Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Upgrades IT

The Future of Windows Software Distribution 194

Diomidis Spinellis writes "Microsoft's Windows Marketplace Labs offer a preview of their Digital Locker technology. The Digital Locker uses Microsoft's Passport Network to allow Windows users to search, buy, and download software from multiple retailers, storing their product keys for future installations. Both retailers offering the service support digital rights management technologies: Digital River promotes its SoftwarePasport, and eSsellerate its Product Activation technology. Will this technology trigger an across-the-board adoption of DRM for Windows software? How will it affect the distribution of free and open-source software?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Future of Windows Software Distribution

Comments Filter:
  • Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:33AM (#13649396)
    The first stop on the path to web services.

    First they get you used to having no packaging, then they get you with the subscription service.
    • Re:Nice (Score:2, Funny)

      by marom ( 917828 )
      So in a few years, after everything is AJAX-enabled Web2.0-oriented and SOAed to death, and every online application costs money or has tons of advertisements, some clever geeks from Cleveland will come up with the brilliant idea of having a program that (imagine that!) runs on your own computer? My god, they could make millions!
      • Re:Nice (Score:3, Interesting)

        Worst thing is, we all know that's exactly what will happen, after some time.
        I'm really sick of this industry, when you look at its history it's clearly going *backward* most of the time. And more often than not, the worst technologies are the most workshipped, simply because they were better marketed.
        When you sit back and look at the way IT advances, it makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, there were better programming tools that what we've got today 35 years ago, and this whole client/server -> micro
        • Of course in professional environment having a microcomputer with its own system and applications for each user is totally crazy, how is it even possible that such a silly idea has been so widely accepted ?

          Because the first generation of things like VisiCalc and Word Perfect ran only on PCs, not on mainframes. Business users had a need for these appls, that their mainframe IT priests could not meet, so individual managers started using the started using their own departments budgets to put PCs on people's d
    • Hardly a first-step (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CdBee ( 742846 )
      This seems more like a crippled, intrusive version of Apt-Get. Hardly compelling, compared to Ubuntu's synaptic...
    • Re:Nice (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:29AM (#13650031) Homepage
      Didn't Linux get people used to great software with no packaging?

      I'm actually really excited about this, as it is long overdue. There is really no reason for software to be purchased through traditional retail channels anymore. Not only should this be slightly cheaper, but it will allow for impulse purchases without spending the few hours it would take to go get the stuff. See a positive review of Halo? Go and download the game. Need to edit a PDF file before your meeting tomorrow? Instead of waiting for the store to open tomorrow morning, or running off to Kinkos and run up a dollar-a-minute bill, just buy the software you need right now and use it. All of your software would be available in a centralized location somewhere, helping to make things easy to find with Microsoft's legendary User Interface skills (cough cough).

      The only potential (and probably highly likely) problem that I can see is if it were unnecessarily expensive to get into Microsoft's little digital mall that it became dominated by a few big retailers. The UI could also be crappy, the application might crash all of the time, the DRM could make it difficult to carry things between computers... So there are other potential problems. But as a fundamental ideal, buying software in 100% digital form, and in a forum that comes with every system is kind of nice. I'm sad that Apple didn't do this first, but I'm glad somebody other than Valve [] did.

      • "Not only should this be slightly cheaper"

        If by "slightly cheaper" you mean "higher profit margins for software companies"

        Besides, people like holding a physical product. this will fail for the most part. If you don't have a physical disk, it makes it a lot harder to install it somewhere without a solid internet connection, or on multiple machines, or if the machine craps out and you buy a new one.
    • The train left the station long ago, this is not the first stop. However, its one more step closer to the ideal situation of perpetual income for the software giant. This is much how they screw the big corporations now, with the MOLP agreements.
  • by KiroDude ( 853510 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:38AM (#13649424)
    I say use bit torrent to distribute windows and then poison the bitch to death!!

    Sorry, just had to...
  • by weinrich ( 414267 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:41AM (#13649439)
    Amazon already has a "Digital Locker" into which digital items like DVD extras, Users Manuals, and extra music tracks are instantly stored whenever you make an associated purchase. They actually call it your Digital Locker.

