Tag Archives | Microsoft

How much would you pay for a favorable opinion?

From Dan Gillmor’s eJournalOpinion Laundering Thrives.

  • Tim Lambert: When Think Tanks Attack. Why
    are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small
    Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will
    expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against
    Government Waste is concerned that the Government might waste money on
    Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open Source
    might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I was able
    to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all seem to be
    funded by Microsoft.

“This piece isn’t absolute proof, but it’s another layer of circumstantial evidence that Microsoft is continuing its campaign of what I’ve called “opinion laundering” to make a case against LInux and other free software. (See previous  looks at this subject here, here and here, for example.) Microsoft is hardly alone in this activity, of course. Lambert’s article looks into the tobacco archives and shows how major think tanks were paid by tobacco companies  and took positions congruent with the tobacco interests’ own views. The bigger problem is that we often don’t know who is funding which think tank, and many won’t tell us. Even the ones that do say they’re getting some money from companies like Microsoft won’t say how much. If the “contribution” is .001 percent of annual funding, that’s trivial. If it’s 50 percent, that’s not trivial. But we are never told this relevant information. None of this is illegal, but it’s definitely sleazy. We need laws, not that this Congress or administration will every touch the topic, to force think tanks to reveal the sources and amounts of their funding in amounts over, say, $500. That would let individuals continue to contribute in privacy, but would shine a needed light on the opinion laundering that is now so prevalent. In the meantime, when a think tank takes any position on just about anything, your first instinct should be to ask, “Did someone pay for that opinion?” — Dan Gillmor

Some people accuse me of being an “Open Source zealot” (thanks, btw), but at least my opinion is not for sale to the highest bidder.

The Answers Really Are Out There…

Andrew MacNeill – AKSEL Solutions responded to my query about Office having a 3% upgrade rate: “Only 3% of Office Users Using Office 2003?. Ted
wanted to know where Jeff Riefman got his facts from on his complaints
about Office, etc. Here’s the quote right from Ballmer’s mouth, in
response to a question about long vs. small steps (back on April 7,
2004).

“No.
2, it is not like Office releases, in any sense, have slowed down. We
did Office 2000; we did Office 2003; we are working away on the next
release. Most of our customers do not use Office 2003 yet. It has been
in the market, what, four or five months–something like that–and
maybe 1, 2, 3 percent of the installed base use Office 2003 so far. I
think we have got plenty of headroom before we need another product to
bring huge benefit to a lot of people. “

Read the entire article: here. By the way, Jeff’s original comments were in the Seattle Weekly

Thanks, Andrew!

Yet Another Switcher…

Ernie The Attorney blogs “Microsoft guy switches to Apple and guess what?.
Jeff Riefman writes about his experience with Windows: I began using
Microsoft products 23 years ago, at age 11, and I worked for Microsoft
from 1991 to 1999 as a technology manager. For many years, I was a
Microsoft loyalist.” Yawn! Stop me if you’ve heard this before. Yes,
yet another switcher story. This one has some interesting variations,
but really, folks, let’s get over it: most people who try out
Microsoft’s competition stay away.

But wait. If you can plow thorugh his whining that he has to reboot his
Windows XP machine every day and that Outlook locks up on him (sounds
like his machine could use some work), eventually he gets into a
discussion of the economics and business model of Microsoft that
actually has some merit. Very interestingly, he cites the “fact” that
less than 3% of the installed Office base has upgraded to the latest
version. Do any of my readers (yes, both of you!) know where he got
that statistic? I’d really like to learn some more about that.

Steven Levy: A Net of Control

Steven Levy posits the Internet of the future in this article in Newsweek:

Picture, if you will, an information infrastructure that encourages
censorship, surveillance and suppression of the creative impulse. Where
anonymity is outlawed and every penny spent is accounted for. Where the
powers that be can smother subversive (or economically competitive)
ideas in the cradle, and no one can publish even a laundry list without
the imprimatur of Big Brother. Some prognosticators are saying that
such a construct is nearly inevitable. And this infrastructure is none
other than the former paradise of rebels and free-speechers: the
Internet.

Chilling. Levy goes on to describe the downsides of Digital Restriction
Management and TMCA and Microsoft’s Palladium, now renamed “Next
Generation Secure Computing Base.”

