How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?(blogs.msdn.microsoft.com)
blogs.msdn.microsoft.com
How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160906-00/?p=94255
22 comments
Ah, psychology. Must be what the "OneDrive team" is using.
So you have all these people who bought Lumia phones, enjoying 30 GB of cloud storage, 15 of them acquired with the phone purchase.
Cut it down to 5 GB with an announcement in a blog post, and watch the customers leaving in droves.
Problem solved.
So you have all these people who bought Lumia phones, enjoying 30 GB of cloud storage, 15 of them acquired with the phone purchase.
Cut it down to 5 GB with an announcement in a blog post, and watch the customers leaving in droves.
Problem solved.
Seems like the "real" fix was the Windows Insider program. I'm still not sure why (myself included) people do testing for Microsoft for free, though.
Some people like to be the first to try out and talk about upcoming new features and messups.
I work with big catalog data, and with lots of human input. We have these internal classifications but people mis-assign items all the time.
I was horrified when I learned about the state of our datasets. The only reliable features are the ones that are exposed to the customers on the website, because when they're broken people can actually see them.
I was horrified when I learned about the state of our datasets. The only reliable features are the ones that are exposed to the customers on the website, because when they're broken people can actually see them.
How about: have a really cheesy wallpapers in the pre-release builds which conveys the message (perhaps with explicit text right in the wallpaper image) that this is not a released build. Also, how about making not-released builds simply expire. The build should know that nobody ought to run it past a certain date. (If such operation is needed internally, it can be rigged with an extension mechanism built into the expiry.)
Isn't that the thought behind the watermarks they've had since Win7-ish? I remember messing with beta builds and reading about people using them (again, to avoid paying for it for a bit as mentioned in another comment) and jumping through all sorts of hoops to disable or hide the watermark - aside from buying a license of course.
There's probably a point at which any more effort put into carrots (new features or wallpapers on official builds) and sticks (nag screens, watermarks, expirations, etc on old builds) just becomes more trouble than it's worth.
I like trying out leaked builds of programs or OSes as much as the next bored nerd but I can't imagine ever running something as primary OS on any machine I count on for anything. That stuff is for old computers that aren't being used or VMs.
There's probably a point at which any more effort put into carrots (new features or wallpapers on official builds) and sticks (nag screens, watermarks, expirations, etc on old builds) just becomes more trouble than it's worth.
I like trying out leaked builds of programs or OSes as much as the next bored nerd but I can't imagine ever running something as primary OS on any machine I count on for anything. That stuff is for old computers that aren't being used or VMs.
Expiration has an additional positive effect in that it prevents use of the buggy builds and is also relatively easy to implement, especially when the prerelease build can phone home.
Developer builds do expire. Dealing with that with one of my customers. A slick little IT guy decided that he would put his developer copy of Windows on this particular non-profit's computer to save them money. All of a sudden 3 weeks ago they get a message about their OS being expired and it wouldn't boot up without a windows boot disc.
I think the critical point of their solution is they don't need to negatively affect users to get them to update.
If I'm not negatively affected in any way, why should I upgrade?
Also, how does a user who doesn't upgrade notice a change in wallpaper which doesn't take place until after the upgrade? By looking at someone else's desktop which is running the release version?
What if the user has changed to a custom wallpaper, and doesn't remember what the original wallpaper of the leaked OS looks like?
Also, how does a user who doesn't upgrade notice a change in wallpaper which doesn't take place until after the upgrade? By looking at someone else's desktop which is running the release version?
What if the user has changed to a custom wallpaper, and doesn't remember what the original wallpaper of the leaked OS looks like?
>Also, how does a user who doesn't upgrade notice a change in wallpaper which doesn't take place until after the upgrade? By looking at someone else's desktop which is running the release version?
The type of person who is downloading leaked pre-release builds in order to have the latest and greatest generally follows the latest news about new leaked builds.
The type of person who is downloading leaked pre-release builds in order to have the latest and greatest generally follows the latest news about new leaked builds.
