Documentation Compliance Means MS Can Resume Collecting Protocol Royalties

angry tapir writes "Microsoft may begin collecting royalties again for licensing some protocols because clear technical documentation is now available, according to the US Department of Justice. The change comes after the DOJ issued its latest joint status report regarding its 2002 antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The settlement required Microsoft to make available technical documentation that would allow other vendors to make products that are interoperable with Windows."

Comments

Outrageous

[PizzaAnalogyGuy]

This is outrageous, and I have two examples why. First, protocols are like food recipes. The pizza you sell is yours, but the ingredients to make it is not. Here the protocol is your ham, pineapple, salami and shrimps on a barbeque sauce large size pan pizza. You have not stolen the app from your competitor, you're just making yours compatible with theirs. Like the third party IM clients can connect to MSN network. Secondly, how would any of those open source apps pay for the royalties? But maybe this is Microsoft's plan. Let me tell you what is happening here. Microsoft is paying for the local BBQ Sauce factory to include a license agreement before you can use their sauce in your pizzas. The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded. Forget your ham, forget your pineapples, forget you bacon and forget your cheese. THIS is the pizza we offer, and this will be the pizza you like.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn your pizza analogies, I'm hungry now...

Re:Outrageous

[Shakrai]

First, protocols are like food recipes.

Which can be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret. Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see?

Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead? ;)

Re:Outrageous

[QuantumG]

You can't copyright recipes, and anything can be regarded as a trade secret.

Re:Outrageous

[Shakrai]

Yes, I should have left it at trade secret. My stupid. I shall now commence pounding my head against the table to atone for my error.

I also think that we just got trolled, based on the handle of the first poster.....

Re:Outrageous

[Gadget_Guy]

Yes, in some cases you can. I simple list of ingredients cannot, but then I don't think a protocol would be considered just a list of ingredients.

Re:Outrageous

[Darkness404]

Yeah, but a food recipe can easily be reverse engineered and used for profit or given away. If I magically figured out KFC's recipe without having prior knowledge of it and I made my own fried chicken stand that drove KFC out of business there wouldn't be a thing KFC could do. Similarly, I could reverse engineer coke and make my own soda. About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it.

As for copyright, yeah, you can copyright anything, but I can still use your work, just not publish the recipe.

Re:Outrageous

[Entropy98]

I think the IM clients are a bad example.

The IM clients rely on a central server that costs money.

A company using Microsoft's FAT format for its memory card isn't going to cost Microsoft anything.

Starting your own disk format is much harder than your own IM client.

Really, I've always thought that its the file formats that are keeping Microsoft in their position.

For instance if you could load windows drivers in Linux, or Mac I think Microsoft would be in serious trouble.

Re:Outrageous

[bmo]

A protocol is simply a statement of facts.

Facts are not copyrightable.

Sweat of the brow does not determine if something is deserving of copyright either. It must have _some_ creativity. Indeed, this is why software for years was not deserving of copyright, because it was considered a "list of instructions for a machine" instead of creative. This changed in the early 80's I believe (correct me if it was earlier).

A recipe is not copyrightable. It is a list of facts to reach a goal. The artwork, layout, etc, however, is. Thus cookbooks are copyrighted.

Software is unique in that it's now protected by both copyright, as if it's art, _and_ patent, as if it's a machine. Why one needs both is baffling to me.

--
BMO

Re:Outrageous

[davester666]

It could be worse. If you've had a few drinks and he used a car analogy, you could be off driving right now...

Re:Outrageous

[mysidia]

No, but if you reverse-engineer KFC chicken and determine a recipe that makes something that tastes exactly the same, KFC can't stop you from publishing it.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

I've had more than 60K recipes online for over a decade and nobody ever bothered me about it. Sadly, I can't provide a link as the site's down now two weeks while we shift hosting providers. It's a hobby and it's free so I'm not apologetic about that. I'm a fairly busy guy and I'm not going to let that get in the way of my slashdotting. We get about 250k hits a month, down from a peak of over a million.

You can't put out your protocol under anything less than an "all implementations are free" license and then pretend you're supporting interopability. It's one way or the other: it's your protocol and people have to pay you to use it, or people don't need your permission to interoperate with you. You can't have both.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

You have to give him (or her) points for creating a new account that memes another troll username and getting the initial comment with a topical troll message that references the username. That's troll diligence there.

Re:Outrageous

[QuantumG]

If you write your recipe as some creative prose, then sure, you can copyright that, the same as any creative prose.

But when I come along and see your prose and say "man that's pointless, here's a mere list of ingredients and some straight forward instructions" there's nothing you can do about it. Copyright doesn't prevent me from making a recipe of your prose, and copyright does not protect recipes.

Re:Outrageous

[timmarhy]

yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right? there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software. there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not.

Re:Outrageous

[Korbeau]

The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded.

I'd say any pizza with BBQ sauce on it is already pretty much degraded!

I'd go for baconnaise instead!

Re:Outrageous

[ozmanjusri]

Kentucky Fried Chicken Seasoning Mix Recipe
Just mix these commonly-found spices together! Great when used for skinless chicken fingers too.

2 tablespoons salt
2 cups flour
2 tablespoons pepper
4 tablespoons paprika
1 teaspoon garlic salt
1 tablespoon mustard, ground
1 tablespoon French thyme, ground
1 tablespoon sweet basil
1 teaspoon oregano, ground
1 tablespoon jamaica ginger, ground

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=14201&page=2

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

KFC chicken tastes like ass. Why would I want to replicate it?

Re:Outrageous

[MrMr]

Hah, You just wait until there's a story about jellied eels, smoked beer or lutefisk.

Re:Outrageous

[Jurily]

About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it.

They only limit you if you signed an agreement, and you're in a country where the authorities give a damn.

Re:Outrageous

[shutdown -p now]

You can't put out your protocol under anything less than an "all implementations are free" license and then pretend you're supporting interopability.

Of course you can. It's called "reasonable and non-discriminating", and it's when you license your protocol to anyone who asks, for the same price regardless of who asks, and that price is reasonable. See MPEG4 etc.

It can be argued whether this is open, but interoperable - sure.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol,

Bullshit. There are many reasons why charging a license for a protocol is bad. The fact that you are dishonestly pretending there are no reasons is telling.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networiking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[Teun]

Because you like the taste of ass? ;)

Re:Outrageous

[timmarhy]

telling in what way, that i don't agree with you? judging by your sig maybe you think i'm paid or something - if you know somewhere i can get paid for pointing out the obvious like i am, sign me up!

but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it? i've already pointed out i don't agree with patenting a protocol, so please don't waste time retreating into that.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

telling in what way,

You didn't respond to my main point. Dishonest.

judging by your sig maybe you think i'm paid or something - if you know somewhere i can get paid for pointing out the obvious like i am, sign me up!

Not explicitly stating you are not an astroturfer and trying to distract. Dishonest.

but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it?

Pretending there are no reasons why this is a bad idea. Dishonest.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

I have nothing to add here except that your lack of "getting it" is provably deliberate. You're a lawyer, aren't you?

Re:Outrageous

[phantomfive]

That is in fact the case here. According to the article, some of the protocols are encumbered by patents. I can't imagine what kind of patent you can get on a protocol, but that is the sorry state of the matter.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

Lutefisk rocks - we need a story about lutefisk.

Dissclaimer: I was forced to eat lutefisk annually growing up.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

RAND is a cover for non-open. It used to work before the lawyers got ahold of it. Let me school you:

There is one and only one measure of openness now: You can implement it without a license, or you can't. That's it. You want to be interoperable, or you want to control who can interact with your interface. The control is the limiting factor and it's the difference between useful and not.

Re:Outrageous

[rtb61]

That of course brings up another question. Should anything be legally treated as a trade secret. Does not the end user, the potential victim of malfeasance have a right to make knowledgeable choices. Should not every citizens be entitled to the truth of what they are purchasing, is the government betraying it's own citizens when it allows companies to with hold information from the public that would likely alter their choice to select a product.

The reality is, in the 21st century there is no longer any room for trade secrets. It is obscene the greed is put ahead of people's ability to make a knowledgeable choice and it is even worse the governments seek to protect that greed at the behest of a deceitful minority.

Re:Outrageous

[fyrewulff]

Recipes cannot be copyrighted, although the instructions can be.
You can also patent the machines that put together your item, which would also document exactly how to replicate it.

Basically companies that have a 'secret recipe' are taking a risk-reward gamble.
If you can keep it a secret, you don't have to patent it. Patenting would protect it, but it would "start the clock" so to speak. The patent would eventually expire and the documentation would be there plain as day.

The big companies rely on people thinking it's secret and not replicable. KFC's recipe has been known for a long time - KFC even ran ads last year show people collecting ingredients to make KFC chicken but were making a point that it would be cheaper to buy from KFC.

Coca Cola's recipe status I am not sure of but it would not be too hard to replicate. However Coca-Cola has some benefits: the only company that is a threat to them financially (Pepsi) would have no use for the Coca-Cola recipe because Pepsi has built their empire off selling Pepsi, not Coca-Cola. In fact, Pepsi and CC bottle each other's sodas in many locations to save money! In the same respect, CC has no use for the Pepsi formula.

Re:Outrageous

[cntThnkofAname]

I have a few pizza recipes that I have licensed under the GPL ... ;)

Re:Outrageous

[Vahokif]

This isn't about software, this is about a specification, and they can charge money for anyone who implements the specification, clean room or otherwise.

Re:Outrageous

[MeNeXT]

No problem here but a monopoly should not be allowed to bundle products either.

Re:Outrageous

[The Cisco Kid]

You might be able to patent a *particular* implementation of the protocol, but if you think you can patent a 'protocol', you don't understand what a protocol is.

Its like patenting a language. Can you imagine someone patenting English, or French, and then in order to speak it, you'd have to pay a license fee? I'm not talking about books on learning the language, or video courses, or whatever, I'm talking about the language itself.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate posts where people are just suddenly jackasses for no reason, and it makes me turn into a jackass for that reason

And I hate the common trend of baseless accusations of astroturfing against anybody whose opinion varies from the one held by the accuser.

"You didn't respond to my main point. Dishonest."

What are you talking about? You didn't make a point. You alluded to a point by saying there are "many reasons" without stating any. That's dishonest. And leading. You're asking your opponent to make your arguments for you.

Besides which, you didn't respond to his question. Dishonest.

"Not explicitly stating you are not an astroturfer and trying to distract. Dishonest."

Jesus Christ. I guess everyone has to spell it out every time. For the record, *I am not an astroturfer*. I am a guy who is tweaking a little on the rudeness of your posts (I am not the GP either). And I guess you have no reason to believe me. Why would it matter if he failed to explicitly state he was an astroturfer anyway? Do you feel that real astroturfers cannot or will not lie about astroturfing directly, or are any more or less likely to respond in such a way?

Also, how the hell is he trying to distract? You're the one who brought the point up by saying it was "telling". Especially since you are heavily implying in this sentence that you believe he is an astroturfer by pointing out that he didn't say so explicitly. You're trying to distract without making any substantive points of your own and then accusing others of your tactics. Dishonest.

"Pretending there are no reasons why this is a bad idea. Dishonest."

Give a reason. And note that the fact that I'm asking for one doesn't mean I'm declaring there can't be any. But we can't have any sort of discussion when your entire argument is that there exist arguments. Here you are making a meta-fallacy by baiting for a strawman argument.

I'm posting this as an anonymous coward. It may very well be that this makes me an astroturfer and / or dishonest or something.

Maybe slashdot is full of liars, but telling liars from truth-tellers is a notoriously hard problem (except for twitter's sockpuppets, which were blatantly obvious). Meanwhile, astroturfer-paranoia is an excellent way to insulate your worldview. Even the truth-tellers are bound to disagree. And funny enough, if astroturfing is prevalent, then some of the people you agree with are bound to be astroturfers. You know there are plenty of companies and individuals with plenty of money with a vested interest in the same opinions you have, almost no matter what opinions you hold.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

For all your pomp about dishonesty, you are doing a pretty good job of poorly reading "there's no reason you can't charge" as if it says "there's no reason you shouldn't charge".

Your attitude is that I shouldn't charge you for my booklet about what my various smoke signals mean, you need to go further than repeating your attitude to establish that I can't charge for it.

Re:Outrageous

[gbjbaanb]

You forgot that KFCs secret recipe is protected in order to keep them competitive against their, uh, competitors. Microsoft forfeited that right when they stopped having competitors, that's why the DoJ got involved in the first place.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

A protocol is not a piece of software. An *implementation* of a protocol is a piece of software.

You shouldn't have to create your own protocol - in fact, you should avoid creating your own it if at all possible - because sharing a protocol means that various pieces of software can interoperate, hugely increasing the total value of the system and avoiding vendor lock-in.

Re:Outrageous

[kismet666]

Good response AC. Go read Bit's other posts, a few are coherent but most lack arguements and many are full of insults like 'astroturfer.' Maybe his erratic behavior is caused some sort cyclical issue with medication or alcohol:)

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

Actually you can copyright recipes.

They are creative works just like novels and movies.

And most of them btw are longer than the notorious Happy Birthday which somehow seems to enjoy copyright even though it's 4 lines long.

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

If KFC really ran ads on how to make their secret recipe then they just lost trade secret status through voluntary disclosure.

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

Protocol licensing really isn't all that bad unless you try to be sneaky about it, i.e., with a submarine patent.

Re:Outrageous

[fyrewulff]

They didn't... they only showed them picking up like 3 of them before they said something like "Okay, what's our cost up to now?" I think the ingredients they had picked up so far were pretty generic, flour etc.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

A protocol is simply a statement of facts.

Facts are not copyrightable.

An encyclopedia is simply a statement of facts.
Facts are not copyrightable.
An encyclopedia is copyrightable (and rightly so).

Re:Outrageous

[Your Anus]

An encyclopedia is more than simply a statement of facts. It includes essays and illustrations that have a creative aspect. Also it has a particular layout and artwork. That is what is copyrighted.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one and only one measure of openness now:

Says who? You? Pardon me if I don't rush out to the openness store, and buy the new model.

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

Bah. Just wait until GoatseAnalogyGuy hears about this! ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then?fresh ingredients, it will taste way better! (Or deep-frozen. But not dried or heated or something. But take more if it’s fresh because of the additional water in it.)
2. If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.
3. I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead. Best taste ever. (If done right.)

How this is on-topic you ask? Well it’s hacking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol hacking that ’re talking about here. Isn’t it obvious? ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

Huh, halt the comment just went *poof*. WTH happened there? Here the full comment again:

What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then? What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then?

Oh, and by the way:
1. If you use fresh ingredients, it will taste way better! (Or deep-frozen. But not dried or heated or something. But take more if it’s fresh because of the additional water in it.)
2. If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.
3. I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead. Best taste ever. (If done right.)

How this is on-topic you ask? Well it’s cracking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol cracking that ’re talking about here. Isn’t it obvious? ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Pharmboy]

Or it is kinda like this article from 1998. Sometimes life imitates art.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

Good response AC. Go read Bit's other posts, a few are coherent but most lack arguements and many are full of insults like 'astroturfer.

Oh goody, a troll. Get a life - if this is your idea of entertainment you need one.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

For those reading: The above rambling post may be an astroturfer trying to rationalize his/her sad existence. Probably he's posting anonymously because he/she prefers not to say "I'm not an astroturfer" under their username. While quoting me it doesn't actually address any of the points I've made (e.g. "no reason" in the original post when he knows full well there are many reasons) while also trying to baffle the reader with BS.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

For all your pomp about dishonesty, you are doing a pretty good job of poorly reading "there's no reason you can't charge" as if it says "there's no reason you shouldn't charge".

Thank you, an actual honest response. Yes, a very literal reading would be as you say however given the context he/she was trying to imply a lot more without explicitly saying it (as advertising/marketing lowlifes frequently do, trying to deceive the reader while avoiding a actual, legal commitment) and I called him on it. The fact that he didn't respond honestly says a lot about him.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

His support of clean room implementations (back here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30411612 ) suggests that my reading is the intended reading, not an over-reading.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

His support of clean room implementations (back here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30411612 ) suggests that my reading is the intended reading, not an over-reading.

No, same problem. In that post he's also trying to imply that because you can [legally] do something then you should do something while pretending there are no reasons at all not to.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

Your wit is like a huge gaping anus.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

The pretense is in your head. "there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not." is pretty unequivocal.

protocols

[sopssa]

Since when protocols are something you can license? They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not. Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.

However on another case, Blizzard has been fighting such too against cheaters on their games.

But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol? I haven't heard of such cases before.

Re:protocols

[eln]

Protocols aren't any more open than any other piece of code. I can develop a completely closed protocol that governs how one of my own programs interacts with one of my other programs. If you attempt to use the protocol without my permission, you would likely be guilty of unlawful reverse engineering under the terms of our old friend the DMCA, which prohibits reverse engineering except in very limited circumstances.

Re:protocols

[martas]

protocol design is a difficult and important process. by designing a protocol for something that performs better than existing ones, you can gain competitive advantage. if this advantage then disappears because everybody else can just copy the results of your hard work, i'm pretty sure anybody would be pissed. IANAL, but it seems to me that a company should be allowed to make money from their own work.

Re:protocols

[benjamindees]

The DMCA only prohibits reverse engineering to circumvent "copy protection" mechanisms. It would be circular reasoning to assert that the copyrighted material being protected is the protocol itself.

Re:protocols

[phantomfive]

Some of the protocols are covered by patents, and some of the protocols have documentation that must be licensed, it isn't all available free, unfortunately.

Re:protocols

[phantomfive]

It is extremely rare that a protocol becomes a competitive advantage because of their quality, mainly because designing a protocol in most cases isn't really very hard. Usually the only reason to keep a protocol secret is to keep competitors from interoperating with your software, which is why Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist in the first place.

In fact I can't think of any protocol that was kept secret because it performed better at the time. Maybe some old networking protocol or something. I can think of a ton of protocols that were kept secret purposely to prevent interoperability. Here's a few:

SMB/CIFS
CDMA diagnostic port protocol
Blizzard online game protocols
IPodITunes protocol
Skype
AIM protocol
MSN chat protocol
Yahoo chat protocol

There are others. Fortunately reverse engineering a product for the purpose of interoperability is allowed under the DMCA. That is one of the bright spots of that legislation.

Re:protocols

[symbolset]

Protocols are not code. Protocols are methods of interaction between pieces of code, even if the code is methods of interaction embedded in hardware. That these methods could possibly be considered as something that should be protected by some sort of intellectual property agreement is a testament to how far we've fallen from the root assumption of Unix: that all things should be able to connect to all other things whenever physically possible.

This is the mindset that brought us DRM, all of Sony's stupid proprietary media formats, and an iPhone that won't tether.

I'm sick of it. I have enough stuff that doesn't connect to my other stuff. I'm not buying any more stuff that doesn't connect to the stuff that I already have. I'm not using any systems that require proprietary licensing to connect the stuff I have to the new stuff I buy. I'm done with all that stupidness.

Re:protocols

[Brandano]

Not only that, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering of software in order to allow for interoperability with other applications:
see paragraph (f) here:
http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml
Microsoft has no ground to stand on from the copyright angle, so it's attempting to imlpement the same limitations from a software patent angle. Which currently has no value in most of the civilized world.

Re:protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately reverse engineering a product for the purpose of interoperability is allowed under the DMCA.

Any reliable/authoritative source and citation to prove that?

Reliable/authoritative does NOT mean Wikipedia, by the way.

Re:protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I know I know the answer to this question!

The DMCA itself. There. Simple! Read it.

Re:protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. DMCA does not allow that. What do you say to this?

Re:protocols

[thejynxed]

Lrn2read, plz. A poster up the chain already posted the relevant article and subsection specifically stating that reverse-engineering is allowed as long as it isn't used to circumvent copy protection mechanisms.

Examples:

Reverse-engineering Windows Genuine Advantage: Illegal period.

Reverse-engineering the protocol your cell phone uses to transfer data from your computer to the phone and vice-versa: Not illegal, caveat being if it is protected by DRM mechanisms. Encryption doesn't count as DRM (Yet. We'll see what those turds in Congress add later on if enough weasel words and money are exchanged).

Note: Reverse-engineering stuff for the iPhone/iPod is in kind of a gray area, as most things from the Apple store come with DRM of some sort, and if that DRM is in any way applied/extended to the transfer protocols, it may be illegal to reverse-engineer the protocols, even for interoperability with other online music stores. There hasn't been any court rulings on this as of yet.

Re:protocols

[roystgnr]

Blizzard online game protocols ...
Fortunately reverse engineering a product for the purpose of interoperability is allowed under the DMCA.

That's assuming, of course, that you can convince a judge that your purpose was interoperability. Last I heard, it was still illegal to make a client interoperate with Blizzard's servers, and illegal to make a server interoperate with Blizzard's clients.

Re:protocols

[LaminatorX]

The prior poster is correct. If you actually read the text of the DMCA, it provides a specific exemption for interoperability efforts. That's what was such a crock in the DeCSS cases. DVD Jon was specifically writing a Linux DVD player, which should have been clearly allowed by the letter and spirit of the statute. The judge made a catastrophically bad ruling.

Re:protocols

[shentino]

Except in the case of DRM, anything done for interoperability must first circumvent copy protection because the copy protection is an integral part of being interoperable.

Even better for the companies is that you HAVE to implement the DRM. Failure to do so is a violation of the patent license you need to even use the format period.

Just in time, too!

[Weaselmancer]

And it only took them ten years.

Funny how the government doesn't even give you ten days past the due date of a parking violation though, isn't it?

Ahh, shit

[inode_buddha]

Here we go again, clumsily trying to do the interoperability dance. It reminds me of deja vu all over again...

hey now

[Anonymous Coward]

stop with the Borg Bill Gates avatar. It's so 90's!

Re:hey now

[symbolset]

The Borg Bill icon rocks, and I miss it since I turned the icons off because they were giving my Blackberry fits. I should turn them back on now that Slashdot has upgraded its interface to the point where I can no longer /. on my BB.

Or maybe this is an appeal for /. to detect my BB browser and give me a thinner home page so I can once more get my /. on while driving in heavy traffic. Hm.

Re:hey now

[awyeah]

Speaking of government regulation... I know there are laws against talking on the phone sans hands-free... laws against texting... I wonder if there are any laws against visiting Slashdot.

Re:hey now

[symbolset]

I do believe more and more states are outlawing "Distracted Driving," which is a catchall that covers texting, talking without handsfree, receiving oral sex on the freeway, slashdotting, Farking, flogging the dolphin and watching TV or movies on your portable. Kids these days, once they get off our lawn, seem to be offered less fun than we had.

Naturally proper Libertarians are going to have a problem with that. I'm a Libertarian, but not a proper one, so I don't have a problem with these laws as long as I don't get caught violating them. If I do get caught of course I'll be upset about the constitutional implications of limiting my civil liberties. Actually I'm probably more of an ambivalent anarchist. I don't really believe in the anarchist philosophy, but at least it trends more toward liberty than the situation I'm in. Should we trend more toward a purer form like Somalian Anarchy, I'm sure I would become more conservative. I'm not a big fan of group antisocial atavism.

Oh, hell I've trapped myself. I'm symbolset, and I'd like to call myself a "rationalist" as defined by a system of evaluating the situation and making reasonable judgements based on the available evidence in a calm manner with the presumption that "do nothing" is usually the best course - but unfortunately the "rationalism" token is taken some 2400 years now by Socrates. Frankly he did OK, but Kant messed the whole thing up and that's what people attach to that symbol so I need a new one.

Pending a better symbol I'll call my personal philosophy Frzygy. Fellow Frzygists, unite (unless you don't want to)!

Decision to force them to document more protocols

[electrosoccertux]

An interesting side effect of the DOJ's decision to force Microsoft to document more of their protocols was that internal Microsoft employees have found their job easier and the teams more efficient.
I stumbled across this tidbit while research for a final paper about software patent (good/bad/why/alternatives). You can read about it here.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[bogaboga]

Any hope for something similar when it comes to MS Office and Exchange?

Charge them for speaking english

[L0stm4n]

I mean they didn't invent it. Their using of this critical interoperability protocol without payment to the inventors is ludicrous.

just my 2 cents ( paid in full to the anglo-saxons )

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[ewhac]

They'd switch to Loglan.

