Low end: $20/hour * 2 sysadmins * 8 hours * 3 days = $960 More realistic minimum: $100/hour * 2 sysadmins * 8 hours * 3 days = $4800
The $100/hour includes benefits, employer's taxes, and other things which don't show in a wage. This assumes only 2 sysadmins (plural was used by original poster) and does not include other losses, such as recovery of damaged documents and employee time lost while machines being cleaned.
Okay, so it did "cost" something to clean up Melissa. But in this case we have someone to blame. What about when the Exchange Server "just" fails and it takes 2 weeks to get it running again. Is that a felony? Car manufacturers are held liable when a defect, for instance, causing the gas tank to blow up. Not that I'm saying that car manufacturers *shouldn't* be held liable, but why not software manufacturers when their products fail for "reasonable" causes?
I don't think Smith intended to shut down the whole world with his virus. In fact I don't think he intended to cause any damage at all. No payload, remember? He was like a driver on the freeway, who, of no fault of his own smashed into another car, where upon the "gas tank" blew up.
Just as a car manufacturer is liable even though the buyer had a reasonable ability to not buy the car, even though they made their bed and slept in it, I think that software manufacturers should be held to the same standard. Software monopoly aside, I understand that Microsoft stated in the license agreement that the software shouldn't be used in "mission critical" environments and therefore shouldn't be held liable. However, Smith didn't guarantee that his program was free of "defects" either, and the user *did* have to accept his program, just as they had to accept Word 97.
In this case, I think we should find Smith not-guilty for anything more then we'd find a virus writer guilty that didn't affect any PC's. However, I think that we should hold Microsoft liable in this case for producing a product that had a known possible defect. Office97 should be "recalled" and Microsoft should be found guilty to the fullest extent of the law.
Just as it wasn't the buyer of the defect car, nor the driver of the other car, but the manufacturer that is liable for gross negligence, in the same way it should not be the buyer of the product, or the virus writer, but the manufacturer of the software that should be liable for gross negligence in developing the product
So you're condoning the use and abuse of known bugs, instead of fixing them?
We don't know that it's a bug yet. We don't know how much MS paid this company to say it's a bug. Mindcraft anyone? As others have mentioned here, all we know is that AOL is sending a longer string then was technically published. Is this a problem? We don't know, it most likely isn't.
No. That would mean I would be receiving for free, what everyone else has to pay for. As soon as AIM, and GAIM, and TiK (if it still works) cost me a monthly fee, then a company who was allowing me access to that for free (while everyone else paid) would be in the wrong.
AIM is not free. It does cost money to run the service you know. However, instead of charging you, they use advertising to offset the expenses. When the MSN client provides access to the service, AOL loses it's ability to pay for the service.
I didn't say Microsoft. This *isn't* about Microsoft (and I'm curious why everyone thinks it is.. who of you bashed Gaim?), its about a company trying to do for free, what others can do for free (unless the people who developed Gaim are partnered with AOL..?)
Any company has the right to work with anyone they want. If AOL wants to give certain groups the ability to use their service and not give other companies the same ability, that is their choice and right. Local companies in this area do it all the time. For instance, a bakery might provide free products to the local soup kitchen, but not the local resteraunt. It is about Microsoft trying to steal something from AOL, that AOL doesn't choose to give.
If I was a motherboard manufacturer and Intel told me that there would be a difficulty in getting the product in the next fews months, what would that make me do?
I think I would be looking to depend more on the Athlon chipsets, where there would be no shortage.
The only way an announced shortage of Intel chipsets would get me to drop the Athlon motherboard, would be if Intel said something to me like, "Look, just between you and me, I can ensure that you'll have all the chipsets you'll need if you just won't ship your Athlon motherboards"
Actually, I had to provide a way to edit an Excel spreadsheet quickly and all I had running was a Linux box. Imagine my surprise when Gnumeric loaded and edited the spreadsheet with no problems at all. Only I then saved the spreadsheet in Gnumeric format so that the reverse was true. Now the user has to use Linux because the wimpy Office product can't read their spreadsheet.
But they don't care, they like Gnumeric. Ah, Life is good...
Microsoft's move was good because _everyone_ knows that source code is just an implementation of a data stucture. Knowing the protocol is just as good.
Yes, you are right, having a well documented protocol is just as good as source. An Open Source client can be written from the documentated protocol. Source code just makes it a little easier to reverse engineer the protocol
MS has been calling for AOL to allow just anyone to access AOL's proprietory data. Up to this time, MS refused to take the first step in doing what they were bullying AOL to do. Now that they've opened their protocol, it will be very interesting to see how they take to other services using their data.
The situation with MS and AOL would be akin to me needing a mailing list and just going to a company that sells mailing lists and "helping" myself, calling for all mailing lists to be free and open, while denying access to the mailing lists that I owned.
Congrats to Microsoft for supporting open IM standards. AOL are the jerks here by trying to make internet messaging a proprietary market
And where did you get that fine bit of information?
First of all, this is the first time Microsoft so far has shown *any* interest in Open IM Standards. When you want Open Standards, you should be the first to embrace your own words, not a sobbing "You go first, and maybe I'll follow".
Second, from the article mentioned in this very story
An AOL spokesperson said this morning that the company is working with IETF to carve out an instant messaging standard. "We have been clear about our support for interoperability in instant messaging, and we believe the IETF is the way to get there," she said.
That doesn't should like AOL is trying to make internet messaging a proprietary market, now does it?
It was also quoted
But she would not say whether AOL would allow MSN Messenger users to communicate with its messaging service if such a standard were developed.
Again, that has nothing to do with whether AOL will support a standard Instant Messaging protocol, only that they won't allow the theft of not only their resources, but also the information/data that belongs to them
If I have a research company, the fact that there is a standard protocol for publishing findings, does not mean that I *must* publish all my findings. IOW, it is not right for a competitor to demand that I make public all my findings just because they can then use it in their research, instead of "duplicating" work.
The interesting thing will be to watch and see if Microsoft allows AOL IM users to communicate with its messaging service. With all the fuss they've made so far over the whole thing I certainly hope they will do what they've been bullying AOL into doing. But I think we may see some blocking going on with Microsoft too.
-Brent http://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
Now maybe the GAIM people will add this to their client and we'll be able to talk to MSNers as well as AOLers... C'mon, it's the little victories that make it all worthwhile.
Yep, that's the important thing. Now that MS has finally "allowed" what they have been trying to bully AOL into doing, I say it's time to extend our clients to talk to MSN clients. In fact, AOL should do it to now that MS is allowing it. I'd love to have a checkbox that says "I've got friends on MSN". Then see what MS does. If they are really serious about open standards, they'd accept that, after all, now MSN users can chat with AOL users. However, what do you think are the chances that MS would block clients from all "non-partnering" services?
We'll have to see
-Brent http://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim/ - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
In short, why buy support from RedHat when LinuxCare probably has cheaper support?
Perhaps Name Brand Awareness??
Seriously, we don't know what Red Hat will focus on in the future, whether they'll focus highly on support, or service, or something else. But that's the Linux business model. You can have a brand name without a "product" to sell.
To put it in other way, there is a local computer consulting company that doesn't have a product of their own to sell, but is still in business. The only difference between reselling Windows, and reselling Linux, as I see it, is that Microsoft doesn't allow you to rebrand their products.
...whether you can use someone elses resources *without* their permission. Say for instance that a silk-screening shop created some really cool software to automate their shop. They decide to make it GPL.
Now, does that mean that I can use the software in my shop? Yep, I'd guess so. But does it mean that I can just walk in to their shop and start a batch of shirt's to sell in my retail store? What? No? Why not? Their software is open source, isn't it? But does that mean that they'll refuse to let the local LUG use their shop to print shirts for their members? Maybe they won't have a problem "donating" a few shirts. Does that have anything to do with open source though? Does that give me the right to freely go in their and print shirts for my retail store because the LUG can? Well, what's the difference, huh? I mean, how could anyone be so inconsistant. Shame on them...
It's the same with AOL. Sure they can make their protocol open source. Yep, they can even let others come in and use their servers. But that doen't obligate them to let everyone freely help themselves to others resources.
MS can use the AIM protocol for all AOL cares, I bet. But on their *own* servers, not AOL's. Otherwise, MS can get off their behinds and start negotiating a contract with AOL to use AOL's servers to host their Instant Messaging service.
In time we'll have a multi-vendor IM protocol that allows a bunch of servers to interopolate, just like e-mail does now. When that happens, AOL has indicted that they will support it. But until then, MS needs to pay up...
Otherwise, I can't wait until the local video rental store starts using open source software to run the store. Free Video rental, anyone?
Yeah, out of ram is not the machine. How come you defend anything non-MS, but if MS has the exact same thing it's bad. Selective hatred huh?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that running out of ram is not a problem with Linux. I think that there is something that most people are missing in this whole thing.
Computers, by their nature, are unstable. There are just to many variables involved to have a computer with no problems. So I am not surprised when computers crash and stuff. That's just something that has to be dealt with. The solution is to reduce the crashes to a minimum.
You can't say, well, neether OS is any good because they both crashed. You have to look at the overall status of how the OS works. LinuxPPC went about a whole week before crashing. W2K went for how many hours? If I am going to set up a web server I will not look at them both and say, "Well, they both crashed, I guess I'll not use either." Instead I'll be using the one that has the most uptime. That's what counts. It not as important as how many times it crashes, but how long it's up. And that's why I advocate Linux, even when it crashes occasionally.
Yeah, out of ram is not the machine. How come you defend anything non-MS, but if MS has the exact same thing it's bad. Selective hatred huh?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that running out of ram is not a problem. I think that there is something that most people are missing in this whole thing.
Computers, by their nature, are unstable. There are just to many variables involved to have a computer with no problems. So I am not surprised when computers crash and stuff. That's just something that has to be dealt with. The solution is to reduce the crashes to a minimum.
You can't say, well, neether OS is any good because they both crashed. You have to look at the overall status of how the OS works. LinuxPPC went about a whole week before crashing. W2K went for how many hours? If I am going to set up a web server I will not look at them both and say, "Well, they both crashed, I guess I'll not use either." Instead I'll be using the one that has the most uptime. That's what counts. It not as important as how many times it crashes, but how long it's up. And that's why I advocate Linux, even when it crashes occasionally.
Sure, we heard this before. "Watch out because the BeOS IPO failed miserably. Yep, if you're not Microsoft the IPO is going to bomb. BeOS is the ultimate proof". Well, after the IPO, what do we have? More of the same. From a quote on the ZDNET story. But before anyone gets too excite about the IPO, keep in mind that Be Inc. (Nasdaq: BEOS), which also offers an alternative operating system, was practically laughed off the Street on July 21 when it went public.
So what in the world is that? Well, okay, the first day went good but you're still not Microsoft so you are doomed? Come on, it was successful. Say so and move on. Don't blabber about your little nephew Horace's IPO and say that that proves anything.
