Warning to Users of PKZIP Explorer and Microsoft Outlook 2000

28 February 2002

[steve in DC]

bump for later

[Dominic Harr]

I guess developers don't want to write excellent code, but, instead, just think of newer "cool" features to add without thinking if they provide any benefit.

I think it's an architecture problem.

What you want to do there is view a piece of your machine. I would argue that the 'OS' only includes the software you need to run the machine and look at each drive/mount.

Everything else is 'Gui'.

MS, for business reasons, prefers an 'integrated' architecture. Their 'Gui' components like Word, IE, etc, they want to 'integrate' into the OS, because of their OS monopoly. The software world, consumers, good software practices -- everything else prefers 'componentized'.

That, I think, is at the heart of all of MS's problems. They are using every single trick in the book to keep software 'integrated', and fight the 'componentized' approach.

For obvious business purposes.

But the market is against them, so they're actually using their powers to prevent the market from 'innovating'.

So to fight that, their developers are told to integrate things as tightly as possible. This leads to all these issues.

In my humble opinion.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Thank you so much for the link.... I have needed to see if zip would open a file for me and it did!!! You are my hero!

[Bush2000]

That, I think, is at the heart of all of MS's problems. They are using every single trick in the book to keep software 'integrated', and fight the 'componentized' approach.

COM, COM+, DCOM, MTS ... ring any bells, lightweight?

[PatrioticAmerican]

I think developers at Microsoft want to integrate features as it is better to use a feature someone else has already created than to create your own. A nice approach, but a feature may work in one app and misbehave in another.

The problem is that no one stops and thinks about writing solid code,and instead everyone wants to get credit for writing the latest and geatest feature. Let's face it, no one wants to rewrite working code just to make it more secure or faster. That just isn't sexy programming.

I find that the more experienced and talented programers take longer on a feature, but the end result in near perfection. Not to ttot my own horn, but I try to give the users the capabilities they need and nothing more. I will work on a feature 3 times longer than the kid next to me, but the end result is user satisfaction.

It is just difficult to have such a large enterprise of developers at Microsoft and keep them all working in one direction. I don't think MS is evil, it just needs closer internal supervision. I am glad that Gates went back as the Chief Architect. Maybe some MS developers might not think so, but it tells me that the development aspects of MS are getting closer supervision. Gates is a talented developer, and has the track record to show for it. I think that .NET is a good move, and this latest security emphasis is a good move, now lets just see how far the momentum actually carries MS into better software.

[SeeRushToldU_So]

I am just here to help mam'

[Dominic Harr]

I think developers at Microsoft want to integrate features as it is better to use a feature someone else has already created than to create your own.

But you're suppose to integrate features in a componentized, or decoupled way, so that you can swap out 'components' at will. That's what the customers want, that's what the developers want, that's what the market is chosing.

It's just not what the bean-counters want.

MS's management, for obvious reasons, doesn't want the word processor, web browser, etc to be an interchangable 'component' of the system. They want all the other software to be 'integrated'. If they had their choice, they'd copy and 'bundle' every single possible app into their 'OS'.

Purely for monopolistic reasons, even tho the market is trying to innovate the other way. They own the train tracks, and therefore they control the trains.

This also explains their moves on Java and with .NET.

With a cross-platform programming language, the OS becomes just another component that can be switched out as need be. So first they tried to pervert Java into being Windows only, as their internal emails showed, and then when the courts slapped them for that they just copied Java and made a Windows-only version in C#.

MS will break any law to try and prevent java from moving to the desktop, as it's now poised to do. I believe that a mountain of evidence shows that MS has done some bad things in the past. I believe that's why they lost the court case.

[r-t-f-m]

I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments. .zip files have been around almost as long as PCs (I've personally been using them for over eight years) and there's nothing nefarious about 'em. They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them, usually either WinZip or PKZip.

PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue. They're giving you the software for free... but they sure as heck ain't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They need to make a buck, too.

I don't like advertising-supported software so I always BUY the full-fledged version of software that doesn't have any ad-bots built in. I own licensed copies of both PKZip and WinZip. I don't have the current version of PKZip so I can't verify it but I'd be willing to wager there's some way of turning off the automatic file compression feature.

[PatrioticAmerican]

“I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments.”

Tell us all where it is.

"They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them"

Having worked with dozens of large Fortune 1000 companies, I can say that is not true.

"PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue."

You just contradicted your last statement. If every company has PKZIP, then they already have revenue.

”They're giving you the software for free... “

No, they are not. I and many others paid for it.

Try RTFM, and then make these statements.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"...made a Windows-only version in C#.

C# has been released to several standards organizations. As such, other non-Windows companies will have access to it. Many people are working on Linux, Mac, and other OS releases for C# that MS does not control. Besides, I thought that C# was no Java according to you.

[DB]

How can you have a worm in a MP3 file???

MP3 files are data, they're not executable or a script.

Even if one did attach code to an MP3 file it could never be executed. Perhaps your virus checker found a sequence of your MP3 file that looked like a particular virus but I don't see how it actually could be.

I did a Google search and I found this.

[Dominic Harr]

Besides, I thought that C# was no Java according to you.

At this point, C# is Java with the security, reliability and cross-platform taken out.

It has potential, and when some cross-platform functionality actually materializes, I'll be very happy.

C# is a nice first effort. It is *not* ready for mission-critical apps yet, but neither was Java for it's first 4 or 5 years.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"security, reliability and cross-platform "

How so?

[Dominic Harr]

How so?

Well, security wasn't important when they architected and built .NET. .NET was built under the old focus of MS -- "add features regardless of the security problems". Mr. Gate's memo makes it clear he admits they have this problem, and this was built with that focus. There are many security issues I have with .NET, from the lack or checked exceptions to their model for 'validating' web forms that can read/write the local drive (they're using IE as the gatekeeper -- IE, which is nothin but a security hole!).

And reliability depend on iterations. Only after software has been in wide release for a decent period of time can you really work out most of the bugs. As I said, Java people didn't push Java for mission-critical use for the first several years. Doing so with .NET is professional fraud.

A basic 'public beta test' is the only way to get most of the issues. Closed, 'in house' testing will never find the majority of the problems.

And of course, .NET is not yet cross-platform.

[r-t-f-m]

“I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments.” Tell us all where it is.

I don't use the program; my statement said that "I don't doubt that there is...", not that I KNEW there was. However, since you asked, I looked at their website http://www.pkware.com/ and retrieved this quote from the information about PKZIP Explorer... "easily toggle on or off automatic zipping of email attachments and configure other PKZIP options from within Microsoft® Outlook® 2000."

"They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them" Having worked with dozens of large Fortune 1000 companies, I can say that is not true.

I've worked with dozens of companies and never encountered one that didn't have a site license for either WinZip or PKZip or some other program for handling .zip files. A modern company can't do business without some sort of utility for dealing with .zip files.

"PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue." You just contradicted your last statement. If every company has PKZIP, then they already have revenue.

I didn't say that every company has PKZIP, I said every company has some sort of program for dealing with .zip files. There are many software products that have an ad-supported version that's free and a version with no advertising that you have to pay for. One of the best known is Eudora. There's a freeware version that shows you advertising and a registered version that has no advertising but that you have to pay for. I didn't find anything on the PKWARE site about an ad-supported version but I only gave it a cursory glance.

”They're giving you the software for free... “ No, they are not. I and many others paid for it.

I made that statement with the presumption that there was a free ad-supported version of the software in addition to the paid version that you and many others have.

Try RTFM, and then make these statements.

And the same should apply to you as well since I was easily able to track down the information that the feature you were grumbling about can be turned off.

Mike