To enable alternative server software to interoperate in the prevailing Windows PC and server environment, technical interface information must be known. Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone. The Commission believes that Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to 'talk' with Microsoft's dominant PC and server software products. Microsoft may have done this through a combination of refusing to reveal the relevant technical information, and by engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.
The Microsoft license conditions for the documentation of CIFS is precisely ``engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.''..
As for one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing, how could the management of Microsoft's "server section" not know?
Microsoft's SFU is targeted at the market currently using Unix, BSD and Linux. Practically all of the competition in that market
use SAMBA to provide an interoperating SMB server( including the other Unix vendors not listed there ). How could Microsoft's Marketing and Management teams not be fully aware of what the competition is using?
The question makes more sense if you check out the last link to the slashdot article on
Microsoft's CIFS and SAMBA.
Even so...
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from bundling GPL licensed
software on it's CDroms, as long as they provide the end customers
with a copy of the particular modified source under the same GPL
license.
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from linking LGPL licensed
software in their own software, as long as they provide the end
customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the
same LGPL license. ( You might want to check out what LGPL
licensed libraries come with Interix )
Aparently neither of the above restrictions prevent Microsoft
from including such licensed code in their Interix and SFU 3.0
products, for which Microsoft charges a fee. This runs entirely
counter to most of the arguments presented by Microsoft against GPL
and LGPL licensing.
If the GPL was such an Intellectual Property Destroyer then how is Microsoft able to
bundle it in with SFU 3.0 and charge for the result?
But far more important is how much Microsoft is the hypocrite on GPL License.
If Microsoft can use, distribute and sell products containing GPL
and LGPL licensed code for the specific purpose of
"interoperating" with Unix AND Linux, EXACTLY what gives Microsoft
the moral right to prevent anybody else using GPL or LGPL source
code for the purpose of Unix, BSD and Linux "interoperating" with
Microsoft's own products?
The tactics used by Microsoft and the Business Software Association (BSA) in the name of the fight against software piracy directly hurt the consumer, Microsoft's competitors and even society in general.
Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its dominant position in the marketplace to the detriment of its competitors and the consumer.
The Business Software Assocation (BSA), quoting from its webpage, was formed to act... http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/about.phtml + As the "voice" of the software industry, we help governments and +consumers understand how software strengthens the economy, worker +productivity and global development; and how its further expansion +hinges on the successful fight against software piracy and +Internet theft.
The BSA includes a few large software and computer companies in its offical memberships. http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/membercom panies.phtml + BSA worldwide members include Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley +Systems, Borland, CNC Software/Mastercam, Macromedia, Microsoft, +Symantec, and Unigraphic Solutions. Additional members of BSA's +Policy Council include Compaq, Dell, Entrust, IBM, Intel, Intuit, +Network Associates, Novell, and Sybase.
Both the BSA and Microsoft are also actively running a worldwide campaign to fight software piracy. It is some of the tactics used in this campaign and the relationship between Microsoft and the BSA management which is being used by Microsoft to reinforce its monopoly. This is hurting the rest of the computer industry including some of the same companies in the BSA membership.
Other tactics, including the targeting ex-employees for informants and the offering of bounties to informants is directly harmful to the employer-employee relationship and society in general.
You or your employer may have received an email or letter from Microsoft or the BSA, or outside of NZ you may have heard the BSA's radio adverts. It's also likely that either of the above may have raised a little concern, even from the most lawful of people. The BSA can even get a court order, sometimes based on the accusation of an individual and with the help of federal marshals enter your home or place of work to gather evidence. The BSA can collects fees of up to $150,000US for every unregistered software program installed on an organizations computers. What if some unlicensed software is installed on the owners computer without their knowledge?
It is not that Microsoft or any other company should not have the right to protect its copyrighted products from "piracy". However the tactics used must also not be abused by Microsoft or the BSA to the detriment of the consumer or society.
There will be those arguing in the BSA's and Microsoft's favor who will try to paint this solely as a pure black and white issue - guilty or not guilty of software piracy and theft. BUT, by the same reasoning Microsoft's own executives should also face imprisonment for breaching the Sherman Antitrust Act.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2 .h tm +SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-7 + + 1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 + +Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty + +Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or +conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several +States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every +person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or +conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of +a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine +not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other +person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or +by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
The "discretion of the court" would take into consideration the issue of intent on the part of Microsoft's management. In the same way should the BSA, Microsoft and the courts take the issue of intent into consideration when dealing with some particular cases of software "piracy".
Tracking licenses is difficult and even if it does its best, any organization cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct all the time. Computers are moved, repaired, upgraded, replaced and even cannibalized into other computers. It is not made any easier with one of the requirements of the BSA audits being that, along with valid licenses, you mustpresent purchase documentation to prove ownership. Presenting enough valid licenses to cover all of the copies installed on the computers in the organization used should be sufficient. Although maintaining purchase documentation is necessary for tax purposes, matching documentation to each computer is difficult and time consuming. Should the BSA have the same powers as the IRS?
The larger and more diverse the organization, the more difficult, time consuming and expensive it can be to perform a full audit of the software running on all computers. So when presented with the options of:- a) Undergoing an audit from the BSA, which might turn up anything
installed without the managements knowledge; OR b) Signing up to the purchase of all new versions of software
and a special license.
The latter option is often the only choice, even when the new license, software and required computer hardware upgrades is far more expensive than the existing setup.
Many organization have already received emails and letters from Microsoft offering the exact same choice. The problem for Microsoft's customers and competitors is that the contracts often either replaces competing software vendors products or locks in the customer to Microsoft's software preventing competition.
This Mojo article shows an example of replacement of Novell's servers, a company who is also a member BSA. The article also explains why many software vendors and customers remain silent on the issue. http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF 98/burst ein.html
This Linuxworld article explains how the new contracts can lockout other vendors. "Why Austin TX is considering a Microsoft enterprise license"
+There is an insidious aspect to a citywide, multi-year plan. It +locks users into Microsoft products only. While the Enterprise +Agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of other products, +effectively it does. It's logical to assume that if you're paying +for MS Exchange for three years why allow a department to consider +an alternative. (Microsoft makes hay of this point in a +Word-formatted white paper extolling the Enterprise Agreement.)
What Microsoft or the BSA is doing would not necessarily be illegal if Microsoft was not a monopoly, but as the Antitrust division of the US Department Of Justice (DOJ) informs us...
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ipgui de . tm#t22 +As in other antitrust contexts, however, market power could be +illegally acquired or maintained, or, even if lawfully acquired +and maintained, would be relevant to the ability of an +intellectual property owner to harm competition through +unreasonable conduct in connection with such property.
Microsoft have been found in breach of the Sherman act for using similar pressure on OEMs ( Original Equipment Manufactures ), including Compaq and Dell, to select Microsoft's products over competitors.
From the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion issued June 28 ( You can grab a copy of the PDF file from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/themic rosoft trial/ ) Page 28 +In evaluating the restrictions in Microsofts agreements +licensing Windows to OEMs,we first consider whether plaintiffs +have made out a prima facie case by demonstrating that the +restrictions have an anticompetitive effect.In the next +subsection,we conclude that plaintiffs have met this burden as to +all the restrictions.We then consider Microsofts proffered +justifications for the restrictions and,for the most part,hold +those justifications insufficient....
Just as Microsoft was "levering" OEMs to stop installing competing vendors products, Microsoft is using the threat of a BSA audit to "lever" end customers into choosing Microsoft's products overcompeting vendors. Why should the end customers be subjected to the same tactics?
Worldwide, many of the governmental federal, state and local organizations that your tax dollars pay for have already been "levered" into new long term enterprise license schemes.
Any organization that have already felt pressured to sign up to the new license agreements because of such threats should be given the option at anytime during the contract period, for all or individual groups of computers, to either
a) Continue the contract until it's competition; OR b) Terminating the contract and renegotiate with Microsoft for
a new contract without threat of an audit from the BSA; OR c) Terminate the contract, removing all the software from the
computer and receive a refund from Microsoft in direct
proportion to the time remaining on the contract; OR d) Unbundle and remove selected packages from the computer
and receive a refund from Microsoft in direct proportion
to both the time remaining on the contract AND the retail
cost of the individual package.
For organizations facing threats of audit, now or in the future, a way must be provided to ensure that they can come into compliance without being forced into new license agreements.
Even when being audited by the IRS, you are given an opportunity to pay for a shortfall, plus sometimes a percentage penalty. In the same way, if facing a license audit, an alternative arrangement for some cases of "piracy" might be more equitable to both consumer and vendor.
Where the problem is an excess of installations, any organization or individual should have the option to purchase extra licenses, at the same price at which they purchased the original software, WITHOUT having to be forced into renegotiating the arrangement with the software vendor.
Where the problem is software installed and is in active use, that the organization or individual has never purchased any licenses for, then the vendor should expect to be paid the current market price per each unit installed. PLUS if knowledge and intent by the individuals or management can be proved then by all means a reasonable penalty should be charged.
In both above cases the vendor should also be expected to be reimbursed for the use of that software over the time it was installed, but only in close proportion to the average return on investment ( Inflation + 3% ).
The certainty of the above scheme would greatly improve the public relations between the customers, BSA and software vendors. Organizations and individuals would also be far less reticent over voluntarily going back to the software vendors and purchase extra licenses, to avoid penalties, without the hassle of negotiation or fear of being targeted for future BSA audits.
Those arguing in the BSA's and Microsoft's favor who try to paint this solely as a pure black and white issue, guilty or not guilty of software piracy and theft, should remember Microsoft's own executives facing imprisonment for breaching the Sherman Antitrust Act.
This is not an excuse for "wholesale" software piracy. Any organization or individual who is knowingly distributing illegal copies of proprietary software to individuals or organizations to be installed outside the original organization, without the vendors consent, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
There is another particular tactic used by the BSA which is directly harmful to the employer-employee relationship and society in general -- the targeting ex-employees for informants and the offering of bounties to informants.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,54324, 00 . sp +The group is promoting the program in radio advertisements. In +them, Bob Kruger, the group's vice president of enforcement, says +the BSA is looking for disgruntled employees to identify possible +infringements and turn in their employers. + +"Most of the calls come from current or former employees," he says +in the radio ad, which is airing in each respective city. It can +also be heard on the BSA's Web site.
http://www.bsa.org/uk/press/newsreleases/2001-02 -1 5.460.phtml +BSA strongly advises company directors to take the time to set up +and implement a software policy - especially bearing in mind the + 10,000 reward their employees could receive from the BSA for +information leading to a successful settlement."
This is just too open to abuse by disgruntled employees, disgruntled ex-employees and even the disgruntled competition. It is just too easy for an employees or anyone to walk in and install unlicensed software on a few computers and call in an accusation to the BSA. The whole thing creates a climate of fear and is a throwback to the worst excesses of the old soviet regimes.
One simliar scheme,... http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010425.html ... in which Microsoft offered prizes to the employees of OEMs that notified it when corporate customers ordered PCs without its Windows operating systems, was quickly discontinued Microsoft. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business /24393_rewar d24.shtml +But Microsoft spokesman Matt Pilla said the program was "a +super-brief pilot program that was admittedly stupid but +absolutely didn't share information" with law enforcers. If it was "stupid" to offer just prizes, how much more stupid is it to offer thousands in reward.
Additional news articles and editorials on the BSA.
"Risky Business Tangling with the Business Software Alliance can mean big problems" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c gi?file=/ga te/archive/2002/02/07/bsa.DTL
"BSA's and Microsoft's scare tactics target small fish in big-city ponds" http://www.infoworld.com/article s/op/xml/01/01/29/ 010129opfoster.xml
"Microsoft to schools: Give us your lunch money!" http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/07 /10/micro soft_school/
Copyright today no longer has the effect of an industrial regulation. It's now a restriction imposed on the public at large. As a consequence of this it is no longer painless. It is also no longer easy to enforce; in fact, you see increasingly draconian measures being proposed in the name of copyright enforcement. Prison sentences of years threaten for those who make copies and hand them out to their friends in order to be helpful.
In fact the US today is more or less imitating the Soviet Union in its effort to stamp out forbidden copying and distributing of information. The Soviet Union made great efforts to stamp out a practice that was known as samizdat--people making some copies of a work and passing them on to their friends, who would then make more copies and pass them on again, an underground activity in the Soviet Union. To stamp it out, they used a series of different measures.
One was every piece of copying equipment had to have a guard to watch what was being copied, and make sure that it wasn't used for forbidden copying. (This is why people had to do it using typewriters and multiple carbons.)
The second part was punishment for people caught doing forbidden copying. They would put you in prison and send you to Siberia.
Third, to help catch people, asking for informers: asking people to rat on their neighbours and co-workers, to the information police, which I suppose was the militia and rather than the KGB.
Fourth, also to help catch people, collective responsibility: "You, you're going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison -- so watch them carefully!"
Fifth, propaganda starting in childhood, teaching everyone that only a nasty enemy of the people would do this forbidden copying.
These same methods are now in use in the US.
First, guards watching copiers -- well, in copy shops, there are human guards watching for this very reason. But, because it costs too much to have humans watching all the computers, instead they are installing robot guards -- that's the idea of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that software goes into your computer to restrict what you can copy, and it is a crime to by-pass that software or even tell people how. This information is being treated as even more dangerous than how to make an atomic bomb, and that is perfectly understandable, because an atomic bomb could only be used to kill people, whereas this might endanger the profits of the corporations which the US Government exists to serve.
And then, harsh punishments. Well, a few years ago, if you made copies of something and handed them out to your friends, just to be nice, this was not a crime and this had never been a crime. Then they made it a felony -- you could be put in prison for years now in the US for doing this; even, I think, 10 copies of some popular software packages is enough to put you in prison for years.
And, third, to help catch people in the US, there have been ads on the television asking people to rat on their co-workers to the information police, which there is known as the software publishers association. And then, collective responsibility. In the US, this has been done through Internet Service Providers, who have been conscripted into watching their customers and enforcing these rules on them. In fact, the only way the ISP can avoid being held legally responsible for whatever its customers publish, is to have a uniform and invariable policy of always taking down any material within 2 weeks of the first complaint, so that today, if someone objects to your site, claiming copyright infringement -- you don't even get your day in Court, you just get unplugged.
Then, finally, propaganda starting in childhood -- that's what the word "pirate" is all about. It is a way of saying that copying something to share it with your neighbours is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.
Hewlett-Packard Company Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina discussess the current course and what's ahead for Linux in enterprise and consumer applications. Ms. Fiorina highlights innovative solutions that customers are implementing today and talk about the contributions and responsibilities of the Linux and open source communities in increasing customer value for Linux users.
The end of Ms. Fiorina keynote speech is worth repeating here...
demand for linux
The company that brought us the green ogre with the thick Scottish accent and wicked sense of humor wants Linux. Companies that provide the dial tones when we pick up the phone want Linux. And in between the two are thousands and thousands more who are recognizing the power, the flexibility and the smart economics inherent in this platform - and who are attracted to its openness and the inventive spirit that is at its foundation.
We cannot disappoint customers who are clamoring for Linux solutions. Standing still is not, and will not, be our legacy - with Linux, or with any other invention that has the potential to transform this industry, as we certainly believe Linux does.
Which brings me to what I see as the real power of the Linux movement.
The secret to its success is based on a belief in what hundreds of thousands of inventors can do together when you make full use of their talents. And here again, just like all the other great inventions that came before it, like all other great steps forward, the skeptics out there said: It won't work. It won't sell. It can't be done. It won't succeed.
Your collective response: Never underestimate the power of a good idea.
Comparing Gary Kildall's personality to Bill Gates
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
One Eulogy that closest to the real Gary Kildall
http://www.ece.umd.edu/courses/enee759m.S2000/pa pe rs/wharton1994-kildall.pdf
In comparison...
In the Jan. 8 issue of the New Yorker magazine, Judge Jackson said Mr. Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses."
Separately, the judge compared Microsoft to the Newton Street Gang, which the judge sentenced on charges of racketeering and murder.
Your correct of course, It's that difference in personalities that is really the secret behind Microsoft.
"Ask Bill why the string in function nine is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can't answer, only I know that." - Gary Kildall
Re:DOS was "closer" to CP/M Than most realize
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Yes it happend.
Unfortunately Gary is no longer with us to confirm it in person, but to quote Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer
"""And we just told IBM look, we'll go and get this operating system from this small local company, we'll take care of it, we'll fix it up, and you can still do a PC.
Tim Patterson's operating system, which saved the deal with IBM, was, well, adapted from Gary Kildall's CPM."""
See
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html
Only problems DrDos had was with Win3.1+
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Wonder Why? See
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309 d. htm
Novell and then Caldera sued Microsoft
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/ 07/schulman.html
Microsoft paid out to Caldera a large undisclosed amount.
But with the Window 2000 SP2 pack Microsoft pull the same stunt with SAMBA server they did with DrDos and Win3.1
http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/FAQ/#4
DOS was "closer" to CP/M Than most realize
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From "Microsoft the Company"
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
* 1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
Digital Research was purchased by Novel and destroyed by neglect and mismanagement. The products now belong to Caldera, which has filed suit against Microsoft over predatory practices used to destroy DR-DOS's market.
Have you actually ever read the terms and conditions in the licences that come with any "free" Microsoft product?
The GPL and LGPL licences ensure that the source code *remains* free to the end user.
The end user will always be free to adapt the code and redistribure the result.
The US Constitution includes clauses which can make it more difficult for large corperations and for the govenment, but the Constitution was not written for them but for the people.
Microsoft already *HAS* tried to redefine "free"
on
Microsoft Edits English
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"""The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of ' politically free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless."""
Steve Ballmer and others at Microsoft have tried to "redefine" the GNU Free software licence as a "cancer".
From
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19396.htm l
"""Microsoft CEO and incontinent over-stater of facts Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"""
For Users
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7617467.htm l
"""Microsoft expects to earn most of its profits from.Net My Services through subscriptions charged to consumers. At the same time, it will charge its business partners and developers a small fee to gain access to the.Net My Services user base. Muglia said fees for companies participating in the service will be "nominal."
Analysts have speculated that Microsoft will charge consumers a base fee of $25 to $50 per year, plus a usage-based fee depending on which services are used and for how long."""
In the late afternoon of December 16, 1773, men disguised as Indians boarded the tea ships and dumped the tea into Boston harbor.
Maybe it's time to revisit that particular "tradition" with a few new twists.
... actually made any *real* money from licencing software patents?
For the same vendors, what has been the actual combined cost in payments to and employment of patient lawyers and costs of legal disputes?
Also
A patient is effectively a monopoly on an intellectual property granted by a govenment -- BUT if an intellectual property is being abused to create a monopoly then it breaches the antitrust act? ( See http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/aipla.htm )
Would selective or even negotiable licencing put groups of licence holders into effectively being a cartel?
Also
If Europe and other nations deny that a patient on software is valid, what is to stop the whole USA software industry emigrating?
Would this not put the US back into the 1950s, technology wise?
Also
Did not Henry Ford at first ignore and then go to court to break patients which would have held back the Model A?
If you have a few hours on your hand and *really* want to better understand what is going on, I would suggest that you sit back and listen to these speechs on Dr Dobbs Technetcast...
If your looking for authority on the subject they come no higher than Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA),
"Meeting Future Security Challenges"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=411
If you listen to Dr Burnhams speech you will understand why it is so important to keep "pushing" Microsoft on its inherent lack of security.
If you want to sleep at night, don't listen to the following speech by Avi Rubin
"Computer System Security: Is There Really a Threat"
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=354
If you listen to the above speech then you will begin to understand Steve Gibsons apocalyptic visions.
And if you want more, the effect of broadband access
"Broadband Changes Everything"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=478
Directly relating to DDoS ( Distributed Denial of Service )
"Analyzing Distributed Denial of Service Tools: The Shaft Case"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=482
and "Denial of Service"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=417
And if you want to get *really* technical, listen how difficult and more technical it is to trace spoofed packets[ Warning - this is heavy tech ]
"Tracing Anonymous Packets to Their Approximate Source"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html? st ream_id=48
"I would rather have Loki uncover and exploit our inherent weaknesses now than have the Ice Giants do so at Ragnarok. - David Mohring"
Microsoft design choice not to include restrictive mode execution enviroments ( also known as "sandboxing" ) simliar to Javascript or Java's applets for Microsoft's embedded scripting puts users at risk when veiwing almost any disributed Microsoft document format.
I posted the following in various usenet groups last year. Given the recent events it is well worth the read...
Subject: Microsoft Applications Security
Date: 2000/05/28
"This continued virus threat is not ONLY an email or Outlook problem it extends to all Microsoft Office products, Microsofts internet explorer as well as a lot of third party software for the Microsoft OS platforms."
Even with all the patches, anti-virus scanners and proxy firewall, it will not stop the average user clicking on an embedded https:// URL link in an email and downloading and opening a Microsoft format document with an embedded script containing a new "unknown" virus/malware.
Office users share documents over the net all the time, the inclusion of executable blocking, "run script" dialogs and digital script "signing" is a big improvement, but it all can be circumvented by a little social engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
The Microsoft license conditions for the documentation of CIFS is precisely ``engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.''..
As for one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing, how could the management of Microsoft's "server section" not know?
Microsoft's SFU is targeted at the market currently using Unix, BSD and Linux. Practically all of the competition in that market use SAMBA to provide an interoperating SMB server( including the other Unix vendors not listed there ). How could Microsoft's Marketing and Management teams not be fully aware of what the competition is using?
How do Microsoft, or Microsoft's advocates claim that Microsoft can, justify their position?
Even so ...
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from bundling GPL licensed software on it's CDroms, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same GPL license.
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from linking LGPL licensed software in their own software, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same LGPL license. ( You might want to check out what LGPL licensed libraries come with Interix )
Aparently neither of the above restrictions prevent Microsoft from including such licensed code in their Interix and SFU 3.0 products, for which Microsoft charges a fee. This runs entirely counter to most of the arguments presented by Microsoft against GPL and LGPL licensing.
If the GPL was such an Intellectual Property Destroyer then how is Microsoft able to bundle it in with SFU 3.0 and charge for the result?
But far more important is how much Microsoft is the hypocrite on GPL License.
If Microsoft can use, distribute and sell products containing GPL and LGPL licensed code for the specific purpose of "interoperating" with Unix AND Linux, EXACTLY what gives Microsoft the moral right to prevent anybody else using GPL or LGPL source code for the purpose of Unix, BSD and Linux "interoperating" with Microsoft's own products?
See The BSA & Microsoft Thread
The BSA and Microsoft.
...
m panies.phtml
2 .h tm
:-
F 98/burst ein.html
0 .a ustin.html
i de . tm#t22
c rosoft trial/ ...
.
, 00 . sp
2 -1 5.460.phtml
s /24393_rewar d24.shtml
c gi?file=/ga te/archive/2002/02/07/bsa.DTL
e s/op/xml/01/01/29/ 010129opfoster.xml
7 /10/micro soft_school/
x ml/01/08/27/ 010827opfoster.xml
t hemicrosoft trial/
The tactics used by Microsoft and the Business Software Association (BSA) in the name of the fight against software piracy directly hurt the consumer, Microsoft's competitors and even society in general.
Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its dominant position in the marketplace to the detriment of its competitors and the consumer.
The Business Software Assocation (BSA), quoting from its webpage, was formed to act
http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/about.phtml
+ As the "voice" of the software industry, we help governments and
+consumers understand how software strengthens the economy, worker
+productivity and global development; and how its further expansion
+hinges on the successful fight against software piracy and
+Internet theft.
The BSA includes a few large software and computer companies in its offical memberships.
http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/memberco
+ BSA worldwide members include Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley
+Systems, Borland, CNC Software/Mastercam, Macromedia, Microsoft,
+Symantec, and Unigraphic Solutions. Additional members of BSA's
+Policy Council include Compaq, Dell, Entrust, IBM, Intel, Intuit,
+Network Associates, Novell, and Sybase.
Both the BSA and Microsoft are also actively running a worldwide campaign to fight software piracy. It is some of the tactics used in this campaign and the relationship between Microsoft and the BSA management which is being used by Microsoft to reinforce its monopoly. This is hurting the rest of the computer industry including some of the same companies in the BSA membership.
Other tactics, including the targeting ex-employees for informants and the offering of bounties to informants is directly harmful to the employer-employee relationship and society in general.
You or your employer may have received an email or letter from Microsoft or the BSA, or outside of NZ you may have heard the BSA's radio adverts. It's also likely that either of the above may have raised a little concern, even from the most lawful of people. The BSA can even get a court order, sometimes based on the accusation of an individual and with the help of federal marshals enter your home or place of work to gather evidence. The BSA can collects fees of up to $150,000US for every unregistered software program installed on an organizations computers. What if some unlicensed software is installed on the owners computer without their knowledge?
It is not that Microsoft or any other company should not have the right to protect its copyrighted products from "piracy". However the tactics used must also not be abused by Microsoft or the BSA to the detriment of the consumer or society.
There will be those arguing in the BSA's and Microsoft's favor who will try to paint this solely as a pure black and white issue - guilty or not guilty of software piracy and theft. BUT, by the same reasoning Microsoft's own executives should also face imprisonment for breaching the Sherman Antitrust Act.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch
+SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-7
+
+ 1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1
+
+Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
+
+Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
+conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
+States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every
+person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or
+conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of
+a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine
+not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other
+person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or
+by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
The "discretion of the court" would take into consideration the issue of intent on the part of Microsoft's management. In the same way should the BSA, Microsoft and the courts take the issue of intent into consideration when dealing with some particular cases of software "piracy".
Tracking licenses is difficult and even if it does its best, any organization cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct all the time. Computers are moved, repaired, upgraded, replaced and even cannibalized into other computers. It is not made any easier with one of the requirements of the BSA audits being that, along with valid licenses, you mustpresent purchase documentation to prove ownership. Presenting enough valid licenses to cover all of the copies installed on the computers in the organization used should be sufficient. Although maintaining purchase documentation is necessary for tax purposes, matching documentation to each computer is difficult and time consuming. Should the BSA have the same powers as the IRS?
The larger and more diverse the organization, the more difficult, time consuming and expensive it can be to perform a full audit of the software running on all computers. So when presented with the options of
a) Undergoing an audit from the BSA, which might turn up anything
installed without the managements knowledge; OR
b) Signing up to the purchase of all new versions of software
and a special license.
The latter option is often the only choice, even when the new license, software and required computer hardware upgrades is far more expensive than the existing setup.
Many organization have already received emails and letters from Microsoft offering the exact same choice. The problem for Microsoft's customers and competitors is that the contracts often either replaces competing software vendors products or locks in the customer to Microsoft's software preventing competition.
This Mojo article shows an example of replacement of Novell's servers, a company who is also a member BSA. The article also explains why many software vendors and customers remain silent on the issue.
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/J
This Linuxworld article explains how the new contracts can lockout other vendors. "Why Austin TX is considering a Microsoft enterprise license"
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/082
+There is an insidious aspect to a citywide, multi-year plan. It
+locks users into Microsoft products only. While the Enterprise
+Agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of other products,
+effectively it does. It's logical to assume that if you're paying
+for MS Exchange for three years why allow a department to consider
+an alternative. (Microsoft makes hay of this point in a
+Word-formatted white paper extolling the Enterprise Agreement.)
What Microsoft or the BSA is doing would not necessarily be illegal if Microsoft was not a monopoly, but as the Antitrust division of the US Department Of Justice (DOJ) informs us...
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ipgu
+As in other antitrust contexts, however, market power could be
+illegally acquired or maintained, or, even if lawfully acquired
+and maintained, would be relevant to the ability of an
+intellectual property owner to harm competition through
+unreasonable conduct in connection with such property.
Microsoft have been found in breach of the Sherman act for using similar pressure on OEMs ( Original Equipment Manufactures ), including Compaq and Dell, to select Microsoft's products over competitors.
From the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion issued June 28
( You can grab a copy of the PDF file from
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/themi
)
Page 28
+In evaluating the restrictions in Microsofts agreements
+licensing Windows to OEMs,we first consider whether plaintiffs
+have made out a prima facie case by demonstrating that the
+restrictions have an anticompetitive effect.In the next
+subsection,we conclude that plaintiffs have met this burden as to
+all the restrictions.We then consider Microsofts proffered
+justifications for the restrictions and,for the most part,hold
+those justifications insufficient.
Just as Microsoft was "levering" OEMs to stop installing competing vendors products, Microsoft is using the threat of a BSA audit to "lever" end customers into choosing Microsoft's products overcompeting vendors. Why should the end customers be subjected to the same tactics?
Worldwide, many of the governmental federal, state and local organizations that your tax dollars pay for have already been "levered" into new long term enterprise license schemes.
Any organization that have already felt pressured to sign up to the new license agreements because of such threats should be given the option at anytime during the contract period, for all or individual groups of computers, to either
a) Continue the contract until it's competition; OR
b) Terminating the contract and renegotiate with Microsoft for
a new contract without threat of an audit from the BSA; OR
c) Terminate the contract, removing all the software from the
computer and receive a refund from Microsoft in direct
proportion to the time remaining on the contract; OR
d) Unbundle and remove selected packages from the computer
and receive a refund from Microsoft in direct proportion
to both the time remaining on the contract AND the retail
cost of the individual package.
For organizations facing threats of audit, now or in the future, a way must be provided to ensure that they can come into compliance without being forced into new license agreements.
Even when being audited by the IRS, you are given an opportunity to pay for a shortfall, plus sometimes a percentage penalty. In the same way, if facing a license audit, an alternative arrangement for some cases of "piracy" might be more equitable to both consumer and vendor.
Where the problem is an excess of installations, any organization or individual should have the option to purchase extra licenses, at the same price at which they purchased the original software, WITHOUT having to be forced into renegotiating the arrangement with the software vendor.
Where the problem is software installed and is in active use, that the organization or individual has never purchased any licenses for, then the vendor should expect to be paid the current market price per each unit installed. PLUS if knowledge and intent by the individuals or management can be proved then by all means a reasonable penalty should be charged.
In both above cases the vendor should also be expected to be reimbursed for the use of that software over the time it was installed, but only in close proportion to the average return on investment ( Inflation + 3% )
Per package = Original_Price
+ ( Original_Price * Average_Return_on_Investment
/ 12 * Months_installed )
The certainty of the above scheme would greatly improve the public relations between the customers, BSA and software vendors. Organizations and individuals would also be far less reticent over voluntarily going back to the software vendors and purchase extra licenses, to avoid penalties, without the hassle of negotiation or fear of being targeted for future BSA audits.
Those arguing in the BSA's and Microsoft's favor who try to paint this solely as a pure black and white issue, guilty or not guilty of software piracy and theft, should remember Microsoft's own executives facing imprisonment for breaching the Sherman Antitrust Act.
This is not an excuse for "wholesale" software piracy. Any organization or individual who is knowingly distributing illegal copies of proprietary software to individuals or organizations to be installed outside the original organization, without the vendors consent, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
There is another particular tactic used by the BSA which is directly harmful to the employer-employee relationship and society in general -- the targeting ex-employees for informants and the offering of bounties to informants.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,54324
+The group is promoting the program in radio advertisements. In
+them, Bob Kruger, the group's vice president of enforcement, says
+the BSA is looking for disgruntled employees to identify possible
+infringements and turn in their employers.
+
+"Most of the calls come from current or former employees," he says
+in the radio ad, which is airing in each respective city. It can
+also be heard on the BSA's Web site.
http://www.bsa.org/uk/press/newsreleases/2001-0
+BSA strongly advises company directors to take the time to set up
+and implement a software policy - especially bearing in mind the
+ 10,000 reward their employees could receive from the BSA for
+information leading to a successful settlement."
This is just too open to abuse by disgruntled employees, disgruntled ex-employees and even the disgruntled competition. It is just too easy for an employees or anyone to walk in and install unlicensed software on a few computers and call in an accusation to the BSA. The whole thing creates a climate of fear and is a throwback to the worst excesses of the old soviet regimes.
One simliar scheme,...
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010425.html
... in which Microsoft offered prizes to the employees of OEMs that notified it when corporate customers ordered PCs without its Windows operating systems, was quickly discontinued Microsoft.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busines
+But Microsoft spokesman Matt Pilla said the program was "a
+super-brief pilot program that was admittedly stupid but
+absolutely didn't share information" with law enforcers.
If it was "stupid" to offer just prizes, how much more stupid is it to offer thousands in reward.