Ok, so they see it in some screenshot. "Hey if you get this, your desktop will look different" and that somehow motivates them. :)
Rather than a hard cutoff, you could have the colours of everything on-screen desaturate as time passes beyond the expiry date, eventually ending up entirely monochromatic.
I think that would get the message across quite effectively :)
I think that would get the message across quite effectively :)
Don't think it would work.
"Super secret preview version of Windows X leaked! Download here!"
(...3 weeks later...)
"People trying Super secret preview version of Windows X get their hard drives wiped out! Was this Microsoft's plan all along? Please tell what you think!"
"Super secret preview version of Windows X leaked! Download here!"
(...3 weeks later...)
"People trying Super secret preview version of Windows X get their hard drives wiped out! Was this Microsoft's plan all along? Please tell what you think!"
[deleted]
Include a remotely-activated kill switch; and kill with plenty of warning.
What do I mean? I no longer use iPhone because I installed a beta iOS. When the official build came out, I kept "checking for updates" but I never got an update. One day, Apple remotely killed my phone.
Manually updating to the production iOS would be fine; but remotely disabling my phone without warning was not acceptable. This is why I refuse to buy an iPhone.
What do I mean? I no longer use iPhone because I installed a beta iOS. When the official build came out, I kept "checking for updates" but I never got an update. One day, Apple remotely killed my phone.
Manually updating to the production iOS would be fine; but remotely disabling my phone without warning was not acceptable. This is why I refuse to buy an iPhone.
You had warning. You just ignored it. You had plenty of warnings when installing the beta, and Apple typically does not provide updates from beta to GM. Just because you ignored the warnings doesn't mean they didn't exist. Stop blaming Apple for your own failings.
Incidentally, the iOS 10 GM Seed came out today, and Apple is in fact offering OTA updates from iOS 10 betas to the GM seed.
Windows 'Longhorn' (Vista) era builds had timebombs in them, but removing said timebomb was easy.
It is quite likely the project Raymond is talking about is Longhorn, as a few pre-'reset' builds were leaked in quick succession.
It is quite likely the project Raymond is talking about is Longhorn, as a few pre-'reset' builds were leaked in quick succession.
I hope you have better luck with those Android betas
> Manually updating to the production iOS would be fine; but remotely disabling my phone without warning was not acceptable. This is why I refuse to buy an iPhone.
If you're savvy enough to manually upgrade to a beta OS (which comes with tons of warnings) you should be savvy enough to then update to the production release and get all the associated further updates. That's a really bizarre reason to refuse buying an iPhone.
If you're savvy enough to manually upgrade to a beta OS (which comes with tons of warnings) you should be savvy enough to then update to the production release and get all the associated further updates. That's a really bizarre reason to refuse buying an iPhone.
Couldn't you just put it in restore mode and install the latest version from iTunes, or manually download the IPSW from the internet and install it?
Once an iOS build expires, you can't take a backup, so you can do that to get the phone working again, but you lose any un-backed up data on the device like photos and app data. In the days before iCloud it was a huge pain.
> In the days before iCloud it was a huge pain.
Which is exactly why they (still!) plaster it with warnings to that effect. If you want to avoid any headaches the advice has always been to use multiple devices and keep the beta off your day to day device.
Which is exactly why they (still!) plaster it with warnings to that effect. If you want to avoid any headaches the advice has always been to use multiple devices and keep the beta off your day to day device.
[deleted]
Why didn't you just upgrade to the production build when it was released?
Can't speak for the OP, but in my case, I had it happen twice between beta 1 and beta 3 when I tried to skip beta 2 because I didn't care that much. It was also an iPad that left upstairs and was too lazy to carry it downstairs to update. Not a primary device, so all I lost was some progress in a few games, but I can see how someone could have suffered the same fate with their main phone and have lost a lot more.
[deleted]
> Include a remotely-activated kill switch; and kill with plenty of warning.
People would just remove it. If you can't remove it, then don't buy devices that are crippled in this way.
People would just remove it. If you can't remove it, then don't buy devices that are crippled in this way.
I no longer use iPhone because I installed a beta iOS.
...and didn't know what I was doing, nor did I read the well-documented warnings that are printed in multiple places. Then when things went down exactly as Apple warned me, multiple times, I went on the Internet to complain about it.
What warnings? Apple tells you up front that you can't upgrade to release from beta, you'll need to load it via iTunes or Xcode. Apple also warns that betas expire. And because "beta" is not "release", when Apple quits putting out betas, there is no "update" to update to. (How this currently works with public betas, I know not.)
...and didn't know what I was doing, nor did I read the well-documented warnings that are printed in multiple places. Then when things went down exactly as Apple warned me, multiple times, I went on the Internet to complain about it.
What warnings? Apple tells you up front that you can't upgrade to release from beta, you'll need to load it via iTunes or Xcode. Apple also warns that betas expire. And because "beta" is not "release", when Apple quits putting out betas, there is no "update" to update to. (How this currently works with public betas, I know not.)
>How this currently works with public betas, I know not.
Not sure about iOS, but for OS X public beta user are on the beta update channel even after release. If user happen to apply for OS X 10.11 Public Beta, then user will continue to receive beta for 10.11.1, 10.11.2, and so on, but not 10.12 Public Beta. To go back to release channel, user will need to switch off the beta update channel in System Preferences.
iOS Public Beta, on the other hand, seems to go directly from beta to release, per FAQ (Developer Beta seems to be different story, though):
> To get a shipping release of iOS on your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch, you can simply install the final version of the software you are testing when it appears in Software Update.
https://beta.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/faq
Not sure about iOS, but for OS X public beta user are on the beta update channel even after release. If user happen to apply for OS X 10.11 Public Beta, then user will continue to receive beta for 10.11.1, 10.11.2, and so on, but not 10.12 Public Beta. To go back to release channel, user will need to switch off the beta update channel in System Preferences.
iOS Public Beta, on the other hand, seems to go directly from beta to release, per FAQ (Developer Beta seems to be different story, though):
> To get a shipping release of iOS on your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch, you can simply install the final version of the software you are testing when it appears in Software Update.
https://beta.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/faq
this now happens on iOS but it's a relatively recent change, same for OS X.
"I no longer use an iPhone because of my extremely convoluted and totally self-created problem."
I'm so glad that Raymond Chen is writing all of these stories down.
Apparently there's a book of his anecdotes available for those who'd like to read more...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321440307
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321440307
>Addison-Wesley Professional; 1 edition (January 6, 2007)
Although most of the anecdotes are historical, I hope he releases an updated version one day. There's so much computing history contained in his blog.
Although most of the anecdotes are historical, I hope he releases an updated version one day. There's so much computing history contained in his blog.
Man, I hope whoever thought of that got rewarded accordingly. What a surprising fix. Nice combination of low-tech/low-effort and creative.
I guess this sort of thing wouldn't happen today with the always-connected, always-phoning-home world we live in.
I guess this sort of thing wouldn't happen today with the always-connected, always-phoning-home world we live in.
This is such a Windows-person kind of solution. Come to think of it, I bet that this is why its so easy to change the wallpaper in Windows.
What would the Mac-person or Linux-person solution look like?
The linux solution would provide a new mechanism to configure sound.
Apple would issue a release saying "Don't do X. If you do X and it wipes your computer then obviously you are using your computer wrong".
... which wouldn't work properly until version 3.5 or so.
The Mac solution is that nobody installs an OS X upgrade until it's at the .1 release because everyone knows the .0 release breaks everything. You only install a beta if you're suicidal.
It's hard to change the wallpaper in OS X and Linux desktop environments?
>And there are some legal issues that are tied to the date a feature first becomes available to the public. Seeing a feature go public prematurely throws a bunch of scheduling into disarray because you now have to finish those legal documents in less time than you planned.
As someone who's never worked for a company that produces commercial software, I'm curious about what he's referring to.
As someone who's never worked for a company that produces commercial software, I'm curious about what he's referring to.
A simple example would be adding a feature that collects user information before you update the EULA to tell people that you're collecting their information.
The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.
The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.
If you're running a pirated OS, are you really going to go to court over a missing disclaimer in the pirated EULA?!
Burglars have been known to go to court over getting injured in the commission of a crime, suing the property owner.
This seems to be an urban myth that gets often repeated but I've never actually seen a concrete example. Could someone point me to an example of someone suing a property owner because of an injury received in the commission of a crime?
Wasn't it from that old Jim Carrey film Liar Liar?
Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?
Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten.
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar
Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?
Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten.
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar
Is this one of those "only in America" stereotypes? I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won
The justification for a lot of these frivolous injury lawsuits are often very similar. The person suing has thousands or tens of thousands of medical debt. They could spend years paying it off or they could look like a moron in the hopes of a settlement that will pay off the debt or at least make a dent in it.
Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income.
There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income.
There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
Thank you for this perspective; was a new take on a lot of the common tropes I've heard.
As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all
As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all
I wonder if this book had some influence. It's definitely blowing my mind.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years
> I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won
There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US.
Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US.
Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions; but if an intruder breaks into your house and trips on your loose stair carpet, he can sue for his resulting injuries?
Bizarre!
Bizarre!
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
But, even so...
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
But, even so...
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
> In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around.
You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.
> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.
Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.
> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.
Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).
You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.
> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.
Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.
> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.
Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).
So you're saying that a loose carpet on stairs would be illegal (i.e. a booby trap of sorts), but a security system where I can hit an alarm button and then it'll deploy a loose carpet onto the stairs, would be just fine?
> but a security system where I can hit an alarm button and then it'll deploy a loose carpet onto the stairs, would be just fine?
It may or may not be "just fine" in general (e.g., it might violate building codes, etc.), but if you deliberately used it in a condition where you were legally authorized to use deadly force in self defense, you probably wouldn't be liable for that particular use.
It may or may not be "just fine" in general (e.g., it might violate building codes, etc.), but if you deliberately used it in a condition where you were legally authorized to use deadly force in self defense, you probably wouldn't be liable for that particular use.
I assume there are some sort of safety standards and certifications needed to build and employ booby traps legally.
Why bizarre? The carpet doesn't discriminate between between a burglar and a paramedic coming to resuscitate you.
It happens in Belgium.
Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police.
Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries.
As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police.
Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries.
As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
>Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
I doubt that. Just because a police officer says sth doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps people sued in the past but lost in court.
Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar.
It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign.
Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar.
It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign.
Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
Burglars suing the owner also happened to France, which has a very crime friendly legislation.
For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted.
...not just in the US!
For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted.
...not just in the US!
[deleted]
This may be about squatting, rather than a burglar. A squatter can take occupation of an abandoned building if they do not break in, so if a door is open or something like that. Usually they break a window and replace it immediately to be able to support their claim.
Not limited to the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm
They don't care that much about the pirated version doing things not mentioned in the EULA, they care about not being rushed to ship a legit version (that has not yet a ready EULA) because it has to get released in order to limit the spread of the pirated version or for any other reason.
Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.
This is accurate. A leak still constitutes a public disclosure (I use to help track down leaked builds of Windows)
I hope that's not true.
Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure.
If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure.
If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
"help track down leaked builds of Windows"
If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find?
I wonder if you mean the leakers?
(for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find?
I wonder if you mean the leakers?
(for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
This is fascinating to me - do you know of any documented cases where a leak prevented someone filing for claim(s)?
The solution that is ending software patents which should not be a thing in the first place
Among other things, it creates revenue recognition problems. If you have publically promised a future feature, you sometimes cannot recognize current revenue for the associated product until you deliver that feature. It makes for a very bad day.
In Australia there are R&D tax concessions that apply differently based on whether something has shipped. That is, bug fixes on an unreleased feature are eligible as R&D, but once the feature ships work done on it is no longer R&D.
No idea if a leaked build would count as shipping for these purposes, though.
No idea if a leaked build would count as shipping for these purposes, though.
Patents. If you have features you need to file patents on, that needs to be done before the feature is publicly disclosed/exposed.
I was going to say that you had a year after disclosure to file a patent.
But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure
But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure
I thought USA had moved to first to file, public disclosure then is prior art to your own application, except in limited circumstances (which usually means showing the invention at specific trade shows)?
The article mentions none of the evidence this strategy actually worked at all. Is it all just conjecture or are there more articles/evidence supporting this technique?
Oh c'mon not everything on this site has to be riddled with statistics, trials, and evidence of something working. The article gave me a chuckle, and plays on our instinct to gravitate to shiny new things. I think all we need to take from this is not every technical problem needs a technical solution. Understanding your audience, in any product, is crucial; use it to your advantage however you can.
Where is the empirical evidence of a mother's love? Have you sent a PR for the joy of playing with a puppy in sunshine?
> Where is the empirical evidence of a mother's love?
Everywhere? When they care for you when you're sick, drive you to sports practice, clean up after you and what not?
Everywhere? When they care for you when you're sick, drive you to sports practice, clean up after you and what not?
But how do you know they're not just doing all that for the old age care and retirement benefits?</snark>
Because there are absurdly rich parents who still show love for their children?
They did it with windows 8 (the "crossword" wallpapers e.g. http://misaki2009.deviantart.com/art/Windows-8-1-build-9374-... )... as to if it worked or not, I don't know.
Seems like you could've achieved the end-goal by just warning of the danger and coming across like their safety is your primary concern rather than finding the leaks, i.e.:
"Build 97241 contains a potentially fatal bug that could wipe your computer. If you are using Build 97241, please upgrade it to a more recent build or otherwise cease using this build immediately. We do not care how you acquired this build. We simply do not want you bricking your computer."
"Build 97241 contains a potentially fatal bug that could wipe your computer. If you are using Build 97241, please upgrade it to a more recent build or otherwise cease using this build immediately. We do not care how you acquired this build. We simply do not want you bricking your computer."
Have you ever taken a support phone call? Many people won't read a simple error message, let alone a message that includes numbers and other "technical mumbo jumbo"
customer: I'm trying print and it just says "error"
me: It just says error?
customer: yes
me: Are there any other words or error numbers?
customer: yeah, it says "No printers are installed. Add a printer and try again"
me: facepalm
Their solution works because it communicates a lot while saying very little
customer: I'm trying print and it just says "error"
me: It just says error?
customer: yes
me: Are there any other words or error numbers?
customer: yeah, it says "No printers are installed. Add a printer and try again"
me: facepalm
Their solution works because it communicates a lot while saying very little
The problem is that no matter how hard you try, a lot of people will end up with both your unfinished software and unrealistic expectations about it. Just look at how some gamers talk about bugs in early access or beta releases of games.
I imagine in Windows' case, some enterprising individuals who don't know better will end up installing these builds on various computers, and you end up with a large group of users on the wrong build who:
1. Expect better quality than the pre-release build provides.
2. Blame Microsoft for their pre-release build breaking.
Raymond Chen also mentions a third case where the pre-release build messes up other parts of the network... so now you've got:
3. Somebody else blaming this guy for something he genuinely thinks is Microsoft's fault.
And then if you put out a warning message, it's typically ignored because the software is 99% working until catastrophic failure. And then you still get blamed by unreasonable users who then spread the word about how much you suck but conveniently leave out the "leaked pre-release build" part of the story. (If you sense some bitterness, yeah, I've had a few of my own experiences with much less consequential software.)
It's a lose-lose situation for Microsoft. I don't envy anybody in that position, regardless of the quality of the final finished product.
I imagine in Windows' case, some enterprising individuals who don't know better will end up installing these builds on various computers, and you end up with a large group of users on the wrong build who:
1. Expect better quality than the pre-release build provides.
2. Blame Microsoft for their pre-release build breaking.
Raymond Chen also mentions a third case where the pre-release build messes up other parts of the network... so now you've got:
3. Somebody else blaming this guy for something he genuinely thinks is Microsoft's fault.
And then if you put out a warning message, it's typically ignored because the software is 99% working until catastrophic failure. And then you still get blamed by unreasonable users who then spread the word about how much you suck but conveniently leave out the "leaked pre-release build" part of the story. (If you sense some bitterness, yeah, I've had a few of my own experiences with much less consequential software.)
It's a lose-lose situation for Microsoft. I don't envy anybody in that position, regardless of the quality of the final finished product.
I was the first to upgrade from Ubuntu 15.10 to 16.04 in the office. I left my computer unlocked with a wallpaper slideshow on the desktop and when I returned everyone asked where I got my wallpapers from. Even though they were getting prompts to upgrade, they didn't until they noticed a changed. And I'm talking about developers here.
This may have been long before the Internet was the information channel for those kinds of things that it is today.
Even if it was today and such a note was published on the Internet, do you think that people who use leaked builds--in at least semi-production settings even--would see that note, much less actively seek it out?
Even if it was today and such a note was published on the Internet, do you think that people who use leaked builds--in at least semi-production settings even--would see that note, much less actively seek it out?
This does not work.
Since those things are already so riddled with DRM, why not simply make the internal builds phone home to an activation server that only allows IPs assigned to Microsoft?
The story, like a lot of stories on the Old New Thing, appears to be from a now faraway time (in Information Technology terms). Think Windows 95 timeframe.
They are practically always worth a read, by the way. I'm a huge fan of the blog.
They are practically always worth a read, by the way. I'm a huge fan of the blog.
So, default wallpapers in early Windows 95 builds.
The first Preliminary Development Kit had an "Under Construction" wallpaper. The second one had the same wallpaper but tiled. Beta 1 had a different "Under Construction" wallpaper.
Of course, after PDK1 leaked far and wide, MS implemented some serial protection in PDK2 up to beta 2 (different from the one in the RTM; however the RTM's setup has remnants of it). Given that the leakers were involved with the warez scene, however, the skilled reversers that the builds were passed to easily found the backdoor that had been put in so that those on MS' internal network didn't have to enter the serial, and just patched a few bytes in the setup to abuse that.
The interesting part of this serial was that it was in two parts. One part was the "beta site ID" and half of the "password"; if this was valid, but the second half of the password wasn't, setup would appear to continue... until the point it would copy files, upon which it errored out with a message "General error 57, please contact your beta administrator".
This misdirection was discussed at the time, with some people believing the error at face value. This continued with the foundation of communities to preserve and discuss such builds several years onwards. The last half of the password was the hex form of the first 16 bits of an MD4 hash (this code was written in around autumn 1993!) of the beta site ID, the first half of the password, and... a string inside the setup that was used as the titlebar text for the error message, which would be something like "Microsoft Chicago Preliminary Development Kit 2, November 1993".
This part of the serial algorithm was finally reverse engineered, and a key generator made....in 2014.
Afterwards, some early Internet Explorer 4.0 builds were discovered. They used the exact same serial algorithm as the early Windows 95 builds. And had the exact same "MS internal" backdoor.
(Um, I think I may have just ruined one of Raymond Chen's future blog posts.)
The first Preliminary Development Kit had an "Under Construction" wallpaper. The second one had the same wallpaper but tiled. Beta 1 had a different "Under Construction" wallpaper.
Of course, after PDK1 leaked far and wide, MS implemented some serial protection in PDK2 up to beta 2 (different from the one in the RTM; however the RTM's setup has remnants of it). Given that the leakers were involved with the warez scene, however, the skilled reversers that the builds were passed to easily found the backdoor that had been put in so that those on MS' internal network didn't have to enter the serial, and just patched a few bytes in the setup to abuse that.
The interesting part of this serial was that it was in two parts. One part was the "beta site ID" and half of the "password"; if this was valid, but the second half of the password wasn't, setup would appear to continue... until the point it would copy files, upon which it errored out with a message "General error 57, please contact your beta administrator".
This misdirection was discussed at the time, with some people believing the error at face value. This continued with the foundation of communities to preserve and discuss such builds several years onwards. The last half of the password was the hex form of the first 16 bits of an MD4 hash (this code was written in around autumn 1993!) of the beta site ID, the first half of the password, and... a string inside the setup that was used as the titlebar text for the error message, which would be something like "Microsoft Chicago Preliminary Development Kit 2, November 1993".
This part of the serial algorithm was finally reverse engineered, and a key generator made....in 2014.
Afterwards, some early Internet Explorer 4.0 builds were discovered. They used the exact same serial algorithm as the early Windows 95 builds. And had the exact same "MS internal" backdoor.
(Um, I think I may have just ruined one of Raymond Chen's future blog posts.)
I don't understand the logic here.
1. Download a preview build because you want "the latest and greatest".
2. Build is full of horrible bugs.
3. Microsoft needs to employ psychological tricks to get you to download the next preview build, as you cling to the previous one with both hands.
1. Download a preview build because you want "the latest and greatest".
2. Build is full of horrible bugs.
3. Microsoft needs to employ psychological tricks to get you to download the next preview build, as you cling to the previous one with both hands.
There might be more reasons, but here is the author's answer to a similar question:
The imperative is that these machines can screw up the network they are connected to, so they’re affecting other machines. Generally, people don’t look kindly when a Windows system starts screwing up a network.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160906-00/?p=...
The imperative is that these machines can screw up the network they are connected to, so they’re affecting other machines. Generally, people don’t look kindly when a Windows system starts screwing up a network.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160906-00/?p=...
Bandwidth was a LOT harder to come by back then. You'd download a preview build if it had a feature if you were interested in. "Associated bugfixes" was typically not exciting enough to download an ISO file over a phone line.
Heh, sounds much better than my previous employer's way of occasionally sending company-wide emails along the line of "The employee who was responsible for the XXX leak was found and terminated. We remind you that leaks damage our culture and make it difficult to share ideas inside the company."
For some reason such emails made me feel like I was inside a tech cult. Guess my culture fit wasn't good enough...
Well, to be fair, I guess MS also utilizes these emails in addition to reverse psychology...
For some reason such emails made me feel like I was inside a tech cult. Guess my culture fit wasn't good enough...
Well, to be fair, I guess MS also utilizes these emails in addition to reverse psychology...
Sounds like standard business practice to me.
If you can't understand basic instructions such as not leaking internal, confidential info, you deserve to be fired.
If you can't understand basic instructions such as not leaking internal, confidential info, you deserve to be fired.
Oh, sure; I think the parent commenter's point was in thinking that emailing everyone about the termination of the leaker served as any sort of deterrence mechanism for people's use of the leaked build.
Well, emails are not exactly deterrence against people using the leaked "build": being an internet service company, that part is usually achieved by shutting down the server.
Emails are supposed to be deterrence against further leaks by reinforcing the "company culture". (Whether they work, I have no idea.)
Emails are supposed to be deterrence against further leaks by reinforcing the "company culture". (Whether they work, I have no idea.)
Google right? I used to work there too. I thought Google was especially open internally, which really allowed me to thrive.
Yeah, I really liked Google's internal openness too, but the way they protected it felt a bit overzealous. As if I'm live-action roleplaying a spy organization or something.
Almost nobody seemed to have any problem with it, so I guess it's just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Almost nobody seemed to have any problem with it, so I guess it's just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The alternative, where people don't share information internally because they're afraid of leaks, is pretty shitty.
I never received an email like that when I worked at Microsoft. Granted, maybe they would send emails like that within a specific department, and my department was probably less prone to leaks.
Microsoft forced millions to upgrade to Windows 10... it would be trivial to force an upgrade to a different build...
Snark is easy but a lot of these stories are from long before the whole Win 10 upgrade and is explicitly from before Windows Insider which puts it at least before 2014.
But Windows Update is from way before all those stories... and if they needed help figuring out how to upgrade an OS, they could have looked at Linux (which I'm sure they did)...
Automatic updates started in about 2000ish and hard forced updates are even newer iirc. Before that the best they could do is a notification which people running a leaked build would probably ignore or not get at all, who knows what the Windows Update infrastructure is like for internal builds that get leaked.
The modern version of this is to add a new emoji. Apple used that to push out a major point fix in Yosemite.
In this thread: A bunch of people who clearly never installed an operating system in the Time Before Automatic Internet Connections.
haha hats off to you MS.....except now I know your tricks.
What if MS made the wallpaper of the internal builds super ugly?
Crackers will bypass any kind of protection or change anyway.