Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > WGA meltdown, doubts about Microsoft reliability

Reply
Thread Tools

WGA meltdown, doubts about Microsoft reliability

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
<http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9033 098&intsrc=hm_ts_head>

"Why don't they have a workable fail-over strategy for this service? What
does this say about the resiliency of Microsoft's services?"

"A system that's not totally reliable really should not be so punitive..."

"Until customers think WGA is so egregious that they stop purchasing
Windows, there will be no change."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2007
In article <fb0vui$oon$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

> <http://computerworld.com/action/arti...asic&articleId
> =9033098&intsrc=hm_ts_head>
>
> "Why don't they have a workable fail-over strategy for this service? What
> does this say about the resiliency of Microsoft's services?"
>
> "A system that's not totally reliable really should not be so punitive..."
>
> "Until customers think WGA is so egregious that they stop purchasing
> Windows, there will be no change."


http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml
"Ubuntu had to shutdown 5 of 8 production servers that are sponsored by
Canonical, when they started attacking other systems

Guess linux has its problems too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2007
Here's another interesting question
<http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42034>: if the problem was
caused by the fact that the WGA servers _didn't_ exactly fail, because such
failure would have defaulted to giving users the benefit of the doubt, why
did Microsoft keep the malfunctioning servers running and giving out bogus
validation failures, instead of taking them offline, and leaving users
alone, until they were fixed?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2007
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:19:15 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Here's another interesting question
> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42034>: if the problem was
> caused by the fact that the WGA servers _didn't_ exactly fail, because
> such failure would have defaulted to giving users the benefit of the
> doubt, why did Microsoft keep the malfunctioning servers running and
> giving out bogus validation failures, instead of taking them offline, and
> leaving users alone, until they were fixed?


The whole point of the "validation" process is to prevent people from
being able to use their computer - not the other way round.

The propaganda says otherwise, but that is not the reason for having the
WGA servers in the first place.

The only "guaranteed advantage" from this process is to Micro$oft.


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2007
On 2007-09-01, Jonathan Walker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:19:15 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Here's another interesting question
>> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42034>: if the problem was
>> caused by the fact that the WGA servers _didn't_ exactly fail, because
>> such failure would have defaulted to giving users the benefit of the
>> doubt, why did Microsoft keep the malfunctioning servers running and
>> giving out bogus validation failures, instead of taking them offline, and
>> leaving users alone, until they were fixed?

>
> The whole point of the "validation" process is to prevent people from
> being able to use their computer - not the other way round.
>

Read that again gentle reader.

Let us hope so.

Hint Computers being able to use people
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2007
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:18:19 +0000, Gordon wrote:

>>> Here's another interesting question
>>> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42034>: if the problem was
>>> caused by the fact that the WGA servers _didn't_ exactly fail, because
>>> such failure would have defaulted to giving users the benefit of the
>>> doubt, why did Microsoft keep the malfunctioning servers running and
>>> giving out bogus validation failures, instead of taking them offline,
>>> and leaving users alone, until they were fixed?

>>
>> The whole point of the "validation" process is to prevent people from
>> being able to use their computer - not the other way round.

>
> Read that again gentle reader.
> Let us hope so.
> Hint Computers being able to use people


The other way round is: "enabling people to use their computer".


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forget about the WGA! 20+ Windows Vista Features and Services Harvest User Data for Microsoft - From your machine! Clogwog Computer Support 0 07-07-2007 03:36 PM
Microsoft hit with second lawsuit over WGA Au79 Computer Support 0 07-05-2006 09:04 PM
User suing Microsoft over WGA notification 2tone NZ Computing 7 07-03-2006 10:00 PM
Microsoft faces class-action suit over WGA tool Au79 Computer Support 2 06-30-2006 09:40 PM
Microsoft Admits WGA Phones Home Mutley NZ Computing 1 06-10-2006 01:41 AM



Advertisments