[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, John Karns <johnkarns at gmail.com> wrote:

> I remember installing W3.1 over DR-Dos and seeing the
> warning about it detecting an unsupported OS.  I ignored 
> it, figuring it was about killing the competition.  And
> the system ran every bit as well as ..
> well, a crippled, brain-dead, piece of software like W3.1
> could run on MS-Dos.

<grin>

On a *serious* note...

It's easy to see the vendor(s) as Big Bad Guys trying to "force"
you to buy their products, support contracts, etc.

OTOH, how *can* a vendor protect (bad choice of words... read on)
himself from customers (users) who purchase their products and
then use them (deploy them?  apply them??) in ways that they
weren't intended to be "used"?

E.g., you run W3.1 on <non>MSDOS and things don't work quite
right.  Who do you complain to?  Most likely, the W3.1 vendor
(since *it* seems to be the thing that isn't working properly).
Vendor ends up wasting resources troubleshooting a configuration
that they never intended to support.  User gets pissed if he
has to *pay* for the call to the support desk.  I.e., the
problem lies with the user's use of an unsupported configuration
yet no one ends up happy in that situation -- vendor or user.
(user probably also badmouths vendor after the fact because vendor
didn't ANTICIPATE his use of this unsupported configuration, etc.)

The same holds true of things like toner cartridges that "can't"
be counterfeited -- you put generic toner in expensive printer
and printer gets fouled... you complain to printer vendor that
printer isn't working right.  Now printer vendor has to somehow
*prove* that you have done something "not covered under warranty"
(cuz you probably won't willingly admit your use of generic toner).
And, even when they confront you (*if* they do) with this, you
still end up pissed because you feel you *should* have been able
to use generic toner in the printer.  Heck, you should have been
able to use ashes from your barbeque to refill the toner cartridge,
why didn't *that* work???

(I've seen products that "branded" distilled water for use in
the vendor's instrument just to ensure that tap water wasn't
used "mistakenly" -- i.e., in an effort to save a few bucks.
The same applies for *alcohol* -- since most folks don't realize
that there are different types of alcohol and most of the types
that you buy in a store are often NOT "alcohol")

It's just human nature (IMO).

Yet, if the vendor takes steps to prevent/detect this as having
happened (it is easier to prevent than detect as he latter still
leaves open the possibility of the user DENYING what the vendor
has PROVEN) then folks complain that the vendor is trying to
"lock them in" to their supplies/service/products/etc.

Imagine folks designing platforms where third party applications
will be hosted.  If you download an application to your phone and
it crashes the phone, do you pester the (no-name, no-address)
vendor of that application?  Or, do you pester the telco provider??
(i.e., the wrong parties end up paying the cost for these mistakes)

<shrug>  Perhaps just a different perspective next time you
find yourself complaining about some seemingly *arbitrary*
restriction that is being imposed on you...