Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft up to Old Tricks Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the freedom-to-innovate-competitors-out-of-existence dept.

Anonyous Coward writes "According to ZDnet UK News, Microsoft is up to its old trick of breaking competing products by changing Windows. This time it's NT service pack 6, which strangely has a problem with Lotus Notes. It denies users 'access to Lotus Notes on NT unless they have been granted administrative access to the entire network.' So much for the 'findings of fact' putting Microsoft under pressure to stop this sort of thing." Related news: CEGadgets.com publishes the latest NT security hole.

14 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Roblimo has it all wrong by anewsome · · Score: 4
    It looks like Roblimo might be a little paranoid in his claims about Microsoft. I have a really strong feeling that Microsoft did nothing intentional to break the Lotus product, and I'll even go out on a limb and say that Lotus probably made the problem themselves by using outdated or unpublished API's even after being warned not to by Microsoft.

    On the other hand, either way the end result is still the same in that Lotus gets broken, and that should have been caught in the extensive (yeah right) testing done by MS prior to releasing this beast on the world

  2. Asinine... by Psarchasm · · Score: 4

    Microsoft up to its old tricks? Has Slashdot finally sunk to such depths that it needs to create bogus headlines like these?

    Please name me one operating system that has to, and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating with so many other systems. The weight that Microsoft carries and the scrutiny under which it carries that weight should be a warning to everyone who wants them out of the way.

    Asinine headlines like this one from "Roblimo" only have a place with the rest of the quacks looking for "the smoking man" and UFOs. Because you are making the rest of us look like those quacks when you post that garbage here.

    Here is to hoping that Atlas shrugs.

    (And take note this post was written in Netscape, under Linux 2.3.x)

    --
    http://windows.scares.us
    1. Re:Asinine... by Myddrin · · Score: 5

      Please name me one operating system that has to, and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating with so many other systems. The weight that Microsoft carries and the scrutiny under which it carries that weight should be a warning to everyone who wants them out of the way. Erm... excuse me? The Mac, Novell and *nix actually interoperate with more operating systems and do it in a more efficient manner.
      Can you boot your windows box from a ext2 floppy? Can you read Mac disks (w/o third party software). What is this? Do you work in systems integration? Do you realize that most SI work is done with *NIX leading the way and the other OS's following? Asinine headlines like this one from "Roblimo" only have a place with the rest of the quacks looking for "the smoking man" and UFOs. Because you are making the rest of us look like those quacks when you post that garbage here. Even though it is well documented that they did this to DR DOS (could some one through up a link to the article in Dr Dobbs about the code?). Come on buddy, quit checking your MS stock prices and look around.

      --
      Myddrin
    2. Re:Asinine... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3

      The reason we label these as old tricks for Microsoft is because they have intentionally caused these incompatibilities before. The question here is whether this service pack's incompatibilities with Lotus Notes are intentional or not. Microsoft won't give us the right answer, just like they hid the tying of DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x from everyone.

      They released Windows compliance specificiations for other DOS makers, but didn't tell them that Windows actually checked a couple obscure memory mappings (where the character map was for one) to see if it was running on Microsoft's DOS product or not. If not, they put up a BSOD warning which scared people away from non-MS DOS products, eventually allowing them to do a full integration product, Windows 95 (DOS 7.0 + Windows 95 shell).

      Read my comments about Microsoft in the earlier 90's re: DOS / Windows, etc.

      If indeed Slashdot were making blind accusations, this would be bad. However, knowing their history, it's not a bad guess.

      - Michael T. Babcock <homepage>

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  3. Re:This is senseless. by JordanH · · Score: 3
    It's really hard to believe that this is intentional on the part of Microsoft.

    It was probably a mistake.

    If it was intentional, then it sure lends credence to the speculation that there are those in MS who really want MS to be broken up. The theory goes that Bill Gates is tired of running Microsoft and would rather be a media/on-line/banking mogul. He really can't go into those markets as aggressively as he would like while there is continual anti-trust review of every move. Remember that the Intuit deal was quashed by the Feds, and that was Microsoft's gambit to enter on-line banking.

    I find that theory a bit far out. How do you really run a conspiracy like that? I mean, it only takes one MS engineer who was familiar with some testing or development effort that would break Lotus to go to the press. Remember, the Halloween documents were leaked from inside MS.

  4. Details by SSKennel · · Score: 5
    Apparently, SP6 locks out all ports above 1024 unless you are logged in as Administrator.

    Microsoft is promising a hotfix.

    1. Re:Details by Myddrin · · Score: 3

      My theory is that MS hired the Castaways (Gilligan's Island) for QA/QC.

      The Howells cashed in their stock options.
      The Professor took one look around and quit.
      Mary Ann found out about the FUD and quit because she didn't approve of the lies.
      Ginger mysteriously disappeared, but strange grunts and groans have been heard from various execs offices.

      Leaving the Skipper and Gilligan in charge of QA/QC.
      :)

      --
      Myddrin
  5. Benefit of the doubt by ch-chuck · · Score: 5

    MSFT has been collecting the benefit of the doubt for so long (i.e., 'trusted', as in trusting the fox to guard the henhouse) that now the tide has turned and even HONEST MISTAKES are perceived as wilful and malicious anti-competitive measures.

    Spread enough FUD and it'll eventually come back to haunt you!

    Chuck

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  6. Separate M$ /. section? by afniv · · Score: 3

    Is there ever going to be a separate Micro$oft section on /.? It would be nice for the some folks to get their fix in one place, and have highly applicable M$ stuff show up on the "front page".

    This constant new old news gets, well, old. But when I have the time, I definitely like the laugh/throbbing veins, depending on the story.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"

    --
    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
    Richard von Weizs
  7. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Keel · · Score: 4
    Or perhaps people who actually have systems expertise want their voice to be heard over all of the extremist, reverse-FUD that has been going around /. for too long. Many of us use Linux because we like, not because we hate Microsoft or anyone else. Many of us are tired of this silly little war. Many of us are not afraid to admit Linux's shortcomings, or Microsofts strengths. Many of us are actually doing something about it besides bitch bitch bitch.

    ----

    --

    ----

    "Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.

  8. It's either malice or incompetance... by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 3

    I don't know if this was deliberate (I kind of doubt it), but if it's not deliberate it betrays an incredible degree of incompetance on Microsoft's part.

    One of the reasons NT is so expensive is the heavy duty testing that goes into the product. Are we really to beleive that MS didn't notice that they broke a major application?

    If they didn't notice, they deserve to be lynched for gross incompetance. If they did notice, they should have either 1/ fixed the service pack, or 2/ notified Lotus well before the release so Lotus could issue a patch.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  9. AARD by ch-chuck · · Score: 3

    http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d. htm or just click here.

    Chuck

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  10. MSFT is too distracted by Win2K to test NT4 SPs. by cpeterso · · Score: 3

    Microsoft is so focused on rushing Windows 2000 out the door, how could they have time/people to test "every" NT application on new NT4 service packs? Remember how crappy SP4 was? SP5 was OK because it was much smaller, but I'm not surprised SP6 is crappy. The press is turning up the heat as Microsoft continues to slip the Windows 2000 ship date. If you were Microsoft what would you do, focus on NT4 SPs or Windows 2000? From a financial perspective, Microsoft will make big cash money with Windows 2000, while NT4 SP development time/people/equipment is just a cash sinkhole.

    Windows NT is a huge house of cards. Microsoft can't touch the code without a few cards falling. Here is a great article by Nicholas Petreley from the now defunct magazine "NC World": Will Windows NT develop into a super-OS or an unmanageable disaster?

    Also, to quote Microsoft's own Jim McCarthy in Dynamics of Software Development (an insightful but "fluffy" book, BTW): "Shipping a product is like watching a large-sized serving of quivering Jell-O. Gradually, the Jell-O slows its vibrations. But then you fix a bunch of bugs, and it starts quivering again. Then slowly, ever so slowly, the quivering subsides. You wait, focused and primed, for the instant the Jell-O stops shaking. Then... you ship it! And then it starts shaking again."

    --
    cpeterso
  11. Probably not intended, but not excusable either by hanway · · Score: 3
    Despite what the headline implies, I doubt that MS deliberately broke Notes. They probably just didn't catch it during testing. My guess is that their test coverage is pretty good for other Microsoft products, but not great for non-MS stuff. A certain amount of that is to be expected. They can't test tens of thousands of programs for compatibility with every bug fix they release.

    However, my suspicion is that MS hardly cares any more whether its OS works well with anything other than MS products. Now that they have the dominant office suite, the dominant web browser, and are pushing MS alternatives to practically every other mass-market software there is, why should they care whether anybody other than MS can compete and develop stable programs for Windows?

    They don't adequately test 3rd-party software compatibility, and the problem is that they can get away with it.

    The ridiculously high number of API calls for Windows (and the fact that they're constantly increasing) only makes sense if they don't care about 3rd-party developers being able to keep up.

    Think about it: if Windows didn't have the monopoly on desktop OS that it enjoys now, would anybody in their right mind choose to develop software for it? Would they really want to learn the 2500-or-so API calls, only to have an unknown number of them be obsolete when DirectWhatever 9.0 comes out in another month (timed to coincide with the splashy release of MSWhatever 1.0)?