From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-14 17:46:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. Date: 14 Aug 2003 17:46:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3F367B39.8060108@noplace.com> <1060611604.45048@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F38DEBC.8040208@noplace.com> <78g_a.4373$UB4.3323@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <3F3ABAED.3060006@attbi.com> <3F3BA498.20709@attbi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.152.82.191 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060908372 14134 127.0.0.1 (15 Aug 2003 00:46:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2003 00:46:12 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41473 Date: 2003-08-15T00:46:12+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > But I don't see other way for Microsoft, given that it has tremendous quantity > > of unskilled users, many third parties involved, and at the same time it > > reasonably wants to restrict its responsibility, at least separate itself from > > those third parties. How can Microsoft test an update if it do not replace > > foreign drivers? Then, if the update installer will ask user, this will mean > > that responsibility for subsequent failure (incompatibility) will be somehow > > divided. While with current mode of operation the issue of responsibility is > > much cleaner - if Windows works properly after update, but fails after subsequent > > re-installation of some third-party driver then it is easy to blame the driver > > and to defend this position. > >Which assumes that Windows will work properly after the update. Yes, Microsoft's part of Windows (including Microsoft-certified third-party components), and not exactly "properly", but just not worse then the previous version from Microsoft (which may include corresponding versions of third-party components) > But the > reality is that the third party vendor had a reason for distributing an > update to their driver. Reinstalling the earlier version that is part > of Windows is going to break something, or reinstall a security hole > that the user thought he had fixed. Yes. This is certainly inconvenient for us professional programmers, who have some system knowledge. But perhaps it is somehow convenient for Microsoft, as it faces millions of users. It is just hard to imagine (from an outside) the spectre of possibilities, which are real for a vendor with that number and diversity of customers. > IF Microsoft asked before replacing a third-party driver, and had all > sorts of warnings about why you might have problems if you don't that > would be fine. It is well-known that most users will not read/understand those warnings and will simply press a button. Anyway, they don't know anything about the drivers in their Windows ("oh, my son, a student, installed something when he was here on his recent vacation" or "yes, Michael Goose installed something on all computers in our office, but he left us two weeks ago"). > And of course that is the DEFAULT behaviour of the > Microsoft supplied installer when used with other company's > applications. AFAIK, only Microsoft overrides it so there is neither a > warning or a record of what was done. So we can reasonably suppose that it is not an oversight, and that "proper" way do not require extra effort - therefore it is deliberate Microsoft's choice and perhaps Microsoft has a reason... well, possibly non-technical. Anyway, I think that it is not too hard to develop an utility, which "corrects" that aspect of installer's behaviour. So, if there were noticeable demand for that feature then probably that utility must be already waiting for download (at www.sysinternals.com or elsewhere), Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia