David Geer Talks Tech
<$BlogItemFeedLinks$>
Friday, January 19, 2007
Software updates enlarge programs, tax system resources, create need to sell newer, faster, higher-performance computers! Courtesy of http://www.geercom.com (use this link to go home if you surfed here from my professional writing site).
Geer Communications. David Geer - your on-time technology writer!
Welcome!
Corporate, SMB, SOHO and consumer alike, listen up.
You get a new computer system. It is fast enough and powerful enough to run today's software. Eventually, you must upgrade RAM and other components as you add new programs or as existing programs increase in size.
If you don't believe me, use Windows Task Manager (or comparable software for those with other systems) to check the increasing memory use or file size of programs you already have over time (when you get new software or upgrade to a new version).
Granted, much of this is due to new software created to meet real marketplace demands or increases in software size that come with new capabilities. But, much of the increase in size and, there by, system resource 'taxation'--to borrow a term much on people's minds of late--comes from patching vulnerable systems.
You add the patches, they add code to your program, your program increases in size. Now, I understand that you can only expect so much in the way of coding it right the first time--and I am a much better technology reporter than a coder, believe me--when it comes to commercial, off-the-shelf software.
But, isn't it still logically more expensive to code twice or, as is the really the case, dozens of times when writing all these new patches than to code tight and right the first time? Or is it easier to pass on the expense to us and rush the need for new versions of existing software so we can be monetarily exploited in some fashion every few years?
I mean, look at it. How can you sell newer versions of software and the faster, higher performance hardware needed to run them if there is nothing wrong with existing products?
And if there weren't the scenario of hackers and attackers making vulnerabilities a real issue, would we need to patch them? And what about security companies that go out of their way to tell us about vulnerabilities only after discovering them by going out of their way to hack into these programs with more effort and money behind it than the average, unpaid script kiddie?
I welcome your comments.
Best Regards,
David Geer - your on time technology writer!
Geer Communications
Geer Communications. David Geer - your on-time technology writer!
Welcome!
Corporate, SMB, SOHO and consumer alike, listen up.
You get a new computer system. It is fast enough and powerful enough to run today's software. Eventually, you must upgrade RAM and other components as you add new programs or as existing programs increase in size.
If you don't believe me, use Windows Task Manager (or comparable software for those with other systems) to check the increasing memory use or file size of programs you already have over time (when you get new software or upgrade to a new version).
Granted, much of this is due to new software created to meet real marketplace demands or increases in software size that come with new capabilities. But, much of the increase in size and, there by, system resource 'taxation'--to borrow a term much on people's minds of late--comes from patching vulnerable systems.
You add the patches, they add code to your program, your program increases in size. Now, I understand that you can only expect so much in the way of coding it right the first time--and I am a much better technology reporter than a coder, believe me--when it comes to commercial, off-the-shelf software.
But, isn't it still logically more expensive to code twice or, as is the really the case, dozens of times when writing all these new patches than to code tight and right the first time? Or is it easier to pass on the expense to us and rush the need for new versions of existing software so we can be monetarily exploited in some fashion every few years?
I mean, look at it. How can you sell newer versions of software and the faster, higher performance hardware needed to run them if there is nothing wrong with existing products?
And if there weren't the scenario of hackers and attackers making vulnerabilities a real issue, would we need to patch them? And what about security companies that go out of their way to tell us about vulnerabilities only after discovering them by going out of their way to hack into these programs with more effort and money behind it than the average, unpaid script kiddie?
I welcome your comments.
Best Regards,
David Geer - your on time technology writer!
Geer Communications
