![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
monopoly mating
Apr. 8th, 2004 01:34 pmI can't decide if cheap MLB for Windows Users is a monopoly abuse or simply Marketing Department A not talking to Marketing Department B. The fact that Microsoft is aware of the, er, abuse would suggest that at this point it's the former, even if it started out as the latter.
getting the story straight
Jan. 27th, 2004 05:59 pm"Windows "more secure" because the constant attacks reveal new holes", says Gates. Alas, his staff don't agree:
Microsoft software architect Chris Anderson, who is working on Longhorn, explained another problem with patches: "Today, virus writers don't find holes," he said, "They just sit back and wait for patches to appear, and then it is a race to write the first virus."So, ah, which is it?
we're following our original plan
Jan. 26th, 2004 08:30 pm...to screw the customer over AGAIN, say Microsoft.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly they're patenting here. Parsing XML is pretty trivial due to its highlyanalstructured nature and well covered by prior art; they're "committed to openly sharing the XML schemas used by Office"; and the products themselves are protected by copyright which, thanks to Congress and Sonny Bono, is far longer-lasting than any given patent anyway.
I also note they've filed the patent application in Europe where, as yet, we don't actually support software patents. I'm sure we will now that Sir Billy's pushing 'em.
All this waffling aside, is the use of XML in Office really that big a deal? I mean, are people really using the XML goop that Word produces, or are they sticking with the old method of simply attaching multi-meg documents complete with embarassing revision histories to whatever chunk of software comes to hand?
I'm trying to figure out what exactly they're patenting here. Parsing XML is pretty trivial due to its highly
I also note they've filed the patent application in Europe where, as yet, we don't actually support software patents. I'm sure we will now that Sir Billy's pushing 'em.
All this waffling aside, is the use of XML in Office really that big a deal? I mean, are people really using the XML goop that Word produces, or are they sticking with the old method of simply attaching multi-meg documents complete with embarassing revision histories to whatever chunk of software comes to hand?
IE patched...
Dec. 19th, 2003 10:48 am...with open source. I'm not quite sure what this does to Microsoft's argument that closed source is more secure than open source.
never mind the research
Dec. 1st, 2003 11:33 pmVia Eric (bitpuddle), via Dave, here's Phil: MIT's open courseware site. Neither Dave nor Eric actually comment much on it. For me, as an open source developer, the scariest part of Phil's comment is not the outsourcing, or the fact that "The more sophisticated portion of ocw.mit.edu is a 100 percent Microsoft show", but the reason for the latter fact:
"We read a Gartner Group report that said the Microsoft system was the simplest to use among the commercial vendors and that open-source toolkits weren't worth considering."Someone commented that a lot of people use Gartner reports to make decisions, and that us whiny people should just get used to it; I find that worrying - whenever I've had to make a technology decision in the past, I've used that sort of thing to inform decisions, not make them outright. And I'd certainly feel a little discomfort at signing over a couple of million based on a single report...
Microsoft vs. EU
Nov. 12th, 2003 02:29 pmMicrosoft tangles with the EU:
The company has denied the claims and warned that a guilty verdict would mean a complete overhaul of how it operates.Explain to me where this is the EU's problem, exactly? Isn't this the whole point of corrective action in the case of anti-trust violations?
and while I'm quoting...
Oct. 26th, 2003 12:01 pmFrom a recent Microsoft "security" advisory:
Security issues identified in Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) could allow an attacker to compromise systems with IE installed (even if IE is not used as the Web browser).I really like the last bit. even if IE is not used as the Web browser.
timebomb emails
Oct. 20th, 2003 11:15 amI can't see any good use for this: emails that self-destruct after a time limit. I can see lots of bad uses, mainly revolving around destroying evidence. I also wonder about the forwarding-prevention - it seems like currently, if you forward an email in the usual thoughtless, top-quoted manner, you're inadvertently attaching a pretty useful audit trail to the message as well. Now, you'll just cut and paste the body into a new mail, forcing you to consider not, say, including any of the headers.
Microsoft: enablers of plausible deniability.
Microsoft: enablers of plausible deniability.
(no subject)
Oct. 16th, 2003 02:07 pmIn particularly embarrassing disclosures, Microsoft acknowledged problems in its technology to authenticate software publishers over the Web...Please remember this event the next time someone proposes that upgrades and patches to Windows be automatically installed on the system.
amen to that
Sep. 6th, 2003 05:35 pm"Pointing to a particular software vendor and to a particular software (standard) gets you nowhere," Robertson said..Indeed, people have been pointing at Microsoft and Outlook - a de facto standard, since it's so bloody pervasive - for years now, and it has indeed gotten them nowhere.
Knowledge is Power
Aug. 14th, 2003 03:57 pmPatent experts are quick to point out that patent-infringement verdicts are frequently overturned on appeal, and Microsoft is busy preparing for the next--and probably last--legal round at the U.S. Court of Appeals.
So, eh, what do these same "patent experts" have to say about the SCO case? And, er, presumably if verdicts are frequently overturned on appeal, they're frequently upheld, too, because otherwise there'd be no point in the first-round verdicts, right?
I love meaningless soundbites...
how the File/Open box got its options
May. 23rd, 2003 11:50 amAn interesting mailing list entry on design decisions at Microsoft. This sort of vindicates my theory that they're not all clueless morons in the software department, just victims of large-system effects like unpredictable interactions of unrelated components.
I complained to MSN about some spam last week. The usual potted replies: DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE, etc, followed by We have shut down this account, and so forth.
This morning, I found this in my mailbox:
Feel free to take my survey and tell them what a crowd of idiots they are.
This morning, I found this in my mailbox:
From: "MSN Hotmail Support" <abuse@css.one.microsoft.com>
To: Me. Like, DUH.
Subject: RE: CST95811783ID - Forwarded SPAM or UCE from harry d (Subject: Hello)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:58:14 -0800
***Please do not reply back to this message***
How did we do? What did we do well? Is there anything we need to improve
on?
The MSN Hotmail Customer Support Team would like to hear how satisfied
you were with your most recent support experience. We'd appreciate you
taking a few minutes to click on our Customer Service Survey link below
and let us know what we did well and where we can improve. Your feedback
will help us provide outstanding customer service and improve your
Hotmail experience!
Customer Service Survey: Click here
<http://msn.surveyhost.com/hotmail-S/hotmail-S06.asp?P1=RA0&Q21=95811783
> to give us your feedback.
Feel free to take my survey and tell them what a crowd of idiots they are.