    I wonder if anyone in MS marketing has been shopping at Amazon lately?
  • Passport? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:41AM (#13649443)
    Didn't Passport get cancelled? Are they building new systems based on a deprecated
    • Re:Passport? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RupW ( 515653 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:53AM (#13649502)
      Didn't Passport get cancelled? Are they building new systems based on a deprecated system?

      It's being replaced in the upcoming Windows Communication Foundation (a.k.a. Indigo []) with a more paranoid-friendly digital identity system. You can get your hands on a beta already. I expect that'll be a drop-in replacement and they need something to work with.

      (In fact, MS Identity guy Kim Cameron's latest blog entry is called InfoCard Not Son Of Passport [].)
  • by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:43AM (#13649449) Journal
    What does Passport authentication have to do with Open Source s/w distribution? Has Amazon or eBay affected s/w distribution? So why should an MS authentication scheme do it?
    • by m50d ( 797211 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:52AM (#13649497) Homepage Journal
      It affects it if MS decides they're going to require installers to use this service. They'd have to make it free-as-in-beer, but what about requiring you to give MS rights to your code, or promising not to make it run on any other OS, if you want free access, or a small fee that larger companies can pay to use it and keep their code.
      • by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @11:52AM (#13651099)
        I hate to break it to the Slashdot zealots, but here it is:
        Microsoft wants one thing and one thing alone: money. It is not in Microsoft's best interests to restrict development for Windows. It is not in their best interests to break compatibility with older software. Neither of these things will EVER happen at Microsoft because the strength of their platform lies in its software library and ease of development. This news has NO implications for FOSS on Windows.

        This article, in fact, is 90 percent FUD. DRM has existed for a long time in the shareware and commercial software world - this just standardizes it and provides centralized downloading and key storage. Not a bad idea, if I say so myself.
        • Microsoft wants one thing and one thing alone: money.

          I'm not sure whether money or dominance is at the top of Microsoft's list, but it's abundantly clear from past conduct that both are core priorities. In tactical terms, the record shows that Microsoft quite readily makes concessions where money was concerned, but almost never where it has to give up any degree of situational or market dominance.

          Their game is far from exclusively about money, in other words. I suppose you could argue that the game is

        • Microsoft wants one thing and one thing alone: money. It is not in Microsoft's best interests to restrict development for Windows.

          It is in their interests if they decide they can make more from their software - office for example - by restricting development than they lose in OS sales.

          It is not in their best interests to break compatibility with older software.

          Not with recent software, but once they have everyone moved to the new platform they can do it. XP broke compatibility with a lot of dos and win3.

        • It is not in their best interests to break compatibility with older software.

          They still do it with each OS release. Look around you in a large organisation and you will probably see a few win98 machines in odd corners running software or specialist hardware that will not work with newer releases. In some cases you even need to put win98 on new systems to support legacy software or cards - which is when it is nice to find that a good bios on a SATA system will tell win98 the things it wants to know and it

  • by rajeshgoli ( 881014 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:45AM (#13649462) Homepage
    Would turn up all the software I need, and I dont need to manage my product keys because I dont have any.. Q1: "How will it affect the distribution of free and open-source software?" Q2: Does it affect the distribution of open-source software at all?
    • by indifferent children ( 842621 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:07AM (#13649554)
      This could be a good thing for OSS. If home-user license enforcement becomes easy, it will become widespread. If this works well enough, then MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc will start requiring these licenses to run. If it becomes difficult or impossible to run these programs, more people will stop using illegal copies, and start using OpenOffice, Gimp, etc. If MS were able to stamp-out copyright infringement (by any means), that would be a huge boost to OSS.
      • If home-user license enforcement becomes easy, it will become widespread.

        Ha ha. Why would copy protection in a shiny box be more effective? Until it's done in the hardware, there will always be cracks.

  • Middleman? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr.Opveter ( 806649 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:47AM (#13649468)
    From the Help []
    Q: Am I buying my software directly from Microsoft?
    A: The Digital Locker on Windows Marketplace Labs is not a software retailer. Microsoft, with your permission, communicates your purchase information to the retailers to help complete your transactions.

