[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AM-INFO digest 42
RE: Posix compliance and NT security
The undercurrent beneath this DOJ antitrust story could be federal POSIX
standards, their software security standards in the so-called Orange and
Red Books, and NT's lack of Open Systems Integration layers. The week
that MS gave away a couple million browsers, Netscape sold two million
browsers to the U.S. Government.
Mission Critical issues could define the backroom decisions of the DOJ,
DOD, and NSA when MS NT comes to call. Who can run a national security
state on Windows? For years, MS was a joke to the telecommunications
industry precisely because of its inability to work with digital
switching technologies, or other high speed data.
John D. Spragins textbook TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS and DESIGN,
Addison Wesley 1991, defines NT as Network Termination, i.e. NT1, NT2,
NT12 etc. These are layers for Open Systems Interconnections, ISO
standards that are usurped by branding NT into an exclusive name devoid
of any connection to true OSI compatibility.
Is NT a trademark. Is the ISO definition of NT prior art? Perhaps our NT
Pro in residence, Charles Kelley can enlighten us on the security of
Windows NT, and its ability to fully comply with ISO and POSIX layers.
am-info@essential.org wrote:
> 8) Re: Nader Conference?
> by Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> Topic No. 2
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:36:16 -0500
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> To: "Kendall G. Clark" <kclark@computek.net>
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list <am-info@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: Summary of Conference available? (Was: Re: Nader Conference?)
> Message-ID: <v03007802b092ac76f424@[168.161.105.216]>
>
> At 18:07 -0600 11/14/97, Kendall G. Clark wrote:
> >I tried to find your comments on Day One yesterday, but I couldn't. Could you
> >post the precise URL?
> >
> >Also a URL for any comments on Day Two.
> >
> >By the way, did you hear Bryan Sparks presentation?
> >
> >I listened to McNealy's ``keynote'' speech by Real Audio last night, and I was
> >very disappointed. I thought a good bit of it didn't make much sense, and his
> >definition of ``company that develops an OS'' is bizarre beyond reason.
>
> Here's my article. Didn't write anything more for the web site on Day Two.
> Yep, McNealy's rant about operating systems didn't make sense. Designed
> perhaps to intentionally mislead tech-clueless DC journalists, who appeared
> to constitute about half of the people who attended. MacOS isn't an
> operating system? Linux? Even NextStep? Note to Scott: there's nothing
> particularly compelling about YOUR flavor of Unix.
>
> -Declan
>
> http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1576,00.html
>
> The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/)
> November 13, 1997
>
> Microsoft World 1.0
> by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>
> If you're Bill Gates, the last place on earth you want to be
> today is 2500 Calvert St., Washington, D.C. That's the address of the
> "Appraising Microsoft" conference, where politicos and high tech
> leaders from around the country are teaming up to take a big swing at
> the richest man in America.
>
> It would be a slugfest -- if only Gates were around to defend
> himself. Ralph Nader, the conference's organizer, invited him, but
> Gates declined through his lawyers. "It appears that your conference
> will provide a forum for anti-Microsoft pundits and business
> competitors to raise their litany of tired allegations in an attempt
> to manipulate public opinion against our company," wrote attorney
> William Neukom, who is defending Microsoft from antitrust allegations.
>
> Which is only natural. Everyone Microsoft has ever pissed off
> (and Microsoft has pissed off a lot of people) seems to be here today.
> Who would pass up a chance to flame the Boy Billionaire -- especially
> when there's safety in numbers?
>
> [...]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Topic No. 3
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:03:08 -0800
> From: Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <am-info@essential.org>
> Subject: Interesting Reading
> Message-ID: <346D02DC.25701CE0@cruzio.com>
>
> >From a letter to Jamie Love from Jack Krumholtz,
> Director of Federal Government Affairs at Microsoft,
> here is a list of speakers Microsoft wanted to speak at
> Nader's conference:
>
> Greg Sidek, American Enterprise Institute
> Peter Huber, The Manhattan Institute
> Adam Thierer, The Heritage Foundation
> Fred Smith, The Competitive Enterprise Institute
> Charles Rule, Covington & Burling
>
> You can confirm this for yourself at:
> http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/11-7Krumholtzltr.htm
>
> Tod Landis
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Topic No. 4
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:32:52 -0500
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> To: landis@cruzio.com
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list <am-info@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: Interesting Reading
> Message-ID: <v03007806b092ba1a293d@[168.161.105.216]>
>
> Interesting. Surprised not to see Cato as well. Where do the Progress and
> Freedom Foundation and Newt-compadre Jeff Eisenach stand?
>
> -Declan
>
> At 21:07 -0500 11/14/97, Tod Landis wrote:
> >>From a letter to Jamie Love from Jack Krumholtz,
> >Director of Federal Government Affairs at Microsoft,
> >here is a list of speakers Microsoft wanted to speak at
> >Nader's conference:
> >
> > Greg Sidek, American Enterprise Institute
> > Peter Huber, The Manhattan Institute
> > Adam Thierer, The Heritage Foundation
> > Fred Smith, The Competitive Enterprise Institute
> > Charles Rule, Covington & Burling
> >
> >You can confirm this for yourself at:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/11-7Krumholtzltr.htm
> >
> >Tod Landis
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Topic No. 5
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 23:11:31
> From: "Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>
> To: "declan@pathfinder.com" <declan@pathfinder.com>,
> Subject: Re: Nader Conference?
> Message-ID: <199711150411.XAA14183@venus.star.net>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:57:27 -0500 (EST), Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >Yep. Yesterday's panels were achingly boring. High point was the critic's
> >noon summit (that Ralph tried to lure reporters away from by having media
> >availability at the same time).
> >
> <snip>
>
> Gee, Mr McCullagh, I heard that there were so many reporters there that,
> to be sure, Ralph Nader would have had a difficult time finding one
> outside those aligned to (or paid by?) the MS camp. But then again,
> I wasn't there or in the aisles.
>
> Erick Andrews
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Topic No. 6
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:20:00 -0500
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> To: "Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>
> Cc: "Multiple recipients of list" <am-info@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: Nader Conference?
> Message-ID: <v0300780ab092d2c4f5ac@[168.161.105.216]>
>
> Guess you weren't there. I don't understand your message, BTW. It's incoherent.
>
> No reporters I know are aligned to the Microsoft camp. A very, very few are
> paid by Microsoft, like MSNBC folks, but they try to do a good job of
> critical reporting anyway. All the reporters I know -- and I know a bunch
> -- are suspicious of the power of large corporations, including Microsoft.
> And Microsoft's enemies too.
>
> -Declan
>