Cleaning WGA
-
Cleaning WGAWhen I was growing up I couldn't wait to turn 18 and be able to buy beer. At the time I was in high school and scheming to acquire beer every weekend, the drinking age in Virginia was 18. For wine and liquor it was 21, which made Virginia one of the few strange states with separate ages, but that was ok with me. A couple of Pabst Blue Ribbons or Budweisers if I had some cash to spare, were all I wanted.
When I was 16, however, Virginia changed the laws and starting the next year the drinking age for beer would go to 19, then 20 the year after, and 21 after that. I'd be waiting for quite a few more years. It ended up that I went to Syracuse for college and got 6 months of 18 year old drinking there before NY just moved their age to 21. That didn't stop me, but I avoided getting into trouble.
I know this isn't very computer related, but stick with me for a moment. I told you that story to get to this one. The idea behind raising the drinking age was to lower the incidence of drunk driving in the US by focusing on teenagers. This was in the early 80s and at the time drunk driving was a big problem in the US. I guess it still is, but at this time the political focus was on the younger drivers, 16-21, that were being irresponsible and causing accidents. The US federal government couldn't regulate the drinking age, but they could withhold funds for other projects and by doing so, they forced all the states to raise their drinking ages.
But they were treating everyone poorly and assuming that all, or most, teenagers couldn't handle alcohol and driving. While I'm not sure that's a horrible assumption where I grew up, it's the wrong way to attack the issue. The problem is drunk driving, not selling alcohol to people at a certain age. I think there are plenty of adults that don't handle beer and driving too well and the whole effort to change the drinking age didn't help them. Later lawmakers targeted drinking establishments (restaurants, bars, and pubs) and tried to hold them responsible.
I always thought that the big stick approach was better; if the problem was drunk driving, focus on that. Catch someone, take their car and toss them in jail for a day. Make them take the bus or get a ride for 30 days and you'd see less drunk driving in a hurry.
I know I haven't mentioned computers, but I'm getting there. That story came to mind when I heard about the Microsoft WGA tool. Honestly I avoided installing the WGA tool from Microsoft because I don't like extra software and it annoyed me. We've got lots of licenses here at SQLServerCentral.com, so I wasn't worried about that part of it, but the whole idea kind of tourqued me off. I understand the desire to be sure that people are paying for Windows, but treating the individual as a criminal, even when most people aren't, is the wrong way to handle it.
The right way is to dedicate people to working on fighting people that sell pirated software. Maybe alter your business practices to promote people getting legal versions, or some other creative idea I can't think of. But don't treat your customers, the ones that do pay you, as criminals.
Microsoft altered the tool so it doesn't send information on every reboot, but it's still showing up as a "critical update", something it's not. I hope that they don't require it's install before pushing down other patches as well, something they had mentioned.
I saw this interview with Microsoft's privacy guy, Peter Cullen, and I couldn't believe what was listed. He deflected all the questions on the phone home feature by saying they weren't transparent enough on the notification piece, focusing on the validation piece internally.
Excuse me while I cough (B#$@SH!T)
There's a class action suit underway because of this and I agree. I didn't like it when Sony did this and I don't agree with it by Microsoft. The workings of the software were not disclosed and it's deceptively classified as a security update, which it is not.
This was a bad decision and one that should be rescinded.
Steve Jones
-
-
Couldn't agree more, Steve.
I work for a Microsoft Gold-Certified Partner, and I was recently going through the latest updates which they sent us. I saw a beta 2 of IE7, and thought I'd install it and give it a go, but the first thing it wanted to do was install WGA. I cancelled the installation straight away.
Now, as I said, we're Gold-Certifed MS partners, so licences and illegal software are not an issue. We have more than enough legal copies of all our software. But I've heard of several cases involving people with genuine Windows installed on their machines which has been (incorrectly) identified as illegal by WGA, and I just didn't feel like running that risk. And even if they sorted out those issues, I still find the whole implementation of the WGA scheme offensive.
Will Microsoft actually care what their customers think, though? That's the $64,000 question... and one which I wouldn't like to bet on.
-----------------
C8H10N4O2
-
The problem of WGA was how it was foisted on the public. What they should have done was make it a distinct benefit to run genuine Windows, and offer that "utility" (no way it is a security patch in itself) to access those benefits. Tell most people that by installing WGA they're getting access to some content of value, or some tweaks that are made available through the program, and they will do so -- as long as it isn't invasive. Hell, most people I know would have done it for access to some free wallpaper, IM icons, winks, whatever.
