Slashdot Mirror
MSFT thanks Linux Programmer for paying $35 Fee
Quite a number of people have been writing recently in regards to the recent Hotmail outage. As we reported before, a Linux programmer wanted to get his mail - and paid the $35 fee to renew their domain registration. News.com has picked up the news story, complete with thanks from MSFT to Mr. Michael Chaney.
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=99/12/25/114201&cid=90
That's not the only thing a Linux programmer could fix over at Microsoft.
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
yet another example of how helpful linux and other free software users/developers/admins can be compared to their windows counterparts.
would a windows person think to pay for linux.com's domain? (or other linux related domains)
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I bet you they still wouldn't buy back an OEM copy of Windows from him if he wanted Linux on a name brand PC.
I'm glad that he is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. For $35 dollars, he got a lot of attention for doing something simple, and at no long term cost to him.
However, at the end, he indicates that he would like them to consider the advertising revenue that they saved by his registering it.
I don't know if that is his actual statement or a journalist trying to make the story more controversial, but if he really feels that way, it's kinda silly. He wanted to get his mail, he paid their registration fee, and they are paying him pack.
They also figured out the problem, he just beat them to it. While I'm certain that this administrative slight is really embarassing to Microsoft, the whole situation is silly.
This wasn't a win for the community. This was a silly situation to happen and a potential PR mess. I'm glad that it was resolved, but this is getting blown out of proportion.
Alex
As it may seem that Microsoft has everything to lose from this scenario, to the consumer, they redeemed themselves by paying back Mr. Chaney.
Look at it this way: How have you heard Linux described in the press? "Linux, an alternative to Microsoft's Windows Operating System..." is one of the many incantations of the phrase. Most of the television watching, Time magazine reading public sees "alternative" == "competitor". Meaning, financial competitor, because that's what people see - money.
Now, what people see the Hotmail/Passport situation as being is that some guy from the Linux camp gave money to their worst enemy. Sure, for the most part it looks bad for Microsoft. But Microsoft redeems themselves immediately in the eyes of the consumer by giving that money back.
All in all, approximately 26 Million people couldn't access their e-mail for a few hours and everything else is normal to most people. Microsoft wasn't hurt too badly by this situation when you think about it.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
. . . "I didn't get to be the richest guy in the world by writing a bunch of big checks to people". (Granted, he only said it in an episode of the Simpsons).
IMHO he did do something nice just for its own sake.
Give it a rest.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Payment received?
Remove dns entry.
That's probably how it happened, except it probably involved a little more code than that, and it was probably a little more complex. (Hehe i think I just called that 3 line thing code...)
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Don't be such a butthead. Read his original post.
"Merry Christmas, Microsoft." It appears that he did it to be nice, and feels (rightly) that this service was worth more to MSFT than $35. It's not like he hijacked the domain and held them for ransom.
What have you done lately for someone else who you don't necessarily like, spontaneously and gently?
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
a Linux programmer save a Microsoft service running BSD... The world is smaller that you realize
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
But seriously, this guy could've charged MS a LOT more than $35 to get it back...
Get WHAT back? He didn't have anything that belonged to them.
You seem to think that using the automated payment system at NSI actually transfered the domain to the guy that paid. It didn't, it doesn't. A credit card is a credit card. I could walk into the phone company and pay your bill, that doesn't mean when people call you my phone will ring, and it doesn't change the name on next months bill either.
So how do you figure he could have held out for 5 figures? About all he could do is ask politely for his $35.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
If memory serves me right, when M$ came down and helped out apple, the "community" response was bloody M$, don't stick your wallet where it isn't wanted. Now... when a linux person does it for M$, the response is "Look, we saved megacorp from drowning, aren't we swell". Irony?
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
It's not like he called a press conference, or something like that. The press is coming to him to get his side of the story. Would you prefer a mumbled "no comment" as he shuffles back to his pizza, Jolt, and Perl scripts? :-)
And that "cut of the revenue" comment at the end reeks of pseudo-journalistic spin. I'd bet that comment was a joke taken out of context.
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
This sig intentionally left blank.
that because a Linux user paid for the domain that it now be called GNU/Hotmail, because while Hotmail is the operational part, without GNU it would not be complete.
I don't know. To be honest, having read his original post (he posted to /. when he paid the thing), I think it was more done to be funny. Why not? They're dumbasses, it's only 35 bucks, hell - I'd have paid for it if I'd been in that position. Would've been funny. *grin*
Yes, it was a nice thing to do, simple as that. It was also very amusing. And made for an amusing conversation on slashdot when he did it, and again later (though I don't think he could have realized that he would get actual _press_ for that).
Having done it, I would also be wondering if they could pay more than 35 bucks. He isn't asking for it, he isn't pushing for it even. He commented that it would be nice, but he seems to understand that it isn't likely, especially knowing the greed in ms. So? Seems like just another average joe to me, who happened to notice the problem and do something about it, and get amused by his own actions. Nothing major, and certainly not greedy.
A greedy person would have tried to transfer ownership, or something like that. I see no indication that he even considered that, it seems more like a 'heh, I fixed their screwup for em, too bad they can't fix themselves' sort of thing.
-Elthia
Here is the main part of a letter I wrote earlier with some suggestions for improvements:
A recent article ("Domain Winner Loses Big") on wired.com at
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974, 00.html
was heavily discussed/ranted-about on slashdot.org at
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/11/1155244.sh tml
and left me with a distinct impression that there are some real problems with the registration system, to wit:
(1) There does not seem to be a reliable way to establish provable priority of a claim to a name, i.e., that one was first in the first come first serve process. And (1a) The act of checking a name for prior registration exposes the name to the risk of being misappropriated if the link is not secure or the registrar is unscrupulous.
I believe the way to solve this is to separate the creation of a proof of first claim from the business of the various registrar authorities.
As it stands, the registration businesses apparently can make mistakes (possibly even on purpose, some seem to suspect) which can make a domain name wind up unfairly in the wrong hands, and point to their disclaimers and say, "too bad."
A possibility would be to have ICANN run one or more entirely automatic secure and certifiably trustable servers synchronized with UTC time (see http://www.time.gov/ ) -- whose only purpose would be automatically to return time-stamped, digitally signed copies of messages sent to them by secure web form. This is simple and quick, and does not involve searching a database. If there were a unique server for each g/ccTLD, they wouldn't even have to be that well synchronized (solves the problem of sub-second ties, for which you probably would need need a tie-breaking rule otherwise).
You would enter your identification and the domain name you were _trying_ to claim, and you'd get a certificate back, which would be the proof of your time-priority in case of duplicate names. There would be three business days to complete a registration using any of the competing registration businesses, which would be bound to respect the certificate (whose signature they could independently verify).
You would be protected, because you would no longer be dependent on the performance or reliability of any particular registration business. The name could not be misappropriated, because it passed securely to the time-stamping server, and if your first choice registrar could not return legally binding proof that they had received and processed your application into pending status (again probably a transaction record forwarded through an official time stamping server), then you could go to another registrar with no risk to your claim, even from an unscrupulous registrar that as it stands now could potentially put you off with some operational delay excuse and pass the name to a cybersquatter for registration via another channnel.
Of course if the name had already been completely registered, or had a prior pending application, your application would be rejected with no charge (and you could verify that you lost fair and square). At the end of the three days, your pending status would change to completed (unless someone else in the meantime submitted an application with an earlier time stamp), and your credit card could be charged.
This would also create a competitive incentive towards good service.
(2) The transfer of ownership/title to an existing domain seems vulnerable to equipment or procedural errors or registrar misconduct. The cited discussion suggests that title tranfer was not reliably under control of the owner.
Domain name title/ownership transfer must be totally atomic and have no possibility of falling into unregistered status without the owner's informed consent. Registering businesses should not have the authority to change the status of a registered domain name except by due process of expiration or as explicitly authorized by the owner. The burden of proof of authorization must be on the registrar, and any operational or equipment error on their part should not have legally binding consequences on the status of the domain name.
The key is to design a sequence of verifiable transactions that guarantee execution of the owner's intent, even with a bad service apple in the barrel.
This is just what I've thought since reading the discussions, so there may be some holes in the above, or better ways to achieve the guarantees, but I believe some technical implementation changes could make for better legal protections in registering and transferring domain names.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Bengt Richter
Why is there such need to gloat about Microsft's mistakes? Does pointing them out make Linux or whatever operating system you use better?
In the end, Chaney did a good turn and set a good example. Enough said.
I consult for a large telecom company that hosts thousands of domains so I get to see a good sample of the problem people have with Network Solutions. Generally speaking they send out plenty of notice before putting a domain on hold. [Hey, don't get me wrong, I really hate dealing with Network Solutions, but generally the problems I have with them are getting updates done.]
I've seen one other case where a large ISP neglected to pay for an important domain. In that case it was simply that those responible for paying where not techies (because in large organizations techies don't pay the bills, the finance department does) and considered a US$35 bill unimportant; they willfully neglected to pay. I suspect the same thing happened with passport.com. I'd bet that some accountant recieved the invoice but couldn't find anyone who could tell him who "network solutions" is and said to himself, "Well, I'm not going to pay a $35 invoice that I can't account for."
I've seen many cases with small organizations where domains didn't get paid for because the accountant was expecting an invoice for "InterNIC" and didn't know that "Network Solutions" was the Internet (in days gone by there were the same organization).
Specifically, you will note that the Billing Contact for PASSPORT.COM is a person.
Billing Contact: Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM +1 (425) 882-8080 (FAX) +1 (425) 936-7329
Now, compare that to most other domains used by M$oft. It is often the case, that people that are part of big business FORGET that there are some very tedious details on the InterNET.
Microsoft-Internic Billing Issues (MDB-ORG) msnbill@MICROSOFT.COM 425 882 8080
This is the proper use of a ROLE. A sure fire way to screw something up is to let a SINGLE person be a Billing Contact. By far the best practice is to use a ROLE that has a email address that gets sent to several people. Since you never know who might be on a vacation or might blow away their inbox.
So I would recommend that Microsoft go here: http://www.networksolutions.co m/makechanges/reports/
Actually, a good natured Linux user could probably do this as well for them. :) All you need it the information contained in the whois lookup.
The reason this is important is that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM probably hasn't paid many other things as well. Why? This person might not even WORK for microsoft now...
Think this can't happen? Think again. Her manager should have known or someone should have known but apparently nobody did or there was a billing error/oversite. Oh, but wait... what if her manager is gone TOO???
Repeat again: Think it can't happen? Thing again.
When you use a domain name make sure you put a TEAM in charge with a leader vs. a single point of failure. Even a rank newbie working for an ISP knows this much. I expect that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM was on vacation or called in rich[sick].
Aren't you glad you don't work in this persons office?
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/
http://fudge.org