North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: ISPs blocking port 53? (was Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates)
--On Monday, September 29, 2003 2:44 AM +0000 Paul Vixie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> the whole end-to-end argument depends on uniform clue distribution > for scale. ... Getting vendors to supply more appropriate defaults offers better scaling possibilities. Your complaint might fix one user's computer, Microsoft updating the default behaivor would fix tens of millions of users' computers. Which scales better?you've got a real mad on about software monopolies, and i guess i ought to join you since on any other day i'm just as worried. (the fact that dan geer lost his job over this issue makes it even more painful.) but in this case microsoft's culpability is toward their user, whereas the isp's culpability is toward me, so there are two "culpability segments" in the path, and i can't really complain to microsoft about these updates even if, as you point out, they are the ones who would find fixing it easiest, among all involved parties.
Paul, IANAL, but, I believe you could sue Micr0$0ft under current product liability laws, just as if their exploding pinto had hit you on the freeway and blown up in your face. I believe that if lots of Micr0$0ft victims would do this, making Micr0$0ft play legal whack-a-mole, it would have an impact. Even if most or all of the law-suits didn't win, it would create a cost to Micr0$0ft for not fixing things.
How can a Windows system have a fatal error every hour for days and months, and the user not be aware of it until someone else calls them?
Because most Windows users have become so conditioned to accepting failures in the software that they just push the big red button again and move on. If it fails after three reboots, they either call their IT help desk or get a cup of coffee and hope it's better when they get back. Owen