    Seems they are just a store front using their name to sell 3rd party software. Keeping all the licenses of your purchased software in a Digital Locker on your system might actually be convenient for the average Windows user. The program is supposed to also be able to make backup cds of purchased software as well.

    I'm sure there's something I'm not seeing but it doesn't seem such a bad move to me.

    • Security on the Passport network isn't great - hotmail accounts are generally quite easy to steal, as anyone who's had the misfortune to use MSN Groups will confirm.

      Suddenly, stealing a hotmail account is a way of committing piracy !
    • ..licenses of your purchased software in a Digital Locker on your system..

      It's my understanding that it's all kept on their system, not your own. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a reason for them to do this at all. I can't believe the biggest reason this was thought up is for your convenience. With all the data held central, they can monitor how many times you install a product and on what machines.
      • Thanks, I think you're right. The Digital Locker is actually not on your own system, it's the Digital Lock Assistent that you can install on your machine which connects to the Digital Locker. So indeed, that's part of the catch..
        • Oh great. So when Digital Locker goes bankrupt, I can't reinstall any of the software that I bought through the service? Some of the early online eBook and music download companies had a similar scheme.
    • Yeah, sure! The Software company has paid some money to Microsoft to be part of the club I would bet. Isn't that a middleman.
  • by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:48AM (#13649481)
    I don't think it will effect Open Source much at all. However user friendly it gets it can't get much quicker and simpler than a GUIed-over apt-get, such as Synaptic found in Ubuntu. Then again there's a lot of Open Source software availible for Windows aswell... Maybe the submitter was questioning the stand of Open Source vs. closed source on the Windows platform alone?
  • by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:55AM (#13649512) Homepage Journal
    "Will this technology trigger an across-the-board adoption of DRM for Windows software?"

    I've no doubt DRM will come on strong and dominate the marketplace. I don't think the geek crowd will deter the onslaught of DRM. Much of our western culture is based on conspicuous consumption. People like to have their purchases imprinted with some sign of authenticity and, strangely, high price. While I've difficulty finding the time to read /., the Reg and my mailing lists, there are many people who love junk mail and spam, the more so if it's personalized, so having their every move online sprout offers to buy this and that may be flattering to them.

    "How will it affect the distribution of free and open-source software?"

    I've pretty much said my goodbyes to Windows, my multimedia, web box runs XP, but I'm moving onto AMD 64 and freeBSD for everything else. Windows was grating enough to run but recently MS seems to totally own my web box, needing to authenticate every patch and update, (it's like a security firm that promises to protect your premises then has a break-in and theft at their headquarters and, follows up with a notice to its customers that it will be rummaging through each customer's house looking for its stolen gear).

    Free Open source software will continue to grow by leaps and bounds, with more government agencies signing on. It's sometimes difficult to see the growth in FOSS adoption, but when I first bought Mandrake6 the brick and mortar places Linux could be found were few and far between, now it's readily avialable and every computer book store has aisles of books on FOSS.

    • > People like to have their purchases imprinted with some sign of authenticity and, strangely, high price.

      If that were true, how does Walmart make a profit?

      While it is true that some part of American culture is consumed with status and high price labels, the bulk of it would just as easily flock to a cheap knock offs if they were "good enough".

  • by cobrajs ( 882891 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:03AM (#13649544)
    Why should this put a hamper on OSS distribution? Isn't this just Windows trying to be more like Linux, i.e. like apt-get or CNR for Linspire?

    I don't think that this really would hurt OSS distribution at all, but would instead provide more of a reason to use OSS.
  • nothing about this is good.
    DRM takes all the rights away from the purchaser. thats what it's all about pure and simple. what this kind of thing heralds is a future where unless you pay through the nose to MS they won't allow you to run your software on windows, due to it not having a DRM license.
    they will no doubt claim it's to protect you. fuck where have i heard that shit before?
    • DRM takes all the rights away from the purchaser.