...Actually, they'd make trivial, incompatible changes to the language and call it Microsoft Loglan.

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[mysidia]

Really? Cool.. James Cooke's estate, will be collecting some massive royalties from MS for use of text written in Loglan :)

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[Dracos]

No, they'd call it L#.

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[neltana]

They'd switch to Loglan.

...Actually, they'd make trivial, incompatible changes to the language and call it Microsoft Loglan.

Meanwhile, FSF would promote Lojban, the free alternative that forked back in 1987. Many flame wars would ensue.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Oh, do you mean these :)

Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Protocol Documentation

Here is the announcement from Feb 2008: Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.

Bing is your friend.

-Foredecker

Congratulations!

[Bob9113]

Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:

May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.

May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.

And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.

:)

Re:Congratulations!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.

You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, someone who throws chairs about so handily must press a lot of benches.

Re:Congratulations!

[Jaxoreth]

You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!

Yawn. Wake me when he's the mother of five children.

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your forgot his chair-throwingness!

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, looks like Ballmer wrote a movie! The Amazing Flying Chair

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn. Wake me when he's the mother of five children....

... who don't know how to use contraception.

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...Tales of Microsoft's demise have been greatly (and over a long period) exaggerated.

And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms. But nice try, rabble rouser.

Re:Congratulations!

[Bob9113]

And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms. But nice try, rabble rouser.

I... I don't know what to say.

What did that weekend at the lake mean to you? I shared my darkest secrets with you as we held each other in front of the fire. I bared my soul to you. And now you accuse me of rousing rabble?!? I thought we meant something to each other. You know how I feel about the rousing of rabble, and this is what you say? Are you trying to hurt me? Well you did. I hope you're happy with yourself.

I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore.

Get out, just get out. I don't want to see you like this.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

Given the article, don't you think your protocols link is a little rich? Especially given the similar exFAT licensing article from yesterday ?

You're open or you're not. There's none of this licensing the protocol nonsense in "interopability".

BTW: I'm not stalking you. It seems we're interested in the same stuff. I haven't hit your blog link yet - I've been busy selling your products and blind links from that thread merit the due caution of access from offsite hosting through a proxy or seven, which takes more time to set up than I've had.

Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.

Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?

Re:Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is with Slashdot Assumptions(tm): First, Microsoft is assumed to be evil. Secondly, evil entities don't comply with lawful orders unless they're able to subvert them somehow.

Therefore, Microsoft must have somehow subverted the intent of their compliance to benefit them... Somehow. It's the underpants gnomes argument, but stupider:

1) Microsoft is evil!!!1!!1!eleven!!
2) Whatever they do is evil!!!
3) ...
4) M$ == EVIL!

Re:Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[shutdown -p now]

OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.

Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.

This is Slashdot. Hereabouts, the ultimate Microsoft mistake is that it exists in the first place.

Well, some softer guys would settle at MS releasing all its existing code under GPL, and switching to producing a fully libre Linux distro with drivers, blackjack, and hookers.

Re:Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're just upset that despite the fact Microsoft has supposedly complied legally we didn't get enough from the whole legal wrangling; so while it is a positive thing for us that they complied it is nothing commendable as they should have been doing it without the legal authorities intervention. The problem is that what Microsoft was required to do was insufficient to quell Microsoft's ability to thwart competition through their monopoly position. We would be just as upset if Apple weren't forced to release their protocols so that the iPods could be made to work on GNU/Linux.

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[Anonymous Coward]

You're short two ingredients, and flour is not a spice.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

No worries :)

What is a 'blind link'?

-Foredecker

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

A blind link is a link to a server that's not known good, or a link to an URL shortener like j.mp

Microsoft advises against clicking blind links, and that's good guidance. It's talking to a wall since Twitter almost requires those links, and it's the hot tech right now. Of course I have my own URL shortener service so I don't have to use other people's.

I'm not worried about you piercing my anonymous veil, since once you've been online as long as I have, "whois username" will almost always pierce that veil. Bing me and drop by the house one day - I live near you and wouldn't mind a visit around 7PM on a weekday. I would actually like to meet you in real life as I think I would like you in person. I prefer to keep my symbolset handle separate from my work and daily life to ensure my family and employer aren't tainted by my opinions, but I do believe what I believe and I am a person and you can find me if you want to, just as I can find you. I'm sure if you wanted to, you'd know who I was by now. It's just that that particular thread lends itself to "funny" links that hose your machine. I do that myself now and then. I don't mind the occasional funny hosing, but I've got work to do and my random hosable machines are all busy today.

When I have time and sufficient separation from client data, I'll click it and read what you had to say - and then burn the VM to be sure I didn't pick up any stray software along the way. In a more congenial context I tend to be less careful, but the Internet is what it is. I don't even know that you are who you claim to be. Though the timing of your comments against world events is persuasive evidence, persuasion is not proof.

I am a little worried about you setting the evangelists after me. I sell several $M/yr of your products at work and only point out your weaknesses in my free time, but giving me more free time and less selling time is part of the self-destructive behaviour I expect from your gang.

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[Anonymous Coward]

I count ten, so he's only short one. Also, it's probable that the "missing" ingredient is "OIL".

Trade barriers

[RAMMS EIN]

Nice, another trade barrier. You can't use this protocol unless you pay $x. At least, if you live in the USA. If you live in a country where interoperability is a right, you now have documentation to help you attain it. If you live in a country where the $x barrier to entry doesn't exist or isn't enforced, you can now make your product $x cheaper than your competitors in the USA.

Interoperability: brought to you by the European Union and the People's Republic of China while companies in the USA fought expensive legal battles over chump change.

Samba has a license for many of the key patents

[tridge]

Before everyone gets too worked up, please look at this:

http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/

Samba and any other free software project (via the PFIF) has a royalty free license to most of the patents that are important for these protocols.

There are some patents that are excluded from this (see appendix 4 of the agreement for a list of the excluded patents), and we do indeed need to avoid infringement of those patents. That has not so far proved to be an insurmountable obstacle, although it is an inconvenience.

Cheers, Tridge

Re:Samba has a license for many of the key patents

[ascari]

The Samba project and the people who work on it are truly amazing: Consider Tridge's statement that a salvo from the batteries of one the world's largest and most aggressive software corporations is a mere "inconvenience". That should tell us a lot about the power of individuals and open source! Yay! At the same time I wish that Samba was less necessary. I wish that there were good Windows drivers for the many excellent open source distributed file systems etc. that are out there, so that people weren't "forced" to use the crappy Windows protocols to achieve interoperability. Yes, I'm aware of such initiatives but none are as widespread and easy to use as Samba. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to do anything about the situation.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

By The Way: this is not a request for an interview. I would rather clean septic tanks than work for your company, and the local septic company is always hiring (FlowHawks).

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[Ginger Unicorn]

CHICKENGREASESALT

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[ozmanjusri]

You're right - I left out the MSG.

Actually, rumour has it that in the 80s, KFC switched to using just salt, pepper, MSG and flour. I do think the modern version is less tasty.

You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[b4dc0d3r]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the U.S. Code, section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met.

For information on how to register, see the reverse side of this letter. For further information on copyright, deposit requirements, and registration procedures, see Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Deposit requirements depend on whether the work has been published at the time of registration:

        * If the work is unpublished, one complete copy
        * If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition
        * If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies as first published If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published
        * If the work is a contribution to a collective work and was published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work or a photocopy of the contribution itself as it was published in the collective work

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Re:You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[gbutler69]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

Re:You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful? I agree with the parent based on that excerpt quoted above.

Re:You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[Timothy Brownawell]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

It is considered a literary work. Given that nobody actually practices literate programming, I don't think this makes much sense.

Microsoft undocumentation :)

[rs232]

"OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked. Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?

No, they were asked to open the specs not, after much delay, publish a mishmash of source code and API calls and then charge other compamies to connect their computers to their-own customers computers. What's difficult about producing an RFC. No doubt this undocumentation will be as deliveratly obscure as their previous efforts in that department ...

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing

[westlake]

You can't copyright recipes

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Recipes

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Hahahah! The bit about the honeydipper is hilarious! I have a septic system and when it isnt working, Ill pay those guys anything. I unclogged it myself last winter and I dont want to do it again...

Im the same way about my foredecker handle. Its not anonymous in any mayterial way, but there is separation from work. Thats why I use my Wordpress blog now and will only use my msdn blog for pure work stuff.

In any case, Id really enjoy meeting you. Next week is really busy for me, but anytime after the 19th would be fine. Im trying to figure out howyou can send me an email without publishing any of my email address on a public forum. None of the sites I use seem to have a way that lets someone send me email without logging in. Perhapse you have a facebook account and can contact me using that.

Or, we can just arrange someting here.& Im happy to have a beer or a drink so any of the local restaurants or bars is fine with me.

-Foredecker

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

That would be lovely. Sorry about the ranting. You'll note that at 3am on a Saturday I can sometimes get a little dumb.

I'll get you a direct email some way.

HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]

"1. It is not a compact format

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database

5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

Per your points, 1 by 1, an emumerated reply:

1. It is not a compact format - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).

Funny - because Windows 2000 had it, but, not in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)

----

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed. - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.

The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.

Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!

----

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8) - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period.

----

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)

----

5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...

====

"too, Too, TOO EASY"...

APK

P.S.=> I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ MS, & let them see my points here... after all, HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online, if you have a good custom one, & you can protect them vs. malwares easily enough also! See my points above, AND, those I made in reply to you here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30355842 [slashdot.org] as well! Thanks for your time... apk
Reply to This Parent

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Foredecker]

APK - I ask you, politely, not to nag me about this. While you are free to do so, posting a reply to almost all of my posts is tiresome. I'm asking you again, politely, please stop it.

Its anoyong, and fills my in box with spam. This behavior is casting you you in the role of a spammer in a very real way.

-Foredecker

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Foredecker]

Ah! I just figured out how to solve this... I'm setting my Slasdhot preferences to only send me mail for replies that score a 2 or better. So no more APK mail in my inbox, but I'll still get notifications of Symbolsets mail.

Cool! lets see if it works...

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[symbolset]

Aw, shucks.

I've figured out why I repost to you so much. I friended you and you friended me, and you're a subscriber which puts all of your posts at +3 and makes your posts full rather than abbreviated according to my preference settings. If you post in a thread that I'm interested in your post is always fully expanded, and I'm always interested in the threads you post in and you always say interesting stuff that I usually disagree with. I was starting to worry.

Now don't feed the troll. Not only can he not hear you - he's a script. There is no real person behind his ranting. It's part of some twisted CS PhD candidate's thesis. He's no more a person than the Frosty Piss troll, the NAMBLA troll, the Nigger troll, or any of the others. They're part of the slashdot background radiation, and in a sense they're a sort of Turing test. Slashdot is actually a large part of the research into cracking CAPTCHA technologies and in human machine interaction, in addition to the amusing forums we enjoy. You can validate this by looking for some context between your post and his reply.

It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game.

And if he's not a script then he's really scary and we should probably not give him attention lest we find him on our porch one day.

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a lame ad hominem attack of the person rather than the not his technical arguments he brings to the table. That not only makes you a troll but it also makes you off topic symbolset.

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he's not a script then he's really scary and we should probably not give him attention lest we find him on our porch one day.

FWIW, I believe APK actually has an account. IIRC, quite some time ago he was arguing as an AC with a registered poster, and created an account because he couldn't post timely (or enough) replies due to limits on AC posts. I recall he actually said as much in the initial post from the MEK_LoveBug account, but I didn't bother tracing back through his history, and of course there's no way for me to absolutely verify whether it's the same person behind "APK" and MEK_LoveBug.

Based on his latest posts, he now seems to occasionally use the MEK_LoveBug account as a sock puppet to back up his AC postings as "APK", e.g. "Now that apk tore apart your points". He appears to be one of those rare individuals with the capacity to be exceedingly irritating even when correct. He originally came to my attention due to a bad set of posts regarding array mid-points, all written with his usual arrogance. While nobody took the time to refute his assertions in detail, someone at least provided an executive summary. Read the parent of that post for an example of "classic APK".

I was going to reply to Foredecker, but if he has changed his account settings as noted, he would never see it. Maybe you guys can laugh about it over beers or whatever.

- T

HOSTS FILES REMINDER FOREDECKER... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

"1. It is not a compact format

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database

5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

Per your points, 1 by 1, an emumerated reply:

1. It is not a compact format - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).

Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)

----

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed. - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.

The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.

Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!

----

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8) - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period.

----

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)

----

5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...

====

"too, Too, TOO EASY"...

APK

P.S.=> I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ MS, & let them see my points here... after all, HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online, if you have a good custom one, & you can protect them vs. malwares easily enough also! See my points above, AND, those I made in reply to you here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30355842 as well! Thanks for your time... apk

HOSTS FILE REMINDER FOREDECKER... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"1. It is not a compact format

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database

5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:

----

1. It is not a compact format - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).

Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)

----

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed. - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.

The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.

Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!

----

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8) - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period.

----

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database - by Foredecker.

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)

----

5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. - by Foredecker

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...

====

"too, Too, TOO EASY"...

APK

P.S.=> I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ MS, & let them see my points here... after all, HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online, if you have a good custom one, & you can protect them vs. malwares easily enough also! See my points above, AND, those I made in reply to you here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30355842 as well! Thanks for your time... apk

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Rants are fine :)

"Take another look @ 'arc reactor technology'"

[Anonymous Coward]

"1. It is not a compact format

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database

5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:

====

"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).

Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)

----

"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.

The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.

Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!

----

"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).

----

"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)

----

"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres

"Take another look @ 'arc reactor technology'"

[Anonymous Coward]

"1. It is not a compact format

2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.

3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)

4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database

5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:

====

"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).

Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)

----

"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.

The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.

Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!

----

"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).

----

"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/

APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)

----

"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres

"Appeal to emotion" doesn't make a good argument

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, symbolset.

If you've taken any LOGIC courses, your rather weak adhominem attack on myself (rather than the technical points I bring up), alongside your nane tossing "appeal to emotion" tactics doesn't either. Anyone reading will realize that much, easily.

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time... oh, & "argue with the numbers" & facts I put up above next time, won't you? Oh, that's right: YOU CAN'T (they're too well thought out & quite accurate)... apk

SymbolNOBODY, show me a few things... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

SymbolNOBODY:

You said this here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430

"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal

I took offense to the BOLDED part... so, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244

----

SymbolNOBODY, additionally?

Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662

That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide across 15 forums & has been made either an:

1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)

AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."

and

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

----

THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk!

Also?

When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Wi

As per usual, unfounded adhominem attacks, lol!

[Anonymous Coward]

SO, that "all said & aside from you" (not much other than some b.s. to try to 'discredit me', vs. discreding the points on HOSTS files I brought up)?

And, again, as-per-usual from you trolls? Sure enough: The "ad hominem attacks" start up once more, & this time? From behind an "AC account" (oh, the 'courage & intestinal fortitude' of these people (not, lol)).

("Oh, please" (as the saying goes): Is THAT the "best you've got", in unfounded accusations & meaningless insinuations, vs. my points on HOSTS files to Foredecker (& therefore, thru he, to Microsoft)?

APK

P.S.=> It truly would appear so, that "ad hominem attacks" & insinuations are all you have. Thanks. That only makes my points that much stronger... apk

Re:As per usual, unfounded adhominem attacks, lol!

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, you appear to hold a common misunderstanding of the term ad hominem. I wrote nothing with respect to your post on the HOSTS file in Windows, so it clearly cannot be the case that I used a criticism of you in an attempt to invalidate your assertions on the subject. My post had nothing to do with the HOSTS file, nor did the the post to which I responded, and neither does this post; that issue is between you and Foredecker.

Secondly, while my post contained criticisms of you personally, and some clearly identified conjecture, I consider your description of it as an attack to be a mischaracterization. Much of my post is clearly opinion and therefore subjective, yet I believe an objective review of many of your AC posts would lead most readers to similar conclusions. Perhaps you don't realize it, but your posts do come off as arrogant, and occasionally insulting, even when your facts are perfectly correct and accurate. From what I have seen, they often reveal a lack of manners and civility. At the very least, maybe we could agree that your posts are hardly ever worded gently. As to my use of the word irritating, I believe most observers would concur that your repeated posting of identical responses on the HOSTS file subject to multiple posts by Foredecker in the same thread could be reasonably described as irritating. I'd say that ignoring Foredecker's exceptionally polite request for you to desist also could be reasonably described as irritating.

Finally:

From behind an "AC account" (oh, the 'courage & intestinal fortitude' of these people (not, lol)).

I hope you got a chuckle out of that while writing it in your AC post, because I laughed upon reading it. Thanks for that, anyway.

Maybe I'll respond to the other points raised in your sibling post tomorrow. I've had enough "entertainment" for today.

- T

By the way, finding the midpoint of an array (MS)?

[Anonymous Coward]

"He originally came to my attention due to a bad set of posts regarding array mid-points, all written with his usual arrogance" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15, @04:00PM (#30449692)

FIRST: See subject-line above!

AND

SECOND: See where I was "modded up", here on /. no less, for an interview that Microsoft gave me (for a post on their 'crash dump analysis team'):

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974

(That's where I brought up the method for finding the midpoint of an array WITHOUT knowing its total # of elements, first... &, mind you? Microsoft came to ME, not the reverse)

I thought it was QUITE cool. Apparently others did also, & did not mod me down, but rather "modded me up" for it (so much for your statement above, lol!)

Now, On "arrogance"? LOL... more like ACCURACY! Especially when I am attacked.

I retaliate with SO much technical accuracy, that the ad hominem utilizing TROLLS like yourself are stuck with ad hominem attack attempts & lies or outright b.s. like you spouted, lol, in response (the best they have is ONLY that, lol).

I mean, hey: That type of adhominem attack based bull alone @ best vs. my points? Gents, please - THAT's not TOO effective & QUITE effete (right up there with the "mod downs" some of my posts get when I open a can of WHOOP A$$ on the likes of you, with facts you cannot disprove, is more like it).

