3 ms·

Is there some philosophical principle under which you believe that companies must "cough up money" for services that they have already ostensibly paid for? That

by ouid 9y ago

Is there some philosophical principle under which you believe that companies must "cough up money" for services that they have already ostensibly paid for? That sounds remarkably like extortion. If Windows XP is proven to be untenably insecure, anyone who bought it should receive a refund.

mikekchar 9y ago
Assuming we class XP as a defective product, at what point do we stop requiring recalls? If there is a safety defect in a 2001 model car, will it be required to have a recall? Given that MS even made a patch (which is generally equivalent to a recall), I'm not sure that your suggestion will be given that much credence. I mean, if we say that XP is an unsafe product, the government could stop them from selling it and to remove it from the shelves, but MS stopped selling the product in 2008 (nearly 10 years ago) and has repeated urged its customers to stop using it because it is insecure. This is all that the government generally requires in this situation as far as I can tell. Edit: grammar
retox 9y ago
I think the discovery of new types of exploits could be considered akin to wear-and-tear of physical things you buy. At the point of sale the software was safe, but over time problems were discovered. When you buy a house you have a whole battery of inspections performed to make sure that you're buying somewhere safe, but over time the small things that got overlooked (like a small crack in a roof joint) or were considered safe at the point of sale become worn, or are discovered to be unsafe (locks susceptible to bumplocking for instance). It's a tenuous analogy to be sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that Microsoft should refund people who bought XP. Are there any Linux distributions that back port all fixes to version 0.1?
- mercer 9y ago
  Could asbestos be a good analogy? As far as I know we don't generally hold the original construction company responsible for its removal.
gruez 9y ago
Microsoft's support policy says they will only provide security updates for 10 years. Any company who wants more than that can pay them extra for the privilege. That's not extortion anymore than extended warranties are extortion.
- ouid 9y ago
  Microsoft was a monopoly when they sold that contract, which makes it subject to much stricter guidelines on what is allowable in the product they sell.
vel0city 9y ago
My car will break down at some point due to imperfect engineering and the realities of physics. Is Ford required to repair my car indefinitely or allow a refund on a car with 250k miles? No, when I bought the car, it came with a warranty stating if they messed up they would fix it within a certain period of time or miles. When I buy Windows, I agree to a warranty of sorts. They agree to supply updates to the software for a set period of time. Afterward, it is on me. Nobody can write perfect software, it will age and break down. Nobody can engineer a perfect car, it will age and break down. Demanding infinite warranties is ridiculous.
- EvanAnderson 9y ago
  The car analogy a very poor one. Software doesn't wear out-- physical stuff does. Defects in software are present when it's created. It doesn't "age" or "break down". (I am making no comment on the issue being discussed-- simply that this is a very poor analogy.)
  - eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
    > Software doesn't wear out Software does wear out. New languages/frameworks are developed which makes it difficult to patch older stuff. New threats are developed, and it may be impossible to patch older stuff.
  - vel0city 9y ago
    Nearly all complex software will have problems and weaknesses not known at creation, much like nearly every car will have some kind of weakness that will wear out. While there are differences between the physical world and the digital one, I think my critique of the concept of demanding infinite warranties is still valid. And yes, I do think software can "wear out", not in the same sense as belts get worn and spark plugs physically wear away, but in the sense of threat landscapes changing over time and our understanding of how these systems are used in the world. This is why we do maintenance on our software and systems, much like we perform maintenance on things in our physical world. When you fail to perform this maintenance, bad things happen. Computers get hacked, cars have brakes fail. Software can indeed age. Go run Windows 95 on the public internet or an early version of Android.
youdontknowtho 9y ago
Not all markets or products are the same. You're taking about software as if it were a rotten potato. It's not. It's an incredibly complex market for incredibly complex products. I agree that there needs to be a way to value the liability that software makers should face. In the short term we need everyone to be better net citizens. That includes the businesses using this software to create the trillions of dollars of wealth on the global economy.

by ouid 9y ago

mikekchar 9y ago

Assuming we class XP as a defective product, at what point do we stop requiring recalls? If there is a safety defect in a 2001 model car, will it be required to have a recall? Given that MS even made a patch (which is generally equivalent to a recall), I'm not sure that your suggestion will be given that much credence. I mean, if we say that XP is an unsafe product, the government could stop them from selling it and to remove it from the shelves, but MS stopped selling the product in 2008 (nearly 10 years ago) and has repeated urged its customers to stop using it because it is insecure. This is all that the government generally requires in this situation as far as I can tell. Edit: grammar

retox 9y ago

I think the discovery of new types of exploits could be considered akin to wear-and-tear of physical things you buy. At the point of sale the software was safe, but over time problems were discovered. When you buy a house you have a whole battery of inspections performed to make sure that you're buying somewhere safe, but over time the small things that got overlooked (like a small crack in a roof joint) or were considered safe at the point of sale become worn, or are discovered to be unsafe (locks susceptible to bumplocking for instance). It's a tenuous analogy to be sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that Microsoft should refund people who bought XP. Are there any Linux distributions that back port all fixes to version 0.1?

mercer 9y ago
Could asbestos be a good analogy? As far as I know we don't generally hold the original construction company responsible for its removal.

gruez 9y ago

Microsoft's support policy says they will only provide security updates for 10 years. Any company who wants more than that can pay them extra for the privilege. That's not extortion anymore than extended warranties are extortion.

ouid 9y ago
Microsoft was a monopoly when they sold that contract, which makes it subject to much stricter guidelines on what is allowable in the product they sell.

vel0city 9y ago

My car will break down at some point due to imperfect engineering and the realities of physics. Is Ford required to repair my car indefinitely or allow a refund on a car with 250k miles? No, when I bought the car, it came with a warranty stating if they messed up they would fix it within a certain period of time or miles. When I buy Windows, I agree to a warranty of sorts. They agree to supply updates to the software for a set period of time. Afterward, it is on me. Nobody can write perfect software, it will age and break down. Nobody can engineer a perfect car, it will age and break down. Demanding infinite warranties is ridiculous.

EvanAnderson 9y ago
The car analogy a very poor one. Software doesn't wear out-- physical stuff does. Defects in software are present when it's created. It doesn't "age" or "break down". (I am making no comment on the issue being discussed-- simply that this is a very poor analogy.)
- eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
  > Software doesn't wear out Software does wear out. New languages/frameworks are developed which makes it difficult to patch older stuff. New threats are developed, and it may be impossible to patch older stuff.
- vel0city 9y ago
  Nearly all complex software will have problems and weaknesses not known at creation, much like nearly every car will have some kind of weakness that will wear out. While there are differences between the physical world and the digital one, I think my critique of the concept of demanding infinite warranties is still valid. And yes, I do think software can "wear out", not in the same sense as belts get worn and spark plugs physically wear away, but in the sense of threat landscapes changing over time and our understanding of how these systems are used in the world. This is why we do maintenance on our software and systems, much like we perform maintenance on things in our physical world. When you fail to perform this maintenance, bad things happen. Computers get hacked, cars have brakes fail. Software can indeed age. Go run Windows 95 on the public internet or an early version of Android.

youdontknowtho 9y ago

Not all markets or products are the same. You're taking about software as if it were a rotten potato. It's not. It's an incredibly complex market for incredibly complex products. I agree that there needs to be a way to value the liability that software makers should face. In the short term we need everyone to be better net citizens. That includes the businesses using this software to create the trillions of dollars of wealth on the global economy.