Somewhere I saw a chronological collection of Jesse Berst quotes about Linux - it was pretty funny to see him twist in the wind as Linux gained in popularity and he had to change his tune. Anyone know where that list is?
Try this http://www.lwn.net/1999/features/1998 timeline. It is funny to see Jesse contradict himself even just weeks apart. Of course, Jesse isn't a "technical" writer, it's just his job to say something that is "popular" at the time.
Either this or force ISPs to support non-Windoze OSes (how?). Want it or not, I am now realizing that some form of regulation is necessary to force ISPs to support non-M$ machines... This and finding a way to stop M$ from investing in ISPs. Imagine that: having to force ISPs to return to the "on the internet, no one knows you are using a [insert non-windoze platform here]" days, imposing regulations to bring back platform-neutrality to the 'net!
Well, I think that's an easy answer. Microsoft just *forced* ISP's to buy alternative OS's. As in Microsoft saying "We are going to drive you out of business".
Think Pepsi. When they decided to get into the restaurant business, did that improve their contracts with competing businesses? What, it didn't? Why not? Why did they say, "Cool, Pepsi sells pizza, I'll sign a contract with them to sell Pepsi with my pizza." No, they probably thought, "Why would I want to depend on a company that's going to try to compete with me?"
Think of it another way. You have a company that sells to contractors. Home Depot. They then decide to go into the contracting business themselves. Now why would the contractor go to Home Depot when they know that Home Depot competes against them. That job they just lost probably was Home Depots. They'll go to another hardware company.
The first rule of thumb any MBA learns is "Never compete with your customers. There's no quicker way to lose good clients to the compeitition.
When an ISP now needs to upgrade their servers, do you think they are goig to be interested in Microsoft products anymore? Not on their life. Why buy from a company who's intent is to make them unprofitable? There are many better choices out there, and they keep looking better and better, too.
Ah, here we sit trying to compete against the 6 ton sloth, when the 6 ton sloth's greatest enemy is... itself. We want have to do anything to combat Microsoft deceptive marketing, they're handling that just fins.
I love the idea, but I think you'd have a hard time finding anybody to host such a beast. Besides supporting what would probably be a huge amount of traffic - and some pretty funky looking packets, you've also got to consider what kind of collateral damage it could cause. Somebody mentioned that the MS test box has had it's DNS servers taken down already...
M$ = $$$ (for more staff & admins) 2 staff/admins per mainframe 3 staff/admins per NT server + good technical support contract;) Yes but those 3 staff are much cheaper since NT is so easy that anyone can admin it.*** *** Not my own view, but it seems to be a prevalant view among some PHBs. MS themselves seem guilty of pushing this notion in some form.
Yep, it's amazing how many times Microsoft points this out in their white papers. System administration is cheaper on NT then Unix. Yeah right, simply because "system administration" on NT is limited to rebooting BSOD'ed machines and calling the tech support line when anything else goes wrong. At the same time they are telling people that they'll be rich and famous if they get MCSE certified. So which lie do you believe? Either a good administor will cost the same amount to keep the either systems running, or the system admin will be certified and paid next to nothing because Microsoft told the PHB's that systems admins came cheap on NT platforms. I chose to believe the whitepapers. NT Administrators aren't paid as much as Unix administrators.
A sysadmin at, ahem, a "large jeans manufacturer" was put in charge of Exchange on hundreds of NT servers. He dutifully logged and reported dozens of bugs, system outages, etc., to MS support, as the thing crashed and burned like the Hindenburg II. After a few months of this, Microsoft decided to act on the problems. The solution was simple: they sent a letter to his boss saying he was a troublemaker.
IOW, It was the users fault that he had those problems. That's typical of Microsoft. When all goes well, they are plenty ready to take credit. However, when there are problems, you are able to automatically create large number of addresses, The servers don't stay up, it doesn't scale, and so on, then it becomes the users fault. The user doesn't have enough training, no experience, they aren't certified, or some or "reason".
It would be interesting to compile a repository of problems that Microsoft "alledges" are the users fault. I know that a few examples have been posted on/. in the past
That's the benefit of Open Source. If we give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and say that it is the users fault that "bugs" and missing features exist, how does that help the user? Does that gets the e-mail accounts created? Does it get the bugs fixed? Does it keep the e-mail servers running? Open source means that even if it is the users fault, they have the resources to correct the problem. The can fix it in-house, the can hire a consultant, they can buy a support contract from one of the many open source support companies, they can even check the resources available on the internet, if support from the company that "developed" the product isn't able to help them. With Microsoft what have you got? If it's more complicated then "rebuilding" or replacing "corrupt" DLL's, I'm afraid that the "support" you get from Microsoft is that "nasty letter to your boss" ie, it's your own fault
It is this very reason why I wouldn't use a proprietory solution over an open-source solution. Especially with 25,000 users. You have to ask the question "Who is going to support me?" You know quite well that it isn't Microsoft. And an environment that large is going to require support no matter how rock-solid the platform is.
But if you really look at it, then what you're saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to use open-source/linux/whatever clients with AIM or ICQ as well. Granted, it is AOL's right to decide who can use their stuff, but they should at least be consistant about it.
Okay they are consistant:
gaim: yes
Microsoft: no
:-)
But let's think about the real issue here. They are willing for Open Source clients to be developed to work with their *servers* allowing a greater ability of diverse people to use the service.
But let's not be foolish here. Instant Messaging is a very important communications tool. To who? Consumers. Microsoft, as always, is late to the market. They need to crush AOL's instant messaging just like they "crushed" Netscape and Java.