APK

P.S.=> SO much for your typical ad hominem based attack b.s., once more... Trolls: You're ALL the same - when beaten, you resort to b.s. & attempted attacks on MYSELF, rather than the points I bring up, lol... pitiful! apk

I tried a double size array index and array index

[Anonymous Coward]

His solution works though T. I say this because it appears that his method of finding the mid point of an array without knowing its total number of elements does seem to work. I just tried it and when I used 1 array index that was always double the size of the other array index used it worked. I had to use errors here because when it errors itself the pointer that is not the doubled one is at the mid point of that array when the one that tries to be double the size of the index number throws an error. I had to use a try catch to do it and it works. I do not think you know what you are talking about T.

Re:I tried a double size array index and array ind

[Anonymous Coward]

His algorithm works reliably if and only if the language/compiler/library enforces array bounds checking. In unrelated posts, he has indicated a knowledge of Delphi, so that presumption would be understandable, as the default Delphi compiler options enforce array bounds checking. Further, most Delphi developers I've known don't bother turning that option off, even in production releases (there is usually no need to do so), so it tends to be taken for granted. However, in more than one of his posts on the subject of finding array mid-points, he had asserted that his algorithm would work across languages, including C and possibly C++ (I'd have to go back and reread a bunch of them to verify whether he specifically mentioned C++, and I lack the patience). If he had qualified his claims with a caveat of array bounds checking, there would have been no factual problem. However, while array bounds checking may be supported by some C and C++ compilers, many do not support it. Regardless, array bounds checking is not required by the ISO standards for either language, so we cannot count on it being universally available. So, his algorithm is incorrect, although in some contexts it will work reliably.

I can think of two obvious reasons why your test could have verified his claims: your language or compiler enforces array bounds checking; or the end of your array just happened to coincide with the end of a memory page where the next page was invalid. You didn't provide platform, compiler, or other specifics, so there might be a different reason your test worked. I have run the same test with a small dynamically allocated array in MSVC++ (6.0, 7.1, and 8.0) and C++ Builder (5.0, 2006, 2007). An exception occurs at the end of the memory reserved by the MM, instead of at the end of the array. For a small dynamically allocated array (e.g. of eight 32-bit integers), his algorithm reports the mid-point to be a little under halfway between the array base address and the end of the allocated page, well beyond the end of the array. Note that the problem is not peculiar to small arrays - the last few elements of a large array might be at the beginning of a memory page, or similarly far from some other boundary. The problem also applies to statically allocated arrays because we have no control (outside of non-standard compiler features) over where they appear in relation to other static data - anything, of any size, might be in the memory past the end of the array, and C & C++ compilers are free to layout variable in a different order from their definition, even within the same translation unit. [OK, I can think of only one contrived example where this algorithm would even be useful for static arrays, but the problem still exists.]

With respect to the claim of inefficiency by bjourne in the post I had linked, that should be obvious with only casual consideration of his algorithm. While it has no bearing on correctness, there are two obvious inefficiencies there. Whether improvements would be worthwhile for a given application of the algorithm is orthogonal to an assessment of general efficiency.

I see he has replied in his usual style, and since he displays a common misunderstanding of the term ad hominem, I suppose I should respond eventually. Your post didn't try my patience, so you got the first response. If you have one of the compilers I used (newer versions should be OK), test it again for yourself; I'd be interested to see code which doesn't verify my findings. If you don't have any of those compilers or they won't run on platforms available to you, maybe try GCC - just be sure array bounds checking and any other memory fencing is turned off if available (I'm unfamiliar with GCC). Even a Delphi test should reveal the problem, assuming you explicitly disable array bounds checking, but I haven't checked that myself.

- T

Re:By the way, finding the midpoint of an array (M

[Anonymous Coward]

"He originally came to my attention due to a bad set of posts regarding array mid-points, all written with his usual arrogance" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15, @04:00PM (#30449692)

FIRST: See subject-line above!

Here is the subject line of your sibling post:

As per usual, unfounded adhominem attacks, lol!

I hope that by now you have corrected your misunderstanding of the term ad hominem, as noted in my response to that post.

SECOND: See where I was "modded up", here on /. no less, for an interview that Microsoft gave me (for a post on their 'crash dump analysis team'):
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974
(That's where I brought up the method for finding the midpoint of an array WITHOUT knowing its total # of elements, first... &, mind you? Microsoft came to ME, not the reverse)

Good for you. Thanks for providing the link to your original post on the subject, as I hadn't bookmarked that one. I'll get to the problems with both of your answers shortly. You've been on slashdot long enough to know that upward moderation is not proof of the factual accuracy of a post, including "Informative" mods. The other side of that coin is that downward moderation, including "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods, is not proof of a flawed post. Ideally, that's the way it would be; reality differs. One need look no farther than the plethora of threads where contentious political or religious subjects are debated. Further, there is little meta-data with slashdot moderation; your post might have been modded upward purely due to interest in your description of a Microsoft interviewing process rather than your two remembered answers to the set of 2nd-level interview questions.

More to the point, it is clear from one of your own posts that you are aware of the actual value and limitations of slashdot moderation:

HOWEVER: THE Biggest dumbass of all, is whoever MODDED YOU UP, as "insightful"... lol, had to have been mgt.!

Now it's clear that we can agree that upward moderation is not proof of the validity of a post. It's good to find common ground so soon in our discussion, yes?

In your original post that you linked, you wrote that you remembered two of the three questions from MS, and your answers to them. Just for completeness, there was a third question which you do not recall - OK, no problem with that, we all forget things. I'll refer here to the questions & answers as "MS#1" and "MS#2". I'll address MS#2 first, since it's the core topic of discussion. Also, in addition to your original post, here is another where you had asserted that your approach would work regardless of programming language, therefore including C and C++:

The language used wouldn't matter (though I did say Object Pascal &/or Delphi here a few times in fact, so read next time, before shooting your mouth off).

This was where your assumptions went wrong. You could have defended your other posts on the subject by limiting your claims to a specific context, such as "Delphi, with default compiler settings, and addressing the array by index". If you had done that, I believe most of the informed posters (not the ones who thought you meant linked list instead of array) would have treated you better and accepted your solution. Instead, you made the unsupportable claim that your approach works regardless of language. Yesterday I responded to a different AC who exhibited far less abrasiveness than you usually do, and