Sponsor's Message

I do find it interesting however, that for some reason, software is assumed to be exempt from the normal requirements for suppliers to meet certain minimum standards and to cover the costs associated with putting right any design defects.

If General Motors finds that there's a defect with the brakes in the new HSV Holden Commodore, they instantly issue a recall that sees owners notified and all the required parts and labour needed to fix the problem provided absolutely free of charge.

However, those system admins currently spending huge amounts of time patching all their copies of Win NT, 2K and XP are unlikely to see a cent come out of Billy-boy's pockets to pay for the time involved in doing so.

Of course there's always the argument that software is complex stuff and it's impractical to suggest that any non-trivial program could ever be bug-free. To achieve "bug free" status would, it is said, result in a massive hike in software prices yet still provide no guarantees.

Well, having cut a lot of code in my time, I have to admit that there is some validity to this excuse.

However, one only has to look at Microsoft's extremely high profits and retained earnings to realise that they could probably do a *lot* more to improve the quality of their products without having to raise the prices one red cent.

Perhaps this is where Microsoft's psuedo-monopoly juggernaut will come off the rails.

If Billy spent as much on improving the security of his own products as he does on fighting Linux and Open Source Software through is PR team, maybe those overworked system admins wouldn't be suggesting to their bosses that Linux might be a better option.

And what about end-users?

Let's face it, if your new car required as many "fixups" as MS Windows you'd probably be bitching madly to the dealer right?

So why are we happy to accept viruses, worms and other artifacts of the flaws in Windows as being "just a part of life"?

And here's something to worry you a little more...

The payload of this latest Blaster worm is a bit of code that will launch a denial of service attack on the Microsoft Windows Update site in a few days time.

What will happen if the virus writer knows more than he/she is letting on and they have another worm waiting in the wings to capitalise on the fact that users may not be able to patch their system against a possible new vulnerability that this second worm exploits?

Perhaps there's only one trustworthy aspect to Microsoft's code right now -- that it can be trusted to earn MS lots of money despite its shortcomings.

Oh damn, this did turn out to be another bitch about Microsoft's failure to follow-through on the Trustworthy Computing initiative after all.

If any Aardvark readers want to share an opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!