Government Interference?
-
Yesterday's Database Weekly Editorial mentioned that Vista's Service Pack 1 is due next year. However I'm not sure what to make of this, which I saved a while back: the DOJ is requiring Microsoft to release Vista SP1 in 2007, or at least the beta.
It's part of a settlement with the software giant that they must not only patch Vista, but also XP. Apparently XP SP3 is coming in June and given the amount of people that want to keep running it (myself included), that's good news. Actually I'd be willing to pay another $50 if I could get support for another 3 years and an SP4 delivered in 2009. Maybe Microsoft should consider "extended service packs" for SS2K as well with a small charge?
Government interference doesn't usually seem to work out well for anyone. In this case the demands are more for an open environment for the search and indexing tools. However I'm not sure in this case that it's not a good idea for the government to lean on Microsoft a little.
Microsoft isn't like any other software company. Or like few of them. They are a huge presence that has an overreaching influence on personal and business computers in this country and others. Which means that they can have an extraordinary impact on the GNP and even security of this (and other) countries if they have bugs and holes in their software.
In that sense, I could see the government requiring some xx amount of patches every year or even that certain things be fixed in some reasonable amount of time. Given the impact of such a large company (and I'd include Intel or any other overwhelming market leader in this), it might make some sense just to ensure that consumers (including the government itself) are protected from poor quality software.
And yes, bugs that open security holes are poor quality. Intentional, decided not to fix, delay for an SP, whatever the reason, they have an impact on us. With the state of some systems being so widely used, it almost makes sense to have some agency in charge of "ranking" bugs, maybe even an academic institution like CERT or the SANS institute. Then anything that reached a certain threshold would require a patch from the vendor.
I'm don't know how to do this in practice because any penalty ends up with a rush to get a patch out, even if the patch causes problems. You may be able to legislate work, but you can't legislate quality.
So I'm torn on this. While it makes some sense to force Microsoft to devote resources to problems, like patches, it's impossible to enforce quality work.
-
In my opinion, a little government interference is a little too much.
I don't necessarily want to get into politics here (although that last sentence certainly did), but good government goes bad a little at a time. Exceptions for edge cases set the precedence that then becomes the
excusereason for the next step.The next step here isn't so hard to see - it's government regulation of the software industry... and that's worked so well for other industries, hasn't it?
:{| Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
-
The government has no business butting its head into private business. I can see where Steve is coming from, but where does it end? Is this it, regulating patches? No. Once they get their way with that, it will be on to something else. Government intrusion only leads to problems. There is far too much government regulation in business as it is.
-
It's hard not to agree with Andy on this one. A clear problem with government (any government) or the courts (again, any courts) dictating technical schedules for something like a software company is that the imposed schedules belie the often complex necessary testing, and interferes with the architectural considerations.
If this becomes commonplace, even for MS, we will eventually see painfully small incremental fixes implemented to satisfy government schedules so that an acceptable level of quality remains possible. While small steps aren't always bad, it leads to architectural sacrifices that build momentum over time, creating a structural mess that is never fully regression tested against its own patches (not that MS always does a great job on that today!). Software is flaky enough without designing changes by committee and imposing impossible technical schedules to implement those ill-conceived changes.
At a more fundamental level, though, one has to question the recent government decisions about desktop search in Vista and the like. How a built-in file system component can be deemed illegal due to its anti-competitive aspect is beyond me, especially since for all practical purposes Google desktop search seems to work just fine on Vista (at least it did on the new PC I bought until I scrubbed Vista). This was a perceptual move by the DOJ that has nothing to do with anything practical, and forcing a change for the sake of perception is inappropriate. It begs the question what might be next: perhaps a requirement to make all file system elements into replaceable components? Windows, for all its warts, gave us some common foundation upon which to build, and the slope they slide down now at the DOJ (and the EU) is eroding the baseline image of the O/S. It would be better to make these decisions by necessity than for the impact of perception.
As for the XP3 and XP4 of Windows XP...that would be well-received indeed. Vista's barrier to acceptance will not be resolved by SP1, and until the applications catch up to the O/S some of us will be hard pressed to even consider the O/S. As a developer the O/S is impossible because the tools simply don't run well on it, if at all; and as a general power user, I have to question what the bells and whistles really brought me except incompatibility with the majority of the software I rely upon.
Here's to hoping the next 12 months brings some wiser O/S decisions from both producers and the DOJ.
-
I tend to agree that government regulation is troublesome, but I also see that forcing Microsoft to deliver patches in some reasonable time makes sense. It's easy for either group to abuse their position of power, and there's no good solution.
On the architecture thing, I'm not sure we should dictate what gets done, but dictating that something gets done and forcing some resources to work on it makes some sense. Just not sure how to do it practically in the real world.
I do understand their complaints on desktop search because there wasn't a way for OEMs to replace desktop search easily. The "integrated" search should be customizes to any search (google, yahoo, etc.). On that note, why doesn't Firefox allow Live as one of it's options. Even as flaky as it is, it's the #3 search engine and not including it brings them down to the level of MS. It would be like the auto manufacturers not allowing dealers to add on options.
MS isn't a monopoly, but they have a significant impact on society, along with other companies in other areas. They're big enough that no individual company or person can impact their revenue enough to force change. In essence, the "market" can't get them to change direction. Their drastic shifts have come about because they saw an opportunity, not the market forcing a change. Personally I think they (and other software companies) should have to"
- make all major patches, like Service Packs and perhaps roll ups as well.
- Release at least one major service pack every year if there are outstanding issues with their products. It's less than I would like to see, but it should be reachable level. I think most delays are because of "features" not patches.
- Have some minimum level of time to support products and produce security patches.
The hard part with these rules is figuring out who they apply to and how they apply to other software companies. MS, arguable Google/MSN, maybe a few others are fundamental to the workings of the Internet and the GNP of at least this country. The idea of government interference isn't palatable, but maybe some broad strokes are needed in a few areas.
Makes me a little scared just writing this
-
I can see why having the government involved is a scary thing, but in a de facto monopoly situation, governments are routinely involved.
I'm not a fan of a set schedule, or a quota on # of patches to release, and I don't think those should be regulated as such. On the other hand, one of the main things to be patched in XP SP3 is the numbering scheme update to allow for more XP activation codes; it's not at all hard to see why MS might care to drag their feet on that one ("we're out of activation keys, so you HAVE to use Vista"), and the government stepping in on that particular issue is appropriate in my mind. Just like those occasional inquiries into why a 1-week hiccup in gas supply leads to a 6-month bump at the pumps, the rulings telling AT&T they don't "own" the phone set you've already purchased from them, etc.... In a monopoly, sometimes the governments have to step in and make sure the "big guy" plays nice.
It IS a matter of balance, but too little involvement from the government is no better than too much. Surely you weren't going to rely on MS doing the right thing all by themselves, were you? They've always played the game "hard" (or dirty, depending on how you'd like to define it), so having someone out there to moderate them isn't always a bad thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again? -
Is government regulation a bad thing?
How safer are our cars because of government regulation?
How safer is airline travel due to government regulation?
How messed up is the airline industry due to government deregulation?
How has no government regulation on cell phone providers helped with cell phone service and price gouging/poor service?
It is a fine line between government regulation and interference. I do believe, as a Country, our government should provide the basic coverage and protection for all its people as outlined in the Constitution. The problem I see is when private enterprise affects the population the same as any government program, then it needs some 3rd party oversight since it affects so many peoples daily lives. Communications, utilities, transportation and medical are few areas where private and government must work together. Unfortunately, it generally comes at the expense of the middle income producer and that is a problem.
We have lemon laws to protect us against unscrupulous car dealers, why not orange laws against faulty software or other electronic producers. Laws are a form of regulation but one that can be applied equally to all players.
That is until the courts and lawyers get involved.
-
I vote for lime laws
-
I propose to amend the proposal from my esteemed colleague from dkranch.net to be a "tequila and lime" law. I'd second that....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again? -
Don't forget the salt!!!
-
Talk about cruel!
Make a new government regulation, add lime and salt to it and then rub it in the festering and open wound of additional government interference!
Ouch!
Give me a Vista laptop and make me work on a holiday instead!
-
This is hilarious
* Noel -
That's what the tequila's for: it disinfects AND takes the pain away....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again? -
Great...
Now you want to use a Vista laptop, on a holiday with a built in worm!
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply