From mstone@vc.net Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:28:59 -0700 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:28:59 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Is Big Bad? http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/20000409/t000033200.html Sunday, April 9, 2000 Is Big Bad? Antitrust law must constantly adapt to the changing nature of monopoly. But the economic effects of monopoly are shifting as well. Consider Microsoft. By J. BRADFORD DE LONG BERKELEY--Monday, Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found as a matter of law that Microsoft had violated the 110-year-old Sherman Antitrust Act. He will now begin the process of determining what remedy will be granted to repair the damage done by this illegal restraint of trade. It may be that this decision, shocking to the high-tech sector's stock-market valuation as it was, will wind up as a footnote. For, five years ago, Microsoft, with its dominance of desktop operating systems and productivity applications, was at the heart of America's high-tech economy. But today, because of the remarkable rate of change, the heart of the high-tech economy is the network. It is at least arguable that the key is now in the hands of physical-network companies like AT&T, data-delivery companies like Akamai Technologies, database companies like Oracle, Internet-access providers like America Online and the communities of open-source programmers who maintain and develop the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server. So what happens to Microsoft, specifically, is no longer as critical. But even if Microsoft the company is (relatively speaking) no longer as crucial in the new, larger, high-tech economy, Microsoft the case may still be key in the development of antitrust law. It will be a big step down the path of applying antitrust principles more than a century old to the new economy. Ever since the Industrial Revolution began, the United States has wrestled with the dilemma of antitrust: How to deal with highly productive monopolies. Can we somehow have our cake and eat it, too: Gain the benefits of efficient bigness and still keep the benefits of intense competition? Each time the technology changes, the form the dilemma of antitrust takes changes as well. America, as Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln imagined it, had no place for monopolies. For both, competition was an essential piece of individual liberty. If you didn't like the deal someone was offering, you could walk down the street and find an alternative trading partner. Monopoly--someone who made you poor, limited your freedom by telling you to "take it or leave it" and made that stick--was not something America could afford. But steam power and industrial machinery changed things. A single factory could produce enough to sell to a state or the nation. Andrew Carnegie's integrated steel mills, George Westinghouse's electrically powered machines and appliances, Gustavus Swift's steer-disassembly line and others promised huge efficiencies by producing at massive scale. The sheer magnitude of economies of scale made it seem likely that, left to itself, the market would produce monopoly after monopoly. But were the efficiency gains--lower costs--worth the loss of individual choice? Without competition, there was every reason to fear that lower costs would come with higher prices and a more unequal distribution of wealth. The attempt to carve a solution to the late 19th-century dilemmas of antitrust came with Ohio Sen. John Sherman, younger brother of Civil War Gen. William Tecumsah Sherman, and his 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. When the dust of the first generation of antitrust litigation settled, the United States found itself with a legal system that tolerated oligopoly, in which four or five large firms competed against each other in an individual market, but sought hard to curb monopoly, a single dominant seller with overwhelming market share, through tight constraints on the monopoly's conduct or through court-mandated breakups of monopoly businesses that had used their power to restrain trade unreasonably. The hope was that this set of legal principles would get us most of the efficiency benefits possible from economies of scale--the oligopolistic firms were extremely large--and most of the benefits of competition as well--the oligopolistic firms would compete against each other. Back then, antitrust law mattered, for the large companies it affected had enormous scope and reach throughout the economy. Nearly every construction project used U.S. Steel's steel. The court case that broke up Standard Oil and the threat of antitrust action that turned AT&T into the highly regulated Bell system that we knew before the early 1980s shaped America's economy. During the Great Depression, another principle was added to the mix. Congress decided the government should put its thumb on the scale on the side of relatively small producers: There was a public purpose to be served in outlawing practices that made it difficult for the small-scale producer to survive alongside oligopolistic giants, even if they were not the lowest-cost producers, even if the giants' practices were not necessarily unreasonable restraints. Thus, antitrust became a tangled web of different laws pursuing contradictory purposes. For most of the past 50 years, lawyers, judges and analysts have gradually picked that web apart. The Chicago school of economists shifted from being enthusiastic advocates of aggressive antitrust enforcement to advocating a hands-off position. Future Judge Robert H. Bork suggested that antitrust law be revised to focus solely on consumer welfare. Over the years, Bork's view gained strength. People scratched their heads as they watched the virtual repeal of antitrust statutes like the Robinson-Patman Act undertaken by those who in other areas (civil-rights law, say) exalted the original intent of legislatures and decried judge-made law. But it was not clear that small-scale producers deserved a special edge. A looser approach recognizing that close business links could be beneficial seemed likely to make us all better off. Now, however, new technology has once again ripped open the seams. In the days of Standard Oil, to be twice the size of your competitors meant your unit costs were perhaps 10% lower. In these days of the information economy, a much larger share of costs are fixed and sunk: The program has to be written and debugged only once, no matter how many copies are sold. Thus, to be twice the size means your per-unit costs are little more than half as much. The complexity of information-age products means there are subtle dependencies across markets: It seems to be easier to get Microsoft FrontPage working well when the Web server it uploads files to is running Microsoft Internet Information Server rather than when it is running open-source Apache. In addition to supply-side economies of scale, there are demand-side economies of scale: If, say, four of your five co-workers are using Microsoft Word, than either you use it, too, or see a fifth of your life vanish into dealing with format glitches. Moreover, the benefits to bigness, or at least coordination, seem larger in the information age. Software for minicomputers stagnated in the 1980s because each brand's version of the Unix operating system was incompatible with the others. The World Wide Web has boomed in the 1990s because its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee, made the software protocols available to everyone for free. In the early 20th century, the oligopolies that antitrust established were stable: Economies of scale were limited, so that General Motors had a cost advantage but not that much of a cost advantage over Ford. Our new technologies have far larger and stronger economies of scale, meaning that, as economists Hal R. Varian and Carl Shapiro have written, markets will not and cannot look like the competitive markets of ideal economic theory. Given the size of the economies of scale, it is not clear we want them to. So what does this mean for antitrust? First, we do not know how much antitrust law can matter. The economy is so much bigger today that even its largest companies play a smaller role than U.S. Steel, Standard Oil or AT&T did a century ago. The Microsoft case cannot have as much economy-shaking impact. Technology also seems to be moving sufficiently rapidly to make whatever antitrust remedy is reached in that case of doubtful relevance: The market and the industry will have changed too much. The smaller impact of any single case and the difficulty of keeping pace with changing technology may end up making judicial antitrust remedies irrelevant. Perhaps courts and prosecutors will try to maintain the standard pattern: Tolerate oligopoly, break up monopoly. If so, antitrust authorities will have a busy time as they watch economies of scale create a dominant natural monopoly in sector after sector, then move to break up the monopoly and restore competition. Will such a pattern lead to an efficient and productive economy? We are not sure. A second possible direction would be to have greater tolerance for monopolies that played fair: to focus on establishing and monitoring a code of conduct for information-age natural monopolies that allows us to reap all the efficiency benefits of bigness and still maintain a degree of virtual, if not real, competition. But can such a code of standard-setting friendliness be specified and enforced? We are not sure. There are other directions in which antitrust law could move, directions that will come as a surprise, but that, perhaps, the Microsoft case will foreshadow. However, the dilemma of antitrust will remain: bigness vs. freedom of choice, competition vs. economies of scale. - - - J. Bradford De Long Is a Professor of Economics at Uc Berkeley and Co-editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From mstone@vc.net Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:52:54 -0700 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:52:54 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] J. Bradford DeLong I looked up the e-mail address of J. Bradford DeLong, author of the op-ed I just posted to the list. If you were as impressed with it as I was, you might feel the urge to drop him a note. delong@econ.berkeley.edu Also located another interesting article by DeLong, this one about concentrations of wealth throughout history of the United States: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/carnegie/DeLong_Moscow_paper2.htm l Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:37:42 -0700 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:37:42 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company From: "Case Roole" > It has been established by a federal court that Microsoft has been an abusing > monopolist. Did any of its employees leave because they didn't want to work for > such a company? Surely, there are lots of other, more decent, places where they > can work. However, I have heard of no defections. Therefore, I think > Microsoft's employees knew of the nature of the company they work for all the > time and liked it. You're missing the alternative answer to this, which is that the employees don't believe that they're working for an abusing monopoly, and that they think the Federal Court is full of shit. Which, from what I've heard is actually probably closer to reality. Simon From mwt4@cornell.edu Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:43:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:43:16 -0400 From: Michael Tofias mwt4@cornell.edu Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company >From: "Case Roole" >> It has been established by a federal court that Microsoft has been an >abusing >> monopolist. Did any of its employees leave because they didn't want to >work for >> such a company? Surely, there are lots of other, more decent, places where >they >> can work. However, I have heard of no defections. Therefore, I think >> Microsoft's employees knew of the nature of the company they work for all >the >> time and liked it. > >You're missing the alternative answer to this, which is that the employees >don't believe that they're working for an abusing monopoly, and that they >think the Federal Court is full of shit. > >Which, from what I've heard is actually probably closer to reality. > >Simon > denial isn't just a river... Michael Michael Tofias 103 Highland Place Apt. 1 Ithaca, NY 14850 From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Sun, 09 Apr 2000 21:43:27 -0400 Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 21:43:27 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company Simon Cooke wrote: > You're missing the alternative answer to this, which is that the employees > don't believe that they're working for an abusing monopoly, and that they > think the Federal Court is full of shit. > > Which, from what I've heard is actually probably closer to reality. Then they are not ignorant, they are stupid. > > Simon -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From stevecoh@mcs.com Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:29:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:29:00 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Case Roole" > > It has been established by a federal court that Microsoft has been an > abusing > > monopolist. Did any of its employees leave because they didn't want to > work for > > such a company? Surely, there are lots of other, more decent, places where > they > > can work. However, I have heard of no defections. Therefore, I think > > Microsoft's employees knew of the nature of the company they work for all > the > > time and liked it. > > You're missing the alternative answer to this, which is that the employees > don't believe that they're working for an abusing monopoly, and that they > think the Federal Court is full of shit. > Just pass me some o'that Kool-Aid. From joe@pjprimer.com Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:14:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:14:02 -0500 From: Joe Barr joe@pjprimer.com Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign No, John is right. Bill Gates is a thief and he should be put behind bars for his crimes. Perhaps the destruction he has done to people's lives, not by producing better products, lord knows any other OS is better than the crap from Redmond, from DR DOS to OS/2 to Linux to Be to whatever, but by illegal business practices documented in the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law will be sufficient to effect change to the laws so that scum like him do hard time to pay for their crimes. MS employees sell their integrity for a shot at personal wealth from the stock bonuses. Of course the miserable little curs are going to claim their products are great. They are above all else great liars. They have the same values as Gates, which is to say none absolutely none - except for the size of the stack of gold they can amass. If they told the truth about MS and its products and its business ethic it would diminish the value of their stock. So they lie. On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, Simon Cooke wrote: > >From: "John J. Urbaniak" > >Gates is now mounting a massive PR campaign to make his case over the TV > >Networks. > > > >To accomplish this, he's spending money he stole from me. > > John J. Urbaniak - please explain in DETAIL how he stole money from you. > > He didn't. > > Simply put, you made a mistake. > > You've had 5 years now to correct that mistake. > > All you have to do is port your system to Linux, Windows, Solaris or BSD. > Pick one. > > If you are a competent developer (some people here seemed to take umbrance > at my suggestion that you weren't competent), it should take you less than a > year to do so - provided that you wrote your software in a maintainable > fashion in the first place, and accurately documented it - which are two > traits of a competent software devleoper. > > If you are a competent business manager, it will take less than a year to > gather enough IPO funds to move your system to an Intranet based solution > running on Linux. You can then hire other people to do the grunt work. > > You are in this situation because of YOUR OWN doing. Not because of > Microsoft. They did NOTHING directly to you. Heck, try it out in a court of > law - but if you're just sitting on your ass waiting to try and get some > money out of Microsoft in court, on your own head be it. > > Simon > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- *====================================================* | El Jefe de Nadie Linux Liberation Army | | 1EB1 CD1B 1143 D73C C0F7 15D7 E7E9 2EC2 176E 573D | *====================================================* From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:43:43 -0700 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:43:43 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign From: "Joe Barr" > No, John is right. No, he's not. Having trouble seeing through your bile goggles? Why don't you try answering Mr. Bennet's post... or do you just reply to mine because I'm an ex-MS employee, so anything goes when I say it? Simon From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:48:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:48:32 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Re: Microsoft [explanation of proposed antitrust remedies] The following message I just spent 90 minutes typing in response to an e-mail received earlier this week from a visitor to msboycott.com. I thought it would be interesting discussion fodder for this list, and as such have posted it here with the original sender's name and e-mail blocked out. ====== On 04.07.2000 2:39 PM, J---- C--- typed: ======= >As you are probably aware, the judge in the trial involving Microsoft >and the U.S. Department of Justice has ruled that Microsoft is guilty of >uncompetitive practises. What are some of the scenarios that could >occur as a result of this ruling? Also, what could be the impact on the >IT industry, small companies and users of Microsoft products if the >scenarios unfold? The ruling will definitely expose Microsoft to more lawsuits from other parties, some of which have been filed in the six days that have passed since Judge Jackson's decision (170+ suits against the company as-of Friday). It will also have a short-term and possibly long term negative effect on Microsoft's stock price, as you can plainly see by its performance over the last week. The overall market will also be affected, both by investor's fears that Microsoft will collapse, and the inclusion of Microsoft shares in most major indexes including the Dow and Nasdaq composite. Beyond those reactions, both of which began almost immediately after the ruling, it becomes hard to make any real predictions about an impact. Long-term effects on the IT industry, business world, and consumers in general will ultimately depend on the judge's next decision regarding punishment for Microsoft's illegal actions. The punishments could range anywhere from fines, a forced removal of assets, government controls on business practices like contracts, government control over products and their features, or an outright breakup of the company. So far as fines are concerned, Microsoft can withstand nearly any amount levied against it. The company currently has more than $7 billion in cash assets on hand, an additional few billion in physical property, and a potential $100 billion in intellectual property like copyrights and patents. That in addition to the stored value in the company itself - a stored value that can be accessed by simply issuing previously unreleased shares of stock. Almost any imaginable fines could be paid by Microsoft without much of a delay, and afterwards the money spent could most certainly be made back by the continuation of current business practices. Such a punishment would have little to no impact on the company or anything else. A forced removal of assets would be more satisfying, so far as fixing some of the problems caused by the company over the last decade. The government antitrust case is, unfortunately, limited to Microsoft's Windows and Internet Explorer properties - any punishment removing other assets would most certainly be overturned in a higher court. Microsoft would retain the inherently valuable Office productivity suite, Internet properties, development tools, investments in other companies, and other software. The forced removal of Windows and/or Internet Explorer would have an impact on the company, particularly its income, but many tools that could be used for creating new monopolies would still belong to the company. And the forced removal of Windows could cause other problems, primarily the potential for a DIFFERENT company to control the monopoly operating system, putting us back in the same boat that we sit in now with Microsoft. The only way to ensure that no one else will use Windows as a tool of oppression is to put it out into public domain, either by the expiration of Microsoft's copyrights or by the adoption of an open source-type license similar to the one used to distribute Linux. This is the optimal way to remove Windows and/or Internet Explorer from Microsoft's control, but that solution still leaves those other assets for the company to take advantage of. In the end, we would still have one company with a monopoly on office suites and other software, while an additional company would have a monopoly on operating systems and possibly Web browsers. Our next possible punishment is close government oversight of Microsoft's business practices and products. The MSBC opposes this remedy for various reasons. First, it would require millions of dollars annually in additional government spending. The future viability of a 'Microsoft Oversight Committee' is questionable, since the nation's perspective on enforcing antitrust laws changes each time a new person is elected as chief executive. The legal minds inside Microsoft will stop at nothing to twist around any agreements or rulings by changing product names, integrating products (see the 1994 Microsoft DoJ agreement for an example), and by pure outright refusal to comply with the law. We do not regard this punishment as a viable solution for the Microsoft problem. That leaves us, finally, with the most popular solution to Microsoft: a forced breakup of the company similar to the one pushed on AT&T back in the early 1980's. Such a split can be conducted in two ways. The most widely discussed proposal is an even break by product lines, where three to five 'Baby Bills' would be created, each with their own specific product category - one for Internet technology and another with operating systems, for example. The problem with this solution lies with the potential for collusion among those split companies. With each one possessing a product group complimentary (and tied in one way or another) to the product group possessed by another, it doesn't take a fortune teller to predict that they could eventually work together behind closed doors. This problem is made especially likely by the executives who would be chosen to operate each Baby Bill, since the leaders of Microsoft's respective internal divisions are all old friends of Bill Gates. No one can seriously argue that three to five companies with complimentary product lines, operated by people who are friends with each other, can compete against themselves. It would do nothing to make the market more competitive, and would only result in a Microsoft that looks less monopolistic even though it could retain the same powers it had before. The other breakup proposal (one that Microsoft, its investors and [apparently] the government are all against) would call for the company to be broken into two or more identical 'Minisofts' with identical product lines and an equal balance of assets and employees. Each would continue producing the products Microsoft currently produces, only they would be competing against each other in every category. If people running any of the 'Minisofts' was perceived as 'giving in' to its competition, one of the other 'Minisofts', that company's own respective stock would plummet - something that could be blamed squarely on its chief executive. That would, for the most part, stabilize things and force each 'Minisoft' to compete against the rest. That would free other competitors to innovate and market without fear, and would result in reduced software prices across the board. In conclusion, we have to say that the punishment favored by our group combines the effects of the 'forced asset removal' and the second form of a breakup. If we were the judge (and we certainly are not, he seems adequately qualified by himself) then we would force Microsoft to release its current Windows operating system code to the public under a GPL type license, and then have the company broken into no less than four competing 'Minisofts'. That would encourage people to improve Windows, reduce the cost of every operating system, free the market for true competition among software vendors, and still keep Microsoft's own investors from losing all (if any) of their investments. Let me know if this message helps you any, and also let me know in advance if you decide to do anything with it (like quoting me for example). Have a nice day. --- ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it down the throats of our users." -Paul Maritz, former Microsoft Vice President From jjurban@ibm.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:22:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:22:09 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > John Urbaniak wrote: > > > > > > > You've had 5 years now to correct that mistake. > > > > > > All you have to do is port your system to Linux, Windows, Solaris or BSD. > > > Pick one. > > > >My OS/2 system is fine as it is. It's functional, flexible, efficient and it > >doesn't crash. > > You can't just assume OS/2 would have succeeded absent Microsoft's > interference, and sit around complaining about it. It's a fascinating technique, most often used by desparate criminals, to try to switch the blame to the victim rather than the perpetrator. I am not sitting around complaining about it. I'm doing the best I can to put my life back together. But until I can finish a new version, I have to try to make a living selling my OS/2 system. But get your facts straight: Microsoft is the criminal here, not me. Microsoft broke the law, not me. > Suppose you had > written your software for the Amiga. Would you have moved on by now, > or would you be complaining about how Amiga's screw-ups supposedly > deprived you of your livelihood? Different case. As far as I know, Microsoft didn't use its monopoly illegally to destroy the Amiga market. But I might be wrong. > > > >But I don't work that way. I study the base platform. I study the > >programming > >languages. I design the system. And I test it thoroughly. That's why my one > >user has successfully run my system for a year and a half now with > >not a single > >crash. I bet you can't find a Windows user anywhere, who has used > >Windows every > >day, who can claim not a single system crash in a year and a half. > > > >Anyone here know of such a user? > > I've occasionally run across people who claim to have NT up for a > year or so without it crashing. > > I'll take your word for it. > > > > Now what is the old gentleman going to do... get back to work and > earn some more money, or sit around and complain about the thugs for > the rest of his life? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be > to ask whether the old gentleman is going to keep walking down that > same street every night despite having not reported the thugs to the > police. > This particular gentleman is enjoying watching the chief thug spend money on a PR campaign, money which would be better spent improving his company's products and fixing its bugs, telling the world how he cares for "the children." This particular gentleman is enjoying watching the chief thug complain and whine to Congress and the media: "wah-wah, boo-hoo-hoo, they're picking on me, and I'm so innovative, sob, sob, it's not fair. As with all thugs, the chief thug is really the world's biggest crybaby and coward. This particular gentleman is enjoying watching the thug take his gang right down the toilet with him. John From jjurban@ibm.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:43:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:43:34 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] Re: Microsoft [explanation of proposed antitrust remedies] --------------8C129FDD7114CBEF1F42E9C3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Rickard wrote: > The following message I just spent 90 minutes typing in response to an > e-mail received earlier this week from a visitor to msboycott.com. I > thought it would be interesting discussion fodder for this list, and as > such have posted it here with the original sender's name and e-mail > blocked out. > > So far as fines are concerned, Microsoft can withstand nearly any > amount levied against it. The company currently has more than $7 billion > in cash assets on hand, an additional few billion in physical property, > $7 billion? If so, that's a drastic decrease from the 22 or so billion they had a few months ago. Where'd the other $15 billion go? John --------------8C129FDD7114CBEF1F42E9C3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Paul Rickard wrote:

   The following message I just spent 90 minutes typing in response to an
e-mail received earlier this week from a visitor to msboycott.com. I
thought it would be interesting discussion fodder for this list, and as
such have posted it here with the original sender's name and e-mail
blocked out.
 
     So far as fines are concerned, Microsoft can withstand nearly any
amount levied against it. The company currently has more than $7 billion
in cash assets on hand, an additional few billion in physical property,
 


$7 billion?  If so, that's a drastic decrease from the 22 or so billion they had a few months ago.  Where'd the other $15 billion go?

John
  --------------8C129FDD7114CBEF1F42E9C3-- From jjurban@ibm.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:05:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:05:30 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign "John J. Urbaniak" wrote: > > > This particular gentleman is enjoying watching the chief thug spend money on a PR > campaign, money which would be better spent improving his company's products and > fixing its bugs, telling the world how he cares for "the children." I forgot to add that the money could be better spent paying his employees a real salary, rather than giving them stock options which have proved to be worthless over the past year. And giving his investors a real dividend, rather than relying on a stock price which has shown zero or negative return over the past year. But no, this thug spends the money "improving his image" while his company falls apart. John From ericb@pobox.com Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:02:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:02:33 -0400 From: Eric M. Bennett ericb@pobox.com Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign John Urbaniak wrote: >I am not sitting around complaining about it. I'm doing the best I >can to put my >life back together. But until I can finish a new version, I have to >try to make a >living selling my OS/2 system. OK, but from your previous (numerous) posts on this subject, it didn't sound to me like you were working on a new version... it sounded like you were going to spend the rest of your life trying to sell the OS/2 version. >But get your facts straight: Microsoft is the criminal here, not me. >Microsoft >broke the law, not me. Where did I claim that you broke the law? It just seemed to me from your previous messages >I'll take your word for it. Based on Simon's recent comment, I assume he's seen NT4 up for on the order of a year. >This particular gentleman is enjoying watching the thug take his >gang right down >the toilet with him. All the while still complaining about what the thug has done to him. Which is fine, if you do more than just that. It just seemed to me, from your previous messages, that you were just talking and complaining but not taking either of two reasonable actions to remedy what you were complaining about, those actions being (a) port to another platform and (b) report the thug to the authorities. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. -Alan Skrainka From mstone@vc.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:17:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:17:41 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign --- From a message sent by Simon Cooke on 4/9/00 9:43 PM --- >From: "Joe Barr" >> No, John is right. > >No, he's not. Having trouble seeing through your bile goggles? Why don't you >try answering Mr. Bennet's post... or do you just reply to mine because I'm >an ex-MS employee, so anything goes when I say it? I came here for an argument. No, you came here for an argument... Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From mstone@vc.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:17:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:17:41 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign --- From a message sent by John J. Urbaniak on 4/10/00 1:22 AM --- >> Suppose you had >> written your software for the Amiga. Would you have moved on by now, >> or would you be complaining about how Amiga's screw-ups supposedly >> deprived you of your livelihood? > >Different case. As far as I know, Microsoft didn't use its monopoly >illegally to >destroy the Amiga market. But I might be wrong. Commodore self-destructed in 1994 due to poor management, and pretty much took the Amiga down with it. The Amiga assets were sold off to a German company, but it was too late in the game to revive it. You might say that by that time (1995), it was fairly near impossible for any company to successfully enter the consumer computer space. The Amiga fans never give up, though. In fact, they held their annual Amiga-fest in St. Louis again this month. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From mstone@vc.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:23:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:23:47 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Microsoft Challenged, but Stronger Than You Think This column appears to set the tone for the "new apologists." Microsoft is "stronger than you think -- they don't win all of them, but they keep coming back." First thing I'd ask is, who exactly is it that underestimates Microsoft? -====- http://www.latimes.com/business/columns/flanigan/todays.topstory.htm Sunday, April 9, 2000 Microsoft Challenged, but Stronger Than You Think By JAMES FLANIGAN A fast consensus arose last week that Microsoft would be road kill in the wake of an adverse antitrust ruling by a federal judge. Predictions flew that government strictures would hobble Microsoft, perhaps even break up the company; that competitors with new technologies would leave it in the dust; and that trial lawyers would nibble it to death in civil lawsuits. Don't you believe it. Microsoft will do well in any circumstance, because it is an uncommonly skillful company. Even if the government orders a breakup as a remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices--an unlikely event--many experts say that the software giant would be an even more formidable competitor split into three or four companies. That point is debatable, however--and in fact is currently being debated in high-tech and financial circles. But shareholders would definitely benefit from a Microsoft breakup, as investors historically have from the dismantling of telephone and oil companies. As to competitors, Microsoft is already a far more varied and complex force in information technology than critics and the antitrust case's subject matter give it credit for. Right now, 45% of company sales and just about half its total profit come from systems for offices and industry in which it doesn't enjoy the dominant position of its Windows operating system. Microsoft has won competitive battles by turning its efforts to where technology is going and by improving its product offerings until they become the market standard--as it did with Windows for desktop computers. The company is reinventing itself today. In the two years in which the government has argued antitrust charges against it, Microsoft has geared up for a future of bringing broadband Internet services to homes and businesses. Not least among its preparations have been investments in telecommunications, cable and media companies, including $5 billion in AT&T, $1 billion in Comcast and tens of millions in such firms as Akamai Technologies, a hot, new Cambridge, Mass.-based firm with a way to speed downloads of programming from the Internet. As to civil lawsuits, even Microsoft critics admit there is not much in last week's ruling that opens it to class-action suits. Microsoft is not accused of overcharging for Windows, so it would be hard for plaintiffs to show damages. Also, with $17.8 billion in ready cash and short-term investments, Microsoft can afford to fight lawsuits. "It is an often underestimated company," says Bharat Sastri, founder and president of HelloBrain.com, a new company in Santa Clara, Calif., that runs an Internet exchange of engineered solutions for technical problems. "Microsoft's people have invented basic products of computing. The company is rich in research and development," says Sastri, a Silicon Valley veteran who has been both a competitor and a collaborator of the Redmond, Wash., firm. To be sure, there are threats to Microsoft's continued growth and prosperity--but they are subtle. If the aftermath of its guilty verdict includes heavy strictures on its conduct and a drawn-out legal process, Microsoft could lose its attractiveness as a place to work for bright, ambitious people. Specifically, if legal clouds cause investors to avoid Microsoft stock, the firm's stock options would be less appealing. And Microsoft's 31,400 employees are renowned for being paid mostly in stock options--the firm's employees hold vested stock options worth $36 billion at latest count. (The total stock market value of all Microsoft shares is more than $460 billion.) "The company works by setting goals. You have very specific, enumerated goals to fulfill each year to earn the stock options," says a three-year veteran of Microsoft's system. "Each year the goals are set higher, so you can earn more," he adds. Many Microsoft employees have become wealthy in the past. But if the stock--which closed Friday at $89.06, off more than 25% from its all-time high--were to stall, the goal-oriented hard work could slow down. Bureaucracy could take root. "Cholesterol could kill them," says Richard Shaffer, head of Technologic Partners, a New York-based consulting firm and a long-time technology expert. There is no sign of that yet. Instead, Microsoft's earnings are growing at a pace of more than 20% for the fiscal year ending June 30, and it is introducing new systems for office and home computing. The company faces competitive challenges today. Computer users are making a transition from personal computers to the Internet and to wireless devices that work on open systems--as opposed to proprietary operating systems, such as Windows, that have given Microsoft market power and control. Microsoft products are behind in several categories. Linux, the free, open operating system, now holds a leading share of the market for Internet server computers; Microsoft's Windows NT trails. Palm computers hold the clear lead in the market for hand-held devices, ahead of computers with Windows CE systems. So Microsoft doesn't win them all. But it keeps coming back--"like a Japanese company," say rueful competitors. Windows NT (for new technology) systems are gaining share in server markets as Microsoft improves the product with each new version; the firm's Internet Explorer 5 Web browser, which was at the heart of the antitrust case, is recognized as the most capable product to support e-commerce. Explorer has evolved technologically much more than the competing Netscape browser, experts say. Microsoft's Office Suite, which includes word processing, spreadsheet and database control software programs, has gained steadily since it was developed in the 1980s on a Bill Gates insight that customers wanted such services in a single package. The point is that Microsoft's real strength lies not in monopoly but in the skills of a big company "that can bring large software projects to successful operation for vast markets," says analyst Mark Specker of Wit Soundview Technologies, a research firm based in Stamford, Conn. But Microsoft also has often won by bare-knuckles tactics such as differential pricing to hurt competitors, maneuvers that stepped over the antitrust line. The law properly watches that line because it is an essential element of the U.S. system to keep markets open for newcomers for fresh ideas and innovation. It has been that way since 1807 when steamboat inventor Robert Fulton was told by a court that he couldn't keep a competitor from shipping on New York Harbor. Microsoft, a company with 1,200 technological patents to its credit, will bounce back from the jolt it has taken from the law. It's not a company to underestimate, as many were doing last week. * * * Profit Driver Microsoft is a profit machine, whether in Windows operating systems for desktop computers or in software programs for office and commercial work. In consumer markets, with games and other programs, it loses money. Shown are revenues and operating income for fiscal 1999 in the three segments of the company's business. * * * Windows 1999 Revenues: $8.6 billion Operating Income: 6.0 billion * * * Office Applications (Microsoft Office and other productivity products) Revenue: $8.7 billion Operating Income: 5.6 billion * * * Consumer Products / WebTV Revenues: $1.8 billion Operating Loss: -1.07 billion * * * Source: Company report * * * James Flanigan can be reached at jim.flanigan@latimes.com. -====- From ethical@1of1.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:30:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:30:23 -0700 From: Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One Net ethical@1of1.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign In a message that was dated 2000 April 10 (Monday), and timestamped 08:17 AM, Mitch Stone wrote: "|>Different case. As far as I know, Microsoft didn't use its monopoly "|>illegally to "|>destroy the Amiga market. But I might be wrong. "|Commodore self-destructed in 1994 due to poor management, and pretty "|much took the Amiga down with it. The Amiga assets were sold off to "|a German company, but it was too late in the game to revive it. You "|might say that by that time (1995), it was fairly near impossible "|for any company to successfully enter the consumer computer space. "|The Amiga fans never give up, though. In fact, they held their "|annual Amiga-fest in St. Louis again this month. No pecs on your timing; your timing is impeccable. From the most recent ZDNet SRO Update: >3. Some Technologies Should Die Peacefully http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?29635:5467143 Hey, you know me. I love getting every last bit of good from old technology. But some technologies should be allowed to die a peaceful death. Amiga is one of them. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One Net blossoming or dancing in Portland, Oregon, USofA, where The body is not bruised to pleasure soul, Nor beauty born of its own despair, Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil. ----------------------------------------------------------- From mstone@vc.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:13:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:13:22 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign --- From a message sent by Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One Net on 4/10/00 8:30 AM --- >No pecs on your timing; your timing is impeccable. From the most >recent ZDNet SRO Update: > > > >>3. Some Technologies Should Die Peacefully >http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?29635:5467143 > >Hey, you know me. I love getting every last bit of good from old >technology. But some technologies should be allowed to die a peaceful >death. Amiga is one of them. > > You know when a columnist is taking himself way too seriously when he proclaims one or another product obsolete simply because he doesn't use it. Some people should be made to sit in a very dark room for a very long while before they are allowed to speak. It might give them time to reflect on the wisdom of what they were about to say. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:20:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:20:45 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Re: Microsoft [explanation of proposed antitrust remedies] ====== On 04.10.2000 4:43 AM, John J. Urbaniak typed: ======= >> The following message I just spent 90 minutes typing in response to an >> e-mail received earlier this week from a visitor to msboycott.com. I >> thought it would be interesting discussion fodder for this list, and as >> such have posted it here with the original sender's name and e-mail >> blocked out. >> > >> So far as fines are concerned, Microsoft can withstand nearly any >> amount levied against it. The company currently has more than $7 billion >> in cash assets on hand, an additional few billion in physical property, >> > >$7 billion? If so, that's a drastic decrease from the 22 or so billion they >had a few months ago. Where'd the other $15 billion go? $7 billion was the last figure I saw.. It could certainly be more, I just suppose it depends on what numbers you look at. Microsoft has some above-average accountants. I also forgot to mention the $30 billion or so the company has stored as investments in other companies, like AT&T or TeleWest. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Microsoft is like this intellectual roach motel: big brains go in and you don't see anything come out." -Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future From jjurban@ibm.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:12:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:12:43 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] Gates' PR Campaign Mitch Stone wrote: > --- From a message sent by John J. Urbaniak on 4/10/00 1:22 AM --- > > >> Suppose you had > >> written your software for the Amiga. Would you have moved on by now, > >> or would you be complaining about how Amiga's screw-ups supposedly > >> deprived you of your livelihood? > > > >Different case. As far as I know, Microsoft didn't use its monopoly > >illegally to > >destroy the Amiga market. But I might be wrong. > > Commodore self-destructed in 1994 due to poor management, and pretty much > took the Amiga down with it. The Amiga assets were sold off to a German > company, but it was too late in the game to revive it. You might say that > by that time (1995), it was fairly near impossible for any company to > successfully enter the consumer computer space. The Amiga fans never give > up, though. In fact, they held their annual Amiga-fest in St. Louis again > this month. > God bless 'em. John From ericb@pobox.com Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:37:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:37:54 -0400 From: Eric M. Bennett ericb@pobox.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE 5.5: http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt This comes just a couple weeks after the same group praised IE 5 on the Mac for good standards support. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. -Alan Skrainka From mstone@vc.net Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:06:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:06:35 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 4/10/00 7:37 PM --- > >Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE 5.5: >http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt Which raises an obvious question: how can one abandon what one never had? Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:21:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:21:18 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 ====== On 04.11.2000 12:06 AM, Mitch Stone typed: ======= >> >>Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE 5.5: >>http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt > >Which raises an obvious question: how can one abandon what one never had? Hmm.. Microsoft didn't by any chance just drop out of the Web Standards group, did it? ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "But for Microsoft's interference, the market would be much more dynamic as new technologies and fresh innovations challenged the company's present dominance." -Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee From spectecjr@hotmail.com Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:58:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:58:24 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Paul Rickard" > >>Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE 5.5: > >>http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt > > > >Which raises an obvious question: how can one abandon what one never had? > > Hmm.. Microsoft didn't by any chance just drop out of the Web > Standards group, did it? Are you sure you're not mixing them up with the W3C? The Web Standards group (or whatever they are) aren't even in the same league as the W3C. Simon From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:14:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:14:31 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 ====== On 04.11.2000 12:58 AM, Simon Cooke typed: ======= >> Hmm.. Microsoft didn't by any chance just drop out of the Web >> Standards group, did it? > >Are you sure you're not mixing them up with the W3C? The Web Standards group >(or whatever they are) aren't even in the same league as the W3C. No, I'm just asking in general if Microsoft recently left the membership of that organization, whatever it may be. Any standards group with intelligent members who aren't being paid dues by Microsoft knows that Ms products are anything but standard. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Faced with the prospect of rereading this book, I would rather have my brains ripped out by a plastic fork." -ZDNet Review of Bill Gates' book 'Business @ the Speed of Thought' From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:14:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:14:06 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] 'Microsoft to lose Explorer' story published accidentally. Hm.. www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2672 : According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the government forces arrayed against Microsoft Corporation in its historic antitrust trial will seek to strip Microsoft of its rights to Internet Explorer, the Web browser at the heart of the case. This proposal would be but one of numerous suggestions made to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who will hear presentations from both sides in the case next month. In essence, Internet Explorer would be opened up so that any company could get a royalty-free license to the product, giving them access to its source code so that modifications and improvements could be easily made. What's interesting about this development, of course, is that it represents a new way of thinking on the part of the government. During the settlement talks, the government had dropped the idea of breaking up the company, and Microsoft's subsequent proposals were considered inadequate, featuring relatively minor behavior remedies. With the release of the conclusions of law, however, and the declaration of Microsoft's guilt to back it, the government is now bargaining from a position of power. And though they seem to be still backing away from breakup discussions, its proposals will definitely be tougher than they were during the settlement talks. But the widespread distribution of IE to competitors and partners alike, along with its source code, is just a first step. The government is also considering a number of similar moves for Windows 2000 and its integrated server software, and Microsoft Office, a product with an even clearer monopoly than Windows itself. These and other possible remedies are being floated around the computer industry this month in an effort to get feedback. .. But the WSJ story is no longer on its Web site, as reported by CNet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1674123.html NEW YORK--The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition today issued and then pulled a story saying Microsoft may be stripped of the rights to its Internet Explorer Web browser as part of the remedy in the government antitrust case it lost earlier this month. A spokesman for the paper, Dick Tofel, said the story, which first appeared in the Journal's Internet edition late last night, was never meant to be published. The story was "up there for only a few hours," Tofel said, and never appeared in the Journal's printed editions. The Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Interactive are published by Dow Jones. An earlier Reuters version of The Wall Street Journal story was posted by CNET News.com. The story cited people close to the Microsoft case as saying the government is considering a proposal that would force Microsoft to grant royalty-free licenses to Internet Explorer, opening the programming code to customers and computer makers. Restrictions on Microsoft's Office software products and its Windows 2000 server software are also being considered, the report said. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department would not comment on the story, except to repeat the Journal's position that the story was posted in error. A spokesman for Microsoft was not immediately available to comment on the matter. Microsoft shares fell $3, or more than 3 percent, to $86.06 today on the Nasdaq, where the stock was the second most actively traded issue. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "As Internet technology itself vaults into new areas, so too does the Microsoft monopoly and its tried-and-true bag of tricks." -US Senator Orrin Hatch, (R) Utah From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:24:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:24:06 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Paul Rickard wrote: > > ====== On 04.11.2000 12:06 AM, Mitch Stone typed: ======= > > >> > >>Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE 5.5: > >>http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt > > > >Which raises an obvious question: how can one abandon what one never had? > > Hmm.. Microsoft didn't by any chance just drop out of the Web > Standards group, did it? The only thing that amazes me about this is that people are surprised by it. Microsoft is following SOP... -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:34:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:34:45 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:58:24PM -0700, Simon Cooke wrote: > From: "Paul Rickard" > > >>Webstandards.org says Microsoft is abandoning critical standards in IE > 5.5: > > >>http://www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt > > > > > >Which raises an obvious question: how can one abandon what one never h= ad? > > > > Hmm.. Microsoft didn't by any chance just drop out of the Web > > Standards group, did it? >=20 > Are you sure you're not mixing them up with the W3C? The Web Standards > group (or whatever they are) aren't even in the same league as the > W3C. You are correct. The web standards group appears to be more of a webmasters guild organization, disseminating wisdom about webmastering, and speaking with a collective voice for those in the profession. I doubt the organization even has a formal membership roster, and even if they did, I doubt Microsoft would be on it. They appear to be very interested in making sure a certain base level of the W3C standards are met in order to make webmasters jobs easier, and to make the web a more pleasant experience for users. OTOH, the W3C is an official standards body whose standards Microsoft seems to be ignoring, despite the fact that they're a member of the organization, and have presumably helped author the standards they seem to be ignoring. Strangely enough, they don't seem to be ignoring these standards in the Macintosh version of IE, just the Windows version. And the Windows version appears to be following the Microsoft SOP of supporting just a part of the standard and then adding proprietary extensions that are different from everyone else. *sigh*, --=20 Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hoppe= r) -- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE48xvlG4QeWBeRdS8RAqw4AKCPusHtVHz0QpE+AjvaRuVuayuICQCdEVSc 49/79YXleSfleaHgVHj7uS4= =mqpR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ-- From sujal@bellatlantic.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:55:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:55:00 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 "Eric M. Hopper" wrote: [SNIP] > Strangely enough, they don't seem to be ignoring these standards > in the Macintosh version of IE, just the Windows version. And the > Windows version appears to be following the Microsoft SOP of supporting > just a part of the standard and then adding proprietary extensions that > are different from everyone else. The two versions are probably not developed by the same group of people, and if IE's Mac development has followed the pattern of their other "ports", they probably aren't nimble enough to modify IE for the mac to omit features at the slightest change in corporate strategy. IIRC, they used to (and I believe still do) use a hire and fire process with their "other platform" development teams (i.e. these guys come in, produce the product, and then leave... which leads to interesting responses from MS tech support: "well, we don't know when or if that problem will get fixed because we don't have any programmers for that product left") Sujal > > *sigh*, > -- > Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. > Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet > broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain > -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:25:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:25:10 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:55:00AM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote: >=20 > The two versions are probably not developed by the same group of > people, and if IE's Mac development has followed the pattern of their > other "ports", they probably aren't nimble enough to modify IE for the > mac to omit features at the slightest change in corporate strategy. > IIRC, they used to (and I believe still do) use a hire and fire > process with their "other platform" development teams (i.e. these guys > come in, produce the product, and then leave... which leads to > interesting responses from MS tech support: "well, we don't know when > or if that problem will get fixed because we don't have any > programmers for that product left") I suspected they weren't developed by the same groups. The fact that they essentially used hired guns to produce their non-Windows platform products is something I hadn't heard. Reading Code Complete, and a few other of the decent software engineering books by Microsoft press leads one to believe they're all one big happy family though. It's kind of amusing, in a sad sort of way, that things are as you describe them. Have fun (if at al possible), --=20 Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hoppe= r) -- --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE48ye2G4QeWBeRdS8RAh8KAJ9rY2WxD3aKjinJpopGki0hHgyxjQCgso8m tkIij2XqEtMHcuifwIyLymo= =knrw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh-- From glivezey@mail.ahc.umn.edu Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:47:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:47:08 -0500 From: Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. glivezey@mail.ahc.umn.edu Subject: [Am-info] (re)Joining the parade Pardon me while I test my capacity to post. I had been denied. Please play through.... -- Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. University of Minnesota Neuroscience Department Room 6-145 Jackson Hall 321 Church St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu absent-minded_professor@bigfoot.com From mstone@vc.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:29:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:29:14 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 --- From a message sent by Eric M. Hopper on 4/11/00 6:25 AM --- >On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:55:00AM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote: >> >> The two versions are probably not developed by the same group of >> people, and if IE's Mac development has followed the pattern of their >> other "ports", they probably aren't nimble enough to modify IE for the >> mac to omit features at the slightest change in corporate strategy. >> IIRC, they used to (and I believe still do) use a hire and fire >> process with their "other platform" development teams (i.e. these guys >> come in, produce the product, and then leave... which leads to >> interesting responses from MS tech support: "well, we don't know when >> or if that problem will get fixed because we don't have any >> programmers for that product left") > > I suspected they weren't developed by the same groups. The fact >that they essentially used hired guns to produce their non-Windows >platform products is something I hadn't heard. Reading Code Complete, >and a few other of the decent software engineering books by Microsoft >press leads one to believe they're all one big happy family though. > > It's kind of amusing, in a sad sort of way, that things are as >you describe them. Microsoft's Mac applications development team is separate. They're not even located in Redmond, but in California. Sunnyvale, I think. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From jjurban@ibm.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:36:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:36:03 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] (re)Joining the parade This is a reply to your test. It came through, at least to me. You were denied?? John "Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D." wrote: > Pardon me while I test my capacity to post. > I had been denied. > Please play through.... > -- > Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. > > University of Minnesota > Neuroscience Department > Room 6-145 Jackson Hall > 321 Church St. S.E. > Minneapolis, MN 55455 > > (612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 > glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu > absent-minded_professor@bigfoot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From glivezey@mail.ahc.umn.edu Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:47:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:47:57 -0500 From: Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. glivezey@mail.ahc.umn.edu Subject: [Am-info] (re)Joining the parade John J. Urbaniak wrote: > This is a reply to your test. It came through, at least to me. > You were denied?? > John IN RE: what "Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D." wrote: > > Pardon me while I test my capacity to post. > > I had been denied. > > Please play through.... > > Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. Indeed. I haven't been able to post for quite some time. But lacking the spare time to construct a meaningful contribution, I let it be. The key appears to be my change(s) of address. I am being assisted at present and this reply represents a "2nd test" after modification of my account in response to the first test. You received my post after it was snagged "for review" for inclusion. Now lets see if my "gag order" is rescinded. Yo. -- Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. University of Minnesota Neuroscience Department Room 6-145 Jackson Hall 321 Church St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu absent-minded_professor@bigfoot.com From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:37:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:37:25 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 ====== On 04.11.2000 8:34 AM, Eric M. Hopper typed: ======= > Strangely enough, they don't seem to be ignoring these standards >in the Macintosh version of IE, just the Windows version. And the >Windows version appears to be following the Microsoft SOP of supporting >just a part of the standard and then adding proprietary extensions that >are different from everyone else. Of course. Microsoft has no interest in adding platform-specific proprietary extensions to the Macintosh - that would defeat the whole reason for having any in the first place. They want any non-Microsoft, non-Windows browsers, including IE, to be incompatible with what "everybody else" is using. That makes people realize that they need to be running Internet Explorer and Windows. It's from the same vein as Windows-enhanced Java. The end goal is to make any platform not totally controlled by the company be 'incompatible' with everything else. They don't make a Mac version of IE to spread their bottled snake oil standards, they make a Mac version of IE to kick Netscape out of its most loyal market. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Microsoft is like this intellectual roach motel: big brains go in and you don't see anything come out." -Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future From spectecjr@hotmail.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:12:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:12:00 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 By the way, I'd like to ask a question at this point: Does anyone know what the Web Standards group is claiming is not supported? I mean, detailed analysis here? Complaints without substance are useless - if not worse. Simon From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:39:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:39:54 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:12:00PM -0700, Simon Cooke wrote: > By the way, I'd like to ask a question at this point: > > Does anyone know what the Web Standards group is claiming is not > supported? I mean, detailed analysis here? I don't think there is one. They don't seem terribly partisan with regards to browsers, so I doubt they have an axe to grind. But partisanship can be hiding under the most innocent of surfaces, so detailed descriptions would be nice. The vague claim is that parts of CSS and, I believe, XSL are unsupported. But the claim is not very specific as to exactly what is unsupported. I've heard nearly identical complaints about Explorer 5 though. > Complaints without substance are useless - if not worse. Agreed. I will do some searching for more substance when I get home tonight. Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From ethical@1of1.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:48:56 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:48:56 -0700 From: Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One Net ethical@1of1.net Subject: [Am-info] Microsoft Challenged, but Stronger Than You Think In a message that was dated 2000 April 10 (Monday), and timestamped 08:23 AM, Mitch Stone wrote: "|http://www.latimes.com/business/columns/flanigan/todays.topstory.htm "|This column appears to set the tone for the "new apologists." "|Microsoft is "stronger than you think -- they don't win all of "|them, but they keep coming back." "|First thing I'd ask is, who exactly is it that underestimates "|Microsoft? Here's a take that does not mentio MS, but which has obvious relevance to MS, from the451.com: stocks stocks glorious stocks Eric Winig/the451.com If last week's epic volatility in tech stocks was frightening for investors, just think how it felt to employees at those companies, many of whom have a good chunk of their net worth tied up in options. And now, thanks to a rule enacted recently by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, those options are much less likely to be repriced in the event of a stock slide. The long-pending rule, which took effect on March 31, requires companies that reprice worthless options to take a quarterly earnings charge until they are exercised. The recent rule stems from the FASB's long-running feud with companies over the use of stock options as compensation. A few years ago, the board issued a rule that would have forced companies to take a charge against earnings to account for the expense incurred in granting options. There is an expense created because when a company allows an employee to purchase stock at less than market price, it must either buy the stock itself in the open market, thus spending cash, or else issue new shares, thus diluting earnings. The outcry from the business community over this proposed rule was so fierce that the FASB backed off. Instead of requiring that companies take a charge, the rule was rewritten so that companies simply needed to list what the charge would have been in the footnotes of their financial report. How big a deal is this? Well, the use of options has mushroomed in recent years, making employees at high-tech firms very sensitive to movements in stock prices. If the stock swoons, many of these "mercenary employees" could jump ship, looking for the next big score. This exodus could put increasing pressure on the stock, creating a vicious cycle. Take Cisco (CSCO), which may be the most beloved company on the planet right now. The company has freely admitted that its earnings would have been 25% lower last year if options charges were taken into account. That works out to $500 million of Cisco's $2 billion in earnings. For a company valued at roughly half-a-trillion dollars, this is a pretty significant amount of money. Investors should consider what could happen to the stock price if these "lost earnings" were suddenly reflected in it. (Or if some Cisco employees suddenly decide it's time to cash in). Fortunately for Cisco's investors, it has never faced a situation where it needed to reprice options. But many other companies have. One company that has used the strategy recently is Radiant Systems (RADS), a maker of point-of-service technologies in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. Radiant, which designs things such as interactive kiosks for gas stations and movie theaters, hit a rough patch a couple of years ago when some expected contracts didn't close in time. The stock, which had climbed into the high-20s, plummeted into single digits, settling in the $6 a share range. Radiant's employees, most of whom had accepted lower salaries in return for options, were devastated. Many of their options had strike prices in the teens or even mid-20s, making them "underwater," or worthless. The company felt it had to act quickly, or risk losing employees when it was still expanding like crazy. So Radiant decided to reprice some options. In fact, it repriced 6 million of them at $6 a share. Since this mini-catastrophe, Radiant has made a comeback. Revenues are up, and the stock has shot up to $45 a share (even after a 3-for-2 split). Radiant employees, meanwhile, are sitting on 6 million options with a strike price of $4 a share (adjusted for the split). Not too shabby. And again, the only way an investor could find out about this additional cost to the company would be to dig through the footnotes of Radiant's annual report. Hey, with $5 stock trades, who has the time? Of course, none of this matters, and no one cares, as long as stocks keep going up. Investors have proven that they can be blissfully ignorant of fundamentals so long as their stock holdings are increasing in vvalue. But once stocks slow down, or even (gasp!) decline for an extended period, investors may start asking more questions. And this seems to be what the FASB is trying to guard against. The strength of the US financial system derives at least partly from the faith investors place in the information provided. If companies reprice options for employees, investors should be able to uncover that information without undertaking a thorough investigation of the company's financials. It will, after all, affect the profitability of the company of which they are part owners. So it seems the FASB is on the right track. With companies getting more and more creative (and aggressive) in their accounting methods, it is increasingly important for regulatory bodies to step in and do the right thing, however difficult or unpopular it may be. Believe it or not, investors will thank them for it. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One Net blossoming or dancing in Portland, Oregon, USofA, where The body is not bruised to pleasure soul, Nor beauty born of its own despair, Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil. ----------------------------------------------------------- From mstone@vc.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:04:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:04:41 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] Bush strategist calls Microsoft lobby "an error" http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1679693.html Bush strategist calls Microsoft lobby "an error" By Reuters Special to CNET News.com April 11, 2000, 2:45 p.m. PT update WASHINGTON--A company headed by former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed said today it made "an error we regret" when it asked influential Republicans to lobby presidential candidate George W. Bush on behalf of Microsoft. Reed's firm, Century Strategies, was a consultant to both the Texas governor and to Microsoft. It said that it will no longer ask people to write Bush on behalf of the company. The New York Times reported today that Reed's firm had sought influential people to contact Bush on behalf of Microsoft after a judge found that the software giant had violated the nation's antitrust laws by using monopoly power to harm competitors, consumers and other companies. "Century Strategies should not have encouraged any citizen to contact Gov. Bush; we should have been more sensitive to possible misperceptions, and it is an error that we regret," the firm said in a statement. Representatives for both companies said Century Strategies had worked for Microsoft since the fall of 1998. The software giant noted that Reed's firm was one of several lobbying companies it had hired. "Our competitors have been lobbying for three to four years against Microsoft and in favor of government intervention, and we cannot just sit on the sidelines in the face of such an aggressive lobbying campaign," said Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesman. The Times reported the story after obtaining an email that Reed's firm sent to influential Bush supporters. That email asked them to write Bush in support of Microsoft and in opposition to the government's antitrust case. The newspaper said that John Pudner, a senior project manager for Century Strategies, worked to undermine the government's suit, and that he screened supporters to make certain they were influential in the Bush campaign. "We will reject letters that are not from someone influential," the newspaper quoted Pudner as saying. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is hearing the antitrust case, has set May 24 to consider what remedies should be applied against Microsoft. The company has said it will appeal Jackson's decision after the case finishes. In its statement released today, Century Strategies said: "In an abundance of caution and to avoid any further misconception, this company has adopted a policy that we will no longer encourage citizens to make their views known to Gov. Bush on behalf of Microsoft or any of our other clients in the future." Last week, the Justice Department's top antitrust enforcer, Joel Klein, condemned the injection of politics into the enforcement of antitrust law. "If Americans are to have confidence in our legal system, the laws must apply to everyone, and politics can have no place in the enforcement of antitrust laws," he told the American Bar Association. From sujal@bellatlantic.net Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:24:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:24:11 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] Ralph Reed & Microsoft Didn't see this hit the list... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_709000/709254.stm Sujal -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From dski@ms17.hinet.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:03:40 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:03:40 +0800 (CST) From: Dan Strychalski dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company [Second posting; the first should have appeared a while ago.... -- DS] Thank you, Case, for clarifying your contentions about those who choose to work for Microsoft. If it matters a great deal to someone whether they work for an unchecked and unchastened Microsoft or do the same job for a company calved from it to bring greater choice to the marketplace, there's really nothing to be said in that person's defense. They cannot be unaware that a great many people use Microsoft products unwillingly. They cannot be unaware that ideas that could have could have come to fruition, benefits that could have been enjoyed, were aborted, stillborn, cut down in their infancy, or arrogated and disfigured. They might think those ideas or their originators' business skills were inferior to Almighty Bill's. That is irrelevant. Among the benefits that we expect from our economic system is the right to choose, say, the cheapest instant coffee or the finest fresh-roasted coffee beans. To say that eighty to ninety percent of computer users all want only the "Windows experience" is like saying an equal percentage of music listeners all want only the "John Williams experience," or most readers of books want only the "Steven King experience." It is a sick delusion. Thank you, too, Simon, for giving your perspective. It really doesn't hold up. If Bill did no wrong, the state of the marketplace is a wrong. That the most talked-about challenger is given away for free says it all. I've finally seen some of the graphics-mode software that comes with that challenger. On the whole, I am not impressed. But it's a choice, damn it, and we will have choice. Software that meets my entirely reasonable expectations might not yet exist in that environment, but I can see that the environment allows it, while Windows does not. You lose, Bill. You might say there are people outside Microsoft who think Bill & Co. did no wrong and everything is peachy keen, so it stands to reason that there will be people inside the company who have followed events and think similarly. Mass delusions have occurred in the past; to think we are immune to them is the height of folly. I mentioned during the early days of this list that I'd once had an exchange with a Microsoft employee. I'd like to provide more detail and perhaps reflect a bit on the experience, for whatever it might be worth. We were both on a music-related mailing list. This was in 1995 or 1996. I don't remember what led to our corresponding privately, but the subject of Microsoft came up. I had not yet made the deductions about Microsoft that I have presented here, but I was beginning to see that the company had played a greater role than I'd suspected in bringing about the industry phenomena I'd become increasingly angry about over the years. I still felt, as I told my correspondent twice during our exchange, that "someone at Microsoft" had "something against touch typists." It took a small conscious effort on my part to keep our brief exchange cordial. He had a technical background, had been at the company a while, and was then in a managerial position. He was not the only person in his family working at Microsoft. The way he said this gave me the strong impression of slight embarrassment or sheepishness. That may have been my imagination, but his exact wording has stuck in my mind, and he didn't put it in a matter-of-fact way. It turned out he was a WordStar guy. He had given Word for Windows a WordStar-like keymap. He had swapped Caps Lock and Ctrl on all his keyboards. He liked typing-zone operation every bit as much as I do. Whether he valued it (as I do) as much for its platform independence as for its convenience, efficiency, and ease of learning, I do not know; we didn't get around to discussing that. He had the technical knowledge to be aware of that characteristic. (Ah! No wonder they chose a computer illiterate as their chief counsel!) In his job, however, he had to switch machines often. As time went on, it became increasingly difficult to enjoy his preferred method of operation. So he gave up. Caved. Threw in the towel. Abandoned his own preference. I just searched the WWW for his name in proximity to the word "Microsoft." It seems he has moved sideways and upward in the organization, enough to make public statements representing "company" positions. It shouldn't be surprising that this is the kind of person who stays with Microsoft and rises in the organization. He gave up. And we won't. Ever. Dan Strychalski http://neil.franklin.ch/Jokes_and_Fun/Windows_Never_Icon http://home.pinknet.cz/~coyot/coyoteng.htm http://fornax.elf.stuba.sk/~selo/ http://www.ascii-art.de/ascii/uvw/windows.txt From AMInfo@ZName.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:40:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:40:29 -0500 From: James S. Huggins AMInfo@ZName.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 In my communication with WaSP following the release of their press release yesterday, "they" indicated that they had NOT performed a detailed assessment, but rather had based their objections on Microsoft's documentation and announcements regarding the new innovations to be offered instead of standards compliance. James S. Huggins -----Original Message----- From: Simon Cooke By the way, I'd like to ask a question at this point: Does anyone know what the Web Standards group is claiming is not supported? I mean, detailed analysis here? Complaints without substance are useless - if not worse. From dski@ms17.hinet.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:53:11 +0800 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:53:11 +0800 From: dski@ms17.hinet.net dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] Breaking up such an innovative company Thank you, Case, for clarifying your contentions about those who choose to work for Microsoft. If it matters a great deal to someone whether they work for an unchecked and unchastened Microsoft or do the same job for a company calved from it to bring greater choice to the marketplace, there's really nothing to be said in that person's defense. They cannot be unaware that a great many people use Microsoft products unwillingly. They cannot be unaware that ideas that could have could have come to fruition, benefits that could have been enjoyed, were aborted, stillborn, cut down in their infancy, or arrogated and disfigured. They might think those ideas or their originators' business skills were inferior to Almighty Bill's. That is irrelevant. Among the benefits that we expect from our economic system is the right to choose, say, the cheapest instant coffee or the finest fresh-roasted coffee beans. To say that eighty to ninety percent of computer users all want only the "Windows experience" is like saying an equal percentage of music listeners all want only the "John Williams experience," or most readers of books want only the "Steven King experience." It is a sick delusion. Thank you, too, Simon, for giving your perspective. It really doesn't hold up. If Bill did no wrong, the state of the marketplace is a wrong. That the most talked-about challenger is given away for free says it all. I've finally seen some of the graphics-mode software that comes with that challenger. On the whole, I am not impressed. But it's a choice, damn it, and we will have choice. Software that meets my entirely reasonable expectations might not yet exist in that environment, but I can see that the environment allows it, while Windows does not. You lose, Bill. You might say there are people outside Microsoft who think Bill & Co. did no wrong and everything is peachy keen, so it stands to reason that there will be people inside the company who have followed events and think similarly. Mass delusions have occurred in the past; to think we are immune to them is the height of folly. I mentioned during the early days of this list that I'd once had an exchange with a Microsoft employee. I'd like to provide more detail and perhaps reflect a bit on the experience, for whatever it might be worth. We were both on a music-related mailing list. This was in 1995 or 1996. I don't remember what led to our corresponding privately, but the subject of Microsoft came up. I had not yet made the deductions about Microsoft that I have presented here, but I was beginning to see that the company had played a greater role than I'd suspected in bringing about the industry phenomena I'd become increasingly angry about over the years. I still felt, as I told my correspondent twice during our exchange, that "someone at Microsoft" had "something against touch typists." It took a small conscious effort on my part to keep our brief exchange cordial. He had a technical background, had been at the company a while, and was then in a managerial position. He was not the only person in his family working at Microsoft. The way he said this gave me the strong impression of slight embarrassment or sheepishness. That may have been my imagination, but his exact wording has stuck in my mind, and he didn't put it in a matter-of-fact way. It turned out he was a WordStar guy. He had given Word for Windows a WordStar-like keymap. He had swapped Caps Lock and Ctrl on all his keyboards. He liked typing-zone operation every bit as much as I do. Whether he valued it (as I do) as much for its platform independence as for its convenience, efficiency, and ease of learning, I do not know; we didn't get around to discussing that. He had the technical knowledge to be aware of that characteristic. (Ah! No wonder they chose a computer illiterate as their chief counsel!) In his job, however, he had to switch machines often. As time went on, it became increasingly difficult to enjoy his preferred method of operation. So he gave up. Caved. Threw in the towel. Abandoned his own preference. I just searched the WWW for his name in proximity to the word "Microsoft." It seems he has moved sideways and upward in the organization, enough to make public statements representing "company" positions. It shouldn't be surprising that this is the kind of person who stays with Microsoft and rises in the organization. He gave up. And we won't. Ever. Dan Strychalski http://neil.franklin.ch/Jokes_and_Fun/Windows_Never_Icon http://home.pinknet.cz/~coyot/coyoteng.htm http://fornax.elf.stuba.sk/~selo/ http://www.ascii-art.de/ascii/uvw/windows.txt From spectecjr@hotmail.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:41:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:41:53 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Re: Man-o-Man This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFA40F.8429CD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Rob Marqusee=20 Money, influence, corruption, anarchy???? I have had it. Check out: http://www.cpr.org Sun Microsystems, Netscape, AOL - they all lobby. And if lobbying can = get you an antitrust case, maybe it can get rid of one too? Who knows. Simon ps. I'm not saying it's ok - I'd prefer it if NO-ONE could lobby for = anything. But frankly, that ain't politics (unfortunately). ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFA40F.8429CD60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From:=20 Rob = Marqusee=20

Money, influence, corruption, anarchy????
I have had=20 it.
Check out:
 
http://www.cpr.org
 
Sun Microsystems, Netscape, AOL - they = all lobby.=20 And if lobbying can get you an antitrust case, maybe it can get rid of = one=20 too?
 
Who knows.
 
Simon
 
ps. I'm not saying it's ok - I'd prefer = it if=20 NO-ONE could lobby for anything. But frankly, that ain't politics=20 (unfortunately).
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFA40F.8429CD60-- From spectecjr@hotmail.com Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:52:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:52:19 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "James S. Huggins" > In my communication with WaSP following the release of their press release > yesterday, "they" indicated that they had NOT performed a detailed > assessment, but rather had based their objections on Microsoft's > documentation and announcements regarding the new innovations to be offered > instead of standards compliance. (1) You sell the sizzle, not the steak. Standards compliance, no matter what anyone else says, isn't sexy. So basically, WaSP could well be completely incorrect with their claim, and Microsoft could be completely standards compliant - they're just not touting that fact. Though if that was the case, surely someone at MS would have come forwards to correct them by now? (2) What's wrong with adding features that will (a) gracefully degrade on systems that don't handle them, and (b) will add a lot to systems that *can* handle them. What I'm talking about are the color scrollbars (just a minor DOM addition - which will NEVER cause problems on systems that don't handle it - the scrollbar color will just be the default color instead of whatever it's set to), and vertical text for Chinese/Japanese languages. There's some other bits and pieces as well, but they're all in a similar vein - they degrade gracefully on systems that don't handle them. Oh well. Simon From jjurban@ibm.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:08:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:08:37 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] MSFT at $45? A few weeks ago, I predicted a price of $45 for Microsoft shares. Give or take a buck or so, it's halfway there. >From its high of ~120 to the current ~83 is a drop of $37. >From 83 to 45 would be a further drop of $38. John From jjurban@ibm.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:49:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:49:56 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] MSFT at $45? Paul Rickard wrote: > ====== On 04.12.2000 6:08 AM, John J. Urbaniak typed: ======= > > >A few weeks ago, I predicted a price of $45 for Microsoft shares. > > > >Give or take a buck or so, it's halfway there. > > > >From its high of ~120 to the current ~83 is a drop of $37. > > > >From 83 to 45 would be a further drop of $38. > > $78 now. > Yes, down over $4 because Sherlund said something about lowering revenue estimates. Gates can't blame that on the DoJ, but I suppose he'll try. If I'm correct, this is the last quarter Microsoft can submit unaudited statements. We'll see it really hitting the fan soon. Then the stockholder's lawsuits can begin. "You are filing suit against Microsoft - take a number please." John From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:05:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:05:29 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] MSFT at $45? ====== On 04.12.2000 12:49 PM, John J. Urbaniak typed: ======= >Yes, down over $4 because Sherlund said something about lowering revenue >estimates. Gates can't blame that on the DoJ, but I suppose he'll try. > >If I'm correct, this is the last quarter Microsoft can submit unaudited >statements. We'll see it really hitting the fan soon. Then the >stockholder's lawsuits can begin. > >"You are filing suit against Microsoft - take a number please." I originally placed an order to cover my short shares of Microsoft (purchased at 93) when the price hit 85. I've changed my mind and stayed with them, now it's on 78 or 79. I'm still not covering the shorts, as I expect only the worst for the company. (making a profit from shorting their stock will perhaps make up for my Web site going out of business when Microsoft becomes irrelevant) ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Even as a longtime critic of the company, I must admit that Microsoft occasionally flirts with the truth. Well, perhaps 'flirt' is too strong a word. Let's just say Microsoft sometimes honks and waves as it drives by her house." -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley, 06-14-99 From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:09:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:09:38 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] MSFT at $45? ====== On 04.12.2000 6:08 AM, John J. Urbaniak typed: ======= >A few weeks ago, I predicted a price of $45 for Microsoft shares. > >Give or take a buck or so, it's halfway there. > >From its high of ~120 to the current ~83 is a drop of $37. > >From 83 to 45 would be a further drop of $38. $78 now. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "But for Microsoft's interference, the market would be much more dynamic as new technologies and fresh innovations challenged the company's present dominance." -Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee From stevecoh@mcs.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:00:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:00:02 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 What the HELL do color scrollbars or even uncolored scrollbars have to do with DOM? DOM is a parser for XML. It isn't supposed to have anything to do with presentation - which is all supposed to be handled by style sheets - and even there, I'm not sure scrollbars enter into the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "James S. Huggins" > > In my communication with WaSP following the release of their press release > > yesterday, "they" indicated that they had NOT performed a detailed > > assessment, but rather had based their objections on Microsoft's > > documentation and announcements regarding the new innovations to be > offered > > instead of standards compliance. > > (1) You sell the sizzle, not the steak. Standards compliance, no matter what > anyone else says, isn't sexy. So basically, WaSP could well be completely > incorrect with their claim, and Microsoft could be completely standards > compliant - they're just not touting that fact. Though if that was the case, > surely someone at MS would have come forwards to correct them by now? > > (2) What's wrong with adding features that will (a) gracefully degrade on > systems that don't handle them, and (b) will add a lot to systems that *can* > handle them. > > What I'm talking about are the color scrollbars (just a minor DOM addition - > which will NEVER cause problems on systems that don't handle it - the > scrollbar color will just be the default color instead of whatever it's set > to), and vertical text for Chinese/Japanese languages. There's some other > bits and pieces as well, but they're all in a similar vein - they degrade > gracefully on systems that don't handle them. > > Oh well. > > Simon > From eandrews@star.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:26:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Erick Andrews eandrews@star.net Subject: [Am-info] MSFT at $45? On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:08:37 -0400, John J. Urbaniak wrote: >A few weeks ago, I predicted a price of $45 for Microsoft shares. > >Give or take a buck or so, it's halfway there. > >>From its high of ~120 to the current ~83 is a drop of $37. > >>From 83 to 45 would be a further drop of $38. > >John > Maybe a couple of times a year I happen to be up at night to see the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Last night I did, and although I think it may have been a repeat show from last week, his lead-in monologue joke was about "all these people that were outside the studio" [maybe homeless?], sleeping on the sidewalk, blankets, pillows and all. He suggested that they were Microsoft investors! He took another MS swipe near the end of his stand-up routine. My point is that when the perceived demise of Microsoft makes it to that level of pop-culture-humor, it has entered into the domain of "now-everybody-knows-it" instead of just the WSJ-types who follow it. -- Erick From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:50:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:50:53 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Eric M. Hopper" > As for color scrollbars... Why? This is another one those > head-bonking features like the infamous '' tag. I can see > 'skins', which allow extensive user customization of the interface, but > web programmer specified color scrollbars? *sigh* For HTML apps, it's very handy - especially if you've got a graphic designer holding the reigns (*yeuck*)... Similarly for embedded frames (IFrames/Layers/whatever). Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:52:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:52:16 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Steve Cohen" > What the HELL do color scrollbars or even uncolored scrollbars have to > do with DOM? DOM is a parser for XML. It isn't supposed to have > anything to do with presentation - which is all supposed to be handled > by style sheets - and even there, I'm not sure scrollbars enter into > the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? DOM = Document Object Model. It's the object model that exposes properties and methods of every element on an HTML page, as well as some browser functionality and settings, which can be modified using client-side scripting, CSS, XSL transforms, et al. So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:00:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:00:10 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP looks like WaSP were tracking the discussion on the MSNBC Tech BBS... From: B.K. DeLong On Tue Apr 11 23:59:18, Simon Cooke wrote: > So basically... there may well be absolutely no substance > whatsoever to WaSP's claims. You may want to pass on to the am-info list that their assumption was actually incorrect. There HAS been testing of WinIE5.5 but we couldn't fit detailed analysis in an already long press release. So we've put our findings thus far in a "Word from the WaSP" posting: http://www.webstandards.org/wfw/ieah.html While the tests linked to are by no means complete (I have already found several more important HTML holes like problems with the OBJECT element), they do give an idea of what is wrong. ----------- Speaking from personal experience, and in reference to the article by the guys at WaSP, I can understand how frustrated they must feel. As I recall, a good many members of the IE 5 team had difficult with simple concepts such as "caret" and "caret position", insisted that everything was possible using VBScript (there was no need to code to the object model from VB/C++), and required continued arguing with to get them to consider that they hadn't got things right. There may be a certain amount of stubborness-induced blindness here. Simon From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:17:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:17:54 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:52:19PM -0700, Simon Cooke wrote: > From: "James S. Huggins" > (1) You sell the sizzle, not the steak. Standards compliance, no > matter what anyone else says, isn't sexy. So basically, WaSP could > well be completely incorrect with their claim, and Microsoft could be > completely standards compliant - they're just not touting that fact. > Though if that was the case, surely someone at MS would have come > forwards to correct them by now? It is possible to sell standards compliance. As I understand it, there are actually a lot of new and interesting features in the standards, if I remember correctly. Plenty enough to provide fun checkbox feature comparisons. I won't be able to discourse in my usual exhaustive technical detail on this though. I need to educate myself more about the state of the art of the web. It looks like there are developments there that are worth paying attention to, even for a non-applications programmer. > (2) What's wrong with adding features that will (a) gracefully degrade > on systems that don't handle them, and (b) will add a lot to systems > that *can* handle them. Nothing. There is something wrong with adding those features when you still don't support the least common demoninator that you have agreed with everyone else to support. As for color scrollbars... Why? This is another one those head-bonking features like the infamous '' tag. I can see 'skins', which allow extensive user customization of the interface, but web programmer specified color scrollbars? *sigh* Yeah, minor feature, but somehow it irritates me that anyone would even think to put it in. Takes away even more control over my own browser. My browser is NOT a TV set! Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:05:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:05:14 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. Is this one of the enhancements that 'degrades' in other browsers you mentioned earlier? -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:57:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:57:49 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Wandered Inn" > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. > > Is this one of the enhancements that 'degrades' in other browsers you > mentioned earlier? Yup - it wouldn't do anything. You'd just get a gray scrollbar instead - graceful degradation is what the web is all about. Simon From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:40:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:40:49 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > > > So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. > > > > Is this one of the enhancements that 'degrades' in other browsers you > > mentioned earlier? > > Yup - it wouldn't do anything. You'd just get a gray scrollbar instead - > graceful degradation is what the web is all about. Let me understand this. They added a scrollbar or they modified a scrollbar? If they added something, I would expect it to degrade to nothing. If they modified the color, I could see a gray scrollbar. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:06:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:06:11 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Wandered Inn" > Let me understand this. They added a scrollbar or they modified a > scrollbar? If they added something, I would expect it to degrade to > nothing. If they modified the color, I could see a gray scrollbar. Modified the color. Simon From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:41:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:41:55 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors I can not believe the number of asp errors I get at various sites. Just did a search on disney.com and when I select one of the links located, I get: An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. asp-1 I've run into more obscure asp errors than any other error I've seen. A couple of other sites I have routinely received asp errors on include: http://www.classroom.com/ http://www.pch.com/ Is asp that bad? -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:48:33 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:48:33 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors From: "Wandered Inn" > I've run into more obscure asp errors than any other error I've seen. A > couple of other sites I have routinely received asp errors on include: > > http://www.classroom.com/ > http://www.pch.com/ > > Is asp that bad? Depends on the admin. Generally, no. Heck, check out Slashdot - that crashes regularly (500 - Internal Server Error), depending on what Malda's doing to the site that day. Simon From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:51:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:51:56 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > Let me understand this. They added a scrollbar or they modified a > > scrollbar? If they added something, I would expect it to degrade to > > nothing. If they modified the color, I could see a gray scrollbar. > > Modified the color. So, when you said: So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. You actually meant they added the ability to change the color of the scrollbar, not add a scrollbar? > > Simon -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:53:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:53:41 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > I've run into more obscure asp errors than any other error I've seen. A > > couple of other sites I have routinely received asp errors on include: > > > > http://www.classroom.com/ > > http://www.pch.com/ > > > > Is asp that bad? > > Depends on the admin. Generally, no. Heck, check out Slashdot - that crashes > regularly (500 - Internal Server Error), depending on what Malda's doing to > the site that day. Must be your browser. I've never had slashdot crash, and it's my browser home page. He's probably using some Linux/Netscape specific code that your IE 5.5 can't handle. :) > > Simon -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From sujal@bellatlantic.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:04:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:04:21 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors No, it generally sucks. I've had weird things happen to sites I'm working on where I'll save things and IIS won't see the changes until I reboot (or restart *something* I can't determine right now). These problems in the past week (we have a Microsoft tech around now and again to help us out, too...) It's not the developers/admin in this case. It's by far the worst server side web scripting/application development platform I've seen (Interdev sucks as an IDE, too). And I've used Livewire, PHP, JSP/servlets, and Cold Fusion, too. ALL of those are better. I haven't had /. crash on me (or give me any errors) in at least 3-6 months (maybe longer... that's as far back as I can remember and be sure). Sujal Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > I've run into more obscure asp errors than any other error I've seen. A > > couple of other sites I have routinely received asp errors on include: > > > > http://www.classroom.com/ > > http://www.pch.com/ > > > > Is asp that bad? > > Depends on the admin. Generally, no. Heck, check out Slashdot - that crashes > regularly (500 - Internal Server Error), depending on what Malda's doing to > the site that day. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From stevecoh@mcs.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:08:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:08:31 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Steve Cohen" > > What the HELL do color scrollbars or even uncolored scrollbars have to > > do with DOM? DOM is a parser for XML. It isn't supposed to have > > anything to do with presentation - which is all supposed to be handled > > by style sheets - and even there, I'm not sure scrollbars enter into > > the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? > > DOM = Document Object Model. It's the object model that exposes properties > and methods of every element on an HTML page, as well as some browser > functionality and settings, which can be modified using client-side > scripting, CSS, XSL transforms, et al. > > So they added a "SCROLLBAR" element to the PAGE element. No biggie. > > Simon > Are you sure you mean DOM? We are talking about the same DOM, but it's supposed to be a parser for the XML. It's not supposed to have anything to do with presentation, it's strictly data. That's the whole point of XML. Presentation is to be handled in a separate layer called Style Sheets, either Cascading Style Sheets or XSL, which handle the formatting. It's here, not in the DOM, that scroll bars are to be handled. In fact, DOM is not even a necessary part of an XML page - there are other parsers. Are you sure you're not talking about the DTD for expressing HTML as XML? Or some other aspect of IE? I don't believe that even Microsoft would be putting colored scroll bars in the DOM (though mixing up presentation and content is an old habit of theirs, to be sure). Go back and reread the WaSP documents. What they're complaining about is that Microsoft is spending time developing colored scroll bars INSTEAD of spending time completing implementation of the standards. From stevecoh@mcs.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:15:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:15:37 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > > the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? > > DOM = Document Object Model. It's the object model that exposes properties > and methods of every element on an HTML page, > > Simon This is quite specifically wrong. DOM is part of XML, not of HTML. And it's point is not to expose methods and properties but to parse the data on an XML page into a tree structure. From stevecoh@mcs.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:29:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:29:02 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP Thanks for posting this. Also check out the links on this page. WSP (where did "WaSP" come from?) shows itself to be by no means an anti-Microsoft group. They are simply pro-standards and opposed to those who deliberately violate them, Netscape even more than Microsoft. Their concerns are completely valid. Why should Web developers have to deal with deliberately-introduced incompatibilities whether by Netscape, Microsoft or anyone else? Simon Cooke wrote: > > looks like WaSP were tracking the discussion on the MSNBC Tech BBS... > > From: B.K. DeLong > > On Tue Apr 11 23:59:18, Simon Cooke wrote: > > So basically... there may well be absolutely no substance > > whatsoever to WaSP's claims. > > You may want to pass on to the am-info list that their > assumption was actually incorrect. There HAS been testing > of WinIE5.5 but we couldn't fit detailed analysis in an > already long press release. > > So we've put our findings thus far in a "Word from > the WaSP" posting: > http://www.webstandards.org/wfw/ieah.html > > While the tests linked to are by no means complete (I > have already found several more important HTML holes like > problems with the OBJECT element), they do give an idea > of what is wrong. > > ----------- > > Speaking from personal experience, and in reference to the article by the > guys at WaSP, I can understand how frustrated they must feel. As I recall, a > good many members of the IE 5 team had difficult with simple concepts such > as "caret" and "caret position", insisted that everything was possible using > VBScript (there was no need to code to the object model from VB/C++), and > required continued arguing with to get them to consider that they hadn't got > things right. There may be a certain amount of stubborness-induced blindness > here. > > Simon > Are you saying that significant parts of IE ITSELF are written in VBScript? That surprised even me. Scripting languages make sense on Web Pages but to use them to implement the browser ... that's asking for trouble. From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:01:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:01:40 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors From: "Sujal Shah" > I haven't had /. crash on me (or give me any errors) in at least 3-6 > months (maybe longer... that's as far back as I can remember and be > sure). Wandered Inn wrote: >Must be your browser. I've never had slashdot crash, and it's my >browser home page. He's probably using some Linux/Netscape specific >code that your IE 5.5 can't handle. :) Ummm... no, it's when Malda starts messing with the code on a live server. This is easily reproducible; - Eric Lee Green can confirm this. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:08:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:08:03 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 From: "Steve Cohen" > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? > > > > DOM = Document Object Model. It's the object model that exposes properties > > and methods of every element on an HTML page, > > > > Simon > > This is quite specifically wrong. DOM is part of XML, not of HTML. > And it's point is not to expose methods and properties but to parse > the data on an XML page into a tree structure. Actually, *you* are quite specifically wrong. What you're thinking of is the XML parser - the structure of the data which is generated by it is exposed *through* the DOM. It's the XML parser that does the parsing - the DOM is the way you then access and manipulate that data. And it also applies quite happily to HTML. >From the W3C standards documents (found at http://www.w3c.org): The Document Object Model is a platform- and language-neutral interface that will allow programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of documents. The document can be further processed and the results of that processing can be incorporated back into the presented page. This is an overview of DOM-related materials here at W3C and around the web. "Dynamic HTML" is a term used by some vendors to describe the combination of HTML, style sheets and scripts that allows documents to be animated. W3C has received several submissions from members companies on the way in which the object model of HTML documents should be exposed to scripts. These submissions do not propose any new HTML tags or style sheet technology. The W3C DOM WG is working hard to make sure interoperable and scripting-language neutral solutions are agreed upon. ---- The Document Object Model provides a standard set of objects for representing HTML and XML documents, a standard model of how these objects can be combined, and a standard interface for accessing and manipulating them. Vendors can support the DOM as an interface to their proprietary data structures and APIs, and content authors can write to the standard DOM interfaces rather than product-specific APIs, thus increasing interoperability on the Web. ---- The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. ---- What is the Document Object Model? Editors Jonathan Robie, Texcel Research Introduction The Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming interface (API) for HTML and XML documents. It defines the logical structure of documents and the way a document is accessed and manipulated. In the DOM specification, the term "document" is used in the broad sense - increasingly, XML is being used as a way of representing many different kinds of information that may be stored in diverse systems, and much of this would traditionally be seen as data rather than as documents. Nevertheless, XML presents this data as documents, and the DOM may be used to manage this data. With the Document Object Model, programmers can build documents, navigate their structure, and add, modify, or delete elements and content. Anything found in an HTML or XML document can be accessed, changed, deleted, or added using the Document Object Model, with a few exceptions - in particular, the DOM interfaces for the XML internal and external subsets have not yet been specified. ---- Might I suggest you read up on it? http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/introduction.html From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:20:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:20:19 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Simon Cooke wrote: > Wandered Inn wrote: > >Must be your browser. I've never had slashdot crash, and it's my > >browser home page. He's probably using some Linux/Netscape specific > >code that your IE 5.5 can't handle. :) > > Ummm... no, it's when Malda starts messing with the code on a live server. > This is easily reproducible; - Eric Lee Green can confirm this. Regardless. Point is, I routinely get asp errors. And, I've never received an error on slashdot. I find it unlikely that it's easily reproducible when there's no way for you to know when Malda's messing with the code. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:29:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:29:09 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 ====== On 04.12.2000 5:57 PM, Simon Cooke typed: ======= >> Is this one of the enhancements that 'degrades' in other browsers you >> mentioned earlier? > >Yup - it wouldn't do anything. You'd just get a gray scrollbar instead - >graceful degradation is what the web is all about. Or what Microsoft is all about, anyway. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "In Microsoft world, you are always one click away from harming yourself." -Elias Levy, BUGTRAQ mailing list moderator. From ericb@pobox.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:25:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:25:02 -0400 From: Eric M. Bennett ericb@pobox.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors >Simon Cooke wrote: > > > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > > I've run into more obscure asp errors than any other error I've seen. A > > > couple of other sites I have routinely received asp errors on include: > > > > > > http://www.classroom.com/ > > > http://www.pch.com/ > > > > > > Is asp that bad? > > > > Depends on the admin. Generally, no. Heck, check out Slashdot - >that crashes > > regularly (500 - Internal Server Error), depending on what Malda's doing to > > the site that day. > >Must be your browser. I've never had slashdot crash, and it's my >browser home page. He's probably using some Linux/Netscape specific >code that your IE 5.5 can't handle. :) I have to say I don't find slashdot to be all that reliable. Often slow, but more often it just never responds when I try to connect. It's not all that often that this happens, but when was the last time you couldn't connect to other major sites like zdnet.com and cnn.com? Last time I couldn't connect to cnn.com was when they were under denial of service attack earlier this year. Other than that, 100% uptime whenever I go there. They use Solaris. The Motley Fool is about the flakiest site I used on a regular basis. Their message boards have been extremely unreliable and down frequently over the last year. They run on NT using, you guessed it, asp. Of course, one site doesn't prove much; could be sloppy people who wrote their board software. It's also fun to see when their porfolio software screws up and reports that all my stocks are worth $0. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. -Alan Skrainka From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:30:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:30:34 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.13.2000 12:25 AM, Eric M. Bennett typed: ======= >I have to say I don't find slashdot to be all that reliable. Often >slow, but more often it just never responds when I try to connect. >It's not all that often that this happens, but when was the last time >you couldn't connect to other major sites like zdnet.com and cnn.com? >Last time I couldn't connect to cnn.com was when they were under >denial of service attack earlier this year. Other than that, 100% >uptime whenever I go there. They use Solaris. > >The Motley Fool is about the flakiest site I used on a regular basis. >Their message boards have been extremely unreliable and down >frequently over the last year. They run on NT using, you guessed it, >asp. Of course, one site doesn't prove much; could be sloppy people >who wrote their board software. It's also fun to see when their >porfolio software screws up and reports that all my stocks are worth >$0. ZDNet is the slowest site I visit regularly, and I have problems with CNN pages two-thirds of the time. They both connect fine, but ZDNet makes sure you have to stare at their ad for a minimal 30 seconds, and CNN pages often fail to completely load. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Even as a longtime critic of the company, I must admit that Microsoft occasionally flirts with the truth. Well, perhaps 'flirt' is too strong a word. Let's just say Microsoft sometimes honks and waves as it drives by her house." -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley, 06-14-99 From sujal@bellatlantic.net Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:37:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:37:09 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Paul Rickard wrote: [SNIP] > ZDNet is the slowest site I visit regularly, and I have problems with > CNN pages two-thirds of the time. They both connect fine, but ZDNet makes > sure you have to stare at their ad for a minimal 30 seconds, and CNN > pages often fail to completely load. I think that talking about individual sites to evaluate a technology is probably fairly fruitless.... there are too many reasons that a site may be slow for me but not you, etc. I notice that Simon (et al) completely skirted my problems with the *technology*. To give you an idea of how bad the whole package of c*ap is, we've got a MSFT rep whose consistent answer is "Hmmm... that's interesting. I don't know what to make of that? Did you get the latest version of X? Well you should, because I know they fixed these other 20 bugs that will likely be fatal for your application" The most amusing thing, though, about working with this guy was that his email was recently (last week?) down for 2 days (want to guess what software Microsoft uses to run their e-mail? ;-) I was convinced that most things coming from Microsoft were technologically crap. Now that I've gotten more of ASP then I want to deal with, I'm more than certain. I talk to the other folks at my company that have been doing this for years and their opinion, oddly enough, is exactly the same as mine. Thank god we're moving away from ASP/VC++/Interdev. Sujal > > ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= > --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- > > "Even as a longtime critic of the company, I must admit that > Microsoft occasionally flirts with the truth. Well, perhaps 'flirt' > is too strong a word. Let's just say Microsoft sometimes honks and > waves as it drives by her house." > -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley, 06-14-99 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From ethical@1of1.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:41:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:41:42 -0700 From: Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One dot Net ethical@1of1.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors In a message that was dated 2000 April 13 (Thursday), and timestamped 12:30 AM, Paul Rickard wrote: "|====== On 04.13.2000 12:25 AM, Eric M. Bennett typed: ======= "|>I have to say I don't find slashdot to be all that reliable. "|>The Motley Fool is about the flakiest site I used on a regular basis. "| ZDNet is the slowest site I visit regularly, and I have problems "|with CNN pages two-thirds of the time. They both connect fine, but "|ZDNet makes sure you have to stare at their ad for a minimal 30 "|seconds, and CNN pages often fail to completely load. O.k., if we're talking of Web sites from Hell, has anyone had any success in getting beyond the opening screen of cbsnews.cbs.com? It pegs my CPU at 100 percent every time without fail. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One dot Net blossoming or dancing in Portland, Oregon, USofA, where The body is not bruised to pleasure soul, Nor beauty born of its own despair, Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil. ----------------------------------------------------------- From mstone@vc.net Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:17:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:17:38 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 4/12/00 9:25 PM --- >The Motley Fool is about the flakiest site I used on a regular basis. >Their message boards have been extremely unreliable and down >frequently over the last year. They run on NT using, you guessed it, >asp. Of course, one site doesn't prove much; could be sloppy people >who wrote their board software. It's also fun to see when their >porfolio software screws up and reports that all my stocks are worth >$0. Which, after today's bloodbath, it might just be... Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:23:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:23:11 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Paul Rickard wrote: > > ====== On 04.13.2000 12:25 AM, Eric M. Bennett typed: ======= > > >I have to say I don't find slashdot to be all that reliable. Often I wonder if it's a regional thing. I never have problems with slashdot and I load it a couple of times a day. Might be a certain time of day. > , but ZDNet makes > sure you have to stare at their ad for a minimal 30 seconds, and CNN > pages often fail to completely load. Are you saying that they load the ad and then the rest of the page takes 30 secs? I rarely watch a page load anymore. I select it, then go on to something else, usually another window. I wonder how much bandwidth is wasted with these ads? It's just another form of spam. > > ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= > --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- > > "Even as a longtime critic of the company, I must admit that > Microsoft occasionally flirts with the truth. Well, perhaps 'flirt' > is too strong a word. Let's just say Microsoft sometimes honks and > waves as it drives by her house." > -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley, 06-14-99 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:30:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:30:23 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Sujal Shah wrote: > I think that talking about individual sites to evaluate a technology is > probably fairly fruitless.... there are too many reasons that a site may > be slow for me but not you, etc. I would agree, although the specific issues I've found are on various sites using asp. Point is, I've never received an error message from other sites because of the technology they are using. I find some sights are slow and maybe I can't get to others. Asp sites are the only ones where I get these obscur errors. Two things about that. First, it's lousy programming to send such a useless message to the browser. I find it interesting that it's only at asp sites that I see messages that the common user should not see. For example, I've never seen an 'Oracle not a available' message. It should be trapped and an appropriate message sent to the user: "Sorry, we can't connect to our database right now, please try in 7 years" Second, maybe the asp ide does not permit you to do this? I hope the that's not the case, because then it really is a lousy tool. > > I notice that Simon (et al) completely skirted my problems with the > *technology*. I'd like to hear more about other folks who have had any experiences with asp. It is used here a bit, but not much. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:35:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:35:14 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors "Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One dot Net" wrote: > O.k., if we're talking of Web sites from Hell, has anyone had any > success in getting beyond the opening screen of cbsnews.cbs.com? It > pegs my CPU at 100 percent every time without fail. Loads okay here, although it did peg my cpu to 100% for a few seconds. Nothing I'd be concerned with outside of the fact you mentioned it, therefore a little paranoia. Running Linux/Netscape 4.72. Noted one thing on this site that I've seen starting to grow. A large number of sites are taking advantage of services via akamai. It's kind of scarry to me. The cbs site does as well as some other promiment sites: disney.com (apparently served by go.com), classroom.com that come to mind. Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From stevecoh@mcs.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:30:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:30:38 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Steve Cohen" > > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > > the picture. Or am I thinking of the wrong DOM? > > > > > > DOM = Document Object Model. It's the object model that exposes > properties > > > and methods of every element on an HTML page, > > > > > > Simon > > > > This is quite specifically wrong. DOM is part of XML, not of HTML. > > And it's point is not to expose methods and properties but to parse > > the data on an XML page into a tree structure. > > Actually, *you* are quite specifically wrong. What you're thinking of is the > XML parser - the structure of the data which is generated by it is exposed > *through* the DOM. It's the XML parser that does the parsing - the DOM is > the way you then access and manipulate that data. And it also applies quite > happily to HTML. Well, the DOM is one way of accessing it. It is also possible to walk through an XML page without a DOM parsing having been done. That is what the XML parser SAX is all about. It builds no tree, it has no DOM. > > >From the W3C standards documents (found at http://www.w3c.org): > The Document Object Model is a platform- and language-neutral interface that > will allow programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the > content, structure and style of documents. The document can be further > processed and the results of that processing can be incorporated back into > the presented page. This is an overview of DOM-related materials here at W3C > and around the web. > > "Dynamic HTML" is a term used by some vendors to describe the combination of > HTML, style sheets and scripts that allows documents to be animated. W3C has > received several submissions from members companies on the way in which the > object model of HTML documents should be exposed to scripts. These > submissions do not propose any new HTML tags or style sheet technology. The > W3C DOM WG is working hard to make sure interoperable and scripting-language > neutral solutions are agreed upon. > Read this CAREFULLY, Simon. Note that he says "the way in which the object model of HTML documents should BE EXPOSED TO scripts" NOT "the object model that exposes properties and methods of every element on an HTML page" as you put it. The latter is a Microsoft formulation and it is philosophically at odds with what the W3C is trying to accomplish with XML. In the W3C view there is an object model for the data quite apart from how it is presented. The DOCUMENT (i.e. its data) is EXPOSED TO scripts. Passive voice. In the Microsoft view, the document itself EXPOSES the properties and methods. Presentation is embedded in the object model and commingled with data, so that it is impossible to speak of the data separately from its presentation. If you understand that, you will structure your data in a way that can be presented in completely different environments: the same data may back a web page or wireless data over a handheld device. Clearly a colored scrollbar hasn't a place on most handheld devices. Therefore it doesn't belong in the Document Object Model. OK, I'll agree that the W3C would LIKE to get HTML more standardized and put under the rubric of the DOM. The situation with "lenient" browsers that will accept all sorts of violations of the spec, has made it easier for beginners to get something up and running but much harder for platform-neutral pages to be created and tested. Prior to the advent of XML no one talked about a "DOM" in HTML. > ---- > > The Document Object Model provides a standard set of objects for > representing HTML and XML documents, a standard model of how these objects > can be combined, and a standard interface for accessing and manipulating > them. Vendors can support the DOM as an interface to their proprietary data > structures and APIs, and content authors can write to the standard DOM > interfaces rather than product-specific APIs, thus increasing > interoperability on the Web. > Come on, Simon! Do colored scrollbars do ANYTHING for increased interoperability? > ---- > > The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for > XML and HTML. > > ---- > > What is the Document Object Model? > Editors > Jonathan Robie, Texcel Research > > Introduction > The Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming interface > (API) for HTML and XML documents. It defines the logical structure of > documents and the way a document is accessed and manipulated. In the DOM > specification, the term "document" is used in the broad sense - > increasingly, XML is being used as a way of representing many different > kinds of information that may be stored in diverse systems, and much of this > would traditionally be seen as data rather than as documents. Nevertheless, > XML presents this data as documents, and the DOM may be used to manage this > data. > Here it sounds like they're talking primarily about DATA, not presentation issues. > With the Document Object Model, programmers can build documents, navigate > their structure, and add, modify, or delete elements and content. Anything > found in an HTML or XML document can be accessed, changed, deleted, or added > using the Document Object Model, with a few exceptions - in particular, the > DOM interfaces for the XML internal and external subsets have not yet been > specified. > > ---- > > Might I suggest you read up on it? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/introduction.html Thanks, I already have been. From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:05:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:05:39 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] speaking of slashdot Speaking of slashdot, there's a worthy article posted there regarding OS/2. My take, not really good news for OS/2. Apparently, no immediate plans for a warp 5 and they will be putting out 'convenience packages' that will contain what they refer to as 'more important upgrades which cover a larger field than their lesser cousins,' but you have to pay for them. Now where did they get that idea? Can we say, Windows 98?? -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From shysom@emory.edu Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:12:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:12:08 -0400 From: Stuart J. Hysom shysom@emory.edu Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP Why should any end user ever have to deal with deliberately-introduces incompatibilities in any software? As a strategy it is purely to sell more product by freezing out competitors. There is never a technical excuse for such practices. Steve Cohen wrote: > Why should Web developers have to deal with > deliberately-introduced incompatibilities whether by Netscape, > Microsoft or anyone else? From eandrews@star.net Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Erick Andrews eandrews@star.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:41:42 -0700, Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One dot Net wrote: >In a message that was dated 2000 April 13 (Thursday), > and timestamped 12:30 AM, > Paul Rickard wrote: > >"|====== On 04.13.2000 12:25 AM, Eric M. Bennett typed: ======= > >"|>I have to say I don't find slashdot to be all that reliable. > >"|>The Motley Fool is about the flakiest site I used on a regular basis. > >"| ZDNet is the slowest site I visit regularly, and I have problems >"|with CNN pages two-thirds of the time. They both connect fine, but >"|ZDNet makes sure you have to stare at their ad for a minimal 30 >"|seconds, and CNN pages often fail to completely load. > >O.k., if we're talking of Web sites from Hell, has anyone had any >success in getting beyond the opening screen of cbsnews.cbs.com? It >pegs my CPU at 100 percent every time without fail. > [...] No problem here. I found no .asp pages, either, just .shtml. This machine is Warp4FP12 NS4.61 (latest JAVA runtime), no 'cookies'; PPro200, 128MBytes, all U/W SCSI, 56K v.everything Courier modem. Inetver = 4.02t, which is not the latest stack. The cpu "peaks" at about 100% (I still have control over other processes, although slow response) for several seconds (10 - 12?) but comes back down when the page renders. I tried several pages, the worst was... http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/section/0,1636,420-412,00.shtml ...it took about 25 - 30 seconds to load. I usually find that my faster machine (P400 Warp Server Advanced, FP42) loads much more quickly in these situations, all the while using the exact same modem shared over my LAN. Netscape Navigator is a pig. So is IE. I believe NN was coded to run at too high a priority for such a privileged beast (read ring 0). However, I hear many reports the OS/2 version is often better (stable) than those compiled for other platforms...but that may be more a function of the OS. Don't really know. However, I agree with you about the CBS site. Whoever coded it must have a hidebound definition of "user friendly". I used to have cars like that, too. -- Erick From eandrews@star.net Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:22:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Erick Andrews eandrews@star.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:35:14 -0400, Wandered Inn wrote: >"Ethical [T. Guilbert] at One of One dot Net" wrote: > >> O.k., if we're talking of Web sites from Hell, has anyone had any >> success in getting beyond the opening screen of cbsnews.cbs.com? It >> pegs my CPU at 100 percent every time without fail. > >Loads okay here, although it did peg my cpu to 100% for a few seconds. >Nothing I'd be concerned with outside of the fact you mentioned it, >therefore a little paranoia. Running Linux/Netscape 4.72. > >Noted one thing on this site that I've seen starting to grow. A large >number of sites are taking advantage of services via akamai. It's kind >of scarry to me. The cbs site does as well as some other promiment >sites: disney.com (apparently served by go.com), classroom.com that come >to mind. > >Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? What's Akamai? Thanks, -- Erick From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:22:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:22:03 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Erick Andrews wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:35:14 -0400, Wandered Inn wrote: > >Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? > > What's Akamai? It's a one of these companies they now refer to as ASP (how ironic, unrelated to the existing asp in previous discussions). Acronym for something, but I can't recall. Basically you out source your web services to them. > > Thanks, -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From mstone@vc.net Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:53:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:53:22 -0700 From: Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors --- From a message sent by Erick Andrews on 4/13/00 6:22 AM --- >>Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? Yes, and so has Apple. >What's Akamai? "Akamai Technologies, Inc. provides a global delivery service for Internet content, streaming media and applications that improves Website speed, quality, reliability and scalability and protects against Website crashes due to demand overloads. Akamai markets its services to large businesses and other businesses with an Internet focus. Akamai's services deliver Akamai's customers' Web content and applications through a worldwide server network by locating the content and applications geographically closer to users. Using software that is based on Akamai's proprietary mathematical formulas, or algorithms, Akamai monitors Internet traffic patterns and delivers its customers' content and applications by the most efficient route available. Akamai's services are easy to implement and do not require its customers or their Website visitors to make any hardware or software modifications." Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From ericb@pobox.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:33:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:33:54 -0400 From: Eric M. Bennett ericb@pobox.com Subject: [Am-info] Web server availability wrote: >O.k., if we're talking of Web sites from Hell, has anyone had any >success in getting beyond the opening screen of cbsnews.cbs.com? It >pegs my CPU at 100 percent every time without fail. iCab loads it, but for some reason the text is never line-wrapped... it always goes way out of the side of the window. Meanwhile, here is a somewhat more comprehensive look at web server availability. Not perfect, since they have a fairly small sample size and they don't know *why* servers were down, but they found that servers running NT tend to be unavailable more often than servers running Linux or Solaris: http://www.ix.de/ct/english/00/08/174/ -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. -Alan Skrainka From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:16:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:16:27 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.13.2000 6:23 AM, Wandered Inn typed: ======= >Are you saying that they load the ad and then the rest of the page takes >30 secs? I rarely watch a page load anymore. I select it, then go on >to something else, usually another window. > >I wonder how much bandwidth is wasted with these ads? It's just another >form of spam. >> I'm saying that the banner ad and everything above it, like the navigational stuff and ZDNet logo, load and then I wait a minimal 20 or 30 seconds for the rest of the page to come up. In the meantime, I get to watch ZDNet's ad spin around and try to seduce me. I dare say they have some of the best clickthrough ratios in the industry, since you cannot help but have to look at their ads for a while. Is it deliberate? Load a ZDNet page and check out the JavaScripts. And yes, I know that deliberately making a page load slowly has nothing to do with ASP. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so, it's going quite well I must admit." -Bill Gates From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:18:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:18:10 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.13.2000 6:35 AM, Wandered Inn typed: ======= >Loads okay here, although it did peg my cpu to 100% for a few seconds. >Nothing I'd be concerned with outside of the fact you mentioned it, >therefore a little paranoia. Running Linux/Netscape 4.72. > >Noted one thing on this site that I've seen starting to grow. A large >number of sites are taking advantage of services via akamai. It's kind >of scarry to me. The cbs site does as well as some other promiment >sites: disney.com (apparently served by go.com), classroom.com that come >to mind. > >Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? Yes, and so does Apple. Apple got in early and got a bigger stake than Ms for less cash. Akamai distributes the graphics to multiple servers, ideally allowing them to load faster. It's a Really Big Deal now. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "But for Microsoft's interference, the market would be much more dynamic as new technologies and fresh innovations challenged the company's present dominance." -Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee From eandrews@star.net Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:42:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Erick Andrews eandrews@star.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:22:03 -0400, Wandered Inn wrote: >Erick Andrews wrote: >> >> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:35:14 -0400, Wandered Inn wrote: > >> >Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? >> >> What's Akamai? > >It's a one of these companies they now refer to as ASP (how ironic, >unrelated to the existing asp in previous discussions). Acronym for >something, but I can't recall. Basically you out source your web >services to them. > [...] OK, thanks. I get it: ASP = "asp" Service Provider. -- Erick From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:16:06 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:16:06 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors >From: Sujal Shah >The most amusing thing, though, about working with this guy was that his >email was recently (last week?) down for 2 days (want to guess what >software Microsoft uses to run their e-mail? ;-) BTW: The correct answer to this question is: An Alpha copy of the next version of Exchange which the public doesn't have yet. They're dogfooding it at the moment. Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:21:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:21:13 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Paul Rickard wrote: > >Has M$ got any stake in Akamai? > > Yes, and so does Apple. Apple got in early and got a bigger stake than > Ms for less cash. Akamai distributes the graphics to multiple servers, > ideally allowing them to load faster. It's a Really Big Deal now. This concerns me greatly. Not so much Apple as M$. Think about it. They get enough control of such a process and they can dictate how content is created. 'Sorry, our servers require ASP.' If this assumption is to simple minded, please correct me. Anyone know HOW much ownership M$ has in Akamai. I know Akamai is not the only game in town, but there the one I see most often popping up at the bottom of my browser. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:21:17 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:21:17 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors >From: Wandered Inn >I would agree, although the specific issues I've found are on various >sites using asp. Point is, I've never received an error message from >other sites because of the technology they are using. I find some >sights are slow and maybe I can't get to others. Asp sites are the only >ones where I get these obscur errors. > >Two things about that. First, it's lousy programming to send such a >useless message to the browser. I find it interesting that it's only at >asp sites that I see messages that the common user should not see. For >example, I've never seen an 'Oracle not a available' message. It should >be trapped and an appropriate message sent to the user: > >"Sorry, we can't connect to our database right now, please try in 7 >years" > >Second, maybe the asp ide does not permit you to do this? I hope the >that's not the case, because then it really is a lousy tool. Nah - in most cases this is the programmer being completely stupidly crap; you can trap the errors (I do it all the time on our intranet software that I wrote for my team). The trick is this - ASP is written in any language you care to -- all it has to support is automation. You can write your code in PERL, in Javascript, in VBScript - anything. It's just a binding tool that helps with cacheing, pooling and providing some guaranteed services (cookie management, for example). Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:26:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:26:02 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: Sujal Shah > >The most amusing thing, though, about working with this guy was that his > >email was recently (last week?) down for 2 days (want to guess what > >software Microsoft uses to run their e-mail? ;-) > > BTW: The correct answer to this question is: An Alpha copy of the next > version of Exchange which the public doesn't have yet. I can't imagine running anything M$ would call alpha. > > They're dogfooding it at the moment. > > Simon > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:28:18 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:28:18 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 >From: Steve Cohen >Read this CAREFULLY, Simon. Note that he says >"the way in which the object model of HTML documents should BE EXPOSED >TO scripts" > >NOT > >"the object model that exposes properties and methods of every element >on an HTML page" > >as you put it. > >The latter is a Microsoft formulation and it is philosophically at >odds with what the W3C is trying to accomplish with XML. In the W3C >view there is an object model for the data quite apart from how it is >presented. The DOCUMENT (i.e. its data) is EXPOSED TO scripts. >Passive voice. In the Microsoft view, the document itself EXPOSES the >properties and methods. Presentation is embedded in the object model >and commingled with data, so that it is impossible to speak of the >data separately from its presentation. > >If you understand that, you will structure your data in a way that can >be presented in completely different environments: the same data may >back a web page or wireless data over a handheld device. Clearly a >colored scrollbar hasn't a place on most handheld devices. Therefore >it doesn't belong in the Document Object Model. Here's what the W3C has to say on this: The key differences between the core DOM and the HTML application of DOM is that the HTML Document Object Model exposes a number of convenience methods and properties that are consistent with the existing models and are more appropriate to script writers. In many cases, these enhancements are not applicable to a general DOM because they rely on the presence of a predefined DTD. For DOM Level 1, the transitional and frameset DTDs for HTML 4.0 are assumed. Interoperability between implementations is only guaranteed for elements and attributes that are specified in these DTDs. More specifically, this document includes the following specializations for HTML: An HTMLDocument interface, derived from the core Document interface. HTMLDocument specifies the operations and queries that can be made on a HTML document. An HTMLElement interface, derived from the core Element interface. HTMLElement specifies the operations and queries that can be made on any HTML element. Methods on HTMLElement include those that allow for the retrieval and modification of attributes that apply to all HTML elements. Specializations for all HTML elements that have attributes that extend beyond those specified in the HTMLElement interface. For all such attributes, the derived interface for the element contains explicit methods for setting and getting the values. --------- interface HTMLTableCellElement : HTMLElement { attribute long cellIndex; attribute DOMString abbr; attribute DOMString align; attribute DOMString axis; attribute DOMString bgColor; attribute DOMString ch; attribute DOMString chOff; attribute long colSpan; attribute DOMString headers; attribute DOMString height; attribute boolean noWrap; attribute long rowSpan; attribute DOMString scope; attribute DOMString vAlign; attribute DOMString width; }; ---------- Noooo... nothing to do with presentation whatsoever. So if that's the case, why do most elements have width, height, background color, foreground color etc. information? Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:35:15 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:35:15 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP >From: Steve Cohen >Are you saying that significant parts of IE ITSELF are written in >VBScript? That surprised even me. Scripting languages make sense on >Web Pages but to use them to implement the browser ... that's asking >for trouble. Nope (though parts of the Windows shell appear to be - stuff like the preview panel on the left hand side if you've got webmode on - and Windows 2000's Add/Remove programs stuff too)... What happens is this: You say to IE group "I need to be able to do this. It's such fundamental stuff, I can't see why you don't provide it". They turn around and say "Why do you need to write C++ code against our browser? You should be writing client-side script". You turn around and say "Because I'm generating pages on the fly and want to control them, that's why" They return with "But you should be using script instead - it all works in script. Use a behavior." You turn back and say "But I've TRIED that, and you don't provide HALF of what I need, and besides, I need to generate this from C++" They say "That's impossible. You obviously don't need to do what you're trying to do. Why would anyone want to do it that way? And besides, you should be using script for it anyway" ... repeat ad infinitum. At least, that's my experiences with a couple of members of the IE team when I was there, anyway. Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From stevecoh@mcs.