The market should determine the value of a quality product. The only regulation that should change is the ability of software vendors to avoid accountability with the complex EULA. If all the businesses in the world sued Microsoft for the effort to continually patch their software it might just get them to do something. Of course, the cost of the software would rise too, at least in the short term. Secure and bug free code doesn't need to cost significantly more provided you have the correct process and design for quality up front.
It seems obvious that Microsoft uses the Beta program and even their initial production releases to test their products. Every release of their OS is cobbled together with wire, gum and duck tape. How about a real security model? How about true multi-user capabilities - not just "My Documents"... How about preventing Rootkit installations period? How is it ok to allow an OS to be so easily attacked and modified without some administrative control?
If MSFT and many others approach this topic like a joke, then we need to have our laugh in the courts.
It seems to me that a parallel argument could be made by insurance companies fighting reimbursement of stolen property. For example, if I leave my camera on my car seat in view and it is stolen, did I break the law by enabling the thief? Does it matter if the door was locked or not?
I can certainly secure my network but I'm sure many are not, does that mean the owner is at fault for someone breaking in a taking their MP3 files?
Slashdot Mirror
The market should determine the value of a quality product. The only regulation that should change is the ability of software vendors to avoid accountability with the complex EULA. If all the businesses in the world sued Microsoft for the effort to continually patch their software it might just get them to do something. Of course, the cost of the software would rise too, at least in the short term. Secure and bug free code doesn't need to cost significantly more provided you have the correct process and design for quality up front. It seems obvious that Microsoft uses the Beta program and even their initial production releases to test their products. Every release of their OS is cobbled together with wire, gum and duck tape. How about a real security model? How about true multi-user capabilities - not just "My Documents"... How about preventing Rootkit installations period? How is it ok to allow an OS to be so easily attacked and modified without some administrative control? If MSFT and many others approach this topic like a joke, then we need to have our laugh in the courts.
It seems to me that a parallel argument could be made by insurance companies fighting reimbursement of stolen property. For example, if I leave my camera on my car seat in view and it is stolen, did I break the law by enabling the thief? Does it matter if the door was locked or not? I can certainly secure my network but I'm sure many are not, does that mean the owner is at fault for someone breaking in a taking their MP3 files?