[ale] MS Propaganda representative

[Jeff Hubbs]

Dennany, Jerome {D177~Roswell} wrote:

> Well, I'm a developer that currently works with .NET, and perhaps I can 
> clear up a few points.  .NET people speak alot about the Internet, and 
> providing software services over the internet.  It isn't specifically 
> about running things over an open internet connection, but more a 
> 'distributed application' approach, which is pretty important in a large 
> geographically distributed corporation.


Well, there are lots of ways to achieve the so-called "distributed 
application approach" that doesn't require .NET, even under all-M$ 
environments (I am speaking as someone who was once very pro-MS and 
actually was a leader in bringing NT into a business environment as long 
ago as 1995).  You can do NTTSE or its modern descendants, you can use 
centralized app storage on file servers along with managed user 
profiles, or you can even go the Web, X, or client-server route. 
Because of this, I have trouble seeing .NET as a "silver bullet" that 
everyone has just been waiting for absent any other cogent solution.

> 
> <SNIP>
> You will have to use MS Office, Windows etc. over the internet. 
> Businesses will never go for that.
> </SNIP>
> 
> While business may not be excited about using applications over the 
> Internet, they are typically _VERY_ excited about centrally maintained 
> applications, ease of deployment, etc.  So, while they may not be 
> excited about MS Office over the Internet, the idea of the typical user 
> running a session or certain types of software in a virtual environment 
> is a system admin's dream.


Like I said, nothing about this need be just a dream.  It can be 
accomplished today and is not new.

> 
> <SNIP>
>  From what I gather, MS believes most everything will be done over the 
> internet and
> because of that you will have to allow websites to execute code on your
> machine. 
> </SNIP>
> 
> .NET has a fine-grained security model, allowing system administrators 
> (and programmers) detailed control over what can run (or should run - 
> I'm a pragmatist, not a Microsoft apologist.  I understand that MS has a 
> well-deserved bad reputation for security problems at both the OS and 
> applications levels).  However, don't think that just because it _can_ 
> be done, you can't turn it off.


Yeah, fine, but with whom is this level and manner of decision-making 
entrusted?  Certainly not the user...

> 
> <SNIP>
> DLL's can be updated dynamically and programs changed almost dynamically.
> </SNIP>
> 
> This already happens with products like Symantec's live update.  


Well said, coming as you seem to be from an environment where storms of 
virus infection is the norm.  Mechanisms such as this are a wonderful 
way to immediately and irrevocably propagate a massive screw-up to 
thousands of systems in minutes (ok, I'm being just a little bit 
facetious, but ONLY a little)

> From an 
> administrator's standpoint, this can be a _good_ thing.  The fewer 
> desktops you have to visit to perform an applications upgrade, the more 
> you can concentrate on your _real_ job (Automating your maintenance 
> scripts so you can play more UT).


Are you telling me you went desk-to-desk until .NET magically appeared 
to deliver you?  I guess I can understand this MS marketing tactic if 
for no other reason than a surprising number of organizations never 
implemented mechanisms from MS, from third parties, or of their own 
design to obsolete the practice.

> 
> <SNIP>
> Basically other people will have the ability to upgrade your machine at 
> will!
> </SNIP>
> I think this is it in a nutshell - you are looking at it from the 
> perspective of a home user.  Look at it from a corporate perspective 
> (which, let's face it, is how MS and all the other Software ISVs earn 
> their real living).  It's NOT THE END USER'S MACHINE.  It belongs to the 
> company.  If they want to update it dynamically, MS is providing the 
> tools to perform this.


Like I said, it's not the first time.  SMS (which I've worked with) 
didn't really take off like MS planned, so now they're going to try 
again but with higher stakes and a bigger carrot.


> 
> <SNIP>
> He didn't give any details about the key
> but I'm assuming Microsoft will certify this stuff somehow.
> </SNIP>
> 
> This will be verified the same as other software and SSL stuff.  The 
> root key authorities (Verisign, et al) will provide the code signing 
> keys.  MS will merely provide the framework and tools with which to sign 
> / verify keys.
> 
> <SNIP>
> I can't see people giving up total control of their computers.  It's
> just too risky with no rewards for the consumer. 
> </SNIP>
> 
> While I agree with you, how many people will fork out $500 for a copy of 
> OfficeXP?  Not very many.  Now, ask that same group of people if they 
> would pay $19.95 a month for Office.NET ?  Probably many more.  While 
> you or I may not like this model, it's the one Americans are already 
> familiar with.  Think cable.  Rent.  Car Lease.  We are already used to 
> the payment model.


Speak for yourself, flawed-analogy-boy!  :-) Software does not 
inherently decay as a natural and unavoidable result of use the way a 
car does.  Besides, it's plain to me that MS controls both arbitrary 
ends of that pricing equation, and it's clearly designed to compel 
people to jump to the .NET and subscription model.  It's an example of 
how MS uses its monopoly standing to manipulate consumers.  I just hope 
that this time, the puppet strings will finally break.  Gee, why don't 
they make it $5000 to buy vs. $20 a month for a subscription?  I 
personally do not care for companies who take something away from you or 
jack the price of it to the sky in order to compel you to change to some 
other business scheme of theirs; this is why I told AT&T Broadband to 
pound sand when they took Speedvision and SciFi away from their analog 
cable service.

