How many people here use Windows XP? How many people here have seen this image?
IMAGE NO LONGER AVAILABLE
Now, I ask the important question: how many times have you seen this particular explanation for the update? "A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise a computer running [our product that you bought] and gain complete control over it."
In the case of my screenshot here, it's a local security hole. But let's face it: most of the time, they say an attacker could REMOTELY gain full control of your computer. What's up with this? Running their OS is akin to having "Back Orifice" installed on an otherwise stable machine.
If Windows XP were a car, no insurance carrier would ever be willing to cover it.
If Windows XP were a car, can you imagine the amount and frequency of recalls the company that produced it would be announcing?
If Windows XP were an airplane, you sure as hell wouldn't feel safe flying on it.
The companies who make products on which we rely day to day are typically responsible about ensuring their products' safety and functionality before releasing them to the market. Why isn't it the same with the base software for our computers? Why isn't it the same with Microsoft? What gives this company the right to be irresponsible about releasing its software?
Some may argue that their offering of 'hotfixes' and security audits of the software to discover and address these issues is a sign of exactly the corporate responsibility of which i speak; this is not the case. If you bought a door lock on the market which was particularly enabling to break-and-enter robbers, would it be good enough for you if they periodically called you and said, "Um, we're really sorry, but that door lock you bought from us still isn't safe. We'd like to do some more work on it if that's ok by you?" How many times would you put up with it? How many times could they call and offer to 'update' your door lock before you decided you couldn't trust it and replaced it with one you could?
You'd switch to a more reliable door lock company...
You wouldn't buy that car...
We've already established you wouldn't fly on that airplane...
Now, what if the company that made this shoddy, insecure product was realistically the only company whose product you could buy?
Welcome to the "free market," where monopoly is still just as easy as ever to create, and where that monopoly still embraces complacency.
~ danny morelos ~
IMAGE NO LONGER AVAILABLE
Now, I ask the important question: how many times have you seen this particular explanation for the update? "A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise a computer running [our product that you bought] and gain complete control over it."
In the case of my screenshot here, it's a local security hole. But let's face it: most of the time, they say an attacker could REMOTELY gain full control of your computer. What's up with this? Running their OS is akin to having "Back Orifice" installed on an otherwise stable machine.
If Windows XP were a car, no insurance carrier would ever be willing to cover it.
If Windows XP were a car, can you imagine the amount and frequency of recalls the company that produced it would be announcing?
If Windows XP were an airplane, you sure as hell wouldn't feel safe flying on it.
The companies who make products on which we rely day to day are typically responsible about ensuring their products' safety and functionality before releasing them to the market. Why isn't it the same with the base software for our computers? Why isn't it the same with Microsoft? What gives this company the right to be irresponsible about releasing its software?
Some may argue that their offering of 'hotfixes' and security audits of the software to discover and address these issues is a sign of exactly the corporate responsibility of which i speak; this is not the case. If you bought a door lock on the market which was particularly enabling to break-and-enter robbers, would it be good enough for you if they periodically called you and said, "Um, we're really sorry, but that door lock you bought from us still isn't safe. We'd like to do some more work on it if that's ok by you?" How many times would you put up with it? How many times could they call and offer to 'update' your door lock before you decided you couldn't trust it and replaced it with one you could?
You'd switch to a more reliable door lock company...
You wouldn't buy that car...
We've already established you wouldn't fly on that airplane...
Now, what if the company that made this shoddy, insecure product was realistically the only company whose product you could buy?
Welcome to the "free market," where monopoly is still just as easy as ever to create, and where that monopoly still embraces complacency.
~ danny morelos ~