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)
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.
But I've sometimes wondered who was really posting messages promoting MS on
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
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
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
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.
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...
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.
----