WGA meltdown, doubts about Microsoft reliability

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. <http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&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."
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <fb0vui$oon$>,
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    > <http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&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.
     
    whoisthis, Aug 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 1, 2007
    #3
  4. 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."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Sep 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2007-09-01, Jonathan Walker <> 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
     
    Gordon, Sep 1, 2007
    #5
  6. 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."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Sep 1, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    443
    joevan
    Jun 30, 2006
  2. Clogwog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    Clogwog
    Jul 7, 2007
  3. Mutley

    Microsoft Admits WGA Phones Home

    Mutley, Jun 10, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    358
    Peter Huebner
    Jun 10, 2006
  4. 2tone
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    319
    SchoolTech
    Jul 3, 2006
  5. 2tone

    Microsoft Faces Second WGA Lawsuit

    2tone, Jul 6, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    2tone
    Jul 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page