Additional news articles and editorials on the BSA.
"Risky Business
Tangling with the Business Software Alliance can mean big problems"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
"BSA's and Microsoft's scare tactics target small fish in big-city
ponds"
http://www.infoworld.com/articl
"Microsoft to schools: Give us your lunch money!"
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/0
"BSA's truce campaigns"
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/
Good coverage of the Antitrust case against Microsoft
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
[ I would like to thank "Erik Funkenbusch" for his invaluable
assistance in hardening the argument in the above article ]
Anybody out there running Linux on a G4 using 1000BaseT ethernet?
From Richard Stallman "Copyright Vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks" (PDF)
Copyright today no longer has the effect of an industrial regulation. It's now a restriction imposed on the public at large. As a consequence of this it is no longer painless. It is also no longer easy to enforce; in fact, you see increasingly draconian measures being proposed in the name of copyright enforcement. Prison sentences of years threaten for those who make copies and hand them out to their friends in order to be helpful.
In fact the US today is more or less imitating the Soviet Union in its effort to stamp out forbidden copying and distributing of information. The Soviet Union made great efforts to stamp out a practice that was known as samizdat--people making some copies of a work and passing them on to their friends, who would then make more copies and pass them on again, an underground activity in the Soviet Union. To stamp it out, they used a series of different measures.
One was every piece of copying equipment had to have a guard to watch what was being copied, and make sure that it wasn't used for forbidden copying. (This is why people had to do it using typewriters and multiple carbons.)
The second part was punishment for people caught doing forbidden copying. They would put you in prison and send you to Siberia.
Third, to help catch people, asking for informers: asking people to rat on their neighbours and co-workers, to the information police, which I suppose was the militia and rather than the KGB.
Fourth, also to help catch people, collective responsibility: "You, you're going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison -- so watch them carefully!"
Fifth, propaganda starting in childhood, teaching everyone that only a nasty enemy of the people would do this forbidden copying.
These same methods are now in use in the US.
First, guards watching copiers -- well, in copy shops, there are human guards watching for this very reason. But, because it costs too much to have humans watching all the computers, instead they are installing robot guards -- that's the idea of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that software goes into your computer to restrict what you can copy, and it is a crime to by-pass that software or even tell people how. This information is being treated as even more dangerous than how to make an atomic bomb, and that is perfectly understandable, because an atomic bomb could only be used to kill people, whereas this might endanger the profits of the corporations which the US Government exists to serve.
And then, harsh punishments. Well, a few years ago, if you made copies of something and handed them out to your friends, just to be nice, this was not a crime and this had never been a crime. Then they made it a felony -- you could be put in prison for years now in the US for doing this; even, I think, 10 copies of some popular software packages is enough to put you in prison for years.
And, third, to help catch people in the US, there have been ads on the television asking people to rat on their co-workers to the information police, which there is known as the software publishers association. And then, collective responsibility. In the US, this has been done through Internet Service Providers, who have been conscripted into watching their customers and enforcing these rules on them. In fact, the only way the ISP can avoid being held legally responsible for whatever its customers publish, is to have a uniform and invariable policy of always taking down any material within 2 weeks of the first complaint, so that today, if someone objects to your site, claiming copyright infringement -- you don't even get your day in Court, you just get unplugged.
Then, finally, propaganda starting in childhood -- that's what the word "pirate" is all about. It is a way of saying that copying something to share it with your neighbours is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.
... port Xfree86 to windows ...
http://xfree86.cygwin.com/
... and make win API compatable.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/xwinx/
Hewlett-Packard Company Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina discussess the current course and what's ahead for Linux in enterprise and consumer applications. Ms. Fiorina highlights innovative solutions that customers are implementing today and talk about the contributions and responsibilities of the Linux and open source communities in increasing customer value for Linux users.
The end of Ms. Fiorina keynote speech is worth repeating here...
demand for linux
The company that brought us the green ogre with the thick Scottish accent and wicked sense of humor wants Linux. Companies that provide the dial tones when we pick up the phone want Linux. And in between the two are thousands and thousands more who are recognizing the power, the flexibility and the smart economics inherent in this platform - and who are attracted to its openness and the inventive spirit that is at its foundation.
We cannot disappoint customers who are clamoring for Linux solutions. Standing still is not, and will not, be our legacy - with Linux, or with any other invention that has the potential to transform this industry, as we certainly believe Linux does.
Which brings me to what I see as the real power of the Linux movement.
The secret to its success is based on a belief in what hundreds of thousands of inventors can do together when you make full use of their talents. And here again, just like all the other great inventions that came before it, like all other great steps forward, the skeptics out there said: It won't work. It won't sell. It can't be done. It won't succeed.
Your collective response: Never underestimate the power of a good idea.
I assume that posting and follow-up access to other newsgroups must be only for for "internal" Microsoft users.
This is fine if he is just using it for providing support for Microsoft users in the local nz.comp newsgroup - but using it to post Anti-Linux FUD?
Does it qualify as astroturfing?
You don't need to spend $1,000 per user to create a modern, friendly, fast & productive computer system.
I am awaiting the release of StarOffice6 & Openoffice 1.0 with baited breath.
Like Medialogic's MLview-dxpc
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-8152978.html : Senate leaders skeptical of Microsoft deal
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r28941619 : "Senate Panel Skeptical of Microsoft" By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r28965467 : "Skepticism in Senate Panel Over Accord With Microsoft" By STEPHEN LABATON
One Eulogy that closest to the real Gary Kildalla pe rs/wharton1994-kildall.pdf
http://www.ece.umd.edu/courses/enee759m.S2000/p
In comparison...
In the Jan. 8 issue of the New Yorker magazine, Judge Jackson said Mr. Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses."
Separately, the judge compared Microsoft to the Newton Street Gang, which the judge sentenced on charges of racketeering and murder.
Your correct of course, It's that difference in personalities that is really the secret behind Microsoft.
From memory the actual quote was
"Ask Bill why the string in function nine is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can't answer, only I know that." - Gary Kildall
Yes it happend.
Unfortunately Gary is no longer with us to confirm it in person, but to quote Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer
"""And we just told IBM look, we'll go and get this operating system from this small local company, we'll take care of it, we'll fix it up, and you can still do a PC.
Tim Patterson's operating system, which saved the deal with IBM, was, well, adapted from Gary Kildall's CPM."""
See
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html
Wonder Why? See9 d. htm
/ 07 /schulman.html
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/930
Novell and then Caldera sued Microsoft
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02
Microsoft paid out to Caldera a large undisclosed amount.
But with the Window 2000 SP2 pack Microsoft pull the same stunt with SAMBA server they did with DrDos and Win3.1
http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/FAQ/#4
From "Microsoft the Company"
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
* 1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
Digital Research was purchased by Novel and destroyed by neglect and mismanagement. The products now belong to Caldera, which has filed suit against Microsoft over predatory practices used to destroy DR-DOS's market.
Have you actually ever read the terms and conditions in the licences that come with any "free" Microsoft product?
The GPL and LGPL licences ensure that the source code *remains* free to the end user.
The end user will always be free to adapt the code and redistribure the result.
The US Constitution includes clauses which can make it more difficult for large corperations and for the govenment, but the Constitution was not written for them but for the people.
"""The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of ' politically free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless."""
m l
Steve Ballmer and others at Microsoft have tried to "redefine" the GNU Free software licence as a "cancer".
From
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19396.ht
"""Microsoft CEO and incontinent over-stater of facts Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"""
For Usersm l
.Net My Services through subscriptions charged to consumers. At the same time, it will charge its business partners and developers a small fee to gain access to the .Net My Services user base. Muglia said fees for companies participating in the service will be "nominal."
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7617467.ht
"""Microsoft expects to earn most of its profits from
Analysts have speculated that Microsoft will charge consumers a base fee of $25 to $50 per year, plus a usage-based fee depending on which services are used and for how long."""
In the late afternoon of December 16, 1773, men disguised as Indians boarded the tea ships and dumped the tea into Boston harbor.
Maybe it's time to revisit that particular "tradition" with a few new twists.
... actually made any *real* money from licencing software patents?
For the same vendors, what has been the actual combined cost in payments to and employment of patient lawyers and costs of legal disputes?
Also
A patient is effectively a monopoly on an intellectual property granted by a govenment -- BUT if an intellectual property is being abused to create a monopoly then it breaches the antitrust act? ( See http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/aipla.htm )
Would selective or even negotiable licencing put groups of licence holders into effectively being a cartel?
Also
If Europe and other nations deny that a patient on software is valid, what is to stop the whole USA software industry emigrating?
Would this not put the US back into the 1950s, technology wise?
Also
Did not Henry Ford at first ignore and then go to court to break patients which would have held back the Model A?
If you have a few hours on your hand and *really* want to better understand what is going on, I would suggest that you sit back and listen to these speechs on Dr Dobbs Technetcast...
? st ream_id=411
? st ream_id=354
? st ream_id=478
? st ream_id=482
? st ream_id=417
? st ream_id=48
If your looking for authority on the subject they come no higher than Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA),
"Meeting Future Security Challenges"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html
If you listen to Dr Burnhams speech you will understand why it is so important to keep "pushing" Microsoft on its inherent lack of security.
If you want to sleep at night, don't listen to the following speech by Avi Rubin
"Computer System Security: Is There Really a Threat"
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html
If you listen to the above speech then you will begin to understand Steve Gibsons apocalyptic visions.
And if you want more, the effect of broadband access
"Broadband Changes Everything"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html
Directly relating to DDoS ( Distributed Denial of Service )
"Analyzing Distributed Denial of Service Tools: The Shaft Case"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html
and "Denial of Service"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html
And if you want to get *really* technical, listen how difficult and more technical it is to trace spoofed packets[ Warning - this is heavy tech ]
"Tracing Anonymous Packets to Their Approximate Source"
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_play_stream.html
"I would rather have Loki uncover and exploit our inherent weaknesses now than have the Ice Giants do so at Ragnarok. - David Mohring"
Microsoft design choice not to include restrictive mode execution enviroments ( also known as "sandboxing" ) simliar to Javascript or Java's applets for Microsoft's embedded scripting puts users at risk when veiwing almost any disributed Microsoft document format.
. pn s.heretic@localhost.localdomain
I posted the following in various usenet groups last year. Given the recent events it is well worth the read...
Subject: Microsoft Applications Security
Date: 2000/05/28
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8j2cen
"This continued virus threat is not ONLY an email or Outlook problem it extends to all Microsoft Office products, Microsofts internet explorer as well as a lot of third party software for the Microsoft OS platforms."
Even with all the patches, anti-virus scanners and proxy firewall, it will not stop the average user clicking on an embedded https:// URL link in an email and downloading and opening a Microsoft format document with an embedded script containing a new "unknown" virus/malware.
Office users share documents over the net all the time, the inclusion of executable blocking, "run script" dialogs and digital script "signing" is a big improvement, but it all can be circumvented by a little social engineering.