      Apart from the right to use the software under the terms and conditions they accepted before purchasing/renting it.

      I know it's easier said than done, but, if you don't like it, don't buy it. If the publishers don't make any money they'll have to listen.

      • Apart from the right to use the software under the terms and conditions they accepted before purchasing/renting it.

        You mean "let us a**-f*** you or you can't use our operating system"? Or "by using this software you agree that you waive your rights to reverse engineer, decompile, etc..."? Ridiculous conditions that are non-negotiable and you are required to accept them if you want to get anything done?
        • Ridiculous conditions that are non-negotiable and you are required to accept them if you want to get anything done?

          I dunno. I find myself to be rather productive, and I think the vast majority of the software I use came with either one simple license or one rather lengthy license. They both state no warranty (as does any other license I've seen), and the long license only says anything more if I re-distribute the software (says I have to provide source code and re-distribution rights). ;)

      • the over simplified notion that "if you don't like it don't buy it" is invalid. your forgeting the huge vendor lock in microsoft has on the world. so many apps that personal and business use are windows only. often you have no choice but to buy it or stop using a computer altogether.
        the thing that MS are banking on is that it will always be so much pain involved in porting and app to another platform that people will put up with just about anything they do.
    • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:35AM (#13649684)
      " nothing about this is good."

      I disagree. Either MS will open up a loophole you can drive a truck through or this will be the best thing ever for open source and commercial software which competes with MS.

      I can't wait for the future when it will be impossible to steal windows and other MS software. As long as people can get office for free they will never use openoffice.

      Of course MS will never let it come to that. They will release non DRM software that anybody can copy and use. What's the alternative? Lock the third world out of their software?
  • by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:11AM (#13649575)
    Despite what you say about MS, they certainly have a lot of smart guys working for them. They're making it harder and harder to pirate, and since they have a monopoly on the OS market, they will be able to leverage that monopoly into something like this to combat piracy.
  • And actually, the way I did it was that me and a couple of guys I worked with would split the cost of registering the software. Yeah, not exactly the way it was supposed to work, but the author got money, and we got what we considered a semi-legal copy of the software, and we registered quite a bit of software.

    Now, if I register a shareware program, quite a bit of it checks in with a server to validate the key, and if you even try and install it on say, your laptop, at the same time, you are screwed. I registered a couple of programs a while back that if my HD crashed, I guess I would have to e-mail the author and **beg** them to let me reinstall the programs.

    And I tell you what, the amount of money leaving my hands has greatly reduced because of the above. I now look first to free/open source software or, believe it or not, commerical software, which is still light on the DRM, even though it is moving in that direction. If I smell DRM, I avoid the software at all costs.

    I can only imagine that shareware author's revenue is decreasing...but hey, they cut down on some piracy...and all those big bad pirates who installed software they **paid** for on more than one computer in clear violation of the EULA.


    • by leabre ( 304234 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @11:39AM (#13651024)
      I'm the same way. I have two PC's at home and many Virtual PC's for various reasons. Apart from MS products, anything that I must have that requires any semblance of activation goes into a GuestOS. The problem is that if I apply a patch to VirtualPC or VMWare (beginning to lean towards VMWare these days) then most activations fail and need to be reactivated. That has prevented me from upgrading my VirtualPC 5.2 to MS Virtual PC 2004.

      The bottom line is that until 2004 I would spend untold thousands of dollars in software. I'm a developer, and developer tools don't come cheap (on the Windows platforms) and various other software packages I liked to have. But more and more, they are required activation (tying it to a machine). My machines upgrade quickly. I upgrade and replace early, upgrade and replace often. In 2004, I started noticing how much of my software I can't reinstall. Not much had a problem, but the three things I cared about did and I haven't upgraded since.

      Now, in late 2005, more and more requires activation. Some even require a subscription for updates. Not so bad, reasonable IMO. But... they don't provide a way to download patches seperate from their update feature and once the support year expires, if I don't renew, I can't go back and download even those updates I previously qualified for, in the case my system needs a rebuild.

      Getting on my nerves. But I see a trend. The trend states that this is where it is all going. Now, I do my research. If a product I *want* requires activation, messes with my MBR, makes it difficult to install on my new PCs as I replace the old, or anything, I typically avoid it.

      In some cases, I'll purchase a license and apply a crack. In my mind, I paid for it. So what do they care. In reality, its getting harder to do even that and to the point that I gave up on some software and just do without. Of course, I really don't look for open source alternatives. I just don't care. MS is the only company that gets away with activation in my case. But I avoid all others. I stopped upgrading Acrobat Pro because of this. I just don't agree with activation and the means they take to applying it.

      There is one way I agree. does it. You activate once, get a key that can be reapplied as much as you want. All their ebooks are purchased and activated against that key. If it leaks to the internet, you've just lost quit a bit of money as they deactivate you. Otherwise, they don't "presume" innocence or guilt. They just allow you to reapply they key if you must. I like that approach. It also shilds you from them going out of business. Too many software companies and ebooks that I've activated in 2002/2003 aren't in business and I have no way to reactivate... which is another prime reason I avoid any kind of central server authentication in general when using desktop/server software.

  • License (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jlebrech ( 810586 )
    They need this kind of technology to compete with free software
    The absence of license key for openoffice and linux for example
    is more tempting for a switch than the freeness that the sotware gives.
  • by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:37AM (#13649701) Homepage
    Before Product Activation (or similar models) people could freely buy new computers, transferring all of their software for themselves, while keeping it on their old one for the kids. You were safe knowing that your "investment" in software didn't go to waste with that new computer. (I'm NOT saying this was legal, but it's a VERY common practice.)

    That will change now that software will be tied to a single computer. Imagine spending several hundred bucks in software, which is quite easy considering the price of anti-virus software and office suites today. A few years later you want to buy a new computer, but all the software will have to be bought all over again. Is it worth it? Maybe. Maybe not.

    The point is that people won't be free to upgrade anymore. There will be a cost in addition to the hardware. Replacing all the software you've already bought.

    One company could be helped but this, though: Apple. If you have to buy all new software anyway, you might as well switch and go with a Mac.
  • Imagine if MS went to all hardware vendors and told them that the only drivers that could be distributed had to go through MS's DRM gateway. Or, to put a friendly face on it, in order to distribute drivers they had to go exclusively through MS's DRM gateway and while of course those vendors were free to create open source drivers, there would be no mechanism for thoe OS drivers to validate and therefore pass through the MS DRM gateway. This would quickly squash the
  • by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:44AM (#13649742) Homepage Journal
    First of all, I buy most of my software online direct from the manufacturer in the first place. All of them store a copy of my license key for me and will give it to me if I can identify myself properly - from my handheld to my PC. I can even download a fresh copy if I need to. I actually had to do this last week with Sony and they were really good about it.

    Why would I want another copy of my license key floating around on a public network? Especially with MS "guarding"it. I would even venture to say that my license keys are more secure because they don't have a central access point (ie: different companies). If I were to use this service and someone could contact MS and autheticate they could grab _all_ of my license keys. Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Maya would total several thousand dollars in hard earned cash.

    I won't even get into them wanting my credit card number. I've avoided giving them one for a couple of decades now and I'm not about to give in ;)

    Second: This is where they are taking Passport? Didn't Ebay leave [] the program a while back? From what I remember the list of participants is teeny.

  • by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd DOT bandrowsky AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:45AM (#13649750) Homepage Journal
    If you can admit that there is a place for shareware on Linux, as opposed to freeware, then, having a mechanism such as this is a godsend for independent authors.

    With my shareware registration service now, regnow, I have the ability to not only get paid myself, but, also, to share the wealth with web sites that host my product and drive sales to it. So for example, I might wind up paying a particular site a 40% commission on sales if they sold a copy of Commodity Server.
    • If you can admit that there is a place for shareware on Linux, as opposed to freeware, then, having a mechanism such as this is a godsend for independent authors.

      There is little room for "shareware" or "freeware" on Linux. What do they offer that open source software does not?

