CMonster
09-24-2001, 08:36 AM
reposted from www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews/misc/tamingbeast
"...If you haven't heard, Microsoft has been busy since the rulings. They have changed the rules for desktop icons on Windows XP at least twice (or was that three times?), settled their dispute with Kodak, and is rushing to release Windows XP earlier than had been originally planned. The desktop icon issue started with AOL wanting to get an icon for its on-line service placed on the Windows XP desktop. This is critical for them as it allows users to join AOL more easily than if they had to locate and order a CD. Microsoft responded with a flat "No." After some intense negotiating and a lot of bickering, it looks like AOL may get their icon after all -- but not because of Microsoft directly. Microsoft indicated that they would allow PC vendors to modify Windows by placing any icons they wish on the desktop. AOL reacted quickly by entering into negotiations with the PC vendors so they could get the coveted spot on the desktop. Microsoft then changed the rules to state that vendors could only do so if they also placed an MSN icon on the desktop as well.
The Kodak dispute was even more interesting. Mainly because Windows XP originally (during beta testing) would not allow Kodak's software to run when installed, and instead ran Microsoft's "Scanner and Media Wizard" when a user connected a digital camera to their PC. This resulted in Kodak threatening legal action. Microsoft settled the case by changing the code so that any software related to digital cameras could be installed and used by consumers. In return, Kodak agreed to publicly support Windows XP.
In regard to the rushing of Windows XP to market, as I write this, there is speculation that the date has indeed been changed, and Windows XP will be officially released on September 24. This is a full month earlier than the planned October 25 release date. Most industry observers agree that this change is intended to thwart a possible move by some US senators to get an injunction against Microsoft that would prevent them from releasing Windows XP. The reasoning behind such an injunction is that Windows XP will prevent many technologies from reaching consumers and will stifle competition. As an example of this, Slashdot recently ran a story about Windows XP's blocking of troublesome drivers. The essence of the story, which originated from The Register, is that Microsoft now has the ability to block specific drivers based on its own criteria. Microsoft essentially states that they will block drivers that have a history of crashing and that after so many crashes the driver is blocked. The author of the driver will be informed that their software will be blocked and given time to fix it. However my concern goes back to Microsoft's admission during the anti-trust trial that they had created false error messages in Windows 3.1 that were generated whenever someone ran Windows 3.1 on top of Caldera's DR-DOS instead of Microsoft's MS-DOS. This gave many people the impression that DR-DOS was unsuitable for running Windows and as a result many of those people switched to MS-DOS. Not exactly a great track record to bank on. In addition to this, Microsoft has included its own firewall software in Windows XP. This means that the makers of Black ICE Defender and ZoneAlarm are rushing to make sure that their software will not be blocked and will carry the Windows XP logo.
So what does all of this mean? For starters it is obvious that Microsoft is delaying any court ruling as best it can and to some extent has been successful in tying the judicial system in knots. It also gives Microsoft the false impression that Microsoft is changing its ways after all these years. This gives them some maneuvering room to get XP into stores and to move along in the .Net initiative.
I think what interests me is that Microsoft is clearly operating with two faces here. While this is not news to many in the IT industry, it certainly seems to be fooling consumers around the world. Clearly Microsoft still plays hardball and is very interested in using its dominance in the industry to further its own agenda at the expense of others. While I agree that competition is good and very necessary, I don't think that extinguishing innovation from the industry and eliminating choice is in the best interest of the consumer.
In fact, it's that same track record that has me greatly concerned about the future. With the coming of Hailstorm, Microsoft's proposed authentication service, we will be left with only one entity controlling access to vast areas of the Internet and managing personal information for most Internet users. I am certain that allowing a corporation which has continually displayed amazing feats of arrogance and is visibly ethically challenged is not a very good idea. I say this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I don't think that a single entity should control access to a global resource. Nor should it control how your personal information is stored and decide how it will be used. I think that if authentication services are the future, and on paper it makes a great deal of sense, then it should be split among several entities, public and private, that have to cooperate with each other. The idea of cooperation between these various authentication providers has the benefit of removing monopolistic behavioral practices and at the same time providing competition. If you are dissatisfied with how your information has been handled you could transfer that information to another provider.
The second reason I am concerned has to do with security. Microsoft has time and time again shown a complete disregard for ensuring proper security in their operating system products. With the now infamous Internet Information Server (IIS), this is most prevelant. Code Red anyone? Microsoft will often argue that they are providing what the market wants, which is ease of use. However, there is a penalty here, often times you must sacrifice security to provide ease of use. That may be fine for consumer products, but is pretty much unforgivable when you provide a service that involves peoples' personal information. After all, if your bank gets hacked and it affects you, the bank makes amends very quickly and increases the level of their security measures. Banks are used to handling this type of information, trust me, they put security before all else. They work hard to maintain their reputations and a compromised transaction is not at all in their best interests. Microsoft would do well to learn from the financial sector. As it stands now, Microsoft is the most hacked on-line presence in the world. Hotmail is compromised on a regular basis. How hard would it be to compromise Passport (the authentication element of the Hailstorm services).
Personal information is sacred to most of us - or so you would think. Unfortunately, many people lose that common sense when they connect to the Internet. They provide detailed information about their personal lives in exchange for some freebie on the Internet. These people wouldn't give out a scrap of information to someone calling at their door, yet do so freely when the Internet is involved. The price here is lack of freedom. Your information is usually sold to third parties whose intent is to build a profile of your habits and market products and services to you based on your profile. Harvesting of information has become a requirement of the new information-based economy. So much that we have seen some incredible demonstrations of arrogance exhibited by many large corporations. Some time ago, Microsoft came under heavy fire for the terms of use they had published for their Passport services. In the original draft, use of the service allowed Microsoft to use at their discretion any information you transmitted through their servers - whether it was personal or business-related. To add further insult to injury, Microsoft also gave up any copyrights or trademarks you may have had with that material. They have since taken a softened stance on this and now only require that you give up such rights in any feedback that you provide to them on their services. In my opinion, with the original draft, we have seen Microsoft's true colors, which is another reason not to trust them with managing your personal information. I wonder if anybody remembers 1996 when Microsoft was caught with a consumer database, containing more than just registration information. They worked hard to deny the existence of that database, and in the end had to acknowledge that they were tracking consumer profiles.."
"...If you haven't heard, Microsoft has been busy since the rulings. They have changed the rules for desktop icons on Windows XP at least twice (or was that three times?), settled their dispute with Kodak, and is rushing to release Windows XP earlier than had been originally planned. The desktop icon issue started with AOL wanting to get an icon for its on-line service placed on the Windows XP desktop. This is critical for them as it allows users to join AOL more easily than if they had to locate and order a CD. Microsoft responded with a flat "No." After some intense negotiating and a lot of bickering, it looks like AOL may get their icon after all -- but not because of Microsoft directly. Microsoft indicated that they would allow PC vendors to modify Windows by placing any icons they wish on the desktop. AOL reacted quickly by entering into negotiations with the PC vendors so they could get the coveted spot on the desktop. Microsoft then changed the rules to state that vendors could only do so if they also placed an MSN icon on the desktop as well.
The Kodak dispute was even more interesting. Mainly because Windows XP originally (during beta testing) would not allow Kodak's software to run when installed, and instead ran Microsoft's "Scanner and Media Wizard" when a user connected a digital camera to their PC. This resulted in Kodak threatening legal action. Microsoft settled the case by changing the code so that any software related to digital cameras could be installed and used by consumers. In return, Kodak agreed to publicly support Windows XP.
In regard to the rushing of Windows XP to market, as I write this, there is speculation that the date has indeed been changed, and Windows XP will be officially released on September 24. This is a full month earlier than the planned October 25 release date. Most industry observers agree that this change is intended to thwart a possible move by some US senators to get an injunction against Microsoft that would prevent them from releasing Windows XP. The reasoning behind such an injunction is that Windows XP will prevent many technologies from reaching consumers and will stifle competition. As an example of this, Slashdot recently ran a story about Windows XP's blocking of troublesome drivers. The essence of the story, which originated from The Register, is that Microsoft now has the ability to block specific drivers based on its own criteria. Microsoft essentially states that they will block drivers that have a history of crashing and that after so many crashes the driver is blocked. The author of the driver will be informed that their software will be blocked and given time to fix it. However my concern goes back to Microsoft's admission during the anti-trust trial that they had created false error messages in Windows 3.1 that were generated whenever someone ran Windows 3.1 on top of Caldera's DR-DOS instead of Microsoft's MS-DOS. This gave many people the impression that DR-DOS was unsuitable for running Windows and as a result many of those people switched to MS-DOS. Not exactly a great track record to bank on. In addition to this, Microsoft has included its own firewall software in Windows XP. This means that the makers of Black ICE Defender and ZoneAlarm are rushing to make sure that their software will not be blocked and will carry the Windows XP logo.
So what does all of this mean? For starters it is obvious that Microsoft is delaying any court ruling as best it can and to some extent has been successful in tying the judicial system in knots. It also gives Microsoft the false impression that Microsoft is changing its ways after all these years. This gives them some maneuvering room to get XP into stores and to move along in the .Net initiative.
I think what interests me is that Microsoft is clearly operating with two faces here. While this is not news to many in the IT industry, it certainly seems to be fooling consumers around the world. Clearly Microsoft still plays hardball and is very interested in using its dominance in the industry to further its own agenda at the expense of others. While I agree that competition is good and very necessary, I don't think that extinguishing innovation from the industry and eliminating choice is in the best interest of the consumer.
In fact, it's that same track record that has me greatly concerned about the future. With the coming of Hailstorm, Microsoft's proposed authentication service, we will be left with only one entity controlling access to vast areas of the Internet and managing personal information for most Internet users. I am certain that allowing a corporation which has continually displayed amazing feats of arrogance and is visibly ethically challenged is not a very good idea. I say this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I don't think that a single entity should control access to a global resource. Nor should it control how your personal information is stored and decide how it will be used. I think that if authentication services are the future, and on paper it makes a great deal of sense, then it should be split among several entities, public and private, that have to cooperate with each other. The idea of cooperation between these various authentication providers has the benefit of removing monopolistic behavioral practices and at the same time providing competition. If you are dissatisfied with how your information has been handled you could transfer that information to another provider.
The second reason I am concerned has to do with security. Microsoft has time and time again shown a complete disregard for ensuring proper security in their operating system products. With the now infamous Internet Information Server (IIS), this is most prevelant. Code Red anyone? Microsoft will often argue that they are providing what the market wants, which is ease of use. However, there is a penalty here, often times you must sacrifice security to provide ease of use. That may be fine for consumer products, but is pretty much unforgivable when you provide a service that involves peoples' personal information. After all, if your bank gets hacked and it affects you, the bank makes amends very quickly and increases the level of their security measures. Banks are used to handling this type of information, trust me, they put security before all else. They work hard to maintain their reputations and a compromised transaction is not at all in their best interests. Microsoft would do well to learn from the financial sector. As it stands now, Microsoft is the most hacked on-line presence in the world. Hotmail is compromised on a regular basis. How hard would it be to compromise Passport (the authentication element of the Hailstorm services).
Personal information is sacred to most of us - or so you would think. Unfortunately, many people lose that common sense when they connect to the Internet. They provide detailed information about their personal lives in exchange for some freebie on the Internet. These people wouldn't give out a scrap of information to someone calling at their door, yet do so freely when the Internet is involved. The price here is lack of freedom. Your information is usually sold to third parties whose intent is to build a profile of your habits and market products and services to you based on your profile. Harvesting of information has become a requirement of the new information-based economy. So much that we have seen some incredible demonstrations of arrogance exhibited by many large corporations. Some time ago, Microsoft came under heavy fire for the terms of use they had published for their Passport services. In the original draft, use of the service allowed Microsoft to use at their discretion any information you transmitted through their servers - whether it was personal or business-related. To add further insult to injury, Microsoft also gave up any copyrights or trademarks you may have had with that material. They have since taken a softened stance on this and now only require that you give up such rights in any feedback that you provide to them on their services. In my opinion, with the original draft, we have seen Microsoft's true colors, which is another reason not to trust them with managing your personal information. I wonder if anybody remembers 1996 when Microsoft was caught with a consumer database, containing more than just registration information. They worked hard to deny the existence of that database, and in the end had to acknowledge that they were tracking consumer profiles.."