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:28:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:28:06 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: Steve Cohen > >Read this CAREFULLY, Simon. Note that he says > >"the way in which the object model of HTML documents should BE EXPOSED > >TO scripts" > > > >NOT > > > >"the object model that exposes properties and methods of every element > >on an HTML page" > > > >as you put it. > > > >The latter is a Microsoft formulation and it is philosophically at > >odds with what the W3C is trying to accomplish with XML. In the W3C > >view there is an object model for the data quite apart from how it is > >presented. The DOCUMENT (i.e. its data) is EXPOSED TO scripts. > >Passive voice. In the Microsoft view, the document itself EXPOSES the > >properties and methods. Presentation is embedded in the object model > >and commingled with data, so that it is impossible to speak of the > >data separately from its presentation. > > > >If you understand that, you will structure your data in a way that can > >be presented in completely different environments: the same data may > >back a web page or wireless data over a handheld device. Clearly a > >colored scrollbar hasn't a place on most handheld devices. Therefore > >it doesn't belong in the Document Object Model. > > Here's what the W3C has to say on this: > > The key differences between the core DOM and the HTML application of DOM is > that the HTML Document Object Model exposes a number of convenience methods > and properties that are consistent with the existing models and are more > appropriate to script writers. In many cases, these enhancements are not > applicable to a general DOM because they rely on the presence of a > predefined DTD. For DOM Level 1, the transitional and frameset DTDs for HTML > 4.0 are assumed. Interoperability between implementations is only guaranteed > for elements and attributes that are specified in these DTDs. > > More specifically, this document includes the following specializations for > HTML: > > An HTMLDocument interface, derived from the core Document interface. > HTMLDocument specifies the operations and queries that can be made on a HTML > document. > An HTMLElement interface, derived from the core Element interface. > HTMLElement specifies the operations and queries that can be made on any > HTML element. Methods on HTMLElement include those that allow for the > retrieval and modification of attributes that apply to all HTML elements. > Specializations for all HTML elements that have attributes that extend > beyond those specified in the HTMLElement interface. For all such > attributes, the derived interface for the element contains explicit methods > for setting and getting the values. > > --------- > > interface HTMLTableCellElement : HTMLElement { > attribute long cellIndex; > attribute DOMString abbr; > attribute DOMString align; > attribute DOMString axis; > attribute DOMString bgColor; > attribute DOMString ch; > attribute DOMString chOff; > attribute long colSpan; > attribute DOMString headers; > attribute DOMString height; > attribute boolean noWrap; > attribute long rowSpan; > attribute DOMString scope; > attribute DOMString vAlign; > attribute DOMString width; > }; > > ---------- > > Noooo... nothing to do with presentation whatsoever. So if that's the case, > why do most elements have width, height, background color, foreground color > etc. information? > > Simon We're arguing about two different things: XML and the attempt to "standardize" HTML as a variant of a more general XML. The documents you cite are attempts to define existing HTML practice within an XML framework. This effort is probably doomed to failure, as the documents from WaSP show. Microsoft pays lip-service only to standardization now that they're the market leader. (Netscape is no better, they did the same thing when they led the market). Thus Microsoft's developers spend time on developing colored scrollbars - instead of closing the holes in their product's implementation of standards. There is a widely-recognized problem with the Web caused by its totally free-from nature. It mixes presentation and data in ways that ultimately do justice to neither: it is harder to develop web pages that work on different browsers, so ugly hacks are the order of the day. Developers are either run ragged by attempts to get their pages to work on all browsers - or they give up and cut the "older" browsers out of the equation, letting pages break on the end user's browser. Meanwhile the inline formatting of today's web pages inhibits their organization and categorization as data. Search engines are a joke because it is impossible to categorize web pages. Thus an article about Rotator Cuff surgery and article about Rotator Cuff the garage rock and roll band both turn up in a search on "Rotator Cuff." That is what the XML initiative of the W3C is all about. Microsoft, as usual, has no interest in this unless it can control it, so it continues to invent little "tweaks" that NOBODY asked for to keep things incompatible. Simon, who the hell asked for colored scrollbars? Why are they so important? Why are they more important than the standardization of the web? Simon, a simple question: are you in favor of what the W3C is trying to do with XML or opposed to it? From dski@ms17.hinet.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:58:33 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:58:33 +0800 (CST) From: Dan Strychalski dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Steve Cohen (stevecoh@mcs.com) wrote -- > Meanwhile the inline formatting of today's web pages inhibits their > organization and categorization as data. Search engines are a joke > because it is impossible to categorize web pages. Thus an article > about Rotator Cuff surgery and article about Rotator Cuff the garage > rock and roll band both turn up in a search on "Rotator Cuff." May it ALWAYS be so. Dan From stevecoh@mcs.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:56:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:56:07 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 Dan Strychalski wrote: > > Steve Cohen (stevecoh@mcs.com) wrote -- > > > Meanwhile the inline formatting of today's web pages inhibits their > > organization and categorization as data. Search engines are a joke > > because it is impossible to categorize web pages. Thus an article > > about Rotator Cuff surgery and article about Rotator Cuff the garage > > rock and roll band both turn up in a search on "Rotator Cuff." > > May it ALWAYS be so. > > Dan > Why? Why shouldn't one be able to search for "Medical articles about the rotator cuff?" or "Sports articles about the rotator cuff" or "Newspaper stories about xyz" instead of purely text-based searches? Especially when your selected criteria can't get down below a thousand hits? I'm not saying the old-style searches should go away, but there is room for improved searches as well. From stevecoh@mcs.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:09:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:09:21 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP "Stuart J. Hysom" wrote: > > Why should any end user ever have to deal with deliberately-introduces > incompatibilities in any software? > As a strategy it is purely to sell more product by freezing out > competitors. There is never a technical excuse for such practices. > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > > Why should Web developers have to deal with > > deliberately-introduced incompatibilities whether by Netscape, > > Microsoft or anyone else? I don't disagree with your point, but there is ALWAYS a technical excuse offered. Once the Microsofts of the world introduce their incompatibilities, this puts pressure on developers trying to earn a living to cut out the older platforms, or reduce testing of their products on the older platforms, or something. This is how the Microsofts work their will. The independent developers can only afford so much platform-independent development. If it's a money-losing proposition then they're going to back off however much one might wish it weren't so. Some greedy developers may back away too soon, become willing "Microsoft whores" but there are others who are forced into it unwillingly. I've seen it time and again. That is why a monopolist's "freedom to innovate" is a crock of shit. If the innovation is genuinely useful no one is going to quibble. If it's deliberate breaking of old formats and actual standards just to sell more product, that's something else again. That's how the game works. Office 2000 comes out and it's installed on your new computer. Now you're incompatible with Office 97 and so are all your documents. This induces otherwise totally unnecessary sales of Office 2000. These buyers don't want the new features, they want compatibility. Perhaps it ought to be a law that a company with a monopoly in a field of software needs to justify any breaking of existing formats. From shysom@emory.edu Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:17:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:17:48 -0400 From: Stuart J. Hysom shysom@emory.edu Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP I agree. I guess what I should have said is that there is never a valid technical excuse. Unless I am really wrong about computers being universal machines, al la Turing. Incompatibilities are introduced so that people will have to buy a new version of a given product and to lock competitors out of a market. Those changes are then justified with "technical" excuses. Same can be said of the strategic breaking of standards: it is done to manipulate users (be they developers or simply non technical folks who want to get their work done). Then it is justified with platitudes about "innovation" and "features" etc. And no, M$ did not invent the trick. But they perfected it. What about a remedy that involves forced compliance with open standards? Could this be done without limiting real innovation? Steve Cohen wrote: > > "Stuart J. Hysom" wrote: > > > > Why should any end user ever have to deal with deliberately-introduces > > incompatibilities in any software? > > As a strategy it is purely to sell more product by freezing out > > competitors. There is never a technical excuse for such practices. > > > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > > > > Why should Web developers have to deal with > > > deliberately-introduced incompatibilities whether by Netscape, > > > Microsoft or anyone else? > > I don't disagree with your point, but there is ALWAYS a technical > excuse offered. Once the Microsofts of the world introduce their > incompatibilities, this puts pressure on developers trying to earn a > living to cut out the older platforms, or reduce testing of their > products on the older platforms, or something. This is how the > Microsofts work their will. The independent developers can only > afford so much platform-independent development. If it's a > money-losing proposition then they're going to back off however much > one might wish it weren't so. Some greedy developers may back away > too soon, become willing "Microsoft whores" but there are others who > are forced into it unwillingly. I've seen it time and again. > > That is why a monopolist's "freedom to innovate" is a crock of shit. > If the innovation is genuinely useful no one is going to quibble. If > it's deliberate breaking of old formats and actual standards just to > sell more product, that's something else again. That's how the game > works. Office 2000 comes out and it's installed on your new > computer. Now you're incompatible with Office 97 and so are all your > documents. This induces otherwise totally unnecessary sales of Office > 2000. These buyers don't want the new features, they want > compatibility. Perhaps it ought to be a law that a company with a > monopoly in a field of software needs to justify any breaking of > existing formats. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:29:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:29:23 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.13.2000 1:16 PM, Simon Cooke typed: ======= >BTW: The correct answer to this question is: An Alpha copy of the next >version of Exchange which the public doesn't have yet. > >They're dogfooding it at the moment. And what do they make dogfood out of? Meat that isn't fit for anything but a dog. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Instead of worrying about whether or not the government will stop Microsoft from innovating in the future, the head honchos in Redmond ought to spend some energy trying to figure out what force has prevented them from innovating over the past decade." -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley - December 20, 1999 From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:32:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:32:08 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.13.2000 1:21 PM, Wandered Inn typed: ======= >This concerns me greatly. Not so much Apple as M$. Think about it. >They get enough control of such a process and they can dictate how >content is created. 'Sorry, our servers require ASP.' > >If this assumption is to simple minded, please correct me. > >Anyone know HOW much ownership M$ has in Akamai. I know Akamai is not >the only game in town, but there the one I see most often popping up at >the bottom of my browser. From MSBC NewsSource, 99.10.11: *While the checkbook was open, Microsoft also invested $15 million in Akamai Technologies - a company offering services that speed up the delivery of Web pages. The deal gives Microsoft a 1% stake in Akamai, making the small privately-owned company worth about 1.5 billion. Microsoft's investment follows similar ones by Apple and Cisco for 5% and 4% of the company, respectively. While Cisco is only interested in having Akamai use its routers, Apple and Microsoft need the company's high speed network of Web servers to power their streaming audio and video technology. Akamai's distributed server system mirrors data to sites across the world and transparently connects users requesting data from a site to the server nearest to them. Apple's QuickTime is already superior to Real's G2 and Microsoft's Windows Media, but it needs a fast, distributed network to keep streaming servers from overloading. Now with Microsoft's investment in Akamai, The Behemoth can offer the same advantage to its own streaming media customers. The deal also calls for Akamai to develop a version of its Linux-only technology for Windows NT. That would make NT more attractive to companies already using the service, particularly Yahoo!. Beyond the technological and competitive advantages the investment provides, Microsoft may also be eying Akamai Technology's filing with the SEC to get an IPO sometime early next year. -| ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it down the throats of our users." -Paul Maritz, former Microsoft Vice President From sujal@bellatlantic.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:31:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:31:27 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] asp errors Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: Sujal Shah > >The most amusing thing, though, about working with this guy was that his > >email was recently (last week?) down for 2 days (want to guess what > >software Microsoft uses to run their e-mail? ;-) > > BTW: The correct answer to this question is: An Alpha copy of the next > version of Exchange which the public doesn't have yet. > > They're dogfooding it at the moment. > So I take it that keeping in touch with clients in not important for the consulting/support arm of Microsoft? And I thought that they put the customers' needs first. Silly me. Sujal > Simon > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:43:59 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:43:59 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP >From: Steve Cohen >Office 2000 comes out and it's installed on your new >computer. Now you're incompatible with Office 97 and so are all your >documents. This induces otherwise totally unnecessary sales of Office >2000. These buyers don't want the new features, they want >compatibility. Perhaps it ought to be a law that a company with a >monopoly in a field of software needs to justify any breaking of >existing formats. You picked a startlingly bad example; Office 2000 uses the Office 97 file format. Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:23 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:23 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP Stuart J. Hysom wrote: "I agree. I guess what I should have said is that there is never a valid technical excuse [to change a file format]. Unless I am really wrong about computers being universal machines, al la Turing." "Incompatibilities are introduced so that people will have to buy a new version of a given product and to lock competitors out of a market. Those changes are then justified with "technical" excuses. Same can be said of the strategic breaking of standards: it is done to manipulate users (be they developers or simply non technical folks who want to get their work done). Then it is justified with platitudes about "innovation" and "features" etc. And no, M$ did not invent the trick. But they perfected it." --- Software Developers able to predict the future - film @ 11. Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From spectecjr@hotmail.com Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:49:21 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:49:21 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors >From: Paul Rickard > >They're dogfooding it at the moment. > > And what do they make dogfood out of? Meat that isn't fit for anything >but a dog. You've never come across the term "eating your own dogfood" have you? Actually, you're also wrong. At least in the UK (and possibly in the US too), dogfood *has* to be fit for human consumption BY LAW. Catfood, however does not. It might not taste good, but it should be edible. I believe the philosphy is in place to get the bugs out of the system before it goes out to the public. This is why (for example) visual studio is written using the version of visual studio that you're writing (and why I reckoned we should have implemented debug by cursing in the next version). Simon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:55:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:55:44 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] asp errors ====== On 04.14.2000 2:49 AM, Simon Cooke typed: ======= >You've never come across the term "eating your own dogfood" have you? > >Actually, you're also wrong. At least in the UK (and possibly in the US >too), dogfood *has* to be fit for human consumption BY LAW. Catfood, however >does not. > >It might not taste good, but it should be edible. I believe the philosphy is >in place to get the bugs out of the system before it goes out to the public. >This is why (for example) visual studio is written using the version of >visual studio that you're writing (and why I reckoned we should have >implemented debug by cursing in the next version). Yes, I have seen the term. Steve Ballmer seems to be in love with it. I always think 'eating your own shit' when i hear it, though. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "In Microsoft world, you are always one click away from harming yourself." -Elias Levy, BUGTRAQ mailing list moderator. From dski@ms17.hinet.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:57:56 +0800 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:57:56 +0800 From: dski@ms17.hinet.net dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:56:07PM -0500, Steve Cohen wrote: > Why shouldn't one be able to search for "Medical articles about the > rotator cuff?" or "Sports articles about the rotator cuff" or > "Newspaper stories about xyz" instead of purely text-based searches? I was under the impression that one _can_ go to, say, the category `medicine' on many search sites. One can also constrain a whole-Web search using operators and additional keywords, which is what I prefer. You said, `a search on "Rotator Cuff."' Since you didn't qualify it, I assumed you meant a whole-Web search on `Rotator Cuff' with no additional constraints. Such a search absolutely should turn up everything with `Rotator Cuff' in it, regardless of genre or subject. Categorization efforts are fine, as long as we can still do what you call purely text-based searches. I expect I'll stick with the latter for the most part, since opinions differ regarding what constitutes, say, a medical article or a sports article. > I'm not saying the old-style searches should go away, but there is > room for improved searches as well. No argument. There's also room for decent instructions on search pages (_on the pages_, not four levels of ads down...). Dan Strychalski From stevecoh@mcs.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:01:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:01:43 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP You got me there - I guess. However, just yesterday, my wife's boss visited my wife, who is ill, to pick up some confidential data that shouldn't be transmitted across the internet by normal means and complained that we had Office 2000 which she'd HEARD was quite incompatible with Office 97. I haven't been following too closely, so I don't know if there's anything behind this other than totally understandable paranoia. Still, just because I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do something like that doesn't mean they did it. I did, as you may remember, have a bad experience with Access 2000 but I will admit that that was more an example of DLL hell and wretched tech non-support than incompatible file formats. Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: Steve Cohen > >Office 2000 comes out and it's installed on your new > >computer. Now you're incompatible with Office 97 and so are all your > >documents. This induces otherwise totally unnecessary sales of Office > >2000. These buyers don't want the new features, they want > >compatibility. Perhaps it ought to be a law that a company with a > >monopoly in a field of software needs to justify any breaking of > >existing formats. > > You picked a startlingly bad example; Office 2000 uses the Office 97 file > format. > > Simon > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From stevecoh@mcs.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:03:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:03:55 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] [Fwd: IP: Microsoft Acknowledges Its Engineers Placed Security Flaw in SomeSoftware] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5248B033872B53CE8AEAE094 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------5248B033872B53CE8AEAE094 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: owner-ip-sub-1-outgoing@listbox.com Received: from admin.listbox.com (admin.listbox.com [208.210.124.36]) by mailbox.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05822 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 04:39:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from owner-ip-sub-1-outgoing@listbox.com) Received: by admin.listbox.com (Postfix) id 18C8827846; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing@listbox.com Received: by admin.listbox.com (Postfix, from userid 509) id 06DE627849; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:37:16 -0400 To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com From: David Farber Subject: IP: Microsoft Acknowledges Its Engineers Placed Security Flaw in Some Software Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > > >Microsoft Acknowledges Its Engineers >Placed Security Flaw in Some Software > >By TED BRIDIS >Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > >Microsoft Corp. acknowledged Thursday that its engineers included in some of >its Internet software a secret password -- a phrase deriding their rivals at >Netscape as "weenies" -- that could be used to gain illicit access to hundreds >of thousands of Internet sites world-wide. > >The manager of Microsoft's security-response center, Steve Lipner, >acknowledged >the online-security risk in an interview Thursday and described such >a backdoor >password as "absolutely against our policy" and a firing offense for >the as yet >unidentified employees. > >The company planned to warn customers as soon as possible with an e-mail >bulletin and an advisory published on its corporate Web site. Microsoft urged >customers to delete the computer file-called "dvwssr.dll"-containing the >offending code. The file is installed on the company's >Internet-server software >with Frontpage 98 extensions. > > > >http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB955657934787818042.htm > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Geoff_Goodfellow@iconia.com, Prague CZ * tel/mobil +420 (0)603 706 558 >"Success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html --------------5248B033872B53CE8AEAE094-- From stevecoh@mcs.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:10:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:10:44 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 dski@ms17.hinet.net wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:56:07PM -0500, Steve Cohen wrote: > > > Why shouldn't one be able to search for "Medical articles about the > > rotator cuff?" or "Sports articles about the rotator cuff" or > > "Newspaper stories about xyz" instead of purely text-based searches? > > I was under the impression that one _can_ go to, say, the category > `medicine' on many search sites. One can also constrain a whole-Web > search using operators and additional keywords, which is what I prefer. > You said, `a search on "Rotator Cuff."' Since you didn't qualify it, I > assumed you meant a whole-Web search on `Rotator Cuff' with no > additional constraints. Such a search absolutely should turn up > everything with `Rotator Cuff' in it, regardless of genre or subject. > > Categorization efforts are fine, as long as we can still do what you > call purely text-based searches. I expect I'll stick with the latter for > the most part, since opinions differ regarding what constitutes, say, a > medical article or a sports article. > > > I'm not saying the old-style searches should go away, but there is > > room for improved searches as well. > > No argument. There's also room for decent instructions on search pages > (_on the pages_, not four levels of ads down...). > > Dan Strychalski > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info The idea is that there would be a way to place categories and other data and meta-data into the MARKUP of a page, that would then be recoverable by search engines and other tools. Categorization would then be possible by direct methods rather than by the search engine applying some algorithm to guess at the category. Of course, in some ways this could make things worse, too. Check the "News" link off a stock quote for any company on any financial web site. Amid the hard news items listed there, you'll also find dozens of "news stories" to the effect that Joe Blow's Whizbang Investor's Tipsheet announces opinions on hundreds of companies, including the one you're researching. This opinion may turn out to be worthless, or not, but in any case you can't have it unless you pay Joe Blow something. So the "news story" is nothing but an ad for Joe Blow, in fact. Now, will these technologies make it even easier for Joe Blow to get noticed as "News"? Or will there be an enforceable filtering mechanism to keep him out? From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:02:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:02:53 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: Steve Cohen > >Office 2000 comes out and it's installed on your new > >computer. Now you're incompatible with Office 97 and so are all your > >documents. This induces otherwise totally unnecessary sales of Office > >2000. These buyers don't want the new features, they want > >compatibility. Perhaps it ought to be a law that a company with a > >monopoly in a field of software needs to justify any breaking of > >existing formats. > > You picked a startlingly bad example; Office 2000 uses the Office 97 file > format. Regardless, you are fully aware of the fact that various flavors of Office are incompatible. It's a valid point, whether the example was accurate or not. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:32:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:32:57 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 06:01:43AM -0500, Steve Cohen wrote: > You got me there - I guess. However, just yesterday, my wife's boss > visited my wife, who is ill, to pick up some confidential data that > shouldn't be transmitted across the internet by normal means and > complained that we had Office 2000 which she'd HEARD was quite > incompatible with Office 97. I haven't been following too closely, so > I don't know if there's anything behind this other than totally > understandable paranoia. Still, just because I wouldn't put it past > Microsoft to do something like that doesn't mean they did it. Gee, you mean Microsoft products sold in the US _don't_ come with some means of doing strong encryption? I thought that was a standard feature of all enterprise ready operating systems. *grin* Oh, yeah... I guess maybe they do, but only for making credit card transactions over the web. *chuckle* *sigh* Yet another deleterious effect of us being 'consumers' and a lack of competition. Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From gene.gaines@attglobal.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:46:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:46:18 -0400 From: Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites Quoting from today's The Wall Street Journal Interactive Editon: Microsoft Acknowledges Its Engineers Placed Security Flaw in Some Software By TED BRIDIS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL "Microsoft Corp. acknowledged Thursday that its engineers included in some of its Internet software a secret password -- a phrase deriding their rivals at Netscape as "weenies" -- that could be used to gain illicit access to hundreds of thousands of Internet sites world-wide. The manager of Microsoft's security-response center, Steve Lipner, acknowledged the online-security risk in an interview Thursday ... The company planned to warn customers as soon as possible with an e-mail bulletin and an advisory published on its corporate Web site. Microsoft urged customers to delete the computer file-called "dvwssr.dll"-containing the offending code. The file is installed on the company's Internet-server software with Frontpage 98 extensions. ... By using the so-called back door, a hacker may be able to gain access to key Web-site management files, which could in turn provide a road map to such things as customer credit-card numbers, said security experts who discovered the password. ... Russ Cooper, who runs the popular NT Bugtraq discussion forum on the Internet, estimated that the problem threatened "almost every Web-hosting provider." "It's a serious flaw," Mr. Cooper said. "Chances are, you're going to find some major sites that still have it enabled." Mr. Lipner of Microsoft said the company will warn the nation's largest Web-site providers directly. ... the risk was greatest at commercial Internet-hosting providers, which maintain hundreds or thousands of separate Web sites for ifferent organizations. Mr. Lipner said the problem doesn't affect Internet servers running Windows 2000, or the latest version of its server extensions included in Frontpage 2000. ..." This backdoor has been installed on major web sites for three years! Typical of the lack of maturity, QC and version management by the weenies at Microsoft. Disgusting. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:56:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:56:43 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:46:18AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote: > > This backdoor has been installed on major web sites for three years! > > Typical of the lack of maturity, QC and version management by the > weenies at Microsoft. Disgusting. Whoah! This kind of thing would _never_ have happened with Open Source software. Someone small team might do it, but it'd be noticed by some unrelated person going over the code within 6 months, and that team would be subsequently ostracized. Major indictment of a closed development model IMHO. It's only sad that it has to affect this many people. *sigh*, -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From dski@ms17.hinet.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:30:14 +0800 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:30:14 +0800 From: dski@ms17.hinet.net dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 06:10:44AM -0500, Steve Cohen wrote: > The idea is that there would be a way to place categories and other > data and meta-data into the MARKUP of a page, that would then be > recoverable by search engines and other tools. Categorization would > then be possible by direct methods rather than by the search engine > applying some algorithm to guess at the category. There is a way, isn't there? "META-keywords" or some such thing. It's not very sophisticated, and it could be more widely used, but at least it's not too widely ABused.... Greater structure would be helpful, but the question is who shall define it -- and as long as there are parties that feel they have a good chance of instituting a structure particularly beneficial to themselves, I think we're better off without.... Search engines might offer a tentative categorization of results based on non-keyword words found on pages with keyword hits. Hard to do quickly, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been thought of already. Dan Strychalski From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:36:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:36:59 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Web standards group denounces IE 5.5 ====== On 04.14.2000 7:10 AM, Steve Cohen typed: ======= >The idea is that there would be a way to place categories and other >data and meta-data into the MARKUP of a page, that would then be >recoverable by search engines and other tools. Categorization would >then be possible by direct methods rather than by the search engine >applying some algorithm to guess at the category. > >Of course, in some ways this could make things worse, too. Check the >"News" link off a stock quote for any company on any financial web >site. Amid the hard news items listed there, you'll also find dozens >of "news stories" to the effect that Joe Blow's Whizbang Investor's >Tipsheet announces opinions on hundreds of companies, including the >one you're researching. This opinion may turn out to be worthless, or >not, but in any case you can't have it unless you pay Joe Blow >something. So the "news story" is nothing but an ad for Joe Blow, in >fact. Now, will these technologies make it even easier for Joe Blow >to get noticed as "News"? Or will there be an enforceable filtering >mechanism to keep him out? And of course the porn sites will do with those categories the same thing they've done with meta tags: make them irrelevant and useless. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "Microsoft is like this intellectual roach motel: big brains go in and you don't see anything come out." -Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future From spectecjr@hotmail.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:59:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:59:37 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP From: "Stuart J. Hysom" > You missed my point. I don't believe I did, actually. "There is never a valid technical reason to change a file format" - is only a valid statement if all your developers can see into the future. If you miss just *one* thing, you're lost. Simon From shysom@emory.edu Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:26:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:26:54 -0400 From: Stuart J. Hysom shysom@emory.edu Subject: [Am-info] More from WaSP My point is that file format changes, and many other incompatibilities, more often seem to be introduced as attempts to control the market but are then justified to users/the public by tacking on "technical" explanations. Same can be said, for example, about other technically defended decisions that are at least arguably implemented more specifically to hurt a competitor: i.e., integrating IE into WIN95; breaking certain standards. As a competitive tool, such a strategy is not by definition a "bad thing." However, from the end-user's point of view (mine), it is clearly a mixed-bag. Where is my net gain when a new version of a word processor has several new features but produces data files that are not compatible with work I or my colleagues have done in the past with a previous version of said word processors? If there is no monopoly, then this presents less of a problem for the user. I can look to an alternative product that maintains backward compatibility in file formats, and use it instead. My concern (and the reason I am interested in the MS case and this list specifically) is what happens when a company with a monopoly uses these tactics. The effect is a freezing out alternatives before the even reach the market. And that is certainly a net loss for me, the end user. Again, my point: I think that many decisions about file format changes, standards breaking, and the like, are strictly competitive decisions that in fact inconvenience the end user as much as they help us. Finally, my opening comment about there *never* being a valid technical reason was perhaps too strong. There may be sound reasons. However, my point is that incompatibilities seem to be used as a tool to control the market but are defended as being technologically driven. Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Stuart J. Hysom" > > You missed my point. > > I don't believe I did, actually. > > "There is never a valid technical reason to change a file format" - is only > a valid statement if all your developers can see into the future. If you > miss just *one* thing, you're lost. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:08:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:08:21 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:46:18AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote: > > > This backdoor has been installed on major web sites for three years! > > Typical of the lack of maturity, QC and version management by the > weenies at Microsoft. Disgusting. Actually, it's sounding like this error isn't. It seems that someone found the string "Netscape engineers are weenies!' written backwards in the DLL. They then decided that maybe it was a password of some sort, and used it to try to do something they thought they shouldn't be able to. Namely, look at the raw files of a site hosted by someone else on the same server. It worked, so they thought it was the phrase they used that did it. It turns out this is something you can generally do. You have to have access to the site yourself, and the permissions have to be set up wrong (which I'm guessing is easy to do) on the server for it to work. Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric competitor bashing. One is tempted to start sprinkling around the sentence "Microsoft engineers think they're the best in the world, but in reality are fatuous blowhards who's idiocy ignores or breaks standards (because, obviously, the engineer, in their eternal greatness must've been the first to do it) and leaves the company open to antitrust suits." around their code. At least it would be truer than Microsoft's sophomoric, and moronic bashing of their competitor. Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From spectecjr@hotmail.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:52:52 PDT Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:52:52 PDT From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - false alarm! >From: "Eric M. Hopper" > Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for >Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not >that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its >a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric >competitor bashing. Oh, by the way, here's the word from NTBugTraq - who came up with the "problem" in the first place: From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM] on behalf of Russ [Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:33 PM To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: Re: DVWSSR.dll Vulnerability in Microsoft IIS 4.0 Web Servers Ok, here's a breaking update. Latest reports say that there is NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more different than what I said yesterday to WSJ. Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one goes to press (WSJ in this case). MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of "correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond, nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not have cared to run this story anywhere). Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the loathing of others for my stance... In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory. That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by others will always be possible in myriad ways. >From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied). I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using "Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set correctly, anything is possible. This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to do this junk with the dvwssr.dll) Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions, knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as data. Cheers, Russ - NTBugtraq Editor "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From sujal@bellatlantic.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:30:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:30:30 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites "Eric M. Hopper" wrote: [SNIP] > > It turns out this is something you can generally do. You have > to have access to the site yourself, and the permissions have to be set > up wrong (which I'm guessing is easy to do) on the server for it to > work. I havea bad feeling people are minimizing the issue here, simply because it wasn't as bad (and retarded on Microsoft's part) as first thought. The fact that you can misconfigure permissions easily enough that "many sites" have various combinations of these problems is a huge problem unto itself. The public needs to understand that security is a common problem with some common solutions, specifically that it's up to all of us, small sites and large sites to take the proper measures (just like "Wear a condom", "Don't drink and drive", etc.). Distributed denial of service attacks need stupid problems like this to survive... and as millions of Windows-based PC's come onto high speed connections via xDSL and Cable modems... well, I'm a little worried. Didn't we have a discussion a while back of the computing environment as a biological community where diversity may indeed be a survival trait... Sujal > > Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for > Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not > that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its > a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric > competitor bashing. > > One is tempted to start sprinkling around the sentence > "Microsoft engineers think they're the best in the world, but in reality > are fatuous blowhards who's idiocy ignores or breaks standards (because, > obviously, the engineer, in their eternal greatness must've been the > first to do it) and leaves the company open to antitrust suits." around > their code. > > At least it would be truer than Microsoft's sophomoric, and > moronic bashing of their competitor. > > Have fun (if at all possible), > -- > Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. > Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet > broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain > -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From ericb@pobox.com Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:06:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:06:37 -0400 From: Eric M. Bennett ericb@pobox.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites sujal@sujal.net wrote: > I havea bad feeling people are minimizing the issue here, simply >because it wasn't as bad (and retarded on Microsoft's part) as first >thought. The fact that you can misconfigure permissions easily enough >that "many sites" have various combinations of these problems is a huge >problem unto itself. True, but spare some of the bile for other vendors who do things that are equally stupid. Like SGI's traditional practice of shipping workstations with numerous passwordless accounts, then adding some disclaimer somewhere that says something like "if you happen to be connected to a network you might consider using a more secure setup". Duh. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. -Alan Skrainka From sujal@bellatlantic.net Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:36:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:36:47 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > sujal@sujal.net wrote: [SNIP] > True, but spare some of the bile for other vendors who do things that > are equally stupid. Like SGI's traditional practice of shipping > workstations with numerous passwordless accounts, then adding some > disclaimer somewhere that says something like "if you happen to be > connected to a network you might consider using a more secure setup". > Duh. well, for several reasons, that doesn't really worry me. For one thing, my mom isn't buying SGI workstations. Secondly, there just aren't that many SGI workstations out there. Thirdly, most people who buy SGI workstations (the IRIX based ones, I'm assuming you mean) have a clue, or can afford to hire one. I understand that Microsoft isn't the only one with problems like this... it's just that no other vendor's problems have as dramatic an impact as their's. Regardless, I'm not really concerned about them directly, as much as I am about the public's reaction to this situation. I think most people blow it off. It's not bile, it's genuine worry. :-) Sujal > > -- > Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu / www.pobox.com/~ericb/ > Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > > [The "New Economy" theory] assumes that we're all going to be sitting around in > the dark, naked and hungry and surfing the Internet. > -Alan Skrainka > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From mikestp@bc.sympatico.ca Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:50:22 +0800 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:50:22 +0800 From: Mike Stephen mikestp@bc.sympatico.ca Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:30:30 -0400, Sujal Shah wrote: >"Eric M. Hopper" wrote: >[SNIP] > > The public needs to understand that security is a common problem with >some common solutions, specifically that it's up to all of us, small >sites and large sites to take the proper measures (just like "Wear a >condom", "Don't drink and drive", etc.). Distributed denial of service >attacks need stupid problems like this to survive... and as millions of >Windows-based PC's come onto high speed connections via xDSL and Cable >modems... well, I'm a little worried. When I first got a cable connection (I have a 4Mb ADSL line now), I used to utilize a file called "winnuke.exe. When the cable system was dog slow, (in BC the cable modems are run by a really crappy service called "rogers" and the service was in addition to being slow, dammed unreliable). I have heard it is better now, and is available about 80% of the time. My ADSL line in comparison is much faster and much more reliable. At any rate, when the cable system was really slow, I used to send a "WINNUKE" to all the systems on my loop, and the system amazingly enough, seemed to be much more responsive. The same utility will no longer work, now that Microsoft "fixed it". It was fun while it lasted. I took great pleasure in calling up some people I know in corporate networks, and while on the phone, I asked them what they thought of Windows 95..... while speaking to them, I would send a "winnuke" and listen to the familiar curses regarding the stability of windows. (remember this was in 1997). Although Winnuke no longer works on anything but win 95, it has been replaced by many other little utils that do similar (or worse) things to Windows users. I remember a time in 1997, when winnuke was making the rounds.... Someone (who will remain nameless) found about 20 servers hosting the microsoft domain, and he wrote a script that sent a winnuke to all 20 servers over a weekend. As each one crashed and was re-booted by the admin, his script would send a ping.... if a ping resulted in a response, it would resend the winnuke. I could imagine the poor admin going from server to server and re-booting all these machines only to find as soon as they were up, they would crash down again. After the weekend, it was discovered that Microsoft fixed the problem..... They installed Linux boxes in front of the NT boxes. >From the Desk of Mike Stephen From gene.gaines@attglobal.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 06:18:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 06:18:54 -0400 From: Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - false alarm! Regarding Simon. I have never seen a Microsoft action that he could not explain away -- be that action venal, dishonest, unprofessional or criminal. Talk about a knee jerk! Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net Simon Cooke wrote: > > >From: "Eric M. Hopper" > > Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for > >Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not > >that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its > >a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric > >competitor bashing. > > Oh, by the way, here's the word from NTBugTraq - who came up with the > "problem" in the first place: > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM] > on behalf of Russ [Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:33 PM > To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM > Subject: Re: DVWSSR.dll Vulnerability in Microsoft IIS 4.0 Web Servers > > Ok, here's a breaking update. > > Latest reports say that there is > > NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL > > Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more > different than what I said yesterday to WSJ. > > Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried > to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of > time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been > extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for > information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one > goes to press (WSJ in this case). > > MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the > claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be > affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and > so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of > "correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond, > nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not > have cared to run this story anywhere). > > Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate > disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the > loathing of others for my stance... > > In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the > file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the > procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory. > > That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may > very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL > HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied > across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by > others will always be possible in myriad ways. > > >From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must > have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user > across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied). > > I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using > "Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them > think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites > using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set > correctly, anything is possible. > > This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there > is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't > appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been > individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone > permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability > to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to > do this junk with the dvwssr.dll) > > Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of > SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly > pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not > beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the > server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it > correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to > dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it > won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions, > knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a > password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as > data. > > Cheers, > Russ - NTBugtraq Editor > "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's) > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From gene.gaines@attglobal.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 06:42:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 06:42:58 -0400 From: Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE To Simon and other M$ knee jerk apologists: Gee, silly me. I was wrong. Further analysis has shown that the Microsoft FrontPage server program DVWSSR.DLL does not have a backdoor password. That's because no password is needed at all. We now know that this beautiful Microsoft product, installed by so many major web hosting services NOT because they like the product but because the companies they host demanded it ... brainwashed by M$ marketing ... HAS NO BACKDOOR AT ALL! See: http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000414D5E2 Quoting from the Computerworld article: According to Russ Cooper, editor of the respected security mailing list NTBugtraq, the text string in question, does not represent a backdoor password as some reports have suggested. The text string, "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" (Ed. note: Read it backward.) is embedded in the dvwssr.dll file which itself may contain a vulnerability. Dvwssr.dll is a directory file that apparently permits anyone with permission to modify one site containing the .dll to also modify other sites on the same server. The flaw probably has nothing with the errant string, however. "Anyone with permission to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to use this junk with the dvwssr.dll)," Cooper reported to the Bugtraq list. I say again. Disgusting. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net Gene Gaines wrote: > > Regarding Simon. > > I have never seen a Microsoft action that he could not explain > away -- be that action venal, dishonest, unprofessional or criminal. > > Talk about a knee jerk! > > Gene Gaines > gene.gaines@attglobal.net > > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > > >From: "Eric M. Hopper" > > > Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for > > >Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not > > >that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its > > >a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric > > >competitor bashing. > > > > Oh, by the way, here's the word from NTBugTraq - who came up with the > > "problem" in the first place: > > > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM] > > on behalf of Russ [Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA] > > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:33 PM > > To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM > > Subject: Re: DVWSSR.dll Vulnerability in Microsoft IIS 4.0 Web Servers > > > > Ok, here's a breaking update. > > > > Latest reports say that there is > > > > NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL > > > > Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more > > different than what I said yesterday to WSJ. > > > > Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried > > to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of > > time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been > > extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for > > information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one > > goes to press (WSJ in this case). > > > > MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the > > claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be > > affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and > > so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of > > "correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond, > > nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not > > have cared to run this story anywhere). > > > > Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate > > disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the > > loathing of others for my stance... > > > > In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the > > file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the > > procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory. > > > > That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may > > very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL > > HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied > > across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by > > others will always be possible in myriad ways. > > > > >From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must > > have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user > > across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied). > > > > I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using > > "Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them > > think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites > > using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set > > correctly, anything is possible. > > > > This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there > > is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't > > appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been > > individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone > > permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability > > to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to > > do this junk with the dvwssr.dll) > > > > Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of > > SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly > > pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not > > beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the > > server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it > > correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to > > dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it > > won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions, > > knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a > > password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as > > data. > > > > Cheers, > > Russ - NTBugtraq Editor > > "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's) > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From jjurban@ibm.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:16:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:16:39 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - false alarm! Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. John Simon Cooke wrote: > >From: "Eric M. Hopper" > > Still, the phrase in the file is kind of a black mark for > >Microsoft. A lack of the professionalism they present as a facade. Not > >that professionalism in general isn't always a facade, but sometimes its > >a facade for dedication and honesty instead of senseless sophomoric > >competitor bashing. > > Oh, by the way, here's the word from NTBugTraq - who came up with the > "problem" in the first place: > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM] > on behalf of Russ [Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:33 PM > To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM > Subject: Re: DVWSSR.dll Vulnerability in Microsoft IIS 4.0 Web Servers > > Ok, here's a breaking update. > > Latest reports say that there is > > NO VULNERABILITY IN DVWSSR.DLL > > Yup, that's right, different again from what I said earlier, and even more > different than what I said yesterday to WSJ. > > Please accept that I have followed the story published elsewhere and tried > to keep you abreast of everything I knew. Also appreciate that the amount of > time given to verify and research the claims made by others has been > extremely short. I've had probably 30 interviews today by orgs pressing for > information on the story as the feeding frenzy occurs after the first one > goes to press (WSJ in this case). > > MS have had people working on this thing like madmen, trying to verify the > claims and investigate all of the possible pieces of code that may be > affected. As that research progressed, different observations were made and > so the story came out in various stages (with varying levels of > "correctness"). Had they been given a reasonable amount of time to respond, > nobody would have been in a tizzy about anything (i.e. the press would not > have cared to run this story anywhere). > > Decide for yourself whether we were better served by (more) immediate > disclosure or not. I've stood where I stand for a reason, despite the > loathing of others for my stance... > > In the end, it turns out that unless you actually have permissions for the > file you are requesting, you'll get an error message when you follow the > procedures outlined by RFP in his RFP2K02 advisory. > > That said, understand that sites that allow connections by Front Page may > very well provide you with source asp if you request it. BUT THAT WILL > HAPPEN with or without the .dll. Without proper and full permissions applied > across virtual servers on a given box, site leakage or manipulation by > others will always be possible in myriad ways. > > >From what I've heard/seen/been told, permissions on the test servers must > have either been non-existent, incorrectly applied, or permissioned the user > across multiple virtual sites (i.e. incorrectly applied). > > I had someone claim that they could get into an FP98 site using > "Netscapeengineersareweenies!" as a userID and no password...making them > think it was a backdoor userID. Fact is they could get into the same sites > using "TomDickandHarry" as a userID too. If the permissions aren't set > correctly, anything is possible. > > This info may change again before its finalized. It may well be that there > is some way to use this .dll in a way that's not intended...it just doesn't > appear to be this one. On a box where multiple sites have not been > individually permissions, or permissions are lax or non-existent...anyone > permissioned to execute the .dll in the first place would have the ability > to simply open the other sites and manipulate them directly (i.e. no need to > do this junk with the dvwssr.dll) > > Finally, to my point out the string not being a password. Elias Levy of > SecurityFocus.com and Mark Edwards of NTSecurity.net have both correctly > pointed out that using the term password to apply to that string is not > beyond the realm of understanding. The client component mtd2lv.dll and the > server component dvwssr.dll both need to know this value, and use it > correctly, for communications to work. If you try and talk directly to > dvwssr.dll and don't obfuscate your communication with the correct "key", it > won't understand you. Of course if you don't already have permissions, > knowing this value gets you nothing...hence my observation that its not a > password. Whatever it is, it appears to be meaningless junk text used as > data. > > Cheers, > Russ - NTBugtraq Editor > "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's) > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From jjurban@ibm.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:59:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:59:54 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] What a piece of work is Gates As his employee's stock options dwindle in value, many to worthlessness, Mr. Gates gives gazillions of dollars to Government projects. Soon those employees will begin to have serious problems covering mortgates, school loans, etc. But Gates thinks of the Government first. His employees, evidently, are expendable. "I'm such a nice, caring person, innovative too. Now that I've donated all that money, they'll stop picking on me and let me continue to have my monopoly so I can cut off everyone's air supply." He could have settled months ago. All he had to do was accept terms under which Microsoft would have had to compete, just like everyone else. Yet he refused to do that. What a piece! Someone here was talking about roundworms and flatworms: annelids and nematodes and platlyalmenthes (oh, my!). Mr. Gates is a whole 'nuther phylum. John From dski@ms17.hinet.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:43:15 +0800 (CST) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:43:15 +0800 (CST) From: Dan Strychalski dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE Gene Gaines (gene.gaines@attglobal.net) passed along -- > http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000414D5E2 ....which contained the passage -- "This type of action is totally wrong and against Microsoft's policy of keeping its customers' information secure," the spokeswoman said. "Microsoft just learned of this yesterday and immediately launched an investigation. It is not Microsoft's policy to add any additional information to its products." ....which doesn't quite jibe with my memory of the Easter egg that listed all the people who worked on Windows 95, scrolling their names leftward and rightward across a backdrop of clouds in the sky, timed and arranged and fading in and out just _so_, in a way that would do Hollywood proud.... What did you have to type? "And now, the product you've all been waiting for..." -- something in that vein. You completed the sentence, pressed or clicked something, and the show began.... Dan Strychalski From hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:50:09 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:50:09 -0500 From: Eric M. Hopper hopper@omnifarious.mn.org Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 07:30:30PM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote: > > I have a bad feeling people are minimizing the issue here, > simply because it wasn't as bad (and retarded on Microsoft's part) as > first thought. The fact that you can misconfigure permissions easily > enough that "many sites" have various combinations of these problems > is a huge problem unto itself. I agree with you here. I still find the message amusing though. If that message hadn't made it into the DLL, nobody would ever thought there was any kind of problem at all. > Didn't we have a discussion a while back of the computing environment > as a biological community where diversity may indeed be a survival > trait... And I think that should go pretty high on the list of why a Microsoft monopoly is bad for everybody. Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:09:29 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:09:29 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - false alarm! "John J. Urbaniak" wrote: > > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. Apparently the string is not a backdoor, but then again the file itself does cause security issues. The actual string is no more than many of the 'easter eggs' found in M$ products. A function of people with too much money, too much time and obviously, no concern for putting out a quality product. > > John -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:17:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:17:07 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE Dan Strychalski wrote: > ....which doesn't quite jibe with my memory of the Easter egg that > listed all the people who worked on Windows 95, My point exactly in a previous post. I know that there are easter eggs in Win95, Win98, excel and word. All are pretty ellaborate. If these arogant jerks would spend more time on the actual products, rather than building their cute little easter eggs. No, it won't happen. Like I said, too much money and too much time on their hands. No concern for the actual quality of the product or the customers who are locked into using their lousy products. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:24:09 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:24:09 -0400 From: Wandered Inn esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Subject: [Am-info] more on easter eggs.. A little excerpt: > Apple and Macintosh are not the only companies that provide hidden > code within their operating system. The leading manufacturer in > operating systems, Microsoft, also contains several Easter eggs. > Microsoft's operating systems: Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows CE, > Windows NT, and Windows 98, all contain hidden code for the user to > view and execute. The eggs differ from pictures of the developing team > to a flight simulation above a temple dedicated to Microsoft Excel and > it's developers. That last line really makes me gag, and probably is a very good definition of what M$ developers think of themselves. Here's the link to the site, which contains links to descriptions of some of the eggs out there. http://clam.rutgers.edu/~jsutton/easter.htm -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K than there were with Y2K... From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:11:19 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:11:19 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! From: "Gene Gaines" > Regarding Simon. > > I have never seen a Microsoft action that he could not explain > away -- be that action venal, dishonest, unprofessional or criminal. > > Talk about a knee jerk! Umm... and this has to do with something that was written by the guy from NTBugTraq who published the original problem how? Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:14:56 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:14:56 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] more on easter eggs.. From: "Wandered Inn" > > The eggs differ from pictures of the developing team > > to a flight simulation above a temple dedicated to Microsoft Excel and > > it's developers. > > That last line really makes me gag, and probably is a very good > definition of what M$ developers think of themselves. Umm... actually, that's what whoever you were quoting thought of the MS developers; it's just a scrolling panel set on stones on a hill in the middle of a voxel landscape. Not a temple. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:18:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:18:06 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE From: "Wandered Inn" > My point exactly in a previous post. I know that there are easter eggs > in Win95, Win98, excel and word. All are pretty ellaborate. If these > arogant jerks would spend more time on the actual products, rather than > building their cute little easter eggs. No, it won't happen. Like I > said, too much money and too much time on their hands. No concern for > the actual quality of the product or the customers who are locked into > using their lousy products. http://www.eeggs.com/tree/1.html It's not just Microsoft. Any software product written by people who don't get credit for their work tends to have an easteregg. Apart from Windows 2000 - they were banned from doing it. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:18:45 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:18:45 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! From: "John J. Urbaniak" > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape crash on me. Simon From sujal@bellatlantic.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:25:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:25:58 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "John J. Urbaniak" > > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. > > Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I > fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape > crash on me. > Windows, IIS, Interdev, IE, and Office crash on me much more often than netscape... does that mean Microsoft developers are bigger weenies? How puerile can you be, Simon? It's not professional, regardless of what you think of your competitors. The fact that you accept that sort of behavior... well, it speaks volumes (I wouldn't allow it with my development teams, i know that much). Easter eggs, don't bother me much (unless they make up a large portion of the distribute source or binary). I think, though, you expect people to be a little more professional here, especially when anyone with grep could find the string in there. Sujal > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From jjurban@ibm.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:18:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:18:12 -0400 From: John J. Urbaniak jjurban@ibm.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Simon Cooke wrote: > From: "John J. Urbaniak" > > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. > > Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I > fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape > crash on me. > Call people "weenies" all you want. But to put it in a production product is, at the very least, unprofessional. John From joe.moore@sdrc.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:59:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:59:37 -0400 From: Joe Moore joe.moore@sdrc.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Sujal Shah wrote: > Simon Cooke wrote: >> From: "John J. Urbaniak" >> > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. >> Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I >> fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape >> crash on me. > Windows, IIS, Interdev, IE, and Office crash on me much more often than > netscape... does that mean Microsoft developers are bigger weenies? Every time somebody says "Software foo crashes all the time" somebody else says that it never crashes for them. It's really a pointless argument. Let it go. All software sucks. Also, attacking Simon is not particularly productive. Sure, he worked for Microsoft, and he seems to accept some of the rhetoric from there. But he's providing more constructive information to this group than anyone else I've seen here. Honestly, if you (not just you, Sujal, but everybody) can't dispute what he says without calling him a "Paid Microsoft Shill" or "Knee-Jerk Microsoft Defender" then you have nothing worth saying. --Joe From sujal@bellatlantic.net Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:06:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:06:28 -0400 From: Sujal Shah sujal@bellatlantic.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Joe Moore wrote: [SNIP] > Every time somebody says "Software foo crashes all the time" somebody > else says that it never crashes for them. It's really a pointless > argument. Um... that was my point. I'm sorry you missed it. In fact, I extended your point further by saying that it was unprofessional and silly to call your competitor's engineers "weenies" because of your experiences. > > Let it go. All software sucks. > > Also, attacking Simon is not particularly productive. Sure, he worked > for Microsoft, and he seems to accept some of the rhetoric from there. > But he's providing more constructive information to this group than > anyone else I've seen here. Honestly, if you (not just you, Sujal, but > everybody) can't dispute what he says without calling him a "Paid > Microsoft Shill" or "Knee-Jerk Microsoft Defender" then you have nothing > worth saying. I've never called him any of those names (or any names at all, IIRC). Often, I *can* dispute what he says, which is why I post. I rarely, if ever, post to this list unless I see something pointful I can say. My issue with Simon's last post was that he claimed that Netscape's engineer's are weenies because of "the number of times [he's] had Netscape crash on [him]." Well, by that definition, most Microsoft engineers, including Simon himself, because I think he's worked on some of the products I've used, must be weenies because I've had every Microsoft product I've ever used crash on me more than once (some, like interdev, with alarming frequency). So, I don't see your point. Sujal > > --Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net http://www.sujal.net/ From stevecoh@mcs.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:09:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:09:22 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE Shit. I once took part in an Easter Egg. It was on orders from management. We incorporated into our application no fewer than four pictures of various teams involved, each accessible from some weird keystroke. Did I feel credited by this? Not at all, and my respect for any programmer who would feel that way drops a notch. All of the developers I work with thought it was stupid. I think we raised the size of our application by a third by doing it. Especially with the bugs in the product. It's really a stupid practice and doesn't merit your defense. Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Wandered Inn" > > My point exactly in a previous post. I know that there are easter eggs > > in Win95, Win98, excel and word. All are pretty ellaborate. If these > > arogant jerks would spend more time on the actual products, rather than > > building their cute little easter eggs. No, it won't happen. Like I > > said, too much money and too much time on their hands. No concern for > > the actual quality of the product or the customers who are locked into > > using their lousy products. > > http://www.eeggs.com/tree/1.html > > It's not just Microsoft. Any software product written by people who don't > get credit for their work tends to have an easteregg. > > Apart from Windows 2000 - they were banned from doing it. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From stevecoh@mcs.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:21:06 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:21:06 -0500 From: Steve Cohen stevecoh@mcs.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Yes, Joe. Sujal has a definite point. While I agree with you that there are people who engage in puerile name-calling and "When did you stop beating your wife" styles of argumentation with Simon, Sujal is certainly not one of them. He's one of the more thoughtful arguers here. You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush. Sujal Shah wrote: > > Joe Moore wrote: > [SNIP] > > Every time somebody says "Software foo crashes all the time" somebody > > else says that it never crashes for them. It's really a pointless > > argument. > > Um... that was my point. I'm sorry you missed it. In fact, I extended > your point further by saying that it was unprofessional and silly to > call your competitor's engineers "weenies" because of your experiences. > > > > > Let it go. All software sucks. > > > > Also, attacking Simon is not particularly productive. Sure, he worked > > for Microsoft, and he seems to accept some of the rhetoric from there. > > But he's providing more constructive information to this group than > > anyone else I've seen here. Honestly, if you (not just you, Sujal, but > > everybody) can't dispute what he says without calling him a "Paid > > Microsoft Shill" or "Knee-Jerk Microsoft Defender" then you have nothing > > worth saying. > > I've never called him any of those names (or any names at all, IIRC). > Often, I *can* dispute what he says, which is why I post. I rarely, if > ever, post to this list unless I see something pointful I can say. > > My issue with Simon's last post was that he claimed that Netscape's > engineer's are weenies because of "the number of times [he's] had > Netscape crash on [him]." Well, by that definition, most Microsoft > engineers, including Simon himself, because I think he's worked on some > of the products I've used, must be weenies because I've had every > Microsoft product I've ever used crash on me more than once (some, like > interdev, with alarming frequency). > > So, I don't see your point. > > Sujal > > > > > --Joe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@sujal.net > > http://www.sujal.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From joe.moore@sdrc.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:03:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:03:50 -0400 From: Joe Moore joe.moore@sdrc.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites - falsealarm! Sujal Shah wrote: > Joe Moore wrote: > [SNIP] > > Every time somebody says "Software foo crashes all the time" somebody > > else says that it never crashes for them. It's really a pointless > > argument. > > Um... that was my point. I'm sorry you missed it. In fact, I extended > your point further by saying that it was unprofessional and silly to > call your competitor's engineers "weenies" because of your experiences. I just don't see the point is arguing about which piece of software crashes "the most" or "too much" or whatever. It is definitely unprofessional to call competitors "weenies". Especially in public. > > Let it go. All software sucks. > > > > Also, attacking Simon is not particularly productive. Sure, he worked > > for Microsoft, and he seems to accept some of the rhetoric from there. > > But he's providing more constructive information to this group than > > anyone else I've seen here. Honestly, if you (not just you, Sujal, but > > everybody) can't dispute what he says without calling him a "Paid > > Microsoft Shill" or "Knee-Jerk Microsoft Defender" then you have nothing > > worth saying. > > I've never called him any of those names (or any names at all, IIRC). > Often, I *can* dispute what he says, which is why I post. I rarely, if > ever, post to this list unless I see something pointful I can say. This was much more inteded for others on the list. I'm sorry that it had your name at the top of the message. I've just had a bad weekend, and didn't think enough before posting. > My issue with Simon's last post was that he claimed that Netscape's > engineer's are weenies because of "the number of times [he's] had > Netscape crash on [him]." Well, by that definition, most Microsoft > engineers, including Simon himself, because I think he's worked on some > of the products I've used, must be weenies because I've had every > Microsoft product I've ever used crash on me more than once (some, like > interdev, with alarming frequency). I certainly can't disagree with you about the unreliability of software. Almost every major software package I've used (for a significat period of time) crashes. It doesn't seem to be tied to any particular developer or team. I had originally typed that "That means practically all developers are weenies". I probably should have left it in. > So, I don't see your point. It got lost somewhere between the chair and the keyboard. Sujal, I'm sorry for hitting you with this. --Joe From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:44:41 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:44:41 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! From: "Sujal Shah" > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > > From: "John J. Urbaniak" > > > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. > > > > Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I > > fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape > > crash on me. > > > > Windows, IIS, Interdev, IE, and Office crash on me much more often than > netscape... does that mean Microsoft developers are bigger weenies? In your eyes, maybe. You can hold whatever you want. As for me, I still think the Netscape developers are weenies. > How puerile can you be, Simon? It's not professional, regardless of > what you think of your competitors. The fact that you accept that sort > of behavior... well, it speaks volumes (I wouldn't allow it with my > development teams, i know that much). I can be exceedingly puerile, though I don't see the relevance of that here. Where did I say that it was acceptable or professional behavior to call the Netscape developers that? Nowhere. All I said was that the reason the text was there, was to call the Netscape developers weenies. There's no other reason for it. I didn't make any kind of value judgement whatsoever - so I'd rather you didn't try and twist it into one. I'm not condemning it, and I'm not saying that it was valid behavior. I'm not commenting on it at all. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:45:04 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:45:04 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! From: "John J. Urbaniak" > Simon Cooke wrote: > > > From: "John J. Urbaniak" > > > Well, that string is there for some reason. It didn't just happen. > > > > Yes. It's there to call Netscape's developers "weenies" - a sentiment I > > fully agree with, actually, given the number of times I've had Netscape > > crash on me. > > > > Call people "weenies" all you want. But to put it in a production product > is, at the very least, unprofessional. I don't recall disagreeing with anyone on this. Simon From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:47:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:47:35 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE From: "Steve Cohen" > Shit. I once took part in an Easter Egg. It was on orders from > management. We incorporated into our application no fewer than four > pictures of various teams involved, each accessible from some weird > keystroke. Did I feel credited by this? Not at all, and my respect > for any programmer who would feel that way drops a notch. All of the > developers I work with thought it was stupid. I think we raised the > size of our application by a third by doing it. Especially with the > bugs in the product. It's really a stupid practice and doesn't merit > your defense. Wow. You increased the size of your app by a THIRD? The Excel one is at most 64k long. The ones in Visual Studio usually live on the install CD. Etc etc. Mind you, I do know of one that was a little long... I believe that one of the files installed by Exchange 4.0 (or something) was about 140Mb of AVI file. Kind of lame, really. Simon From dski@ms17.hinet.net Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:27:12 +0800 (CST) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:27:12 +0800 (CST) From: Dan Strychalski dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! Quoting Sujal Shah and responding, Simon Cooke posted -- >> Windows, IIS, Interdev, IE, and Office crash on me much more often than >> netscape... does that mean Microsoft developers are bigger weenies? > > In your eyes, maybe. You can hold whatever you want. As for me, I still > think the Netscape developers are weenies. It's quite a trick for a company to select for weenies in its hiring practices. How did they manage it? Dan Strychalski From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:28:34 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:28:34 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! From: "Dan Strychalski" > > In your eyes, maybe. You can hold whatever you want. As for me, I still > > think the Netscape developers are weenies. > > It's quite a trick for a company to select for weenies in its hiring > practices. How did they manage it? Check the resume. If it says "Oscar Meyer" under "Place of Origin", you know what you're dealing with :) Si From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:41:56 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:41:56 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] Netscape weenie stuff... This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BFA734.2FB14D30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BTW: apparently there's some doubt as to whether it was a Microsoft = employee who put that "Netscape's engineers are weenies!" string in that = DLL; it may have been part of the original product that Microsoft bought = up. Simon ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BFA734.2FB14D30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BTW: apparently there's some doubt as = to whether it=20 was a Microsoft employee who put that "Netscape's engineers are = weenies!" string=20 in that DLL; it may have been part of the original product that = Microsoft bought=20 up.
 
Simon
------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BFA734.2FB14D30-- From dski@ms17.hinet.net Sun, 16 Apr 2000 21:20:10 +0800 Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 21:20:10 +0800 From: dski@ms17.hinet.net dski@ms17.hinet.net Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! Quoting me and responding, Simon Cooke posted -- >> It's quite a trick for a company to select for weenies in its hiring >> practices. How did they manage it? > > Check the resume. If it says "Oscar Meyer" under "Place of Origin", you > know what you're dealing with :) So it has nothing to do with Netscape Communications _per se_; it's just that they _don't_ work for Microsoft. Silly me. I didn't expect an answer that would bring this passage to mind: [...] Perhaps what held them back more than their lack of resources was the fact that they had an arrogance about them, believing they were smarter than everyone else. They were a group of intellectuals with degrees from the most prestigious institutions, who had trouble believing that a group of ex-BYU students could beat them. On one occasion, one of their programmers [...] interrupted Bruce to tell him that some of the things he was demonstrating were impossible to do. It took real arrogance for the Microsoft programmer to dispute something he could see with his own eyes, and it was this kind of arrogance that showed in Microsoft's product. _Almost Perfect_, Chapter 7, "Awkward Adolescence" Copyright 1993, 1998 W. E. Peterson http://www.fitnesoft.com/AlmostPerfect/ap_chap07.html My one experience with I.E. was when I checked a page for a friend in Navigator on my own office machine and in I.E. three-point-something on a co-worker's machine. I immediately checked the raw HTML to make sure my friend hadn't put something weird in there. Let's put it this way: you'd think that version three of such an important product would reflect the company's decade or so of experience in digital typography. Yeccccccch. The term _weenies_ didn't occur to me at the time, but it seems appropriate. Dan Strychalski From spectecjr@hotmail.com Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:19:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:19:48 -0700 From: Simon Cooke spectecjr@hotmail.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites -falsealarm! From: > Quoting me and responding, Simon Cooke posted -- > > >> It's quite a trick for a company to select for weenies in its hiring > >> practices. How did they manage it? > > > > Check the resume. If it says "Oscar Meyer" under "Place of Origin", you > > know what you're dealing with :) > > So it has nothing to do with Netscape Communications _per se_; it's just > that they _don't_ work for Microsoft. Um, no Dan - that was a joke. > Silly me. I didn't expect an answer that would bring this passage to > mind: > > [...] Perhaps what held them back more than their lack of resources > was the fact that they had an arrogance about them, believing they > were smarter than everyone else. They were a group of intellectuals > with degrees from the most prestigious institutions, who had > trouble believing that a group of ex-BYU students could beat them. > On one occasion, one of their programmers [...] interrupted Bruce > to tell him that some of the things he was demonstrating were > impossible to do. It took real arrogance for the Microsoft > programmer to dispute something he could see with his own eyes, and > it was this kind of arrogance that showed in Microsoft's product. > > _Almost Perfect_, Chapter 7, "Awkward Adolescence" > Copyright 1993, 1998 W. E. Peterson > http://www.fitnesoft.com/AlmostPerfect/ap_chap07.html Whoever disbelieved the evidence of their own eyes was a fool for admitting it :) Rule 1: When you can't believe what you're seeing, check for more evidence. If there's no trickery involved, check your assumptions - because at least one of them is wrong. > My one experience with I.E. was when I checked a page for a friend in > Navigator on my own office machine and in I.E. three-point-something on a > co-worker's machine. I immediately checked the raw HTML to make sure my > friend hadn't put something weird in there. Let's put it this way: you'd > think that version three of such an important product would reflect the > company's decade or so of experience in digital typography. Yeccccccch. Hmmm... what were the results? > The term _weenies_ didn't occur to me at the time, but it seems > appropriate. Again; it's very easy to think of people you think are a joke as weenies. Let's be honest here too. Raise your hand if you actually *really* think that if you were in a room with a Netscape developer, the first thing that would come to mind was that they were a weenie. Same again with Microsoft developers - though you can add "spawn of satan" to "weenie" in this case. My beliefs in this matter come purely and simply from the fact that I don't consider Netscape to be at all robust (it causes problems on *every* platform it's available for - from the Mac to Linux to Windows - and the Windows version of Netscape is widely regarded as the most stable version). I also have seen Netscape 6 and realized that really, when it comes down to it, yet again everyone is asleep at the switch when it comes to user interface design. (the UI is UNIX, for Windows. Nice idea, shame that the execution means that Windows users are going to be very frustrated). So basically, there's this voluminous cloud of "Netscape weenies" that are out there who are allowing products like Netscape 4.7 to go out the door. That's who I hang this tag on. Individual developers are probably the best thing since sliced bread - and the term "weenie" is more than a little harsh. Simon From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:14:09 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:14:09 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password -- DEBACLE ====== On 04.15.2000 8:47 PM, Simon Cooke typed: ======= >Wow. You increased the size of your app by a THIRD? > >The Excel one is at most 64k long. The ones in Visual Studio usually live on >the install CD. Etc etc. > >Mind you, I do know of one that was a little long... I believe that one of >the files installed by Exchange 4.0 (or something) was about 140Mb of AVI >file. Kind of lame, really. And lets not even go into the space consumed by that 45 minute multimedia credit thing in Windows 95.. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so, it's going quite well I must admit." -Bill Gates From mail@msbc.simplenet.com Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:55:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:55:20 -0400 From: Paul Rickard mail@msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] M$ backdoor password to thousands of web sites ====== On 04.14.2000 2:50 PM, Mike Stephen typed: ======= >...When the cable system was dog slow, (in BC the cable modems are run by a >really crappy service called "rogers" >and the service was in addition to being slow, dammed unreliable). I have >heard it is better now, and is >available about 80% of the time... Microsoft has investments in Rogers; I'm sure some will insist that their involvement is why service has improved. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- "As Internet technology itself vaults into new areas, so too does the Microsoft monopoly and its tried-and-true bag of tricks." -US Senator Orrin Hatch, (R) Utah