__/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 18:55 \__
> Recently I complained to a NYT reporter about an article on security
> headaches, for not even mentioning that the overwhelming number of such
> problems occur on Windows machines. This was in their "Technology"
> section, a daily feature. At least they give you an email address you
> can respond to.
Good move. I really respect such inititive. If you refuse to make a kind and
gentle (sometime even aggressive) complaint/correction, or bury this in your
stomach, they will never learn. A similar scanrio involves MSIE-only Web
sites (the infamous on-line banking issue).
__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 19:23 \__
> Keep in mind that they are not allowed to publish "Benchmarks" without
> Microsoft's prior permission. In Microsoft's terminology, ANY
> comparison between ANY Microsoft product and ANY non-Microsoft product
> constitutes a benchmark.
>
> Any "benchmark" which explicitly or implicitly states that the
> competitor product is better than the Microsoft product is "revised".
> Legally, the revisions must be factually accurate, but Microsoft can
> add additional information which may be completely irrelevant (number
> of patches applied to Linux as "security fixes" - even if they are
> simply "preventive care" fixes. And Microsoft can remove certain
> facts, such as the percentage of computers successfully attacked, the
> number of attack viruses that are successful, and how the attack
> viruses are spread.
>
> The would-be author/publisher then has the choice of publishing the
> revised article, or publishing nothing at all. The publisher does not
> have the option of publishing the original article - since this would
> be a violation of his software licenses - making him guilty of
> copyright violation - a crime with a maximum criminal penalty of 5
> years in federal prison (no parole) and up to $15,000 in fines per
> offense. In addition, Micrososoft could revoke not only the Microsoft
> licenses of the author, but also of the publisher who distributes the
> unauthorized article.
>
> I wonder if Ralph Nader has looked at this?
> :-D
While I agree with what you say and am aware of this preposterous rule (void
in German), where is a benchmark truly mentioned or alluded to? This is a
/fact/. A virus was written which exploits easily-executable ZIP file and it
affects the Windows platform. Plain and simple. Is the media finally afraid
of Microsoft? If so, it is a worrisome world we live in. It's equivalent to
the death of democracy where comparisons, let alone criticisms are adverse
to law.
Perhaps eweek should also report about 'some vulnerability' which makes it
possible to snatch the password of the computer's owner (put simply). Also,
they might as well say that digital signatures as a whole can no longer be
trusted. Will this benefit everyone? I doubt it. Choice is the key word.
Diversity and competition.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "These characters were randomly picked"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:20pm up 6 days 11:57, 7 users, load average: 0.07, 0.29, 0.39
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