      • A means for independent software developers to feed his or her family. I would like to be able to write software and sell it over the internet rather than through a consulting gig at a client, so I can spend more time with my 4 month old son.
        • Great, good luck to you. But you probably won't make any money selling shareware apps to Linux users. Some of us are anal about open source purity, and some of us will just use the free alternative even though it's not quite as good. If your app is really good, it will be cloned and released on SourceForge.

          Shareware games may have a role, though. They're much harder to clone, and will more likely be seen as worth the money. These are just my impressions of the community, of course; I haven't done the mark

    • If you can admit that there is a place for shareware on Linux
      It was called xv, was everywhere and is still found in a lot of places but hasn't really been updated since 1994. Hardly anyone registered it - in *nix there seems to have been a trend of sharing small applications instead of charging from them, as distinct from windows which has required purchased third party software to make it functional (eg. to get on a network in the past or antivirus software today).
  • The harder it gets to pirate Windows and all the various apps on it the more the value of OSS shines through. Today not many pay for their software in general. Even Windows XP Home is swapped out fairly quickly for a pirated version of XP Pro in many cases.

    When you make a headcount and calculate what the total sum of all the installed software on a normal computer is OSS has a pretty great advantage that not many appriciates since they dont pay for their comercial software.
  • by bjk002 ( 757977 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:54AM (#13649804)
    Feels like M$ is building a custom, personal sourceforge. There are many practical applications for this.

    Restore and recovery comes to mind first. With ubiquitous broadband connections, its not as big a deal to d/l full version software packages.

    Or perhaps, something even cooler, a full system mirroring, online.

    As useful as this would be for an individual, think how useful this would be for corporations. Disater recovery from a corporations point of view would be a no brainer.

    Building burned down? Just buy a couple servers and d/l everything from M$.

    This could eliminate $1000s/yr off the company's bottom line in media storage, tape back up, etc...

    That is, of course, until M$ jacks up the pricing once they cornered the market.

    • long as it is secure. And a central point of failure is a bad move.

      As far as all my software licenses are concerned, I need my software to do my job. If someone gets through via a social engineering attack ("Yes, my mother's maiden name is Bougm") then they've instantly got all my license keys and it'll be a severe uphill struggle to convince them that I am the real me.

      Worse, full system mirroring? With all my sensitive documents, website records, and personal pictures? We see identity theft problems
    • I would not put restore and recovery in the hands of the company not doing enough Q&A in the first place. I value my personal data more than my applications and theres no substitute for quality. Its also very common to have sensetive data onsite and i have a hard time imagine someone willfully putting that kind of information in the hand of Microsoft without proper guaranties (wich to my knowledge Microsoft has always sworn themselves free of). The need for onsite backup will be just as big as before. M
  • Look, people didn't want Passport or Hailstorm. Microsoft just won't be told.
  • um.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by powerline22 ( 515356 ) <> on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:17AM (#13649951) Homepage
    It's called Steam. It's been done microsoft.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Digital River was and may still be the preferred mail/shipping firm for SuSE, a major Linux distributer. It may be the preferred distributer for other Linux distributions as well. If Microsoft gets its hooks into this company, then Novell, who holds SuSE now and others may have to seek other distributers. This happens often enough and it will become difficult for Linux companies to ship their product through third party bulk distributers, especially in foreign countries. This is especially relevant, or
  • first step (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @11:31AM (#13650963)
    The goal is to only have LEASED software, not software you own. They will get everyone using MS software locked into rental to provide a recurring revenue stream. Don't pay, your computer doesn't work anymore (unless you liberate yourself with Free Software).
  • We allready have for this. You should try it too.
  • I know of quite a few people that still use dialup or have no internet connection. Then there are all the various factors of complexity...and seeing all this, I don't know well a web based distribution system will work.
  • As long as I can re-sell the software I bought, I'm fine with this. I doubt they'll let me re-sell, though. In which case they can shove this thing up their asses without vaseline.
  • Windows has been downloadable for as long as I can remember. Move along, nothing to see h--wait, let me read the article.

    Oh, downloadable after you BUY it. Nevermind.

news: gotcha