Ask HN: Should Microsoft Brick PCs in Russia?
15 comments
With all due respect, this is an insane proposition. Substitute "Microsoft" with "the Linux kernel", and see how you like the idea.
No, a general purpose OS should never damage itself on purpose.
No, a general purpose OS should never damage itself on purpose.
So Russian companies should get to run windows domains for free because Microsoft won't sell them licenses and the government condones software piracy?
But American companies still have to buy server licenses, client licenses, desktop/user cals.
But American companies still have to buy server licenses, client licenses, desktop/user cals.
Have you considered the ethics of this?
Russia invaded the Ukraine, and we stoped doing business with them. They said fuck you, we will now just steal this shit and say its legal. That makes them the bad guy.
The west says, what Russia is doing is wrong and we will not do business with them anymore. Right now that still makes us the good guys. (I hope we don’t fuck it up)
Reacting to Russia making stealing software legal by breaking their stuff is morally questionable and to be honest not very efficient. At best it would make us assholes or opportunists, at worst it would make us evil too. What we can do is make sure you can’t download updates, bug fixes and drivers from Russia. They are stuck with what they have.
Sometimes doing what is right costs you. Not doing what is right when it costs you and only doing what is right when it benefits you doesn’t make you a good guy, it makes you an opportunist.
Russia invaded the Ukraine, and we stoped doing business with them. They said fuck you, we will now just steal this shit and say its legal. That makes them the bad guy.
The west says, what Russia is doing is wrong and we will not do business with them anymore. Right now that still makes us the good guys. (I hope we don’t fuck it up)
Reacting to Russia making stealing software legal by breaking their stuff is morally questionable and to be honest not very efficient. At best it would make us assholes or opportunists, at worst it would make us evil too. What we can do is make sure you can’t download updates, bug fixes and drivers from Russia. They are stuck with what they have.
Sometimes doing what is right costs you. Not doing what is right when it costs you and only doing what is right when it benefits you doesn’t make you a good guy, it makes you an opportunist.
What is right? To enable russia to commit war crimes with western technology?
Why is the sentiment "poor russia, they are victims."
They have no supply chain integrity. Embarrassing logistics failures. Critically corrupt government, and are actively conducting an invasion of a sovereign nation. All self inflicted losses.
Where is the demand for an equivalent proprietary OS from Russia? Why does America have to export its operating system? Why does Russia deserve to run western designed computers and western code if this is what they choose to do with it?
Why is the sentiment "poor russia, they are victims."
They have no supply chain integrity. Embarrassing logistics failures. Critically corrupt government, and are actively conducting an invasion of a sovereign nation. All self inflicted losses.
Where is the demand for an equivalent proprietary OS from Russia? Why does America have to export its operating system? Why does Russia deserve to run western designed computers and western code if this is what they choose to do with it?
> The west says, what Russia is doing is wrong and we will not do business with them anymore. Right now that still makes us the good guys.
While it's moral on a larger perspective, this will directly cause the death of people in Russia and the West (never mind the harvest in Ukraine that probably isn't happening and will cause famine in the third world). Just because no missile is fired doesn't mean the effects of the sanctions will be without victims.
While it's moral on a larger perspective, this will directly cause the death of people in Russia and the West (never mind the harvest in Ukraine that probably isn't happening and will cause famine in the third world). Just because no missile is fired doesn't mean the effects of the sanctions will be without victims.
Yes that is true. The question is what are the alternatives? Giving in to Russia is not option. Escalation to WW3 by EU or NATO troops in the Ukraine isn’t an option either.
Giving the Ukraine as much military support as we can without direct involvement and continuously increasing sanctions against Russia is the best solution I can think about.
The ethics of this isn’t easy.
That why I think the solution to “smash windows in Russia” is stupid. It will effect average Russians, not businesses, the government or the military. They have IT department, staggered role outs, update cycles and so on. Software that “bricks” a PC won’t penetrate the entire nation at once or actually brick a device. We are talking about PCs not mobile phones. Besides, it is windows, those users are used to reinstalling. I would also be surprised if there is any relevant military hardware out there running windows. I get a strong vibe of “why do the Russians get to steal Windows and I still have to pay” from the original post and find his reasoning unethical and spiteful.