Now how difficult do you think that it'd be for Microsoft to develop their own instant messaging protocol and bundle clients with Windows and Hotmail? So how I can't believe that that would be too difficult for Microsoft. Then why don't they do it? Soon they'd have 95% of the market running MIM instead of AIM because Windows runs everywhere and AOL would have near 0 users because MIM runs everywhere and no one needs 2 IM services.
Why then would Microsoft use AOL? Tricky Microsoft. Having their own IM Service means servers, administrators, money, money, money. By "using" AOL's protocol they soon have 95% of the market anyways, without the "costs" running their own backend. Yes! Microsoft strongest competitor's paying to run Microsoft's Instant Messaging service. What could be better? Advertising Heaven Baby!
So what's AOL going to do? If they let Microsoft get away with this, they no longer have an advertising base. They will than shut the service down. Microsoft Scores Again! They just destroyed their biggest competitor. But how will this leave Microsoft's instant messaging service? I would not be surprised if they had a second "proprietary" protocol (new and improved!) embedded in the client so that is soon as AOL was out of they could flip switch on their servers and everything would be just perfect.
How does an Open Instant Messaging Standard fit in with Microsoft "plans." Ah, just like web browsing they'll make sure that their client is alway "better" then everyone else's. Through bundling they are guaranteed the greatest marketshare. No one else will be able to "compete" with Microsoft, and Microsoft wil be guaranteed dollars, Dollars, DOLLARS!
Nope, sorry, Microsoft isn't dumb. They know when to use "open standards," their power to "innovate", and shrewd "marketing/bundling" to not only destroy competition, but to guarantee that they will be *the* "market leaders".
Hands up anyone who doubted it? Let's face it, there was never any doubt about this one; if it was anyone but MS who was wronged there'd have been howls of outrage by now. But it takes someone like ESR to point out the obvious before we listen.
Sorry, I must admit that I doubted it. Microsoft has never, ever, supported "open standards," except of course when it allows them to strangle them. Think of Java. Do we need to go through that again with Instant Messaging? Do we need to have a more "compatible" AIM client than AIM?
How about standards for Microsoft? I think it would be much more beneficial for Microsoft to form an "industry" standard for it's Office products that all applications can read and write to. That seems of much more benefit than a little IM protocol.
But I agree with ESR here. This is a new world order. Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new. AOL is doing what they need to do to "compete" and be able to continue to "innovate." However, they need to look away from the past, and look toward the future. It is not anti-competitive behaviour that allows you to compete anymore, it is open-source.
Yes, we need Open Messaging Standards. But we can't just say "Yes, this is a good thing, and then leave it be," we will need to get out there and protect our investment in Open Messaging Standards. When Microsoft tries to break it, we need to stand together against them.
ESR is right. We need Open Messaging Standards. But Microsoft *isn't* going to keep it "open." AOL needs to leave it open but let the Open Source community protect their investment
People have excepted something cool and *new* from Amiga and Linux is not new - you may say anything Un*x based is in fact ~20 years old.
... so here I am looking for that bright, shiny new car. I head over to the FORD dealership. I look at their cars, kick the tires, and even take a few for a test spin. Then I start thinking. I become rational. Henry Ford built the first car in 1919. Oh My, I can't buy a FORD. Who in the world would ever buy a car based on 80 year old ideas? I sure don't want to drive around in a patched up - rebuilt Model T. So I leave. I look for a automobile compney that started in the 90's. They are the one's that'll have real cars. But where to find...
Seems to me that Ballmer wouldn't say this if it were not for the current situation with the fine folks over at the DoJ. I just dont see it as Microsoft's style to purposely point that stuff out on their own...
Well, I agree with you there. They wrote up a big whitepaper and posted it on their NT Server site saying the usual stuff. Yada, yada, It's free, there's no "insurance" if it fails, you can't pay anyone to hold your hand, it was written by a bunch of bum who just have to much time on their hands, it'll make hair grow out of your nose, it'll date your girl friend, it'll send nasty e-mails to your dog. Now Steve Ballmer decides, "Whoa, This is a really good product. Omigod! It's actually a legitimate competitor to NT" What next? A recanting of the whitepaper? Is Steve Ballmer becoming senile. Is it time for Microsoft to give him a few million and tell him to enjoy life?
This reminds me of when Paul Maritz said, under oath that Abi Source was developing a very high-quality word processor. But do you think that's what they are going to be telling consumers? Tommorrow, they'll have another "bogus" Mindcraft test, just to make sure that everyone who is "important" understands what they *really* think of competition.
Sure, they can fool financial analysts, and they *think* they can fool Judges. They can even coerce OEM's to only preload their OS. They can deceptively market to consumer who "trusts" them. But they can only do it for so long.
Because, you can't lie forever. Eventually, you make that one wrong move. Microsoft has chosen their bed. Now they will lie in it.
Did you look at the source for their 'look up a domain' page? It points to a local perl script. How much do you want to bet that they log every looked up domain name, and register the available ones before the person who used the tool has a chance? Sheesh. Bloodsuckers.
Whew, they almost had me. I would have hated to have my top-secret grabbed by them because I "checked" to see if it was there. Fortunately, it looks like they are out of commission at the moment. I got this error when trying to search for Microsoft.com:
File Not Found
The requested URL/cgi-bin/library/whois/whois.pl was not found on this server.
One thing I have noticed is that people will complain that it's a pain to have to choose a different file format rather than just hitting save.
Doesn't that prove that Microsoft has a monopoly in the market? Why should I have to buy something just to corraborate with another human being? Isn't that similar to having to buy a certain model phone, just to receive a call from a friend?:-)
The world needs to work together, and Microsoft wants it to happen by cramming their product down everyone's thoughts.
The author was right. In fact, that's what I've been telling all my friends for the last year. Okay, so the productivety market started out relatively level, but as one company became more used then others, soon the inevitable happened. A virtual snowball affect. And soon the other products became slightly less important.
I am an open-source advocate. But Open Source isn't really the answer here. Neither is the proverbial "standard" file formats that everyone's going to be required to use. Instead of Open Source, we need Open Format. Microsoft can and should innovate with their products. But they must be require to publish their file formats so that the market is not locked up.
The analogy to VHS I think was perfect. I am not required to buy a certain VCR to play 85% of my videos, and 2 others for the rest of the videos. Each manufacturer can compete, not on format, but on features and quality.
Require Microsoft to do the same. Let's have one file format. Microsoft can innovate, they'll always set the standard. But let them compete on quality and features, and not on market locking.
If Microsoft were required to open their file formats, in a utopian world you'd expect them to end up with about 1/5 of the market. If they have more, good for them. But at least it wouldn't be because I had to buy Windows and Office 2000 to read a memo from a vendor.
I think it would be incredable to find a good book on the history of innovations and stuff that I missed out on while growing up and being blissfully unaware of the computer world. Anyone have any suggestions?
I don't think that anyone should be allowed a place in the hacker community without reading Hackers; Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Stephen Levy. It is an absolutely stellular novel on the history of the early hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
-Brent
- Low end: $20/hour * 2 sysadmins * 8 hours * 3 days = $960
The $100/hour includes benefits, employer's taxes, and other things which don't show in a wage. This assumes only 2 sysadmins (plural was used by original poster) and does not include other losses, such as recovery of damaged documents and employee time lost while machines being cleaned.More realistic minimum: $100/hour * 2 sysadmins * 8 hours * 3 days = $4800
Okay, so it did "cost" something to clean up Melissa. But in this case we have someone to blame. What about when the Exchange Server "just" fails and it takes 2 weeks to get it running again. Is that a felony? Car manufacturers are held liable when a defect, for instance, causing the gas tank to blow up. Not that I'm saying that car manufacturers *shouldn't* be held liable, but why not software manufacturers when their products fail for "reasonable" causes?
I don't think Smith intended to shut down the whole world with his virus. In fact I don't think he intended to cause any damage at all. No payload, remember? He was like a driver on the freeway, who, of no fault of his own smashed into another car, where upon the "gas tank" blew up.
Just as a car manufacturer is liable even though the buyer had a reasonable ability to not buy the car, even though they made their bed and slept in it, I think that software manufacturers should be held to the same standard. Software monopoly aside, I understand that Microsoft stated in the license agreement that the software shouldn't be used in "mission critical" environments and therefore shouldn't be held liable. However, Smith didn't guarantee that his program was free of "defects" either, and the user *did* have to accept his program, just as they had to accept Word 97.
In this case, I think we should find Smith not-guilty for anything more then we'd find a virus writer guilty that didn't affect any PC's. However, I think that we should hold Microsoft liable in this case for producing a product that had a known possible defect. Office97 should be "recalled" and Microsoft should be found guilty to the fullest extent of the law.
Just as it wasn't the buyer of the defect car, nor the driver of the other car, but the manufacturer that is liable for gross negligence, in the same way it should not be the buyer of the product, or the virus writer, but the manufacturer of the software that should be liable for gross negligence in developing the product
-BrentWe don't know that it's a bug yet. We don't know how much MS paid this company to say it's a bug. Mindcraft anyone? As others have mentioned here, all we know is that AOL is sending a longer string then was technically published. Is this a problem? We don't know, it most likely isn't.
No. That would mean I would be receiving for free, what everyone else has to pay for. As soon as AIM, and GAIM, and TiK (if it still works) cost me a monthly fee, then a company who was allowing me access to that for free (while everyone else paid) would be in the wrong.AIM is not free. It does cost money to run the service you know. However, instead of charging you, they use advertising to offset the expenses. When the MSN client provides access to the service, AOL loses it's ability to pay for the service.
I didn't say Microsoft. This *isn't* about Microsoft (and I'm curious why everyone thinks it is.. who of you bashed Gaim?), its about a company trying to do for free, what others can do for free (unless the people who developed Gaim are partnered with AOL..?)Any company has the right to work with anyone they want. If AOL wants to give certain groups the ability to use their service and not give other companies the same ability, that is their choice and right. Local companies in this area do it all the time. For instance, a bakery might provide free products to the local soup kitchen, but not the local resteraunt. It is about Microsoft trying to steal something from AOL, that AOL doesn't choose to give.
More about MS and AOL
-BrentIf I was a motherboard manufacturer and Intel told me that there would be a difficulty in getting the product in the next fews months, what would that make me do?
I think I would be looking to depend more on the Athlon chipsets, where there would be no shortage.
The only way an announced shortage of Intel chipsets would get me to drop the Athlon motherboard, would be if Intel said something to me like, "Look, just between you and me, I can ensure that you'll have all the chipsets you'll need if you just won't ship your Athlon motherboards"
Actually, I had to provide a way to edit an Excel spreadsheet quickly and all I had running was a Linux box. Imagine my surprise when Gnumeric loaded and edited the spreadsheet with no problems at all. Only I then saved the spreadsheet in Gnumeric format so that the reverse was true. Now the user has to use Linux because the wimpy Office product can't read their spreadsheet.
But they don't care, they like Gnumeric. Ah, Life is good...
-BrentYes, you are right, having a well documented protocol is just as good as source. An Open Source client can be written from the documentated protocol. Source code just makes it a little easier to reverse engineer the protocol
MS has been calling for AOL to allow just anyone to access AOL's proprietory data. Up to this time, MS refused to take the first step in doing what they were bullying AOL to do. Now that they've opened their protocol, it will be very interesting to see how they take to other services using their data.
The situation with MS and AOL would be akin to me needing a mailing list and just going to a company that sells mailing lists and "helping" myself, calling for all mailing lists to be free and open, while denying access to the mailing lists that I owned.
Congrats to Microsoft for supporting open IM standards. AOL are the jerks here by trying to make internet messaging a proprietary marketAnd where did you get that fine bit of information?
First of all, this is the first time Microsoft so far has shown *any* interest in Open IM Standards. When you want Open Standards, you should be the first to embrace your own words, not a sobbing "You go first, and maybe I'll follow".
Second, from the article mentioned in this very story
That doesn't should like AOL is trying to make internet messaging a proprietary market, now does it?It was also quoted
Again, that has nothing to do with whether AOL will support a standard Instant Messaging protocol, only that they won't allow the theft of not only their resources, but also the information/data that belongs to themIf I have a research company, the fact that there is a standard protocol for publishing findings, does not mean that I *must* publish all my findings. IOW, it is not right for a competitor to demand that I make public all my findings just because they can then use it in their research, instead of "duplicating" work.
The interesting thing will be to watch and see if Microsoft allows AOL IM users to communicate with its messaging service. With all the fuss they've made so far over the whole thing I certainly hope they will do what they've been bullying AOL into doing. But I think we may see some blocking going on with Microsoft too.
-Brenthttp://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
Yep, that's the important thing. Now that MS has finally "allowed" what they have been trying to bully AOL into doing, I say it's time to extend our clients to talk to MSN clients. In fact, AOL should do it to now that MS is allowing it. I'd love to have a checkbox that says "I've got friends on MSN". Then see what MS does. If they are really serious about open standards, they'd accept that, after all, now MSN users can chat with AOL users. However, what do you think are the chances that MS would block clients from all "non-partnering" services?
We'll have to see
-Brent
http://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim/ - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
Perhaps Name Brand Awareness??
Seriously, we don't know what Red Hat will focus on in the future, whether they'll focus highly on support, or service, or something else. But that's the Linux business model. You can have a brand name without a "product" to sell.
To put it in other way, there is a local computer consulting company that doesn't have a product of their own to sell, but is still in business. The only difference between reselling Windows, and reselling Linux, as I see it, is that Microsoft doesn't allow you to rebrand their products.
-Brent...whether you can use someone elses resources *without* their permission. Say for instance that a silk-screening shop created some really cool software to automate their shop. They decide to make it GPL.
Now, does that mean that I can use the software in my shop? Yep, I'd guess so. But does it mean that I can just walk in to their shop and start a batch of shirt's to sell in my retail store? What? No? Why not? Their software is open source, isn't it? But does that mean that they'll refuse to let the local LUG use their shop to print shirts for their members? Maybe they won't have a problem "donating" a few shirts. Does that have anything to do with open source though? Does that give me the right to freely go in their and print shirts for my retail store because the LUG can? Well, what's the difference, huh? I mean, how could anyone be so inconsistant. Shame on them...
It's the same with AOL. Sure they can make their protocol open source. Yep, they can even let others come in and use their servers. But that doen't obligate them to let everyone freely help themselves to others resources.
MS can use the AIM protocol for all AOL cares, I bet. But on their *own* servers, not AOL's. Otherwise, MS can get off their behinds and start negotiating a contract with AOL to use AOL's servers to host their Instant Messaging service.
In time we'll have a multi-vendor IM protocol that allows a bunch of servers to interopolate, just like e-mail does now. When that happens, AOL has indicted that they will support it. But until then, MS needs to pay up...
Otherwise, I can't wait until the local video rental store starts using open source software to run the store. Free Video rental, anyone?
-BrentI wouldn't go so far as to say that running out of ram is not a problem with Linux. I think that there is something that most people are missing in this whole thing.
Computers, by their nature, are unstable. There are just to many variables involved to have a computer with no problems. So I am not surprised when computers crash and stuff. That's just something that has to be dealt with. The solution is to reduce the crashes to a minimum.
You can't say, well, neether OS is any good because they both crashed. You have to look at the overall status of how the OS works. LinuxPPC went about a whole week before crashing. W2K went for how many hours? If I am going to set up a web server I will not look at them both and say, "Well, they both crashed, I guess I'll not use either." Instead I'll be using the one that has the most uptime. That's what counts. It not as important as how many times it crashes, but how long it's up. And that's why I advocate Linux, even when it crashes occasionally.
-BrentI wouldn't go so far as to say that running out of ram is not a problem. I think that there is something that most people are missing in this whole thing.
Computers, by their nature, are unstable. There are just to many variables involved to have a computer with no problems. So I am not surprised when computers crash and stuff. That's just something that has to be dealt with. The solution is to reduce the crashes to a minimum.
You can't say, well, neether OS is any good because they both crashed. You have to look at the overall status of how the OS works. LinuxPPC went about a whole week before crashing. W2K went for how many hours? If I am going to set up a web server I will not look at them both and say, "Well, they both crashed, I guess I'll not use either." Instead I'll be using the one that has the most uptime. That's what counts. It not as important as how many times it crashes, but how long it's up. And that's why I advocate Linux, even when it crashes occasionally.
-BrentSo what in the world is that? Well, okay, the first day went good but you're still not Microsoft so you are doomed? Come on, it was successful. Say so and move on. Don't blabber about your little nephew Horace's IPO and say that that proves anything.
-Brent
Try this http://www.lwn.net/1999/features/1998 timeline. It is funny to see Jesse contradict himself even just weeks apart. Of course, Jesse isn't a "technical" writer, it's just his job to say something that is "popular" at the time.
-BrentWant it or not, I am now realizing that some form of regulation is necessary to force ISPs to support non-M$ machines... This and finding a way to stop M$ from investing in ISPs. Imagine that: having to force ISPs to return to the "on the internet, no one knows you are using a [insert non-windoze platform here]" days, imposing regulations to bring back platform-neutrality to the 'net!
Well, I think that's an easy answer. Microsoft just *forced* ISP's to buy alternative OS's. As in Microsoft saying "We are going to drive you out of business".
Think Pepsi. When they decided to get into the restaurant business, did that improve their contracts with competing businesses? What, it didn't? Why not? Why did they say, "Cool, Pepsi sells pizza, I'll sign a contract with them to sell Pepsi with my pizza." No, they probably thought, "Why would I want to depend on a company that's going to try to compete with me?"
Think of it another way. You have a company that sells to contractors. Home Depot. They then decide to go into the contracting business themselves. Now why would the contractor go to Home Depot when they know that Home Depot competes against them. That job they just lost probably was Home Depots. They'll go to another hardware company.
The first rule of thumb any MBA learns is "Never compete with your customers. There's no quicker way to lose good clients to the compeitition.
When an ISP now needs to upgrade their servers, do you think they are goig to be interested in Microsoft products anymore? Not on their life. Why buy from a company who's intent is to make them unprofitable? There are many better choices out there, and they keep looking better and better, too.
Ah, here we sit trying to compete against the 6 ton sloth, when the 6 ton sloth's greatest enemy is ... itself. We want have to do anything to combat Microsoft deceptive marketing, they're handling that just fins.
-BrentNope, you're wrong. Someone has already hosted many servers just for the intent to be hacked. Check out http://www.happyhacker.org/hwargame.html . Yep, a real life hack that box challenge that never goes away.
-Brent2 staff/admins per mainframe
3 staff/admins per NT server + good technical support contract
Yes but those 3 staff are much cheaper since NT is so easy that anyone can admin it.***
*** Not my own view, but it seems to be a prevalant view among some PHBs. MS themselves seem guilty of pushing this notion in some form.
Yep, it's amazing how many times Microsoft points this out in their white papers. System administration is cheaper on NT then Unix. Yeah right, simply because "system administration" on NT is limited to rebooting BSOD'ed machines and calling the tech support line when anything else goes wrong. At the same time they are telling people that they'll be rich and famous if they get MCSE certified. So which lie do you believe? Either a good administor will cost the same amount to keep the either systems running, or the system admin will be certified and paid next to nothing because Microsoft told the PHB's that systems admins came cheap on NT platforms. I chose to believe the whitepapers. NT Administrators aren't paid as much as Unix administrators.
I hope Bill's happy
-Brent... but what was the quote?
Microsoft paid me three cents for accepting Encarta '99. It was priced $24.97 and it had a $25 rebate coupon inside the box.... and you paid the post office $0.33 cents to mail the rebate back
-BrentIOW, It was the users fault that he had those problems. That's typical of Microsoft. When all goes well, they are plenty ready to take credit. However, when there are problems, you are able to automatically create large number of addresses, The servers don't stay up, it doesn't scale, and so on, then it becomes the users fault. The user doesn't have enough training, no experience, they aren't certified, or some or "reason".
It would be interesting to compile a repository of problems that Microsoft "alledges" are the users fault. I know that a few examples have been posted on /. in the past
That's the benefit of Open Source. If we give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and say that it is the users fault that "bugs" and missing features exist, how does that help the user? Does that gets the e-mail accounts created? Does it get the bugs fixed? Does it keep the e-mail servers running? Open source means that even if it is the users fault, they have the resources to correct the problem. The can fix it in-house, the can hire a consultant, they can buy a support contract from one of the many open source support companies, they can even check the resources available on the internet, if support from the company that "developed" the product isn't able to help them. With Microsoft what have you got? If it's more complicated then "rebuilding" or replacing "corrupt" DLL's, I'm afraid that the "support" you get from Microsoft is that "nasty letter to your boss" ie, it's your own fault
It is this very reason why I wouldn't use a proprietory solution over an open-source solution. Especially with 25,000 users. You have to ask the question "Who is going to support me?" You know quite well that it isn't Microsoft. And an environment that large is going to require support no matter how rock-solid the platform is.
-Brent.Okay they are consistant:
But let's think about the real issue here. They are willing for Open Source clients to be developed to work with their *servers* allowing a greater ability of diverse people to use the service.
But let's not be foolish here. Instant Messaging is a very important communications tool. To who? Consumers. Microsoft, as always, is late to the market. They need to crush AOL's instant messaging just like they "crushed" Netscape and Java.
Now how difficult do you think that it'd be for Microsoft to develop their own instant messaging protocol and bundle clients with Windows and Hotmail? So how I can't believe that that would be too difficult for Microsoft. Then why don't they do it? Soon they'd have 95% of the market running MIM instead of AIM because Windows runs everywhere and AOL would have near 0 users because MIM runs everywhere and no one needs 2 IM services.
Why then would Microsoft use AOL? Tricky Microsoft. Having their own IM Service means servers, administrators, money, money, money. By "using" AOL's protocol they soon have 95% of the market anyways, without the "costs" running their own backend. Yes! Microsoft strongest competitor's paying to run Microsoft's Instant Messaging service. What could be better? Advertising Heaven Baby!
So what's AOL going to do? If they let Microsoft get away with this, they no longer have an advertising base. They will than shut the service down. Microsoft Scores Again! They just destroyed their biggest competitor. But how will this leave Microsoft's instant messaging service? I would not be surprised if they had a second "proprietary" protocol (new and improved!) embedded in the client so that is soon as AOL was out of they could flip switch on their servers and everything would be just perfect.
How does an Open Instant Messaging Standard fit in with Microsoft "plans." Ah, just like web browsing they'll make sure that their client is alway "better" then everyone else's. Through bundling they are guaranteed the greatest marketshare. No one else will be able to "compete" with Microsoft, and Microsoft wil be guaranteed dollars, Dollars, DOLLARS!
Nope, sorry, Microsoft isn't dumb. They know when to use "open standards," their power to "innovate", and shrewd "marketing/bundling" to not only destroy competition, but to guarantee that they will be *the* "market leaders".
-BrentSorry, I must admit that I doubted it. Microsoft has never, ever, supported "open standards," except of course when it allows them to strangle them. Think of Java. Do we need to go through that again with Instant Messaging? Do we need to have a more "compatible" AIM client than AIM?
How about standards for Microsoft? I think it would be much more beneficial for Microsoft to form an "industry" standard for it's Office products that all applications can read and write to. That seems of much more benefit than a little IM protocol.
But I agree with ESR here. This is a new world order. Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new. AOL is doing what they need to do to "compete" and be able to continue to "innovate." However, they need to look away from the past, and look toward the future. It is not anti-competitive behaviour that allows you to compete anymore, it is open-source.
Yes, we need Open Messaging Standards. But we can't just say "Yes, this is a good thing, and then leave it be," we will need to get out there and protect our investment in Open Messaging Standards. When Microsoft tries to break it, we need to stand together against them.
ESR is right. We need Open Messaging Standards. But Microsoft *isn't* going to keep it "open." AOL needs to leave it open but let the Open Source community protect their investment
-Brent... so here I am looking for that bright, shiny new car. I head over to the FORD dealership. I look at their cars, kick the tires, and even take a few for a test spin. Then I start thinking. I become rational. Henry Ford built the first car in 1919. Oh My, I can't buy a FORD. Who in the world would ever buy a car based on 80 year old ideas? I sure don't want to drive around in a patched up - rebuilt Model T. So I leave. I look for a automobile compney that started in the 90's. They are the one's that'll have real cars. But where to find ...
Well, I agree with you there. They wrote up a big whitepaper and posted it on their NT Server site saying the usual stuff. Yada, yada, It's free, there's no "insurance" if it fails, you can't pay anyone to hold your hand, it was written by a bunch of bum who just have to much time on their hands, it'll make hair grow out of your nose, it'll date your girl friend, it'll send nasty e-mails to your dog. Now Steve Ballmer decides, "Whoa, This is a really good product. Omigod! It's actually a legitimate competitor to NT" What next? A recanting of the whitepaper? Is Steve Ballmer becoming senile. Is it time for Microsoft to give him a few million and tell him to enjoy life?
This reminds me of when Paul Maritz said, under oath that Abi Source was developing a very high-quality word processor. But do you think that's what they are going to be telling consumers? Tommorrow, they'll have another "bogus" Mindcraft test, just to make sure that everyone who is "important" understands what they *really* think of competition.
Sure, they can fool financial analysts, and they *think* they can fool Judges. They can even coerce OEM's to only preload their OS. They can deceptively market to consumer who "trusts" them. But they can only do it for so long.
Because, you can't lie forever. Eventually, you make that one wrong move. Microsoft has chosen their bed. Now they will lie in it.
-BrentWhew, they almost had me. I would have hated to have my top-secret grabbed by them because I "checked" to see if it was there. Fortunately, it looks like they are out of commission at the moment. I got this error when trying to search for Microsoft.com:
-BrentDoesn't that prove that Microsoft has a monopoly in the market? Why should I have to buy something just to corraborate with another human being? Isn't that similar to having to buy a certain model phone, just to receive a call from a friend? :-)
The world needs to work together, and Microsoft wants it to happen by cramming their product down everyone's thoughts.
The author was right. In fact, that's what I've been telling all my friends for the last year. Okay, so the productivety market started out relatively level, but as one company became more used then others, soon the inevitable happened. A virtual snowball affect. And soon the other products became slightly less important.
I am an open-source advocate. But Open Source isn't really the answer here. Neither is the proverbial "standard" file formats that everyone's going to be required to use. Instead of Open Source, we need Open Format. Microsoft can and should innovate with their products. But they must be require to publish their file formats so that the market is not locked up.
The analogy to VHS I think was perfect. I am not required to buy a certain VCR to play 85% of my videos, and 2 others for the rest of the videos. Each manufacturer can compete, not on format, but on features and quality.
Require Microsoft to do the same. Let's have one file format. Microsoft can innovate, they'll always set the standard. But let them compete on quality and features, and not on market locking.
If Microsoft were required to open their file formats, in a utopian world you'd expect them to end up with about 1/5 of the market. If they have more, good for them. But at least it wouldn't be because I had to buy Windows and Office 2000 to read a memo from a vendor.
-BrentI don't think that anyone should be allowed a place in the hacker community without reading Hackers; Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Stephen Levy. It is an absolutely stellular novel on the history of the early hackers.
Here is another review of the book.
-Brent
PS: Amazon's URL can't be copied and pasted, so if it doesn't work, use the Amazon search