Found On Road Dead

Yeah, everyone knows all the smart aleck nicknames for Ford.

Found on Road Dead
Fix or Repair Daily
Fails On Rainy Days
Failure Of Research & Development
Fast Only Running Downhill
Factory Ordered Road Disaster
Four Old Rusted Doors
Ford Owner Really Dumb
Fork Over Repair Dough
Fabricated Of Refried Dung
Fireball On Rear Denting
Frequent Opinion: Really Disappointed

And yeah, there’s a couple of thousand more. But hey, they are the only North American car company that didn’t go into bankruptcy, so they have to have something going for them, don’t they? And I am looking for a new car.

Well it so happens that the Ford Fusion is a really nice looking little hybrid car. Since I’m ecologically minded (yes, climate change is real – I understand the science) and want to keep my ecological footprint as low as possible, a hybrid was high on my list. It has to seat five (we have 3 kids), have good rear seat headroom (both of our boys are over 6 feet tall), get fantastic fuel economy, have a trunk or hatch big enough to hold a couple of guitars and amplifiers. Simple, no?

From this point of view the Ford was looking great. It’s reasonably sized, the fuel economy is fantastic, and the Ford Hybrid Technology looks pretty good. Hey, I’m feeling happy at this point.

Then we got to the dealership. Car looks like the pictures. I got a good laugh at the expression on my wife’s face when the salesman got in, turned the key, drove the car forward, and parked, all without the engine coming on. Neat. Then I got into the car.

Turns out that the damned thing comes with a Microsoft/Ford Sync system. I told the salesman I wouldn’t buy the car because of that. Rather than asking questions about my statement he started trying to explain how great it was, and it was at that point that we walked out.

We aren’t buying a Ford.

Oh, and I’m emailing a copy of this to the dealership. If they respond, I’ll let you know what they say.

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Found On Road Dead

  1. Wait a second, you're not buying a specific car because of some extra software that doesn't even affect the safety of the vehicle simply because it includes Microsoft software that you don't even have to use if you don't want to?Ah well, nobody will blame you for not buying a car, but if it fits your requirements just fine & you actually need a new car, some fluff software seems to be a bad reason not to, but it's apparently supposed to be an option so you can probably find the same car without it.

  2. I'm shopping for a certain type of car for philosophical reasons. I refuse to buy certain types of cars for philosophical reasons, just as I refuse to buy computers that come with Microsoft Windows for philosophical reasons.I have certain beliefs, and if I don't stand by them, I'm not me.And no, Microsoft Sync is not an option on the Fusion, it's standard equipment. Since the Fusion is the only Ford that meets my requirements, I won't be buying Ford.I think that Ford has made a huge mistake in tying themselves to the most incompetent software company on the planet.

  3. I was shopping for a car recently and had roughly the same requirements. I too looked at the Fords but when I found out about Microsoft Sync I turned my back for philosophical reasons.I doubt that Ford is worrying about the people who will not buy their cars for philosophical reasons – we're a tiny minority. Yet we do exist – well, I think we exist.

  4. I’m going to ask a question about your statement.

    What’s wrong with MS Sync? Why would you avoid an otherwise-good car because of it?

  5. You do realize Ford Sync is not there to control any moving part of the vehicle Рnot even the doors Рright? 

    So much for being a discerning consumer.

      1. “Go ahead and say it.”

        You want to hear something *good* about NT? Let me chime in then.

        – NT has a hybrid kernel and a comprehensive service management system, and that mean you can run things that otherwise have to go into the kernel in userspace and have dependencies automatically controlled by the software itself. That Other OS, on the other hand, has absolutely no sense of service dependencies, has wonky little things called “daemons” that rely on fork() to substitute services and has no unified way to automatically restart said wonky little things when they die unexpectedly.

        – NT has an extremely stable kernel ABI to boot, unlike That Other OS, which actively stuff over every other iteration those, e.g. users of VMWare products, who have to rely on kernel plug-ins for their work.

        – NT allows you to run any hardware as long as you have the driver. That Other OS has an unstable kernel ABI that effectively bars you from using your hardware even if you have the driver.

        – NT gives you drivers that are tested by both the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft. That Other OS has mostly half-baked drivers that are developed and tested by who-knows-who.

        – NT has a page cache developed soundly for general-purpose computing. That Other OS has a page cache borrowed from Solaris 10 that is optimized for sequential reading and a waste of memory in every other case.

        – NT has a solid memory reporting mechanism that allows applications to know exactly how much memory is left available for use. That Other OS has a low-level only single querying function that does not discriminate between pages as occupied by disk cache and pages as occupied by applications.

        – NT has a remote access system that is not prone to network outage. That Other OS, however, has instead a brain-dead thing called “XDMCP” that is not only demanding in network throughput but is also happy to kill off everything you are running when it loses connection to the terminal.

        – NT has a unified sound stack that saves costs for both software developers and, as a consequence, end users. That Other OS has at least half a dozen of mostly incompatible sound stacks with no reconciliation in sight.

        – NT has a unified userspace APIs. That Other OS has a largely poorly tested set of C/++ libraries that substitute an API.

        – NT has a unified GUI API. That Other OS doesn’t even have GUI libraries that work the same in every favor and iteration.

        – NT can keep your desktop session running for months without needing to be restarted. That Other OS has a shoddy GUI system called “X” that can’t even withstand a poorly developed application and keep your work intact.

        – NT has a update system that tells you when and what to restart. That Other OS have a set of files-only dependency systems that can’t even tell you what is currently in use in the memory.

        Oh, and in case you haven’t figured out already, “That Other OS” means “Linux”. I do learn from the master Mr. Pogson, ya know?

        1. Please, what’s next?

          That NT would be using B+ trees in its filesystem and Linux’ ext* cra- awesomeness would be using linked-lists?

          That NT would have ASLR and full grown DEP and Linux got grsecurity which is unusable except when using a 2 year old kernel which in turn does not feature drivers for recent hardware?

          That NT has fine grained ACLs and Linux still awful POSIX permissions?

          That NT allows changing your sound output sampling rate and depth while Linux does not without entirely rebuilding your kernel or purchasing an M-Audio card and editing the kernel commandline?

          That NT features a crypto API which actually permits using TLS 1.2 and ECC together, while gnutls, nss and openssl don’t?

          That NT supported Kernel Mode Setting since its predecessor OS/2 and Linux today requires special DRM drivers which can back GEM then which was introduced as recently as 2008?

          That NT wouldn’t crash your desktop if your graphics driver crashes while Linux does?

          That NT has a built-in CA named ADCS with templates, enrollment policies and Linux is still at OpenCA and OpenSSL’s CA.pl?

          That NT would have a crash handler that allows excepting hardware faults such as access violations while Linux solely permits handling SIGSEGVs however not being able to tell you where it segfaulted, so SEH emulation in Wine is done by, let’s see if there’s a SIGSEGV returned while this code runs and if so, well I guess it crashed and trigger SEH?

          That NT has an accelerated 2D API such as Direct2D and Mozilla stated that Direct2D is unfortunately not replacable on Linux, aka no acceleration for you?

          That NT has filesystem-level transactions and Linux doesn’t?

          I think it’s pretty obvious that you’re lying here. Linux is awesome and you know it. And if you’d excuse me now, I need to get back to my CLI and spend 5 days fixing my wireless. Hopefully there’s still enough pizza in my freezer.

        2. Clap. Clap. Clap.

          Now I’ll cover the issues that you didn’t.¬†

          NT was not designed for a networked environment, and as a result is has been a security nightmare. Brian Valentine, Microsoft’s Vice President at the time admitted to a Windows Developer meeting that Our products just aren’t engineered for security.

          That’s a terrible thing to have to say in public about your flagship product. Windows XP was a disaster. Windows Vista was marginally better. Windows 7 is vast improvement over Vista.

          What’s hilarious is that Windows 8 is going to have a security system that is a lot like what Unix/Linux has.¬†And as to the problems that you’ve mentioned that Linux had, they’ve been fixed, and faster than Microsoft fixed the security problems.

          Wayne

          1. “NT was not designed for a networked environment, and as a result is has been a security nightmare.”

            Utter nonsense. Windows NT was designed from the ground up as a *server* system and only given a workstation release in version 3.5.

            Unix, on the other hand, was designed from the ground up to work with nothing but *teletypes*. You know – that “tty” thing That Other OS mumbles from time to time on the *screen*? Hell, Unix could barely even serve multiple users in the first place. Time-sharing was the norm, and ARPA at that time was still trying to connect the two coasts with OS completely unrelated to Unix. TCP/IP – the network protocol that we use nowadays – was in every way non-existent in ARPANET. Claiming Unix was designed for networking, under these circumstances, would be like saying that the toaster was invented before the toast.

            “Brian Valentine, Microsoft’s Vice President at the time admitted to a Windows Developer meeting that Our products just aren’t engineered for security.”

            And what is? Did you even read the article before posting it here?

            “According to Chandra Mugunda, a software consultant with Dell who attended Valentine’s presentation, buggy software is ‘an industry-wide problem, not just a Microsoft problem. But they’re the leaders, and they should take the lead to solve them,’ he said.”
            Oh, do you want to see some OS X vulnerabilies, by the way?http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4723Certificate Trust Policy:”An attacker with a privileged network position may intercept user credentials or other sensitive information”Kernel:”A local user may be able to cause a system reset”Libsystem:”Applications which use the glob(3) API may be vulnerable to a denial of service”These certainly sound like fun to me.

            1. Yes, I did read the article. I also know the industry, and the software. I’ve worked with it.

              Utter nonsense. Windows NT was designed from the ground up as a *server* system and only given a workstation release in version 3.5.

              Curious. I had a copy of Windows NT Workstation 3.1. Wikipedia backs me up. For that matter Microsoft backs me up.

              Yes, I read the article. And of course Microsoft is going to claim everyone else has the same problems that they have. That history proves them wrong is an embarrassment, but being a monopoly means that they haven’t actually had to produce good quality software. At least not until now when Apple is aiming to take out Microsoft, and doing a credible job of doing it.

              Microsoft is responding. The question is whether they have responded fast enough.

              Wayne

              1. “Yes, I did read the article. I also know the industry, and the software.”
                Last time I checked, grocery clerks also know their software and their industry. After all, how else would they be supposed to check out my groceries?

                “Curious. I had a copy of Windows NT Workstation 3.1.”

                The name “Workstation” was not even used until 3.5. Wikipedia backed me up on this. ¬† Photographic evidence also backed me up on this. And the link you used also backed me up on this. ¬†This tells you as to how the client limit on concurrent SMB service access began with 3.5, and even tell you what the additional features are in the Advanced Server edition.

                There is simply no loving excuse.

                “And of course Microsoft is going to claim everyone else has the same problems that they have.”

                Then mind if you tell me what exactly at the API or architectural levels was wrong with Microsoft’s code, not necessarily for the sake of me laughing at you silly as a programmer, but simply that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion – however grotesquely ill-informed it actually is.

                “That history proves them wrong is an embarrassment”

                Which part of it. You mean this part, or this part? I an’t no historian, but at least it is obvious to me that Microsoft at least has the galls to openly admit their code is buggy. Has Apple or the Linux even come close of doing the same despite the fact that their code is to the same extent severely buggy?

                “being a monopoly”

                Tell me exactly which business in existence does not want to the one running the scene? Seriously, do you even actually know anindustry at all?

                “they haven’t actually had to produce good quality software”

                You mean as opposed to Mac OS only having completely implemented ASLR in all aspects of the system  (and not just shared libraries) since a weeks ago?

                Who cares about competitions when you have millions of consumers willing to believe in flimsily-crafted marketing ploys?

                “The question is whether they have responded fast enough.”

                I think the real, nagging question here is whether you have anything substantial at all to back up anything you have said.

          2. So, “covering the issues that you didn’t” now means “ignoring the obvious technical superiority that you did?”

            That’s interesting. ¬†I presume you write fantasy novels for a living.

            And you’ve got all of one issue? And I’m going to be outrageously kind to you and allow you the benefit of 100% accuracy for previous incarnations of Windows. ¬†Which is ridiculous, but what the heck, I like fantasy too.

            We are now, like it or not, in an era of Windows 7 vs Ubuntu and Windows Server 2008 vs LAMP stacks. ¬†It’s an unprecedented era of commodity hardware with commodity OSes that actually work … plus that revolting little toy thing you favour, which doesn’t.

            Go ahead, though.  Fantasy can be far more satisfying than reality.

            Oh, and that “fixed, and faster” thing? How about the Debian security issue that was actually re-introduced to the main branch after being fixed, and remained there for three years?

            There ain’t no Magic Pixie Dust, my friend. ¬†Not even in the world of Fantasy. ¬†There are just horrible problems that come out of left field, and a bunch of people who are paid to fix them and are motivated to fix them, and another bunch of people who are not paid to do anything other than pat each other on the back, and the consequences are clear.

      2. Here’s another thing to like.

        Microsoft picked up Dave Cutler and his team from DEC whilst Jack was busy driving DEC into the ground.

        There are three descendants of Multics: VOS, VAX, and Unix. ¬†Of the three, only VAX was designed for networking … though the other two layered it in, and Linux eventually learned from its pathetic early experiments with the TCP/IP stack and at least got something that works at layer 3. (There are more layers, you know.)

        So, then.  Microsoft picked up the Cutler team, who were solely responsible for designing and implementing VAX, and what did they do? They put them to work on NT 3.1, which begat NT 3.51, which begat NT 4.0, which begat the entire current series of MS operating systems.

        If you seriously believe that current (as in post 1996 or so) MS operating systems are not designed “from the ground up” for networking, then you probably need to scrub your frontal lobes out with a toothbrush. ¬†That’s just insane and/or pure ignorance.

  6. hahahaha wow the levels of freetarded fanaticism sometimes reach stupidly high levels!!

    Oh I love the car but….. oh no, MS SYNC!!!¬†

      1. I didn’t notice that, but again I don’t watch TV

        But when I went to the ford dealership for my Fiesta, they couldn’t stop talking about Microsoft Sync(and they did use the word Microsoft).¬†

        1. It comes from being an ex-sales representative. I actually read the sales literature. The last time I visited a Ford dealership and read the Fusion literature there was no mention of Microsoft. The sales representative did mention it though.

          What happened is that the sales representative had sat through a class about why mentioning Microsoft was important. Ford probably didn’t have a class on not mentioning Microsoft. It wasn’t considered an important change. At some point it might be considered an important change, and Ford might issue instructions not to mention Microsoft.

          It all depends on why Ford stopped mentioning Microsoft in their literature. Did Ford adopt Microsoft as a fast way to get a computerized dashboard on the market, with the intention of replacing the Microsoft version with their own in house version later? I don’t know. Ford does, and they aren’t saying. You can check out the Sync section of the Ford Website and you’ll see what I mean, there is no obvious mention of Microsoft anywhere.

          It’s stuff like this that keeps analysts like me running around in circles biting our tails.

          Wayne

          1. Actually I did see Microsoft on their site… Not everywhere, but a few places. I did find a image that said SYNC, powered by Microsoft. Also the poster at the sales guy desk also had SYNC Powered by Microsoft.¬†

            Out of curiosity, what if you never found out that SYNC was made by Microsoft, you bought the car and you liked a lot. Then after a year you found out it was made by Microsoft.

          2. “What happened is that the sales representative had sat through a class about why mentioning Microsoft was important. Ford probably didn’t have a class on not mentioning Microsoft.”Every computer is powered by Microsoft. What on earth is the big deal about that? Didn’t they tell you anything about getting the most bangs for the buck in one of those coaching sessions?
            “It all depends on why Ford stopped mentioning Microsoft in their literature.”

            Like, people simply don’t care?

            Or, like, how newer iPhones work with Ford Sync like iTunes work with Windows? But hey, don’t let that make you lose faith in the Shiny Big Fruit.

            “Did Ford adopt Microsoft as a fast way to get a computerized dashboard on the market, with the intention of replacing the Microsoft version with their own in house version later?”
            Right. Ford is indeed renowned for producing their own software, doesn’t it?

            1. “What happened is that the sales representative had sat through a class about why mentioning Microsoft was important. Ford probably didn’t have a class on not mentioning Microsoft.”Every computer is powered by Microsoft. What on earth is the big deal about that? Didn’t they tell you anything about getting the most bangs for the buck in one of those coaching sessions?”It all depends on why Ford stopped mentioning Microsoft in their literature.”Like, people simply don’t care?Or, like, how newer iPhones work with Ford Sync like iTunes works with Window? But, hey, don’t let that make you lose faith in the Shiny Big Fruit.”Did Ford adopt Microsoft as a fast way to get a computerized dashboard on the market, with the intention of replacing the Microsoft version with their own in house version later?”Right. Ford is indeed renowned for producing their own software, doesn’t it?(A corrected version of the last post, brought to you by the obviously non-Microsoft and thus bug-free Disqus.)

          3. Wayne: you’ve been an ex-sales representative, you’ve been intimately involved in OS development for the last twenty years, you are a security expert, you are a legal expert over copyright, you are a published writer of novels and short stories.

            Is there anything you haven’t done?

            I assume you’ve driven a Ford at some stage.

            Possibly you might even have punched the button to turn annoying extras like Microsoft Sync off.

            Hell, you’re almost certainly a Button Expert.

            1. 1973 Econoline 100 van with the old 300 inline 6 cylinder engine, which was an excellent vehicle for it’s time. Reliable, good fuel economy. It cost me $500.00 and I ran it until it fell apart four years later.

              1990 something Ford Taurus, which was an absolute disaster. Just after it went out of warranty the transaxle fell apart, and it proceeded to do that every eighteen months for the next five years. It was at a point when we were financially in rough shape, and couldn’t replace the car, and keeping it running nearly killed us.

              Ford Fiesta, the Kia built one, forget the year. A great little car, you could wave a soaked gas rag by the gas cap and run it for a week.

              1983 Ford F150 pick up – good truck.

              Thinking about it, had more Fords than anything else. Also had a 1974 Camaro which was a hell of a fun car after I finished the modifications, I could leave rubber in all four gears.

              Wayne

  7. “Windows for Warship”

    There are two Yorktowns that I am aware of. One is a museum piece that has been decommissioned since 1975,  and another is a cruiser that has been used as a software testbed and supposedly since 2008 been dismantled along with its sister ships:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)
    The Yorktown incident in *19997* was due to an unsanitized input to a database application developed *independent* of NT. Even given the eggheaded attitude signature of military administrations, they do use NT systems in their combat systems – and as they admit – all the time.

    “BMW 7 Series”

    There is no indication that the BMW 520 uses the iDrive, or that BMW 520 is part of the *7* series.

    “Type 23s”

    You mean “Tango-Yankee-Papa-Echo-two-three-Sierra”? Because spelling alphabets are so much better than digitalized communications.

    Oh, and BAE is one of the largest military contractors in the British Commonwealth, by the way.

    1. Two different versions of the article – one claimed that the politician was in a 7 Series BMW.

      I know BAE systems really well. I used to sell to them. They are a decent company in B2B, just like Boeing is. Government procurement is a different story.

      Wayne

  8. Somebody get the dicktionary, what does *stupidity* mean?

    “Considering the reliability of other products I’ve used from Microsoft, I
    would consider a car which used Sync as not suitable for everyday use.”

    Honestly, get over it. Just because that one thing breaks the deal doesn’t mean it has to.

    Microsoft’s products are reliable for everyday use. Let’s apply some
    common sense here: how do consumers stick with Windows? (And no, the
    dicktionary entry I desired is not the answer I want.)

    Have a great day. ūüôā

    -reactosguy

    1. Yes it does. If it makes the car a total annoyance, I won’t buy it.¬†

      I avoided buying cars with automatic transmissions for years because they annoy me. The only reason I bought one is that I have three kids who are learning how to drive, and my wife insisted.

      I play a left handed guitar. Everyone else I know who is left handed plays right handed, or plays a right handed guitar upside down. I prefer playing a left handed guitar, so that’s what I play, even though it’s harder to find decent lefty guitars.

      I march to a different drummer. I always have, I always will, and the rest of the world can just put up with it, or get run over.

      Wayne

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s