Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Forget California, it's time to recall Micro$oft

Splice · 08-22-2003, 08:16 AM

charliex & sandeep: You both made a good point. It is true that to "cover all bases" when it comes to a complex OS is impossible, since humans are prone to errors.

Sandeep: You pointed out about the Ford Explorer & FireStone tire example. "you need to take into account the sheer size of microsoft's user base...the example of the Ford Explorer. If no one bought the cars, it wouldn't be such a big deal. it's only because the problem was so wide spread that it got the attention that it did."

But I would argue that Honda produces a significant number of cars, Civic, Accord, etc. But notice that their "quality-control" is much higher than the Ford. Now if we're talking the "user base" then I think that is a fair comparison. So if what you're saying is true then Honda cars should have just as many problems as Ford cars. And again, I would argue that this is not the case. One company obviously has a "higher standard of quality" than the other. This might also be supported by the fact that Honda Accords are among, if not the top selling cars in the U.S.

Charliex: "...for every 100 testers microsoft has theres 500 cracker script kiddies on the outside looking harder, these guys will spend months and months going over over one possible exploit, thats just not viable in business."

You may be right, and I'm not debating that. However, we keep going back to the sheer amount of users for MS. Ok then, since there is such a big user base, then is it not MS's responsibility to ensure that their products are as "flawless as possible?" Let's say for a small company with 500 users. This company could "screw up" or develop crappy software/hardware and it would not affect that many people. So this company would not have to test, re-test, and triple-test their products to death. Now, what about MS? This is where the difference is. Because MS is acutely aware that it controls 90-95% of the computer market, shouldn't the responsibility lie upon MS to test, re-test, and test and test again 10-20-50-100 times their products? I mean, the U.S. govt has chosen MS as the OS for Homeland Security. Isn't it ironic that after sealing the deal with the US govt. that all these flaws showed up? They are obviously very successful in marketing, but how lucky could one company be? I for one, am scared that an OS with this many flaws is now "protecting Americans."

*** Please know, I am debating and mean NO disrespect to either of you. Since this is a forum for discussion, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. BUT, I do stand by my argument.

08-22-2003, 08:16 AM	#13 (permalink)
Splice Crazy	charliex & sandeep: You both made a good point. It is true that to "cover all bases" when it comes to a complex OS is impossible, since humans are prone to errors. Sandeep: You pointed out about the Ford Explorer & FireStone tire example. "you need to take into account the sheer size of microsoft's user base...the example of the Ford Explorer. If no one bought the cars, it wouldn't be such a big deal. it's only because the problem was so wide spread that it got the attention that it did." But I would argue that Honda produces a significant number of cars, Civic, Accord, etc. But notice that their "quality-control" is much higher than the Ford. Now if we're talking the "user base" then I think that is a fair comparison. So if what you're saying is true then Honda cars should have just as many problems as Ford cars. And again, I would argue that this is not the case. One company obviously has a "higher standard of quality" than the other. This might also be supported by the fact that Honda Accords are among, if not the top selling cars in the U.S. Charliex: "...for every 100 testers microsoft has theres 500 cracker script kiddies on the outside looking harder, these guys will spend months and months going over over one possible exploit, thats just not viable in business." You may be right, and I'm not debating that. However, we keep going back to the sheer amount of users for MS. Ok then, since there is such a big user base, then is it not MS's responsibility to ensure that their products are as "flawless as possible?" Let's say for a small company with 500 users. This company could "screw up" or develop crappy software/hardware and it would not affect that many people. So this company would not have to test, re-test, and triple-test their products to death. Now, what about MS? This is where the difference is. Because MS is acutely aware that it controls 90-95% of the computer market, shouldn't the responsibility lie upon MS to test, re-test, and test and test again 10-20-50-100 times their products? I mean, the U.S. govt has chosen MS as the OS for Homeland Security. Isn't it ironic that after sealing the deal with the US govt. that all these flaws showed up? They are obviously very successful in marketing, but how lucky could one company be? I for one, am scared that an OS with this many flaws is now "protecting Americans." *** Please know, I am debating and mean NO disrespect to either of you. Since this is a forum for discussion, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. BUT, I do stand by my argument. Last edited by Splice; 08-22-2003 at 08:19 AM..