Windows 11 is dying....

[Simmed]

mmm fresh bug

https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/

The Windows 11 Feb update (KB5077181) locks some Samsung PCs out of C: with a "C:\ is not accessible" error.

[Randy222]

mmm fresh bug

https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11-c-is-not-accessible-access-denied-bug/

The Windows 11 Feb update (KB5077181) locks some Samsung PCs out of C: with a "C:\ is not accessible" error.

But due to a Samsung component. Not directly a windoze update issue.
Windows or not, there's no way to validate every quad-drillion ways a target system is setup.

A root cause investigation report needs to come, for anyone to understand exactly how that specific issue came about on the very limited hardware and vendor setup.

[jonovid]

Microsoft needs to go back to basics with PC Windows OS
also sack the indian CEO's. that put shareholders over its customers.
I still use Windows for some 10 yr old 32 bit applications.

[Randy222]

MS is a fwd looking company.
AI is the future for them.
There's no going back.

[SteveThackery]

Microsoft needs to go back to basics with PC Windows OS
also sack the indian CEO's. that put shareholders over its customers.

To be fair, that's exactly what a company should do. OK, I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.

[PlainName]

I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.

Really? Do you have an authoritative source for that or are you just quoting internet memes about it?

[TimFox]

That was a continuing tenet of the late Milton Friedman, among others.
Christianity and capitalism are not synonymous.

[SteveThackery]

I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do.

Really? Do you have an authoritative source for that or are you just quoting internet memes about it?

Not really, but nearly. The UK law is the Companies Act 2006, which states: "Directors must: act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole."
(Where "members" = shareholders.)

However, it is not a directive to maximise profits at all costs. The Act requires the directors to consider: long-term consequences; employees; relationships with suppliers/customers; community and environmental impact.

So, there is a duty to promote company success, benefitting shareholders over the longer term, but not at all costs.

It's a lot more complicated in the US because the relevant legislation is at state level, so I'll leave you to look that up. 😄

EDIT: to refer back to the original point, @jonovid suggested sacking the Indian directors "that put shareholders over its customers". The wording is imprecise, of course, but as you can see it is not unreasonable to ultimately put the needs of your shareholders first, because they are the ones investing their money in the company, and the main reason they are doing that is to make a return. Maybe not an immediate return, but eventually.

Your obligation to the customer normally extends no further than delivering what you promised for the price you promised.

[PlainName]

Depends entirely one what the company thinks success means (which is typically spelled out when it's created). Pandering to shareholders making them a fast buck might actually be less successful long term than keeping customers onside (who, after all, are the ones supporting the company). And not all companies have shareholders with dollar signs for eyes.

I'll grant that there are companies that do think a fast and big buck is the be-all and end-all, but that isn't law or even necessary.

[Analog Kid]

EDIT: to refer back to the original point, @jonovid suggested sacking the Indian directors "that put shareholders over its customers". The wording is imprecise, of course, but as you can see it is not unreasonable to ultimately put the needs of your shareholders first, because they are the ones investing their money in the company, and the main reason they are doing that is to make a return. Maybe not an immediate return, but eventually.

Your obligation to the customer normally extends no further than delivering what you promised for the price you promised.

That's a pretty naive take on how companies do well or not, and I believe a mistaken one.

Apart from the obligation to shareholders, which is actually not just a notional one but is a statutory requirement, a company treats its customers dismissively, or takes them for granted, at its own peril.

And by customers I don't mean just retail buyers but dealers, distributors and other middlepersons whose continued goodwill is necessary for the company to stay afloat. Not to mention the trade press and other ancillary players.

[PlainName]

Apart from the obligation to shareholders, which is actually not just a notional one but is a statutory requirement

What obligation is that? The shareholders own the company and can influence the direction it takes by voting. They get a share of the profits and have the right to see certain company information. But they have no legal liability as regards what the company does or how it acts.

Apart from being truthful, sharing the profits, keeping a register of shareholders and accounting for shareholders' desires, what statutory obligations does the company have to them?

[Analog Kid]

Shareholders can sue the company for not acting in their fiduciary interest.
And have in fact done so many times.

[PlainName]

Still a bit wishy-washy, I'm afraid. A quick google (no idea is this is representative, just the first one I came across) reveals:

When does a breach of fiduciary duty occur?

A breach of fiduciary duty happens when a director acts against the company’s interests or fails to meet one of the legal duties owed to it. Breaches can arise through deliberate misconduct, but also through carelessness, weak governance, or poor judgement.

Common examples of breach of fiduciary duty include:
 

•   Acting beyond powers: Making decisions outside of the company’s constitution.
•     Conflict of interest: Approving a contract with a supplier in which the director has a hidden financial stake.
•     Misuse of company assets: Using company funds to pay personal expenses or fund unrelated ventures.
•     Unauthorised profit: Diverting a business opportunity meant for the company to a separate entity that the director controls.
•     Improper influence: Following shareholder or third-party instructions instead of exercising independent judgement.
•     Failure to disclose: Not declaring conflicts or failing to document board decisions properly.
•     Negligence: Failing to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence expected of a director in the same position.

Even honest mistakes can amount to a breach if the conduct falls short of the standards expected of a reasonably diligent director.

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

[Analog Kid]

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.

[SteveThackery]

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.

Is is, and I hate it when someone does that. I wonder if he is referring to my post #804 where I said (very casually and imprecisely) that the primary role of a company is to make money for its shareholders.

Of course it is more subtle than that, as I explained further on, but essentially it is not wrong. The shareholders own the company. They gave the company some capital (the price of the shares) in return for some hoped-for dividends, the right to vote at shareholder meetings, and hopefully an increase in the value of the shares.

It goes without saying that a company cannot neglect its customers, but the legal relationship is different. The customer does not get shares when they give money to the company, they get products or services, and the company's legal obligations are limited to providing those products and services. There is no enduring obligation like there is to the shareholders.

Shareholders can, and do, sue companies if they feel they are not getting a high enough return on their investment.

[Cyclotron]

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.

Is is, and I hate it when someone does that. I wonder if he is referring to my post #804 where I said (very casually and imprecisely) that the primary role of a company is to make money for its shareholders.

Of course it is more subtle than that, as I explained further on, but essentially it is not wrong. The shareholders own the company. They gave the company some capital (the price of the shares) in return for some hoped-for dividends, the right to vote at shareholder meetings, and hopefully an increase in the value of the shares.

Your generalization is correct. It is the primary legal obligation of a company's leadership to act in the best interests of its investors. At least it is in the US.

PlainName hasn't made any sourced arguments against the generalized premise. They appear to be quibbling or arguing in bad faith.  PlainName's straw man that a company must make investors "fast" money at "all costs" is obviously not in investors' best interests and, as Analog Kid said, not something anyone said. In fact, the actions argued are obviously not in the best interests of the investors and would therefore be illegal.

I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

[PlainName]

I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.

[PlainName]

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.

It's called exaggeration for highlighting. The actual claim was:

"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do." (My emphasis)

There was talk of fiduciary obligations with the implication that those are related to the 'maximising of ROI' and companies being sued for it (presumably, NOT maximising ROI). No-one has so far pointed to an authoritative source of either and I've posted what sueing for fiduciary obligations could cover. As I (rather exaggeratingly) pointed out, not maximising ROI (aka not making shareholders money) doesn't seem to be one of the reasons.

You, Mr A Kid, are not immune to doing the same kind of exaggeration when it suits you. This time it didn't so you are put out.

[Cyclotron]

I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.

Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.

Company:  "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."

Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."

[Cyclotron]

I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

Whoever claimed that?
It's called putting words in someone's mouth.

It's called exaggeration for highlighting. The actual claim was:

"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do." (My emphasis)

There was talk of fiduciary obligations with the implication that those are related to the 'maximising of ROI' and companies being sued for it (presumably, NOT maximising ROI). No-one has so far pointed to an authoritative source of either and I've posted what sueing for fiduciary obligations could cover. As I (rather exaggeratingly) pointed out, not maximising ROI (aka not making shareholders money) doesn't seem to be one of the reasons.

You, Mr A Kid, are not immune to doing the same kind of exaggeration when it suits you. This time it didn't so you are put out.

What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.

You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.

"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.


Edit:
To be clear, I'm not quoting someone in my statement about the equivalency of definition.
I used quotes because in my head, they are strings, and I would normally quote that in some way programmatically.
Parentheses might be more appropriate?  (Maximizing ROI) != (Make money at all costs)

[PlainName]

I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.

Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.

Company:  "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."

Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."

It's rubbish. We know what it means, the question is how that relates to this discussion - what, exactly, are the statutory obligations of companies to shareholders, and what, exactly, was sued for when shareholders sued the company 'for not acting in their fiduciary interest'.

Those links added nothing to the discussion. And instead of making us go and look and try to find the relevant bit (that didn't exist) you could've just quoted the right part, and then the links are appropriate if we need to check. You post was as useful as one that just gives YouTube links and expects readers to waste their time elsewhere.

[PlainName]

What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.

You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.

"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.

Rubbish (again). I though I was on your ignore list.

If you want to get picky, you couldn't even quote the actual phrase at issue correctly and created your own strawman! It wasn't "make money at all costs". Maybe you  got it off some random link someone posted?

Further, my phrase could only be interpreted as a strawman if YOU associated it with something previously (not) stated. Maybe it was just some random idea I noted didn't appear in those lists, but YOU thought it was an invalid quote. That's YOUR problem.

[Cyclotron]

I went ahead and googled some "authoritative source" for US law.
What is a company?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company
What is fiduciary responsibility?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

Once again you seem to have posted links without actually checking what they lead to.

Difficulty accepting that you are wrong? Are you continuing to show willful ignorance and to argue in bad faith? Your posts appear to be simply a want for attention.

Company:  "A company is any form of business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit."

Fiduciary responsibility: "A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation bestowed upon a person (called a “fiduciary”) who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another person or entity. A fiduciary relationship exists whenever one party explicitly or sometimes implicitly places trust and confidence in another and the other party accepts responsibility to act on their behalf. This obligation requires fiduciaries to act in the best interests of that person, and not for their own personal gain."

It's rubbish. We know what it means, the question is how that relates to this discussion - what, exactly, are the statutory obligations of companies to shareholders, and what, exactly, was sued for when shareholders sued the company 'for not acting in their fiduciary interest'.

Those links added nothing to the discussion. And instead of making us go and look and try to find the relevant bit (that didn't exist) you could've just quoted the right part, and then the links are appropriate if we need to check. You post was as useful as one that just gives YouTube links and expects readers to waste their time elsewhere.
'

First, calm down.

The statement was made that:
"I'm simplifying a bit, but a company is just a device for generating return on investment, and whatever maximises ROI is what it should do."

You demanded sources. A source was given. I've added definitions from legal sources. Your use of the royal "we" or nosism adds confusion to the discussion, as you are the only recipient of the help provided. I provided those links as you've demanded sources, and I assumed, maybe wrongly, that you wouldn't accept simply quotes.

You've made a straw man claim:
"I am failing to spot "Didn't prioritise making shareholders filthy rich at all costs"."

SteveThackery says right there in the quote that they are "simplifying" and later also confirms that the statement was made "very casually and imprecisely".

What argument do you have against this?  I've tried to help you and give you the definitions that support the statement. You've attacked me for that help. What do you want? Do you need someone to tell you the obvious?

There's no law requiring "prioritise [sic] making shareholders filthy rich at all costs".

[Cyclotron]

What you have done is argue in bad faith, cherry-picking, and quibbling.

You've created this straw man in which your definition of "Maximizing ROI" is "Make money at all costs," and then claim that no one has been sued for that.

"Maximizing ROI" doesn't mean what you think it does. Start there.

Rubbish (again). I though I was on your ignore list.

If you want to get picky, you couldn't even quote the actual phrase at issue correctly and created your own strawman! It wasn't "make money at all costs". Maybe you  got it off some random link someone posted?

Further, my phrase could only be interpreted as a strawman if YOU associated it with something previously (not) stated. Maybe it was just some random idea I noted didn't appear in those lists, but YOU thought it was an invalid quote. That's YOUR problem.

"Rubbish (again). I though [sic] I was on your ignore list."
You are, is that a win or what?

I don't think I'm the one trying to get "picky".  On the contrary, we are talking about your need to cherry-pick and quibble with a generalization made. One that hasn't been shown to be an inaccurate generalization at that.

But why are you attacking me?
I've tried to help you understand that these generalizations about business, at least in the US, are true.

Let me assist you with your understanding. My use of quotes, in case you have a quibble, was in line with mathematical usage for defining two sets; I was communicating the ideas you appear to be trying to equivocate. That obviously tossed a wrench in your understanding of my messaging, so I will go edit the post to make myself clearer.  It's like saying "A" != "B," where A and B must be taken as a whole idea because of the quotes to be used in the math function. As in: (a+b) != (c+d)

As for that last part of your post, I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. That's likely due to your misunderstanding as described above.

[PlainName]

You demanded sources.

No, I didn't. Take your own advice and don't make stuff up. I asked if there was an authoritative source.

A source was given.

No, it wasn't. You gave links irrelevant to the question.

I've added definitions from legal sources.

You think 'legal sources' is a trump card or something? They been to be relevant sources.