Also, as a technologist and as someone who values self-determinism in 
life as well as in work, I am put off by the idea of requiring 
*continuous and mandatory support* from a vendor in order to use their 
products.  If I buy a Ford, I don't have to touch base with Ford (much 
less put my fuel injection or ignition systems under their direct 
control) every time I go for a drive.  If I don't like what MS does or 
how they do it, I want the latitude to walk away from them and their 
products.  MS seems hellbent on ensuring that you can't.  So far, they 
have been unable to seal the deal because of those damned Open Source 
people and their "viral software."

Do you realize that MS's publically-stated response to the non-settling 
states' proposal said that they may withdraw Windows from the market? 
That's no flunky talking - that was Ballmer in one of his depositions. 
Sure, he was probably leaning hard on the "F" in "FUD" but the fact of 
that matter is that a highly senior MS executive mouthing off like that 
ought to give any MS-only organization pause.

I am sure that MS wishes they had time-bombed Windows versions from an 
earlier, less aggressive age.  It probably would irk them that I have a 
Pentium 90 downstairs that runs Win95 and probably will continue to for 
a few years yet.  They can get no more money from me through my 
continued use of it.

> 
> <SNIP>
> And businesses will
> never go for sending their sensitive data over the internet to MS's
> servers just to write a letter or update a spreadsheet.
> </SNIP>
> Again, do a global search and replace and exchange the words 
> s/Internet/intranet/
> Companies will have no problems doing all of this on their internet 
> networks.  And that is what Microsoft is planning on (and software 
> vendors and programmers like myself are counting on.)  It won't be about 
> Really Big Company, Inc storing their stuff on the MS servers.  It will 
> be about them licensing an Office.NET server (or server farm - remember, 
> this is NT/W2K/XP, home of the 'little iron') with a 60,000 user license.


All I can say is, in Linux/OSS-world, we have the wherewithal to 
accomplish the same feat *in the manner we choose* without paying 
licensing fees to anyone.

> 
> This is just the point of view of a single MS developer who's had some 
> exposure to the technologies involved.  Everybody is entitled to their 
> opinions, so please don't flame me for mine (though constructive 
> argument and criticism is welcome!)
> 


Jerry, I do honestly see where you're coming from, but everything I have 
seen about .NET indicates INTERNET USAGE with MS as the "host."  The 
intranet mode of usage you're describing *is* possible under .NET 
although it would be real interesting to see what kind of MS tax you 
have to pay to do it.  However, I think it's pretty plain that anything 
Microsoft does on any kind of scale is going to be borne of a desire to 
maximize market share and profit in the extreme.

It is my understanding that Linux, xxxBSD, or any other operating system 
can theoretically be used in .NET but I have every expectation that MS 
will jigger things in such a way as to shut out non-MS OSses, if their 
EULA doesn't already.


> Respectfully,
> 
> Jerry Dennany
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rose [mailto:jojerose at mindspring.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:46 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] MS Propaganda representative
> 
> 
>        Actually it went quite well.  It was pretty interesting to hear
> MS's strategy first hand and I have to say.... I am quite excited about
> .Net.  I think this could be the best thing for Linux.  They are really
> trying to force people to use MS products over the internet.  Let me
> repeat ... You will have to use MS Office, Windows etc. over the
> internet. Businesses will never go for that.  Individuals will HATE it.
> You could hear a collective groan from the Softies in the room as they
> realised they wouldn't be able to use bootleg software anymore.  They
> want subscription services so bad they don't care how their customers
> react.  And of course if you let your subscription run out I believe you
> will lose the use of the software.  Forced upgrades on temporary
> software.  Unbelievable.
>           And the .Net platform?  Well I think parts of it are
> interesting and could actually be quite useful.  But other parts are
> quite scary.  I think it will be a security nightmare.  From what I
> gather, MS believes most everything will be done over the internet and
> because of that you will have to allow websites to execute code on your
> machine.  DLL's can
> be updated dynamically and programs changed almost dynamically.  The
> example the rep used was Coca Cola has 70,000 PC's and to update all of
> them to Office whatever would cost $30,000,000 on top of the licensing.
> With .Net downloading one DLL will upgrade them all because they aren't
> really on every machine.  Basically other people will have the ability
> to upgrade your machine at will!  But you could also use that to infect
> 70,000 machines at once!  But for security, your browser will tell you
> what is being done to your machine as it is being done and DLL's are
> required to have a proper key.  He didn't give any details about the key
> but I'm assuming Microsoft will certify this stuff somehow.  Time ran
> out as he was explaining how you could safely allow others to install
> and run code on your machine over the internet so I don't quite
> understand it. 
>         So if MS pulls this off they will be the supreme Lords of
> Computing but
> I can't see people giving up total control of their computers.  It's
> just too risky with no rewards for the consumer.  And businesses will
> never go for sending their sensitive data over the internet to MS's
> servers just to write a letter or update a spreadsheet.  So if MS
> doesn't back off on this, I think Linux will look mighty good to a whole
> lot of people.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 12:54, Cade Thacker wrote:
>  > So how did this go?
>  >
>  >
>  > --cade
>  >
>  > On Linux vs Windows
>  > ==================
>  > Remember, amateurs built the Ark, Professionals built the Titanic!
>  > ==================
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On 15 Apr 2002, Jeff Rose wrote:
>  >
>  > > My professor says it's ok if my friends sit in on this thing so
>  > > friends... anyone wishing to witness this, bring your wooden stakes
> and
>  > > garlic.  I'll be the guy in the Linux t-shirt.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > ---
>  > > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
>  > > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems
> should be
>  > > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems 
> should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 




---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.