I was sitting here thinking I had nothing to blog about, and then I got on the phone with Symantec to try to get a downgrade license for a client so that they could not install Symantec Endpoint 11, which they had been basically forced to buy, and keep going with Symantec AntiVirus 10.2 which has worked pretty well for them up until now.
See… If you have practically any Symantec product, you have to pay them every year so that you can keep getting antivirus definition updates. Without those updates, your definitions get out of date and any new, pernicious porn downloaders you accidentally wind up with won’t be seen as viruses and cleaned properly. It’s a pretty good racket, as they go in the computer world.
The problem recently is that Symantec massively revamped their software and would only let you upgrade to that new version when it came time to renew the license. Some tech support wonk actually told one of my co-workers that we needed an entire server just to run the Symantec Server Console on it. And, after field testing a couple of times, we realized they were right. So, if we wanted to use it properly, we needed to convince our clients to buy a second server, just to run their little six computer network.
Riiiiiight.
Getting our clients to buy a new server for their mission-critical stuff is like pulling teeth. Getting them to buy a whole ‘nother server just to run their anti-virus software? Not in a million, billion years. Not until redundant servers become the new red sports car status symbols for dentists, anyway.
What’s funny is that Symantec apparently realizes this, even if their development team doesn’t, and in order to keep that hot licensing money flowing in, they’re happily sending out downgrade license files. The tech support dude I talked to today even said I could take the PDF certificate I get in e-mail and forward it back to Symantec, requesting a downgrade license.
Next they’ll just offer it on the website.
I do find it interesting that as the IT industry matures, they’re learning this really odd lesson that a lot of people are happy with what they have and what they know. Only Apple really seems to be able to get people excited about fancier icons in the next upgrade, but even they faced a pretty intense backlash on the release of Leopard, in part because it crashed a bunch of iMacs, but also because it was just unnecessary (with the exception of Time Machine, I think). But Vista has been the poster child for this kind of thing, and so many people are clinging to XP that I think Microsoft is going to have a hard time shaking it.
And the thing is, the computer interface is getting to the point that, barring a major jump forward in how we interact with the software, there’s not that much more you can do with operating systems but rearrange the furniture. I’m sure there’s tons of kernel-, and driver-level stuff that can be improved, optimized for a 64-bit, multi-core world… but beyond that, I think all the software providers need to take a really hard look at just what an upgrade needs in order to be an upgrade.
Because I’m tired of upgrades breaking shit, solely in the name of filling the processor/RAM/storage vacuum that Moore’s Law provides.
I’m hopeful for the recent speculation that the next version of Windows may be more modular and subscription-based. So long as it doesn’t get silly (”Start button? That’ll be $5 more dollars. Oh, and you want to use a keyboard?”), it could be an excellent way of allowing people to maintain a familiar environment and functionality while giving the hardcore feature geeks something to go out and adopt early. Hell, Microsoft will probably jack it up somehow.
But, a man can dream.
Crossposted with klech.net