations typically come with a box full of licenses and a set of CDs or DVDs with a system image to be loaded onto them, which is tailored to the client's specifications, or created by the client themselves. Had the large, thousands-of-seats clients jumped to Vista right away, they would have dealt with the same driver issues we all have. I'm sure, though, that hardware vendors would have fixed them sooner were this the case. Again, without Microsoft having anything to do with it.
I work full-time at Home Depot.
I also work as the Communications Director for a Real Estate staging company and do contract work for a web host.
Do I, now, have to say that I only work most-time at Home Depot?
Another poster in this thread suffering from HUAS. They always seem to pop up whenever Windows and Linux are being compared; especially when something good is being said about Windows or something bad is being said about Linux.
Let's be honest here and give credit where credit is due. It took me 9 months of use to get it running stable (read: for nVidia to provide a stable driver) and decide that I like Vista.
This is why Windows users are afraid to try Linux. We won't try something new and different more than once without judging it as bad, yet we expect them to do just that.
Running x64 with 2GB here and doing quite well with it. Then again, that system won't support more than 2GB (chipset limitation, I had to make a quick purchase to get everything back up and running a while back and don't use it enough to really care to upgrade it again right now).
I'm glad I read your post before replying to parent, as I'd hate to be modded redundant in a thread I started. :P
You're absofreakinglutely correct.
Overrated != Disagree
Which TSA agent got mod points today?
No, he admitted that UAC was poorly implemented.
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I can personally attest that everything he said is true. I own an Acer laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. I also own an HP laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. Upon formatting both drives, partitioning them more sanely and reinstalling Vista (Home Premium) on both, using the included Anytime Upgrade (or Reinstall) DVD, Vista ran wonderfully.
I still installed Kubuntu on both. Windows is nice to have around if you ever need it (BIOS updates on the HP, or calling for tech support on either machine, for example) but really not right for daily use for me.
The Acer has Intel graphics. All is good and will with Vista there.
I've had the HP (ok, it was originally a Compaq, which they warranty-replaced with a better HP model when it completely failed -- though both have the same video hardware) for a year and a half, now. For the first 9 months, the nVidia drivers were crashing the damn thing fairly regularly. It wasn't until 9 months ago that they released a driver that didn't crash this laptop.
I also run a desktop, which I use for music production, running Windows-only software (it runs in winE, but not as a fully functional application). I run Vista Ultimate (free from MS for participating in a "spyware" program, which I installed on a laptop which was used only for YouTube and other cutesy flash crap) on this machine. I've had both ATI and nVidia cards in this machine. The ATI still doesn't have a workable driver. The nVidia, same as with the HP laptop, no good driver until 9mo ago.
I purchased an HP printer for that desktop system. It literally took me a week to get the damned thing to install.
Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate. Now that I have stable video drivers and the printer actually works, neither of which were Microsoft's fault, it's wonderful. Being a retail install, it never had any OEM shartware installed on it.
Runs smooth and quick.
And yes, UAC is poorly implemented. That's Microsoft's fault, all the freaking way.
$0.02 from a full-time Linux user and fanboi. Vista has its place, even in my home. My HTPC runs Linux, though; the DRM in Vista still scares me.
Google for a cite for this but...
In some countries, it is legal (and common) to carry on a plane.
I think it would be a real freakin' eye opener if terrorists (or freedom fighters*1, whichever) were to sneak water bottles full of explosives in with a shipment, to be brought on board planes by other terrorists (or freedom fighters).
It'd almost be great to see terrorists do it. It would surely be great if it were done by freedom fighters, who may be inclined to detonate them away from others, but still in public view. Prison time? Yes. But it kills/harms nobody and gets a strong point across.
We're less safe now than we have ever been.
*1 - defined as anyone willing to give up some of their freedoms so that others may keep them
Kohl for President!
Let me put it this way.
What if everyone who wants to vote outside the two parties thinks the same way you do?
What if there's enough of you that, were you to actually all go vote, you could make a difference? (If not this election, then in the next)
What if morcego (see the other reply to grandparent) is right and you can manage to at least get your candidate (and, more importantly, parties other than R and D) noticed in this election? Non-(R/D) parties will be noticed more and more with each election in which this happens.
Eventually, one will win.
If.
You.
Get. Off. Your. Fucking. Ass. And. Go. Vote.
And if you're wrong? If the majority wishes to vote for the same candidate as you? ...but that majority doesn't vote because they fear their vote won't be counted?
What then?
Get. Off. Your. Fucking. Ass. And. Go. Vote.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. You predict what will happen if you don't act, then you don't act.
I could do the same thing by standing in the middle of the road during a snow storm and looking for a city bus to come my way. When I step into the lane it's in, I proclaim that the bus will hit me, so I may as well not even try to get out of the way.
The bus can't stop fast or swerve on the slick road. If I don't act, I was right, the bus hit me.
What happens if I get the fuck out of the way?
Maybe I don't get hit, right? But, maybe a tire blows, the bus spins out of control, rolls over and still hits me.
At least I did something and had a chance.
>>If patents are abolished, then how will people who take a chance and do lots of work get any profits?
>trade secrets, first to market. We dont need the government to perform socialist control on ideas.
That doesn't account for the brilliant hobbyist who makes some startling discovery but has no way to bring it to market. It doesn't cover the borderline-insane guy who spends every night in his garage laboratory, coming up with new devices and whatnot, who has only very limited means of production and no other form of protection from theft of his ideas.
Are you an executive at a large company with the ability to mass-produce and market things people invent, by chance? Who do you think would be first to market with your garage-lab discovery, without paying you a single red cent, if you weren't able to patent it?
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
So they go from spam to identity fraud, which they're probably already doing with all the personal information they gather while billing for their wares. That really won't work.
Where's that "Your spam solution won't work" form?
Without #4, those who ignore those of us who know better when we attempt to educate them will also ignore #2.
1) Make buying from or replying to spam illegal.
2) Send government-sponsored spam for a couple years, to catch those who buy the shit.
3) ...
4) Prof...uh... No more profit for spammers!