I would assume they don't do that for security reasons. No?

Anywho, I'm presume there is more to this story. That seems like a stupid thing to ban someone for.

I'm sorry, but I'm not.

I've written documentation for non-tech-savvy users, I've even had this kind of discussion before with people who believe users are less technically able than they really are.  Not on a personal level, as an employee, writing documentation for end-user use, for support use, for sales use, and for systems administration use.  We even tried tested the theory out on end-users.  Good documentation wins for everyone.  Neophyte users as well as advanced users.

I have a relative who is about as tech-savvy as a luddite could be.  He has to write down how to copy & paste.  Yet he's able to manage using his computer and performing specialized tasks based on well written, clear, and precise instructions.

What is the reality, and more important, is that the documentation made available be well written, clear, and precise. 

Its a different case in that the actions taken by the owner/developer was different. Making a security exploit public can have a major impact. Its an act with purposeful malicious intent.

Both of them breaking the rules is the same yes. And im not saying MS was wrong to do this, but they could have dealt with it better. Companies need to be a bit flexible when it comes to situations like this.

Theres nothing more to the story. He broke the rules and he was therefore banned. What more details do you expect to get? Theres no need for another side of the story and it certainly isnt a stupid reason to ban someone for.

What people are arguing over is whether or not he should have been banned in this case, because he broke the rules to figure out a potential flaw in the way hdd's are formatted...he then informed MS of the issue.

Except there is no need to teach them anything.

You have them follow instructions to complete a task they want to achieve. 

Game. Set. Match.

Have any of you written end-user documentation?  Or even support documentation?  The point of support or trouble-shooting documentation isn't to educate the reader on what they're doing or how they're doing it, just to get to the proper end result.

Windows 7 and higher, for certain, won't allow you to delete the volume that the OS resides on.  You also can't select a drive letter already in use.

Lastly, it would be nice if the people arguing for a point actually knew how what they were arguing against worked before they attempted their argument, because I can sit here and swat flies all day, but I'm wasting my time doing so. 

I personally do not believe you deal with breaking the NDA any better.  The person decided either through ignorance or because they did not care go against an agreement they signed.  After that point, they forced MS to have to respond by doing exactly what is stated in the agreement.  It sends a statement that do not go against the agreement or you will be banned.  If someone is getting riled up that MS had to ban this person for violation of the terms of contract those those people really need to grow up.

Companies should not be flexible on such things as this because it opens up a lot of gray area.  Playing in the gray foster this belief that you can violate a contract and there are no penalty.  Its this very thinking that cause corporation nighmares because when you play in the gray anything is up for interpretation.  Once you let that cat out of the bag then someone else will push a little further until you reach the same situation as now.  If you want to be part of the beta then do not go against its policy, it really should be that cut and dry.

whats with the title change?

The website that posted the article changed the name so I changed it too. 

"Use Bing for Searches" - lol, I don't need that free storage that badly :

Yep i understand your view point i guess we will agree to disagree on this topic as i think they can incorporate some sort of flexibility into their policies. They might have avoided the PR backlash that way.