[thelist] FYI - Plug this MS Application Hole

[Chris Marsh]

James

> > Microsoft, AOL et al thrive on the ignorance of their users. It is 
> > against their business interests to have informed users, because 
> > informed users Do It Themselves rather than installing 
> megabyte upon 
> > megabyte of bloated application to do it for them.
> 
>     Stepping back from the particular software/service 
> companies cited, wouldn't you agree that most computer users 
> are either intimidated by technology or have no interest in 
> familiarizing themselves with the underlying digestive 
> processes of their software in order to learn to "do it themselves"?

I would agree with this, but I'm sure that you along with pretty much
everyone else on this list have had many support phonecalls from friends
and associates asking why their computer keeps crashing/has slowed to a
standstill/is full of viruses. Why should we support products that are
sold to users completely unnecessarily?

>     Is it the primary duty of a software maker to provide a 
> technical education to everyone who uses its software,

Not the primary duty, no. It is a duty, though.

> or to 
> make its software easy to use?

Yes, but answer me this. If the average home user needs to write letters
in a wordprocessor, read email and browse the internet, why are they
being sold PCs with 3Ghz processors with the latest Microsoft software
suites installed? What makes these products easier to use than Windows
98 and Office 97 (with perhaps a few UI tweaks)? I have dealt with quite
a few people over the past few months who have bought second hand
laptops. "Will it run XP?" they query. "Yes" I repond, "but it will run
like a one legged dog in molasses". After some debate, we have decided
on Windows 98. After the initial disappointment of not having the new XP
look and feel, all of the users have been over the moon at exactly how
fast their laptop runs. Are there any real major benefits to the
millions of people who have spent tens of millions of dollars on
upgrades to XP, or are they being sold snake oil in attractive
packaging? If the latter, then why bother increasing the complexity (and
thus the percentage chance of failure) of the product?

> The answer will likely depend 
> on the target audience and the purpose of the software maker, 
> but for most software primarily targeted for non-technical 
> users, the more reasonable goal is making software easy to use.

Easy to use is good, but easy to maintain is as important. How many
people apply hotfixes in a timely fashion? How many people actually
understand security issues? And let's not forget, if you leave your
machine open to vulnerabilities it's not just you that suffers. You may
well be contributing towards the spread of viruses. If it's not the
responsibility of software manufacturers to educate you (the user) about
these issues, then whose is it?

> > Freeserve was a
> > case in point some time ago with their dial-up accounts. 
> They gave you 
> > an executable file in order to "install" your dialup 
> account, on the 
> > grounds that it was easier than setting up a dialup connection 
> > manually. If you ran the .exe, your machine was tied inexorably to 
> > Freeserve forever.
> 
>     A bad or greedy implementation doesn't negate the goal of 
> making software easy to use.

It doesn't negate the goal, but you will note that nobody produces
software that conforms to this model (except freeware, open source type
stuff), as it makes no business sense. It takes longer to write a
program that quickly and cleanly sets up a dialup account than it does
to write a three line text file giving idiot-proof instructions on how
to do it manually. Ergo, the only reason to write an application is to
play on the user's ignorance, and do other things to their machine when
they run it. This is totally unethical (IMHO).

> > This was opposed to entering a phone number,
> > account name and password in a dialogue box; <sarcasm>which I must 
> > confess I find so difficult and complex that I have often had to 
> > survive without an internet connection</sarcasm>.
> 
>     But you are a technically savvy user, probably unlike the 
> average user targeted by Freeserve.

Yes, but I find it dishonest of them to imply that it's a difficult task
(when it isn't) in order to make registry changes etc to each user's
machine.

> > It would be
> > more ethical to educate users but 1) This would make less money, and
> > 2) People in general are lazy and prefer to believe the hype rather 
> > than figure it out for themselves. Therefore Microsoft shelters its 
> > users in the short term, exposing them to many more dangers in the 
> > longer term. One can't really knock them for this, as it's a proven 
> > business model that has made a lot of people very rich indeed.
> 
>     Do you diagnose any problem that your car might have, and 
> perform the repair yourself? Even if you do, most people do 
> not because they either don't have the time or the 
> inclination to learn enough about the functioning of their 
> car in order to gain the expertise -- and the confidence -- 
> necessary to do so. Is it the responsibility of automobile 
> makers to educate drivers about the workings of pistons and 

It's the responsibility of the driver to know how the car works to a
certain standard, and this is why you cannot pass your driving test
without this knowledge. And this is my point exactly. If cars failed at
the rate at which software fails, the population would be in decline.
Just because nobody dies when an over-engineered piece of crap falls
over on your PC doesn't mean that there aren't consequences.

> fuel injectors, or to make the car as easy to use as possible 
> for the average driver? While a mechanically savvy driver is 
> far better off than an ignorant one, no car manufacturer will 
> spend anywhere near the money educating drivers that they 
> spend on making their products easier to use.
>     Technology is hardly any different, and I don't expect 
> the average user to gain the expertise or confidence to do 
> tasks manually -- even seemingly simple things -- that can be 
> made easier by automation. If you love to do those things, 
> great -- you will be better off for it. But it is arrogant to 
> insist that everyone else do it that way, too.

Not at all. I'm not suggesting that everyone learn VBScript and use WSH
to automate all of their tasks. If you buy a video recorder, you RTFM so
that you know how to use it. A computer is no different. If you're never
connected to the internet and you don't bother me with support calls I
could not care less what crappy software you install and whose hype you
believe. But connect yourself to the internet and parade your ignorance,
and you start actively contributing towards the decline of the internet.
I believe that it IS the responsibility of software manufacturers to
deliver a base level of education to users if they are aware that there
is a high chance of the user being compromised due to a misconfigured or
faulty piece of software.

Having said all of this, I don't actually care *too* much about the fate
of those too lazy or uninformed to protect themselves. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to maintain a virus protection application and
firewall. Strange, though, that XP comes with its firewall disabled by
default...

Regards

Chris Marsh

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003