Slashdot Mirror
MS Dirty Pool Against AOL?
Hobbes_ sent us an amusing little story that talks about some MS Employee forging some email to some guy trying to
raise heat against AOL. Just read the article, its more than just a little bizarre.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I seem to recall a story during the height of the Visual C++/Borland C++ compiler wars. One of the Visual C++ manuals gave credit to "Buck Forland".
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
"After reading these things for a while I became convinced that I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker."
-Jack Bryar
Perhaps he should begin his development of a Linux-compatible grammar checker as well.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Alright then, smile at an honest comparison. I've been working on computers for 17 years and I'm an MCSE. By your reasoning, I should be pro-NT, right? Wrong. Our LAN (at work) runs a mix of WinNT4 and Debian servers, and I can honestly say Debian is the preferable server platform. Our NT boxes lock up and require reboots at least once a week, and they always bomb at the worst possible time (like when I'm at lunch). Our Debian machines were all rebooted about two weeks ago because we were doing hardware checks on them...it was the first time in 6 months that any of them had been offline.
Up until a month ago our company webserver ran NT Server 4 with IIS 4, and it required daily reboots. A month ago we installed Debian+Apache, and it's been up, unaided, ever since.
I'll agree that some people here seriously exaggerate the instabilities of NT, but Linux actually is the more reliable OS for mission critical servers.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
This was in the latest comp.risks digest. The article makes reference to a NewsScan Daily article called "Spy Who Messaged Me" -- Now Playing at Microsoft!, which in turn cites the New York Times article.
They should just get it over with and merge all these half-assed attempts at winning mindshare into one entity: The Microsoft Public Manipulation Team.
I love the part where the Microsoft marketing director says, ``It's unfortunate they're putting user security at risk.'' That slays me.
But I've sometimes wondered who was really posting messages promoting MS on
Can't WinNT compete?
"No. You're a moron." -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot.org
Forget all that enlightened approuch stuff. Forget function over splashy brochures. Oh no. We've finally awoken to what will REALLY get Linux out there into the masses. Not results... insults. And plenty of them. Can't we see about producing anti-Windows FUD while we're at it?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Breaking down a proprietary system may be good if we are breaking down the Win32 API, but we are talking about AOL's IM system and one company who will probably break its protocol: M$.
The only good that will come of this is AOL will possibly lose control of its IM system. M$ is probably using this to hurt AOL in some kind of underhanded way. Who the heck uses AOL's IM anyway? AOL subscribers. And who else?
All I hear is raves about ICQ and IRC and none about IM. It seems like AOL is way behind on this front. BTW, if M$ would build IM into their OS, it would crush ICQ and IRC financially. This is how M$ uses their monopoly power to kill companies, they buy into a technology and give it away for free.
For example, I heard about how several companies were offering (if I remember correctly) a video game audio technology. They were competing and were selling their technology. The software was continuously getting better and competetion was fierce. Micro$oft bought one of the companies. They took their software development kit and bundled it with another M$ development kit as a free add on. The other companies went out of business, competition has ceased, and development toward a mature product has ceased.
It is not necessairly good to have developing technologies as open source because it diverts revenues from these emerging markets. In the case of Operating Systems, the market has stagnated and this is why we see KDE and GNOME comming up from the rear with systems almost as user friendly as a Mac.
There is also the case where systems are not commercially viable. For example, EMACS is not a comercially viable product (Try to sell it to someone;), but is very useful for the many people that use it. So, it has become open source.
A market where I see that open source is not ready is digital audio and MIDI. If you look at Studio Vision, it is very hard to imagine developing such a product through open source. It is extremely complex and highly integrated. Only a highly talented development team who has access to tons of research can produce such a easy to use and robust program. Other examples are Photoshop, Canvas (compare to GIMP), Adobe Illustrator, and Macromedia Freehand (compare to xfig and killustrator).
On the other hand, anyone who has taken a comprehensive Operating Systems course and has some talent could write Linux or the Windows Kernel or even the Mac Kernel. (The NT kernel, from what I have read, is radically different. different != better)
So, what I am trying to say is that competition+venture capital feeds progress and M$=monopoly=kill progress. Also open source cannot compete with radical commercial software products.
I find it interesting that AOL is doing nothing to promote ICQ. Which, IMNHO, is a much better instant messaging client than anything that is currently out there...
A quote from the article:
"Separately, America Online and Novell Corp. on Thursday announced that Novell, a network software provider based in Provo, Utah, had licensed the AOL Instant Messenger software and planned to build it into its Netware Directory Services software for corporate users."
In light of all these 'licensing' deals that AOL is making, I recall that no mention of ICQ has ever been made.
Once again, IMNHO, AOL is trying to kill any kind of 'IM' that isn't their own, despite the fact that they own ICQ now...
What do you guys think?
"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
But what can you do?
A company can do a lot, especially in this case if the author is identified. Remember, that message was (allegedly) sent from a system on the Redmond campus. The author didn't even bother to log into his own ISP account and then connect to the free service. (Or maybe I'm just spoiled by my unix shell account.)
This means that an employee has:
1) used corporate resources to
2) publicly lie (about his affiliation with Microsoft, if not the buffer overflow problem), and thus
3) bring his employer into disrepute.
In the most extreme cases, Microsoft could dismiss such employees immediately. Any employee who inserts an actionable easter egg into a released product, *and* his immediate supervisor for failure to exercise sufficient oversight should be fired-for-cause, IMHO.
In this case, it would not be unreasonable for MS to insert a "written reprimand" for lying about his employment status in a message sent from MS property, with either a few days suspension and/or an explicit reduction in his next performance raise.
This response might sound extreme, but look at how much these antics are costing Microsoft. Right now it's only some techies who are outraged at "fluff" easter eggs in many (most?) MS applications, but what will happen if someone wins millions of dollars because one easter egg alleges that a particular individual is sexually assaulting his child, and it turns out that the egg was inserted by the spouse's new SO? Or thousands of users find their system compromised because a latter-day Excel flight simulator contains a serious security hole?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
"sent it to the one computer security expert who could trace it back to Microsoft..." Pardon me, but does this strike anyone else as very laughable? Even a greenhorn admin can make sense of mail headers, yet this journalist makes it sound like the guy is James Bond. Give me a break!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bill Gates: Steal glib: Bag it, sell
Linus Torvalds: Rival sold nuts: Sun's vital lord (hmmmm, what does this mean?)
Rob Malda: A bar mold: Rod a lamb (hmmm, better not touch this last one)
There's a lot more (ES Raymond = Sermon Day). Perhaps we could start using anagrams as /. login names.
This is such a huge security issue it's revolting. But of course, nobody noticed that part of the story, because everyone was too busy laughing at how Microsoft made this information known...
--
Wonko the Sane
Microsoft Continues to Work Toward Consumer Interoperability, Despite AOL Allegations About MSN Messenger
REDMOND, Wash. - Aug. 6, 1999 - On July 22, Microsoft® launched MSN Messenger Service, the free Internet messaging service that enables people to communicate with the greatest number of Internet users and offers the tightest integration with popular Microsoft communications tools. One of the exciting features of MSN Messenger Service is the ability to exchange messages with both other MSN Messenger users and with people using AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).
In several recent news reports, America Online has made a number of false or misleading claims about MSN Messenger Service. These comments have been made against the backdrop of AOL's failure to respond to consumer demand for interoperability between messaging systems. PressPass asked Yusuf Mehdi, director of marketing for Microsoft MSN, to comment.
Q: What is Microsoft's overall stance on instant messaging and how does it differ from AOL?
A: Communications continues to be the cornerstone of the Internet, and instant messaging is becoming a more prevalent way for people to communicate. With MSN Messenger we are offering a rich and easy solution for people to instant message. In addition we have delivered a breakthrough feature that lets consumers exchange instant messages not only with their MSN contacts but their AIM contacts as well. It is our view that instant messaging should quickly evolve to enable any individual to instant message with anyone else irrespective of their client software or messaging system. In the same way that different telephone handsets and systems interoperate, we're delivering the functionality to enable people to instant message with each other.
Q: What is the current state of Microsoft's relationship with AOL on the subject of Instant Messaging?
A: We are very interested in having AOL work with Microsoft and other industry leaders that have gotten behind a proposed industry standard for messaging. For the last two years, many companies have worked with the IETF on the Instant Messaging Presence Protocol as a standard way to help the industry move forward on interoperability. We are disappointed that AOL has chosen not to join the standards process thus far. We are also disappointed that in the interim AOL is choosing to deny consumers the choice of MSN Messenger interoperability.
Q: Does Microsoft's new MSN Messenger Service strip out AOL's privacy and security controls, as AOL claims?
A: Absolutely not. Privacy was a top priority in developing MSN Messenger Service, and Messenger provides strong privacy features that enable users to maintain total control of their personal information. MSN Messenger Service in no way compromises the privacy or security of people who use it to communicate with other MSN Messenger users or with their AIM contacts. Specifically:
Q: Is it true that Microsoft invaded AOL's network without authorization?
A: No. MSN Messenger gives people using the AIM service a choice of which client software they want to use to send instant messages to other AIM contacts. A person who chooses to use MSN Messenger uses his or her authorized AIM account, just as they would with the AIM client. All of the login, authentication and messaging activity for AIM contacts still occurs on the AOL servers, exactly as it would if someone were using the AIM client. MSN Messenger simply provides one integrated interface that allows people to send messages to both MSN Messenger users and AIM users.
Q: AOL claims Microsoft has subverted and/or disabled the AOL Instant Messenger software.
A: Not true. People are completely free to choose which instant messaging service they'd like to use as the default - that is, which service starts up and logs in automatically when Windows starts. If someone chooses to make MSN Messenger the default, it will be started when Windows starts and will log people into the MSN Messenger Service, and, if they have chosen, the AIM service as well. The MSN Messenger setup wizard is very clear in explaining what it means to set MSN Messenger as the default, and gives people the option to check or uncheck this box. This doesn't mean that the AIM software is disabled. People can certainly still use this client, and it is easy for someone who wants to make AIM the default service again to do so.
Q: Is it true that MSN Messenger drains AOL network and system resources?
A: Of course not. People who have chosen to use MSN Messenger to talk to their AIM contacts already have an authorized AIM account, one that they already use to send messages to their AIM contacts. This doesn't change when people start using MSN Messenger. The same AIM account is still used to communicate with AIM contacts; the only difference is the client software that the person has chosen. There is no additional load on the AOL servers.
Q: Why is lobbying for an instant messaging standard so important?
A: It has always been Microsoft's goal that people should be able to talk freely on the Internet, no matter whose software they are using. Microsoft has supported establishing an open standard with the IETF since November 1997, when Microsoft and the rest of the industry proposed the RVP protocol (now called IMPP - instant messaging and presence protocol) to the IETF. AOL was approached at that time to join with Microsoft, the other companies and the IETF, but they declined. To date AOL has not had any active participation with the rest of the industry in meeting consumer demand for interoperability.
Microsoft has been a leader in working with standards bodies and supporting industry standards for interoperability. Internet Explorer is a great example, because it was the first browser to support CSS, HTML 4.0, DHTML, etc. AOL has no track record in the area of industry standards.
Q: Why did Microsoft choose to move forward with interoperability in lieu of an approved instant messaging standard?
A: Again we strongly believe that the long term and best solution is for the industry to standardize on IMPP. We are committed and will support IMPP as soon as the IETF ratifies it as the standard. In the interim, we have delivered a simple and straightforward solution that provides consumers with interoperability among instant messaging clients. People are responding with overwhelmingly positive feedback on MSN Messenger and we will continue to do our best to meet consumer demand for interoperability.
Q: What about AOL's claim that it asked Microsoft to "make peace" in the letter sent on July 23, 1999?
A: It's simply untrue. AOL sent a letter informing Microsoft that they would block people who chose to use MSN Messenger to communicate with their AIM contacts, and proposed a "business arrangement." This is in no way in the best interests of our mutual customers or a solution to the broader issue of solving the industry need to have a standard for interoperability on messaging.
Q: Does Microsoft have any response to AOL's newly announced deal with EarthLink and MindSpring.
A: This announcement is unrelated to the core issues we have been discussing regarding enabling interoperability for consumers. Frankly it feels a bit like a diversion on AOL's part. They seem to be doing everything they can to NOT enable interoperability for consumers, which is disappointing.
Q: Will Microsoft offer free Internet access to its customers; and, if so, is it a direct shot at AOL?
A: Our focus with MSN Internet Access is to make it easy, fast, and attractive for everyone to get online. We have recently come out with some very compelling offers for consumers that marry a great promotion, such as the Staples $400 instant cash rebate in return for 3 years of MSN Internet Access, along with great technology such as the automatic account creation. In our efforts to help make getting on the Internet as attractive as possible we are considering all manners of technology and promotion. We have no new strategy to announce here from the great promotions that we are already conducting at retail stores today.
I would love to set up a linux server with BeOS workstations. But I have not figured out a good way to run X apps on the server. I would love to be able to run X apps on the server and have them display on my Be desktop, but I don't think there is a way to do this. Anyone know?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The Anagrams Page. ;)
Try to spot which companies and individuals and products are being talked about!
"(Vast Lord Linus) had a gleam in his eye that looked like UNIX- except it wasn't going to be expensive corporate wares. No, what (Snarl... I'd Volt Us) had in mind was (In Flexure), and (Felix Rune), though still more cryptic than the simplified GUI operating systems, developed its own loyal following..." (written in October 1996!)
Volt me, linus!
NT supporters are just suffering from MicroSoft business practices. Microsoft has in the past posed as "users, admins, and regular joes" to defeat OS/2, they should have left that to their supporters.
Now, we are seeing the effect of those practices. You couldn't praise NT as a user and have anyone take you seriously. Immediately individuals will assume you are from MS. It's quite sad, however don't blame the average joe, blame MS.
You reap what you sow.
Awesome!
AOL and MSN are as much ISPs as a lot of the little mom and pop shops we are using. They certainly as much an ISP as someone like Earthnet, who mostly resells service from other providers.
Besides that I beleive that AOL has a backbone, or at least they used to.
But you can bet that for every one time they're caught, there are many more times that they're not caught. And you know they've pulled the most absurdly outrageous things, beyond our imagination, and gotten away with it, because no one dreamed they'd do what they do. They keep outdoing themselves. They are simply better than us at subterfuge, deception, and not being restrained by scruples.
I know a sysadmin that "promotes" MS based on the following principle: "If I don't know it, it's crap."
This is a corollary of the old standby "I don't want to learn anything new" which is the unfortunately often coupled with (at least in this case) "...and I don't know diddly now, either."
Linux: Because an OS is about choice, not intertia.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The name then was "Steven Barkto" back when MS pulled this exact same trick trying to tank OS/2 in the discussion groups - I think it was on CompuServe at the time. I'll be curious to see how soon the same stuff is pulled against Linux.
This is very similar to the stunt they pulled with the Mindcraft Study. While not the same in nature, it's the same practice. "Feed disinformation to the public about a competitor's product, and then tell them about OUR product."
I'm no fan of AOL. God knows I hate them enough, however I don't like Microsoft's business procedures at all.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
The post I'm responding to is by Anonymous Coward. Not exactly the most credible of posters. I wonder if this is by a Microsoft employee?
That the guy who sent the E was named Phil Bucking, which sounds interesting if you phonetically switch the first consonent sounds in the first and last name...
The name of the individual who supposedly sent this email was "Phil Bucking"
Switch the syllables around and you get:
"Bill Phucking"
Read that backwards...
And now you know the rest of the story...
says a lot about the company.
... because they *know* that they are expeced to behave ethically and would be fired imediately for such bull****.
at many companies no one would even *think* of behaving that way
But, M$ employees have pulled stunts like this in the past and we can infer from current behavior that M$ turned a blind eye to their "a little over-passionate" but darling children.
- bridgette
I think it's important to understand the reasons behind the attitude of the PHB. The character appears entirely irrational to most technical types, and yet there are reasons for what PHBs do. The good news is that, in my view, PHBs are coming around, for reasons you will shortly discover.
See, the person who gets me most of my work is a somewhat enlightened PHB. He's intelligent, has a lot of business savvy and knows a lot about where the bodies are buried. I'm slowly starting to understand his point of view, which is likely to be useful to my future - after all, you can't stay a coder forever, not if you want that inexpensive house on Sunset Plaza Drive in the Hollywood Hills [minimum price $495,000 and rising], anyway.
The primary concern of any boss is to keep the business running. The boss's nightmare is if the IT staff either quits or holds him up for more money. The boss knows that as long as there are plenty of MSCE's ready to help him out, his current IT staff can be replaced. If he uses technology nobody's ever heard of, that requires people that are difficult to locate, then his head is on the corporate chopping block.
Now, note that this doesn't require the executive to like Microsoft. He may find the company's products every bit as wretched as we do. But he knows that he can always find people who can use the stuff, even if the worst happens and his workers all leave.
There is a second, related reason bosses like Microsoft: Applications and software tools are inexpensive and plentiful. Oracle, Sybase and SQL server are all cheaper on Windows than any other platform due to the level of competition that exists. This is, again, something bosses love. They can pitch the salespeople against each other.
Finally, they have someone to blame when things go wrong. I'm not sure how much satisfaction they get from blaming Microsoft, because the company certainly isn't going to help them much, but the idea is there.
These strike me as valid reasons to use Microsoft, even if you hate their products. The good news is that it looks like the younger computing generation has rapidly assimilated Linux, thanks to its extremely low price and compatibility with existing Unix systems they may have in school. This is, no doubt, why MS is trying so hard to get people in academic environments to use their stuff - but they have met considerable resistance. From the perspective of people like Steve Ballmer, who I'm sure can see this as clear if not clearer than I can, this is disasterous news, far worse than any tiresome antitrust trial.
So the good news is that I see a very hopeful future for Linux and free software. What's happened in my own office is instructive - two additional people have been hired, both of who have an interest in Linux. So we are starting to get a critical mass of rebel geeks in the organization I work with, which has traditionally been a "Windows Uber Alles" type shop.
D
PS: You're probably telling me, "David, everyone knows MSCE's are incompetent boobs who studied very hard to pass a simple multiple-choice test." And I'm sure you're right. But at least it means some minimum level of ability, and that reassures the PHB.
----