Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Jesse Pollard]

> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 
> > 
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > 	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> > 
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
> 
> Which brings up an interesting question for us all.  Let's postulate, for
> the sake of discussion, that we agree on the following:
> 
>     a) Linux (or just about any Unix) is a better low level OS than NT
>     b) Microsoft's application infrastructure is better (the COM layer,
>        the stuff that lets apps talk to each, the desktop, etc).

Not completly - the COM layer is (my opinion) part of what propagates some
of their security problems. What else would be capable of disabling a
cruser so fast (and take two hours to restart)...

There appears to be no functional difference between COM and CORBA
(based on superficial knowlege only) except specification availability.

> I know we can argue that KDE/GNOME/whatever is going to get there or is
> there or is better, etc., but for the time being lets just pretend that
> the Microsoft stuff is better.
> 
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:
> 
>     a) the Linux kernel
>     b) the Microsoft API ported to X
>     c) Microsoft apps
>     d) Linux apps
> 
> Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
> charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
> without them.  If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip
> them off and strip off the dlls and ship all the rest of it without
> giving Microsoft a dime.  If you do need the apps or you want the app
> infrastructure, you have to give Microsoft exactly what you have to give
> them today - money - but you can run Word side by side with Ghostview
> or whatever.  Microsoft could charge exactly the same amount for the
> dll's as they charge for the OS, none of the end users can tell the
> difference anyway.

Ah yes, raise the Mr. Bill tax... The DLLs ought to be less than half
the price of the OS .. after all, they are a small part of the distribution
and belong to the application(s).

If you attempt to find a full installation of NT (JUST the OS), it will
cost ~400+ dollars (US). If you then add Office, add an additional 200.
If you want program development, add another 200 to 600, maybe more
since I haven't looked recently.

For the most part, I wouldn't complain too much about their prices. If the
products would work. If they didn't have such horrible security. If the
"patches" supplied would also work and not introduce more and different
failures.

BTW, the prices are actually slightly less than what AT&T, SCO, and others
charged for pieces of a unix system when they were originally sold
($600 base os, $600 application development, $600 documentation workbench
all values approximate, from memory).

> I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.

I'm equally unimpressed by their applications - how many macro viruses
exist? How do they propagate? How many times do they change file formats?
How many patches are (re)issued to "fix" the same problem?

The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
a logic bomb).

> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Not by choice - I'm forced to use M$ crap because the conferences will
not accept anything else (yet another monopoly point). Personally, I would
prefer to use Applix, StarOffice, WordPerfect, FrameMaker, ... Only one
of which is "free".

I agree that M$ applications should be available. But until M$ quits
appropriating other peoples code and calling it theirs I, for one, don't
want to be forced to use them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> > I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> > For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> > and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> > there is potential for a win-win.
> 
> I'm equally unimpressed by their applications - how many macro viruses
> exist? How do they propagate? How many times do they change file formats?
> How many patches are (re)issued to "fix" the same problem?
> 
> The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> a logic bomb).

What is XP license virus?
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lew Wolfgang]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:

> > The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> > that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> > functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> > a logic bomb).
>
> What is XP license virus?

Hi Pavel,

I'm not sure it's like a virus, maybe more like a genetic defect.

This is Micro$oft's new licensing scheme that made its first
appearance with the SR1 edition of Office 2000.  I've been subjected
to it twice now, with Office 2000 and Office XP.  Windows XP will
use the same scheme.

It seems to be a multifaceted license manager that does the following
when installed:

1.  Sniffs around the hardware, building a list of what's installed.
    This serves as a "fingerprint" for the Pea Sea.

2.  The user enters the CD "key", a unique serial number for the
    software you purchased.

3.  A new encrypted string containing the sftwe key and the hardware
    fingerprint is now generated.  This new key must be provided to
    Microsoft where they then generate a third key based on the
    second.  This new key must be entered to "unlock" the software.

If this sequence is not followed, Office will run only 50 times, then
shut itself down.  (I bet it leaves "spoor" somewhere to prevent the
average user from just reinstalling from the CD.  I heard that
Windows XP will run only 5 times before shutdown without the final key.

Note that the manager encourages the user to use the automatic method
for sending the key to Micro$oft.  A form is filled out with name,
organization, address, phone number and such before a button is
pressed to send your personal profile off to the Borg.  The return
address has to be valid or you can't get the final, third key.
(In all fairness, they will allow telephone key transmittal that
can be anonymous.  This is what I did from a public phone booth)

So, Micro$oft now has lots of information about you.  If the
CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Further, if your hardware environment changes (adding a new
frame buffer, scsi controller, etc) the license manager assumes
you copied the whole disk to another computer and are therefore
a pirate.  It shuts down the package until a new key can be
obtained from Micro$oft, presumably after you convince them
that you aren't really a crook.  "I just added a disk!  Please
turn my Windows on again!  I promise to be good and send you
more money in the future.", can be heard across the land.

This whole thing will probably be good for the Open Source
Movement.  We won't have to "pull" users from the Borg,
the Borg will start "pushing" them to us.

Interesting times in which we live, what?

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[David Schwartz]

> If the
> CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.

	Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such as the CD
key being found on a web site or being reinstalled dozens of times from all
over the planet).

	DS

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lew Wolfgang]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If the
> > CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
> This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
> send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such as the CD
> key being found on a web site or being reinstalled dozens of times from all
> over the planet).

Hi David,

It is something that I read somewhere.  If memory serves, Microsoft
will allow two installs on the same CD-key.  Note that this is
different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
was enter the CD-key.  There were no real-time checks on how
many times it was installed.

This http://two.digital.cnet.com/cgi-bin2/flo?y=eBwm0Hm1h0U0c7G0A4
says, "In the case of Office XP, people can install the software on two
computers, such as a desktop PC and a laptop. But the second
installation requires a phone call to obtain the 44-key unlock code."

Microsoft is apparently using this technology to enforce subscription
plans in New Zealand and Austrailia.  The software just dies if you
don't send in your mortita.

The question remains, "How many times will Microsoft let you install?"
I'll test the process starting on Monday.  I have an Office XP that
has been installed once.  I'll try it again without giving my name
and keep trying until I reach the limit.  I'll say that I'm having
problems with my disk crashing or something.  I'll report my findings
here.

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[David Schwartz]

Lew Wolfgang wrote:

> It is something that I read somewhere.  If memory serves, Microsoft
> will allow two installs on the same CD-key.  Note that this is
> different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
> was enter the CD-key.  There were no real-time checks on how
> many times it was installed.

	You mean they will allow to overlapping installs. That is, you have
permission to run the software on two machines. This says nothing about
their enforcement scheme.

> This http://two.digital.cnet.com/cgi-bin2/flo?y=eBwm0Hm1h0U0c7G0A4
> says, "In the case of Office XP, people can install the software on two
> computers, such as a desktop PC and a laptop. But the second
> installation requires a phone call to obtain the 44-key unlock code."

	So the first time you install it, you can do it the easy way. After that,
you need to call them to get the code. For all we know, it's as simple as,
"I'm the purchaser and I'd like to install it again".

> The question remains, "How many times will Microsoft let you install?"
> I'll test the process starting on Monday.  I have an Office XP that
> has been installed once.  I'll try it again without giving my name
> and keep trying until I reach the limit.  I'll say that I'm having
> problems with my disk crashing or something.  I'll report my findings
> here.

	That's precisely the question, and we have no answer. It is becoming more
and more obvious to me that statements such as "If the CD key is used again
they just refuse to send the final key" are sheer speculation mixed with a
small dose of FUD.

	More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with each install,
especially if they are in close time proximity or widely varying physical
locations (or other suspicious patterns). If they find out that a key is
definitely being abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In
other words, they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
inconvenience for legitimate users.

	DS

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> 	More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
> inconvenience for legitimate users.

Well, except that according to Murphy's law, it's obviously Sunday you
are trying to install the beast, and Microsoft offices are closed. And
on weekdays, you are working, so you don't have time enough to. (Yes
you can call on a weekday, get the code (provided they aren't
time-locked), and install the Sunday after, but Murphy's law again:
either you'll forget, either your disk will screw up your previous
installation on Saturday).

-- 
Lionel Elie Mamane
RFC 1991 (PGP 2.x) 2048 bits Key Fingerprint (KeyID: 20C897E9):
    85CF 986F 263E 8CD0 80FD 4B8C F5F9 C17D
OpenPGP DH/DSS 4096/1024 Key Fingerprint (KeyID: 3E7B4B73):
	9DAD 3131 3ADA F50B D096 002A B1C4 7317 3E7B 4B73

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Dmitri Pogosyan]

Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >       More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> > each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> > abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> > they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
> > inconvenience for legitimate users.

Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away - 
'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'

Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
If you have nothing to hide, it is just a minor inconvenience, but how
many criminals will be caught !  Let us put permanent roadblocks at
every
entrance to the cities !

Or maybe we should introduce the law so you should report your
activities in written form every week to goverment authorities?   If you
just work, shop, sleep - you have nothing to fear ! Moreover there will
be a standard form - available on internet- so one can just tick common
answers in the convenience of your home !

And now I have to ask permission every time I put my own purchased CD in
my computer and explain and prove that I'm not a pirate.  Speak about
living in freedom.


-- 
CITA, University of Toronto         pogosyan@cita.utoronto.ca
60. St. George Street               tel:  1-416-978-7616 (o)
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8           tel:  1-416-466-4028 (h)
Canada                              fax:  1-416-978-3921

[OT] Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 30 June 2001 16:22, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'

While I'm as interested as anyone else in the exact steps Microsoft takes to 
drive users to us, I don't see what this has to do with making the kernel 
better.

--
Daniel