Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft makes Outlook Express U-turn
Silicon.com ^ | August 15, 2003

Posted on 08/15/2003 10:30:34 AM PDT by HAL9000

Just days after announcing that it planned to halt development on Outlook Express, Microsoft has been forced to change its position following internal confusion and an outcry from customers.

As reported earlier this week on silicon.com Microsoft had planned to stop product development on Outlook Express, which forms part of the Internet Explorer code bundled with consumer versions of Windows.

At the time Dan Leach, Office product manager, said: "The technology doesn't go away, but no new work is being done."

Under that vision, consumers would have been directed towards the company's MSN software, while businesses would be encouraged to purchase Office, which includes the full Outlook client.

However, Leach has now distanced himself from his original comments, claiming that while Microsoft had originally planned to halt new work on Outlook Express, the situation has since changed.

"I sat down with the Windows team today, and they tell me my comments were inaccurate," Leach said Friday. "Outlook Express was in sustain engineering, but customers asked for continued improvement, and we are doing that. Microsoft will continue its innovation around the email experience in Windows."

Leach blamed communication problems for the confusion.

"The Outlook Express team has been in the process of making this change known inside Microsoft," he said. "They just hadn't reached me before I left for Asia."

The lack of internal communication underlines the growing challenge faced by Microsoft as it attempts to co-ordinate software development activities over an increasingly diverse range of markets.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: email; exploit; internet; lookoutexpress; lowqualitycrap; malware; microsoft; outlook; outlookemail; outlookexpress; securityflaw; techindex; windows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last
To: rmvh

101 posted on 08/18/2003 9:56:33 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache (Which one will lose? Depends on what I choose or maybe which voice...I ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rmvh
Pure sophistry at its very worst.

Not at all. I'm trying to avoid a "bait and switch" definition where "best" shifts from a measure of technical merits to one of sales prowess in order to turn your claim into a tautology.

"Best" is a very simple thing to recognize and comprehend whether on a golf course of in the field or computers and computer software....

The quality of computer software is not as one-dimensional as a golf game. If you really believe that "best" is so very simple to recognize, can you tell me who the "best" baseball player is? How about the "best" musician? Or how about the "best" airplane? Or the "best" automobile? And if you believe success is normally the result of quality, do you really believe that the best car (in terms of quality) is the most successful car? Hint: The Pinto sold very well. So did the K-Car.

unless, of course, the person trying is a moron.

I'm not trying to be a moron but I may be arguing with one.

102 posted on 08/18/2003 9:58:25 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
I posted to make a limited but important point: That your assurance to js1138 that the hacked site didn't house important Linux code was false and misleading:

No it wasn't because GNU code is not Linux code. js1138 specifically mentioned Linux code. GNU code can be used with different kernels, such as Mach and Hurd. Linux can be used with different userland code, generally BSD derived. The two are no more the same than Windowns and Office.

Perestroika would be a better description.

Oh dear, the old "Linux is communist" troll. Now you've not only outed yourself as a MS shill, but a stupid one at that.

103 posted on 08/18/2003 10:14:21 AM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
Fortunately, neither you nor I have to rely on the FSF for the data. You can get a copy of MD5 sums from a mirror and validate all of the code yourself if you doubt their claims.

Yeaaaaaaaah, a mirror. A mirror of the server that was compromised; therefore, the sums may mask a trojan horse. No sale. Keep digging your hole...
104 posted on 08/18/2003 10:16:55 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
You seem to be making a lot of noise about how you distrust their claim, so put your money where your big mouth is and produce some evidence that what they say isn't true.

I don't see where Bush2000 claimed that trojans were inserted into code on FTP.GNU.ORG. Treating GNU's claims with skepticism isn't the same thing as claiming that trojans were inserted.

But the way this discussion is going for you, I can understand why you'd like to erect a less formidable straw man.

105 posted on 08/18/2003 10:18:44 AM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
I do so like get to see Darth Bill's empire slapped.
106 posted on 08/18/2003 10:19:51 AM PDT by scottlang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Yeaaaaaaaah, a mirror.

Yeah, a mirror. You do know what a mirror is, right?

And I suppose that MD5 sums from the authors of the programs would be unacceptable to you too, right?

107 posted on 08/18/2003 10:22:06 AM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
Treating GNU's claims with skepticism isn't the same thing as claiming that trojans were inserted.

Then he's welcome to check for himself. Or he can produce some evidence that indicate that the FSF post lacks truthfulness.

Or he can continue to spew groundless accusations.

Gee, I wonder which one will happen?

108 posted on 08/18/2003 10:23:55 AM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
Or he can produce some evidence that indicate that the FSF post lacks truthfulness.

The fact that the server was compromised, and the fact that the intrusion went undetected for 5 months is evidence enough that GNU lacks the competence to be blindly trusted.

109 posted on 08/18/2003 10:30:36 AM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Never having used either, what's the difference between Outlook and Outlook Express?

Is the latter a "lite" version of the former?

Sort of. Outlook Express comes with Internet Explorer and is a POP3 (Post Office Protocol 3) e-mail client and a NNTP (newsgroups, such as Usenet) client. That's basically it. And it is free.

