|
Well, of course stealing a car isn't that hard. However, on NPR this morning I heard a story that basically makes the same argument: that M$ (and software makers in general) do get to play by different rules. If I buy a car (and I just did), I have certain consumer rights. If the car has a flaw that puts me in danger, I can seek legal redress (look at the Ford Explorer "beta" release that caused so many problems). I can also turn around and sell the car if I want to. I can complain about it in print if I don't like it. However, the EULA from M$ keeps you from selling your software or even giving it away, it keeps you from publishing a review of the product without written consent, and it absolves M$ from all liability.
Having no liability is a license to act with wanton disregard. How much would it cost M$ to fix their holes? I'm thinking not much. It doesn't cost anything to not enable Universal PnP, for example. And other software has far fewer security holes, a lot of it freeware.
Of course, it's not all the fault of M$. People in general don't have a clue and don't understand that increased interoperability also can lead to increased risk. But I think the fact that the products from M$ are unlike any other products when it comes to consumer rights and protection is quite problematic and is causing this problem.
|