Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ...
[snip]
Again, I'm not *at* MS. I'm just a Windows user like others
here. The MVP title is an honorary one, awarded to people who
have demonstrated their consistency in helping people here
with accurate information.
Ken, I know you're not necessarily a MS employee, you're a
volunteer who signed some sort of NDA and perhaps other things
you must honor in order to get the honor of being an MVP. I don't
think I insulted you but if I did, I apologize. But, it is true
that MVPs in general either want to or feel they have to tote the
company line. I thought I was clear about your statements about
EULAs in my comments about how and why some folks side step them.
So, I'm not the same as folks at MS, and I'm not even the same
as all other MVPs. My views on licensing probably coincide
with those of some MVPs, and are diametrically opposed to
those of others. Please don't paint us all with the same
brush. MVPs are a diverse lot, with different backgrounds and
different knowledge. There really isn't even any such thing as
a typical MVP.
Well, my view of licensing is that is it totally BS. I don't like
the idea of buying something with real money that I cannot claim
I own or that I have a signed legally enforceable contract, ala a
car or apartment lease. SW by its nature has everything going for
the seller and zero for the buyer. MS could, if they wanted to,
simply invalidate my license under some obscure provision in the
EULA I "agreed to" or it could put me out of business by
refusing to update it anymore, ala if I refuse WGA enough times.
I don't like that. But, I am a realist and I know I can't do
anything about it. So, I pay my dues and I do my best to protect
myself.
Let me be perfectly clear, though: I do NOT steal software and I
do NOT condone those who do. If not for moral reasons, my views
are purely economic - the lost profits from ANY stolen SW gets
passed on to me in the form of higher licensing fees, read, it
costs me more to buy it.
I'm not a developer either (although I used to be).
I was also, and I didn't much appreciate people stealing my IP.
Of course I understand that not everyone shares my view of the
world. But that has nothing to do with being an MVP. I'm sure
that many other MVPs don't share my view of the world, either.
As I said, we are all very different people.
Well, I guess you have to reconcile your personal views with
those required of you to keep your MVP status. I can't imagine MS
allowing MVPs to stay MVPs that are in any way disparaging the
company. No, I didn't just accuse you of that, I'm just
commenting on why I think that MVPs as a group must, of
necessity, be circumspect as to what they do and say on-line.
Of course it is. But although I have no statistics as to back
it up, I think it's much less widespread than it used to be,
in the days before product activation. I personally know many
people with multiple computers in their homes, who used to
share a single copy of Windows 98 on all their computers, but
now have multiple copies of Windows XP. In that sense at
least, whether or not you or I personally like it, WPA has
been a success.
I have no stats, either. Probably, though, what stops it more
than people being more moral is that typical OEM PCs are
difficult to cross-license and it isn't too easy to take a
Windows CD and install it on your next PC. That's entirely
different if you're building your own or having one built where
the HW isn't proprietary.
Personally I wish WPA didn't exist. But I understand why
Microsoft chose to put it in place.
Everybody understands authentication, it is to enhance profits. I
have no problem with companies being compensated for their work.
I just wish that as a user I weren't penalized or have to prove I
am innocent. You know as well as I do that WGA, not WPA,
generates tons of false positives which the honest user's must
resolve somehow. That bites.
I don't think people should expect to be screwed either. But
"caveat emptor" doesn't mean that. It means that the
responsibility for finding out what it you are buying, and how
well it meets your needs is yours, the buyers, not the
sellers. If you are luckly, you may find a helpful salesman
who will try to get you the product that's best for you, but
don't depend on it.
I understand the Latin. But, by and large, Mr. and Mrs. America
are NOT educated nor careful, so caveat emptor to them means
you're likely to be screwed over at some point, be prepared.
It's irrelevant to this discussion, but I am continually
astonished by the number of people who don't understand that
anything as complex as modern software can *not* be bug-free.
When I wrote Apple ][ software 30 years ago, it was impossible
for me to write bug-free code, so I would be VERY surprised if
development teams in the tens of thousands could possibly do it.
And, I would be surprised to no end of an O/S that needs to run
every piece of SW and HW ever invented, AND be secure, could
possibly be bug-free. That's not an issue with me at all. I am
very careful with what I allow MS to update on my system, but the
total number of bug fixes per year is reasonable to me.
And also because, in good software (not perfect--perfection
doesn't exist), most bugs bite you very seldom, or the pain of
the bite is very little.
There are early bugs and then there are later side-effect bugs.
It is difficult to get around the latter, but one can duck the
former by just waiting. That's why I say that I refuse to beta
test ANY SW with my Visa card. I waited about 15 months to go to
SP2, I expect it'll be 2 years before I build a new PC and
install Vista. That isn't the answer that Bill Gates and Steve
Ballmer want to hear, but maybe you understand what I mean.
But that's not really the developer's point of view; it's the
point of view of the marketing people, who are typically in a
hurry to get the product on the shelves as soon as possible.
I didn't say that it was the developers out to screw anybody.
Everybody has a boss, even Bill Gates. But, pushing the problem
off on marketing hardly makes it go away, it just shifts the
blame. And, no, Ken, my company doesn't make any bug-free cars,
never has, never will. But, we also don't intentionally make bad
cars but ALL producers of ALL commodities must make economic
compromises else they'd go out of business.
Oh, I understand why it exists. But that doesn't mean I have
to like it. And there are alternative schemes that could be
workable.
I am all ears to alternative schemes but I don't see any on the
horizon. Copy protection is on the rise, through various
euphemisms, the current one being activation schemes "to ensure
authentic sofware." Yeah, right.
Have a good day, Ken.