As well, I see nothing wrong with allowing only critical software updates without WGA. That's MS's choice (dumb though it may be), and I think beyond critical security updates they don't owe any greater level of service to those with illegal copies. Whether the O/S is too expensive, etc., isn't really relevant to whether they have the right to protect it from piracy. Was WGA a good way to do that? Probably not; but it was the way they chose.
My point is that WGA itself isn't really more than a minor annoyance, even when it dialled home. The problem arises because it was pushed from the wrong perspective. It was possible to accomplish the mass delivery of this validation software without deception, and could have been done with a carrot instead of a virtual stick.
-
The most laughable in all this initiatives - I'm sure that companies lost more than obtain.
For Sony - anyway, I didn't listen music they produce.
For Microsoft - most of their cache must be from corporative clients. Not individuals, but companies.
I can't understand all this hype about housewiwes installing illegal Windows XP Home.
Anyway - it's not a danger for Microsoft. They will not go high if they catch all illegal users, they will not go down if they make XP Home free.
Fight companies, not children and housewiwes - that's my opinion.
(Excuse me for my English, it's not my native language)
-
WGA is unlikely to catch corporate users anyway, they are usually too well firewalled and restricted. For example I am connected to the internet via a secure controlled connection which allows no downloads and my xp updates are distributed internally via other software.
As a result the people this catches are probably those who can least afford the fines i.e. the small businesses and domestic users with limited knowledge of IT who will have installed the update because it came from Microft and was labelled as a security patch or because their machine is set to download and install all updates (the "recommended" option).
If microsoft reduced the cost of xp they would do better - having made up a machine for my daughter by taking bits left over after upgrades and adding a case, the cost of xp far exceeded the cost of the hardware! There are certainly no incentives to buy xp, it just feels like another tax and even taxes benefit us somehow!
-
Thanks for the article. As a developer who makes my money on the Microsoft platform, it totally annoys me that Microsoft, in its total arrogance, shooting itself in the foot. Again!
I fully understand the company's right to make a profit on their product. However, foisting on the honest public a new irritation in order to prevent the bad guys from stealing their stuff is the wrong way to do it. The bad guys will find a way around it. They good guys will put up with the bad software.
Russel Loski, MCSE Business Intelligence, Data Platform
-
And, if folks refuse to install the WGA and don't patch their machines, you have a whole new set of vulnerable machines in the world ripe for the picking, which denegrates the entire Net community.
-
I have never really understood the MS insistence on this one.
As previously mentioned most of the revenue must be from companies not from home users.
Secondly surely having a free / nearly free home edition makes sense.
When I was a student there were plenty of copies of Win 98 flying around because most people did not want to have to work Linux out.
Result; 1 steady stream of graduates already computer literate and totally Microsoft dependant. Doubt they would have had that if WIN 98 required WGA.
-
Several good points have been made already, especially the bit about piracy causing dependence on windows. The few dollars they will make by catching a teenage pirate would be more than made up by that same pirate purchasing MS games and software later because they don't understand Linux. Especially when these same teenagers grow up to manage large companies and purchase MS Windows for their company because they are familiar with it.
Also, how long before some hacker figures out how to sniff this informtion as it is being sent to MS?
-
Being an alleged devil, let me play advocate...
Would all of the WGA opponents be willing to pay a higher price for a WGA-free version of Windows that didn't need to phone home?
Maybe a version that required you to reinsert the installation media every so often?
Perhaps an edition that behaved like a game from Blizzard that refuses to network with other machines that are "stolen" from the same installation media?
Just curious.
I personally think the tempest in a teapot right now is just because this feature didn't come out of the box to start with...
-
A little off-topic I know, but do you really only ban drunk drivers for 30 days in the States? In the UK you can expect to lose your driving licence for a year, have a fine and then be compelled to retake your driving test when the ban is over. If it's a repeat offence the ban will be longer. May be one of the reasons we have one of the lowest death rates on the roads in Europe.
--
Scott -
It's different in different states for drinking and driving. I was happy to see in my native Virginia that they pull your license and arrest you on the spot if they catch you drunk driving. Other states will arrest you, but not pull your license until trial.
Seems most people will get off for the first offense with a lawyer
-
To be pedantic, you are not compelled to retake your driving test in the UK unless the court orders it, which they normally don't. If you re-offend within 10 years you will going down for a little bit even if it is only two weeks.
In scandinavia you always go to prison for the first offence and they simply don't drink drive.
Richard
-
Great article. I agree 100%
Cleaning WGAViewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply