Posted on 08/08/2002 10:45:56 AM PDT by Dominic Harr
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
My only complaint against MS is their constant use of fraud, coercion and other illegal 'sales tactics'.
If MS would stop the lawbreaking as 'marketing', they wouldn't be in all the legal trouble they're in.
Billions of $$$?
Interesting.
Do these "independent audits" have any teeth, does anyone know?
Are you Larry Ellison?
I also spend time on the creo v. evo threads, the drug war threads and the bush-bashing threads.
But yes, I am highly critical of big software -- Oracle, Sun, MS, Apple. I believe they're collectives run by collectivists who make low-quality products and mis-use their power, often illegally. I'm loudly critical of all of them.
MS is certainly one of the highest profile examples of this type of "business". They've been breaking laws in the name of 'marketing' for a long time. They're the 'Bill Clinton' of the software world, in my mind, in that they were guilty, convicted on a mountain of evidence, yet there are many MS-defenders who use all the Clintonista lines to excuse the lawbreaking by their "popular", "successful" favorite entity.
As in this case, more evidence of fraud as 'marketing' by MS.
If MS would just stop using fraud and coercion as 'business tactics', I'd have no problem with them.
Interesting - they only twisted my arm. (/chortle)
How odd, no comment from you on MS's being in trouble for fraudulent claims as 'marketing'?
Whatta ya know, Kerberos is hackable.
MS made false claims about Passport, you've made false claims about passport . . . what an odd coincidence, isn't it?
If I didn't know better I'd say you sound just like a mouthpiece for MS.
Nah, couldn't be . . .
Survey: Passport required--not appealing - most people are not choosing Passport for convenience' sake, Gartner said. Use is rising because the authentication service is required to use some Windows XP features, along with Hotmail e-mail, Microsoft's developer site and other Microsoft products. During the last six months or so, Microsoft has moved the Microsoft Developer Network, bCentral small-business services Web site, and online game Zone to Passport authentication. "Consumer demand typically drives the adoption of new products and services, but the rollout of Passport services is clearly not following that general rule," Gartner analyst Avivah Litan said in a statement. "Most consumers are signing up because they have to and not because of a strong interest in the convenience features Passport offers."
Stealing MS Passport's Wallet - More than 70 sites are in the process of deploying Passport's authentication technology, according to Microsoft. Among them is Prudential Banking's Egg.com online bank, which is switching to Passport from an authentication system developed by Entrust Inc., according to published reports.
Microsoft pushes Passport in Windows XP - Silver's reasoning: Some XP features, Windows Messenger and the Web Publishing and Order Prints services, require Passport authentication. Windows Messenger--a communications console offering instant messaging, videoconferencing, telephony and application sharing, among other features--is the main reason. In fact, Windows Messenger is so revolutionary, many analysts predict that one feature could drive Windows XP sales. "Here's a compelling new feature of the operating system they're making it really hard to resist," Forrester's Zurek said. "Oh, and by the way, you need Passport to use it."
ALSOP ON INFOTECH The Monopoly Has Just Begun Insidiously, incrementally, Microsoft is getting more and more of me. That has me worried. - Amazon.com sent me an e-mail promotion for a digital copy of a book I wanted to read. The book could only be read with Microsoft Reader, software for viewing e-books. I decided to buy the e-book, but Microsoft forced me to register with its Passport service to activate Reader. The ostensible reason is that Microsoft keeps track of the digital rights to each copy of the book. This is fine, except that in order to read the book, I had to divulge a bunch of personal information to Microsoft. And Passport is designed by Microsoft as a single central database that serves up your personal data whenever you use a browser to buy something from an online vendor. I like more control over when and to whom I offer my data, so I use a software program called Gator to store my data and passwords. But since I could only get this electronic book by registering with Passport, I registered, reluctantly, and gave Microsoft as little personal data as I could. My second experience happened a couple of months later. I bought a Macintosh computer, and a copy of Microsoft Office 2000 for the Macintosh. I thought I could download a copy of MOM, as it is known, but that's not possible. It's too big to download, even if you have the kind of broadband connection we enjoy at our home, the Digital Manor. So I bought the retail package at Microsoft's online store and had it shipped. Guess what? When the software arrived, I had to use Passport to register as a user. I was free, of course, not to register--but in that case Microsoft would not support the product. And heck, even if I felt like resisting, why bother? I'd already registered with Passport earlier, so what was the harm in registering again and forking over a bit more of my personal data? So I went ahead and used Passport to register myself as a legal and supported user of Microsoft Office for Macintosh. Insidiously, incrementally, Microsoft is getting more and more of me.
Feds might use Microsoft product for online ID - Microsoft says it has 200 million people registered to use Passport, most of whom signed up because Microsoft told them it was needed to use other Microsoft services, such as its free Hotmail e-mail service or Windows XP operating system. According to Gartner, a research company based in Stamford, Conn., only 2 percent signed up because of the service's stated purpose: to avoid having to use multiple identifications and passwords at different Web sites.
MSN Website Terms of Use and Notices - Some MSN Sites/Services automatically provide you with a Microsoft Passport account when you open an account (e.g. Hotmail, MSN Explorer, MSN Internet Access).
I think that's enough. Most of the stuff out there about Passport deals with the security concerns about Single Sign In (SSI) and particularly with the notion of MS having control of all of that personal information. Reading MS' responses, it appears that MS is focused on reassurances about the privacy concerns ONLY... MS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY refute the beliefs that Passport is required to use certain web services -- indeed, if Hotmail et al automatically establish a Passport account, that kinda indicates to me that Passport IS required.
Oh sure, you're not REQUIRED to use any of the web services which require Passport. Tell that to a newbie XP user who wants to "get the most out of the online eXPerience". Obviously, the only way to get out of the Passport requirement is to not use any MS product.
I think considering the overall state of software development, I would not say any of these companies are guilty of creating low-quality products.
As a technologist, I think fellow tech-heads tend to have a higher standard than the general public, who only use 10% or less of the features in your average package.
Microsoft is in a no-win situation, having to be all things to all people. They can never please most of us, because too many of us use their software. I dont think I would go so far as to compare them to Bill Clinton.
It is a competitive industry, and I dont fault any company for trying to gain an advantage, and I am personally dubious as to whatever wrong-doing might have occured, because of the record of Janet Reno and others making charges.
I think the government should back off and let the market determine Microsoft's fate.
Janet has been out of the picture for a couple of years now. And the charges are NOT baseless.
I think the government should back off and let the market determine Microsoft's fate.
Yeah, the market has done a helluva job so far, hasn't it?
I disagree. I define 'quality' software as software that just works as advertised. Software that doesn't violate the basic consumer protection laws that apply to every other product.
I think the American software industry is where the American automobile industry was in the 70s. A few large collectively-owned giants monopolized the industry and used their power to lock entrepeneurs out of the industry. As is the case with all monopolization of markets, the product quality suffered tremendously. Oracle has the worst qualtiy of them all, in my book. The patch-a-week club they have going sometimes seems overwhelming.
Again, the only qualms I have against MS is their heavy use of fraud, coercion and such in their pursuit of profits.
I am a conservative. I believe in *honest* business. Not dishonest business. MS was proven to have committed many serious acts of fraud and coercion on a mountain of evidence, and the conviction was reviewed by an MS-friendly appeals and supreme courts.
The laws apply to MS. I do not agree that the govt should 'back off' of companies that break the law. Anymore than Enron execs should be given a free pass.
'Enforcing the law against lawbreaking businesses' is not govt intervention in the markets.
Consider all those VB Developers who are now yelling at Microsoft, because they are forcing them through VB.NET to become REAL programmers. They should be ashamed.
We will probably disagree, but I think in a competitive marketplace, one man's fraud is another man's omission. One man's LIE is another man's mistake. It is subjective in my opinion, and not solvable. I dont think Oracle is all that bad either, but thats just me.
Something like 70% of all corporate IT projects fail.
I'm honestly not asking for 'perfect'. Again, simply software that is 'done' -- software that works as advertised.
I'd observe that the common business plan that 'big software' has fallen into is to sell software that is not fully tested yet. In response to 'market' pressures. Every industry understands the desire to rush a product out to market, but all the 'established' industries have to live with warranties and such.
Yet in software, the EULA actually tries to claim that the creator is not responsible if the software does not work as promised!
This is because 'software' is not considered a 'mature' industry yet. Well I personally feel that it is time for 'big software' to grow up.
And my bias against Oracle is well earned. Once, to bring an Oracle instance up to Y2K compliance, we had to install over a hundred patches.
I don't believe we'd put up with that in any other product, personally.
Lotus 1-2-3 version 1A. I worked with it for years, never saw a bug in it.
Problem with Microsoft Products is the tools they have used to build them. VB is a walking disaster with no constraints, no error capturing, just a bunch loose code. You can do anything with it except make bug free programs. Their C and C++ tools also do not trap serious errors but heck, why should they care, with enough advertising, enough paid off reviewers, they can sell it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.