Like shopping anonymously in a grocery store (if you don’t use the
store card) or eating at a restaurant without identifying yourself,
there is no justification for broadcasting your digital identity to any
who want to know. Law enforcement can track down your addresses and
electrons and bits should they need to, but every vendor doesn’t have
the right to know everything about you, to be able to turn on or turn
off your access at their whim. We are in a slippery slope where
Internet citizens can lose some of the features that make the internet
the great place that it is.

Cory Doctorow to Microsoft: DRM won’t work

DRM: A Bad Business Move for Microsoft.
“Invited guest Doctorow told the Microsoft Research staff that DRM
systems don’t work; are bad for society; are bad for business; and are
bad for artists. In short: “DRM is a bad business-move for Microsoft,”
Link from Microsoft Watch from Mary Jo Foley.

Great speech linked on the Microsoft Watch site: a simple and clear
explanation of why Digital Restriction Management is dumb and
impractical. Copying things for backup, time-shift, place-shift and fair use should be easy; stealing things is wrong. Let’s work out how to make that happen instead.

Should Microsoft ask for a refund when FUD flops?

Microsoft distances itself from Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Linux study.
“Microsoft is distancing itself from an Alexis de Tocqueville Instution
study which attempted to cast doubts on the origins of Linux.” Link via
Ars Technica

Microsoft funded the “Institution” but their report was too outrageous
to be believed. How many more organizations are out there, funded by
vendors and reporting falsehoods?

Microsoft, security, backward compatibility and engineering

Joel Spolsky’s “How Microsoft Lost the API Wars” (linked below, too) ties in really well with Calvin Hsia’s post on “Solving a customer problem
– to steal Calvin’s punchline, the Microsoft XP security push breaks
the backward compatibility of COM within Microsoft’s own Visual FoxPro
software. Calvin’s pragmatic troubleshooting stories and tangents into
Win98 and pianos are fun reading, especially for those of us who know
Calvin.

Joel concludes that the solution is to code your applications for the
web and not for one API of one window manager or GUI on one operating
system. Coincidentally (or is it?), that seems to be Jon Udell’s theory
in his InfoWorld column talking about efforts by BEA and Macromedia to do something with XML and browsers. Which ties in pretty well with the Mozilla XUL effort,
which seems to be creating a browser-based GUI using RDF XML. Great
minds really do think alike, and it seems that the industry is
exploring similar next-generation solutions. And, speaking of Mozilla,
Ars Technica interviews Scott Collins, who provides some interesting insights into Netscape/Mozilla then and now.

Meanwhile, my email chimes with the latest issue of Woody’s Windows Watch
(7.08, not yet in the archives), where he talks about the Window XP
Service Pack 2 (which isn’t a Service Pack, in my opinion, but XP
Reloaded), and says:

“Service Pack 2, more than any of its predecessors, is a seriously
risky patch job. That’s because Microsoft’s almost exclusive focus in
SP2 is security. Security first. Ahead of backwards compatibility.”

Security is a good thing. I like to feel secure. I like to feel secure
that my computer will work tomorrow like it did today. Perhaps I
misunderstand what Microsoft means by “security.”

Backward compatibility is not just a Good Thing. I’m scrambling to help some
clients who’ve discovered that DOS machines can’t access files stored
on their new Windows Server 2003 file server. I’m supporting
applications written, re-written and refined over 10 and 15 years.
Backward compatibility is not just a feature, it’s a requirement.

Ghandi was once asked what he thought of western civilization and he
replied, “I think it would be a very good idea.” I feel the same way
about software engineering. Security, compatibility and future
directions are not and cannot be mutually exclusive. All must advance,
together.

Microsoft’s actions speak louder than words

Bruce Schneier, a respected security analyst, in this NetworkWorldFusion op-ed, opines that “Microsoft’s actions speak louder than words” in denying pirated versions of Windows XP the Service Pack 2 security patches:
“Microsoft is harming its licensed users by denying security to
unlicensed users… This decision, more than anything else Microsoft
has said or done in the past few years, proves to me that security is
not the company’s first priority.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes

This work by Ted Roche is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States.