El 09/03/12 13:16, Charlie Coleman escribió: > At 09:27 AM 3/7/2012 +0000, Alan Bourke wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 07:43 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote: >> >>> You are missing the point. That computer is MY computer. >> Nope, you're missing the point in your eagerness to get onto an anti-MS >> rant. Microsoft will be able to de-activate apps that were downloaded >> via their Windows 8 app stores. In Windows 8. Not 7, XP, or anything >> else. That's really all we know at the minute, and if that is the extent >> of it then they're no different from Apple and Google in that respect. >> So if it's a bad idea then fine, but please also include Google and >> Apple in your condemnation. >> -- >> Alan Bourke >> alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm > Well, maybe both missed each other's points. I don't think I've seen the > entire thread, but this is what I see: > > Ricardo is saying he doesn't want MS (or probably any company) to touch his > apps/data on his PC without his permission. > > Alan is saying other companies currently can do a remote app (and data?) > kills on phones and tablets (Google and Apple - although I'll have to look > into the Android thing - I don't remember seeing that). > > I think the thread started specifically about Windows 8, which may be why > Apple/Google wasn't a focus. Of course, they are clearly different > platforms. Also, the number of companies that behave a certain way does not > mean that "way" is ethical, good, or beneficial to consumers (the people > that pay the money). I think Google/Apple were emboldened by MS's past > license statements (i.e.they reserve the right to change stuff on your > computer at any time). So Google/Apple put in their backdoors for remote > control. And since they did it MS feels emboldened to do it for PCs. > > Mike B pointed out I predicted this (Windows remote-kill) a while back. > Thanks for that memory-trip Mike :). One thing I didn't see or extrapolate > was that other companies would embrace MS practices when they saw they got > away with it over and over. We (computer/software professionals) have > pretty much failed the world in this regard. Our laziness* and desire for > the easy-buck** has led to this pitiful situation. So if any developer gets > bit by some unexpected update, remote-kill, backdoor-hijack, bank account > hack, or stolen identity, just remember: it's your own fault. Your silence > and acquiescence to MS's progression down this path is what got us here. I > include myself in this - while I haven't been an MS fan for the past decade > or more, I have only had small victories (e.g. killed .Net projects where > possible, got open source into the workplace, etc). I should have done > much, much more. So when I work on Windows computers I have to expect > failures, hacks, or corruptions. In personal life, I'm trying to help > family/friends get off the MS wagon to atone for my decades-ago > recommendation to go with MS software. > > -Charlie > > *-laziness: unwilling to research and embrace technologies outside the > MS-bandwagon. Not actually understanding the science behind computer > technology to be able to see through marketing hyperbole of any vendor. > **-easy-buck: getting paid to do the same thing over and over because MS > said do it a different way... over and over. And heck, "I get paid by the > company, not some end user. So why the hell should I care about what's best > for them in the long run."
Hear, hear! _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4f5a8086.8050...@gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