Outlook comes with MS Office and can be a POP3, IMAP, or MS Exchange e-mail client. It also has a contact manager, appointment scheduler, and other things - more on the line of a PIM (Personal Information Manager). But no newsgroup reader. And it is not free (must by MS Office - and I think you can buy Outlook by itself - or you could at one point).

For reading standard POP3 Internet e-mail, there is not too much difference between Outlook Express and Outlook. The big differences come into play when you are running MS Exchange as your e-mail server - then you need Outlook.

I use O.E. as a newsgroup reader and usually use Outlook for e-mail and I've never personally had a problem. They have both had bugs, the biggest being the automatic execution of scripts and attachments, which was fixed a while ago. I keep up to date with Windows Update and Norton Anti-Virus, which has e-mail protection, and I don't open e-mails from senders I don't know or e-mails with attachments that are not expected.

Outlook Express has been the propogator of viruses and I would agree that it is mostly Microsoft's fault. But I also lay some blame on the people who (1) don't run Windows Update and (2) don't use anti-virus software. If you are going to run Windows and going to be connected to the Internet, you've just got to do these things.

And I also lay blame on the friggen buttwipes what write the viruses - nobody ever seems to get mad at them for some reason and I can't figure out why.

110 posted on 08/18/2003 10:41:54 AM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
No it wasn't [false and misleading] because GNU code is not Linux code.

I didn't claim that GNU code was the same thing as Linux. What I did was correct your misleading statement...

The hacked site wasn't "the Linux development servers," it was the Free Software Foundation FTP site. It houses no Linux core source code, only code for GNU userland tools.

What you failed to tell js1138 and everyone else was that FTP.GNU.ORG is indeed home to important Linux code. Especially GCC, the C compiler that is used to create binaries for the Linux kernel and most server apps like Apache, OpenSSL, Perl, etc.. That's pretty important core Linux code.

GNU code can be used with different kernels, such as Mach and Hurd.

...And, if a trojan had been inserted into GCC, then Mach and Hurd kernels would have been affected.

Albeit slowly, perhaps you're beginning to realize the size of the bullet that may (or may not) have been dodged here.

Linux can be used with different userland code, generally BSD derived.

BWAHAHAHA! The vast majority (>99%) of Linux distributions are GNU/Linux. Torvalds uses GCC. Spin that.

The two are no more the same than Windowns [sic] and Office.

Again, you're spouting misleading and incorrect information. Microsoft Office isn't used to build Windows binaries. It isn't a compiler.

111 posted on 08/18/2003 12:02:38 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
bump
112 posted on 08/18/2003 12:03:00 PM PDT by nutmeg (Is the DemocRATic party extinct yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
Oh dear,...

I've heard that testosterone injections will cure that.

113 posted on 08/18/2003 12:04:50 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Yeaaaaaaaah, a mirror. A mirror of the server that was compromised...

ROFLMAO! :-)

114 posted on 08/18/2003 12:10:37 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
The Emperor has no clothes ... and yet, still, they refuse to see... ;-p
115 posted on 08/18/2003 12:56:45 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
The fact that the server was compromised, and the fact that the intrusion went undetected for 5 months is evidence enough that GNU lacks the competence to be blindly trusted.

But the fact the the RPC/DCOM bug has been in Windows for about 8 years means nothing, right?

116 posted on 08/18/2003 1:48:01 PM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: rmvh
" buy their products as the best available."

That is not true in corporate environments, where the users don't get to decide what is the best available.
117 posted on 08/18/2003 1:51:00 PM PDT by =Intervention= (Moderate pubs and the liberals -- you know they love to get along....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Excellent post.
118 posted on 08/18/2003 1:54:35 PM PDT by =Intervention= (Moderate pubs and the liberals -- you know they love to get along....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
But the fact the the RPC/DCOM bug has been in Windows for about 8 years means nothing, right?

I see that now you're adding "deflect and change subject to Microsoft" to your spin routine.

I don't blindly trust Microsoft, either.

At the very least, I wouldn't make a fool out of myself trying to protect Microsoft from bad press - like you're trying to do for GNU.ORG.

119 posted on 08/18/2003 1:57:39 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
I didn't claim that GNU code was the same thing as Linux. What I did was correct your misleading statement...

I didn't claim that you did. js1138 did and I corrected him. And then you butted in with a smear on GNU code. If your intent was to correct my statement, you might want to work on your delivery. If your intent was to smear OSS, your delivery was right on.

What you failed to tell js1138 and everyone else was that FTP.GNU.ORG is indeed home to important Linux code.

One more time, since you seem too stupid to understand it. I'll try small words this time.

GNU code is not Linux code.

Linux distributions usually use GNU code, but Linux isn't the only user of GNU code.

FreeBSD used GNU code.

Debian, a Linux distribution, has an option to install BSD userspace code instead of GNU code.

GNU code, while important, is not Linux.

Get it yet?

..And, if a trojan had been inserted into GCC, then Mach and Hurd kernels would have been affected.

Care to tell me why?

The vast majority (>99%) of Linux distributions are GNU/Linux. Torvalds uses GCC. Spin that.

Today. That could change tomorrow.

Again, you're spouting misleading and incorrect information. Microsoft Office isn't used to build Windows binaries. It isn't a compiler. Fair enough. Let's say Windows and Visual C++ then. Still the same story. Related, yet different products.

120 posted on 08/18/2003 1:59:06 PM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson