With
Microsoft's announcement that (in effect) Windows Update won't work anymore unless you've got a legal copy of Windows, some geeks in the anti-spam space are torn. Keeping Windows up to date is extremely important for both personal and
Internet-wide security, but being forced to admit to Microsoft that you paid for their software is an outrage to the
knee-jerk anti-Microsoft crowd (and just feels kinda slimy to the rest of us.)
So, what's the morality here?
I'd think that from Microsoft's point of view, they'll win either way.
- some people will buy into the FUD (some of which is true), and
realize that they have to upgrade to be protected, so they'll buy a
legal copy of Windows.
- some people won't buy into the FUD, so they won't upgrade and
their computer will stop working and their identity will be stolen
and other true aspects of the FUD will be proven correct, so they'll
realize they should've been in group 1 above.
- is where we start talking about which Linux distribution is
best for Grandma, which is an argument Microsoft has never taken very
seriously (and for good reason.) The places where unixen are cutting
into MSFT's near-monopoly are enterprise and government installations
(which normally pay), much more than random home users (who probably
have a legal OEM Windows license anyway.)
Now, personally, I think this'll drive more people to look at alternatives
to the Windows near-monopoly. But given how few truly user-friendly
options there are, the majority will go along with Microsoft's plan, get their updates,
and then (in theory) there'll be fewer
zombies.