Giving the Ukraine as much military support as we can without direct involvement and continuously increasing sanctions against Russia is the best solution I can think about.
The ethics of this isn’t easy.
That why I think the solution to “smash windows in Russia” is stupid. It will effect average Russians, not businesses, the government or the military. They have IT department, staggered role outs, update cycles and so on. Software that “bricks” a PC won’t penetrate the entire nation at once or actually brick a device. We are talking about PCs not mobile phones. Besides, it is windows, those users are used to reinstalling. I would also be surprised if there is any relevant military hardware out there running windows. I get a strong vibe of “why do the Russians get to steal Windows and I still have to pay” from the original post and find his reasoning unethical and spiteful.
No, Microsoft shouldn't make systems actively damage themselves if they notice they are pirated. Technology should serve the user first, and the author second, even if pirated.
It's fine to refuse to function if the system detects it's pirated on the first boot. It's not fine to do the same after an auto-update. It's definitely not fine to do any substantial damage like erasing data or server configuration.
Even Linux gets pirated. It's incredibly easy to comply with GPL, and yet companies like Ubiquiti still don't do it. Should your UniFi network cease to function out of a sudden because Linux kernel devs decided to bring it all down?
It's fine to refuse to function if the system detects it's pirated on the first boot. It's not fine to do the same after an auto-update. It's definitely not fine to do any substantial damage like erasing data or server configuration.
Even Linux gets pirated. It's incredibly easy to comply with GPL, and yet companies like Ubiquiti still don't do it. Should your UniFi network cease to function out of a sudden because Linux kernel devs decided to bring it all down?
Should a storefront be able to open its doors and serve customers even if it doesn't pay its rent?
If you predicate a business model on robbing Peter to pay Paul, how can you be angry when Peter cuts you off?
If you predicate a business model on robbing Peter to pay Paul, how can you be angry when Peter cuts you off?
Even evictees are evicted subject to a due process, and not cut off on a whim of the landlord.
Even if this were so, software is not a service, despite the current trend to make it so. Nor is software scarce. Rental of scarce retail space is a service, and a totally different scenario. This analogy simply doesn't relate to the issue at all.
Even if this were so, software is not a service, despite the current trend to make it so. Nor is software scarce. Rental of scarce retail space is a service, and a totally different scenario. This analogy simply doesn't relate to the issue at all.
Yes. It's not the fault of the Russian companies, is it? Besides, that is the state of affairs in many parts of the world.
Russian companies like Gazprom and Rosneft? Yeah, they have no blood on their hands at all. Smh.
Yes, because only Gazprom and Rosneft exist in Russia, and not a hundred thousand smaller companies.
That would be a good way to reduce Microsoft's prestige in 7/8ths of the World. Definitely a good idea, I say.
'The West' is not 'The World'. The West is only one-eighth of the World. Just India and China's population are three times the size of the whole of the West.
'The West' is not 'The World'. The West is only one-eighth of the World. Just India and China's population are three times the size of the whole of the West.
Honestly, this is an insane proposition even in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, but it's outright bizarre to see it presented as some EULA compliance measure.
a) it will help noone (piracy), however Microsoft as a vendor will no longer be trusted by many countries
b) this will be a middle finger to retail users, not large companies and government who are more likely to test updates before installing them
c) I find it interesting that many Silicon Valley companies took investments from DST (=Usmanov =Putin). Putin and his friends directly benefit from those companies, but I see noone asking Apple to brick laptops for engineers of those companies. Should we ask those at least donate to humanitarian efforts? I've submitted a question (poorly worded perhaps) and it was flagged almost instantly.
b) this will be a middle finger to retail users, not large companies and government who are more likely to test updates before installing them
c) I find it interesting that many Silicon Valley companies took investments from DST (=Usmanov =Putin). Putin and his friends directly benefit from those companies, but I see noone asking Apple to brick laptops for engineers of those companies. Should we ask those at least donate to humanitarian efforts? I've submitted a question (poorly worded perhaps) and it was flagged almost instantly.
It doesn't seem fair that Microsoft should allow them to actively subvert licensing going forward.