On Dec 9, 1:50 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There was recently an interesting thread where someone harshly criticised
> Microsoft security making some very good points and suddenly a Microsoft rep
> materialized on the mailing list to refute them, offer to put on a security
> dog and pony show for the group and buy everyone lunch, and that's where it
> ended! I'm dumbfounded at how easily Microsoft manages Windows users. Like a
> shepherd herding sheep! The story begins here:
Normally, Microsoft loves to attempt to refute a claim around a single
dimension, such as security, performance, or reliability by citing
benchmarks specifically tuned to address that particular dimension.
For example, if the issue is performance, they will pull out the
Mindcraft benchmarks, which show that a Windows NT 4.0 server
carefully tweaked into a very unreliable mode, with 4 SCSI hard drives
and 4 ethernet cards will outperform a Red Hat 4.0 server based on the
Linux 2.0 kernel by almost 20%. Never mind the fact that Vista swaps
more memory (making it slower), does more garbage collection (making
it "jerky", and uses bigger libraries (requiring at least 2 gigabytes
of RAM compared to the 64 Megabytes of RAM required by NT 4.0). And
they won't even mention that the Linux 2.6 kernel is much faster and
doesn't deadlock/time-out the way the 2.0 Linux kernel did. Of
course, the Linux kernel was using a reliable file system, reliable
storage configuration, and secure configuration.
Microsoft will attempt to show how much better their security is by
pointing out that their patches take less time to propagate from the
time they notify CERT that there is a problem, to the time that they
release the patch. They don't bother to mention that many of these
vulnerabilities were suppressed by Microsoft for months or even years,
with Microsoft demanding that CERT REMOVE all reports not posted by
Microsoft. Some "back doors" such as ActiveX controls, were first
made public in 1997, almost immediately after IE 4.0 was released, and
Microsoft still refuses to implement recommended mechanisms to
properly secure this back door. Of course, Microsoft will also make
no mention of the 250,000 viruses that have SUCCESSFULLY attacked
hundreds of millions of Windows systems which is later removed by 3rd
party anti-virus software. Microsoft has attempted to eliminate such
records for Vista by completely iliminating the 3rd party Anti-virus
software. This way Microsoft can eliminate the publication of such
statistics, making Vista appear more "secure".
Microsoft will attempt to show their superior reliability by citing
the availability of key sites such as Microsoft.com. They use an
array of Windows servers, which are load balanced by a UNIX based
router, the real reliability is actually based on the UNIX system and
multiple TCP/IP routers, but the CISCO routers then load balance
across a number of servers, any one of which might fail at any time.
The reliability is based on trivial applications such as simple web
services connected to SQL Server databases that select from Unix
servers into local SQL Server tables, for example the NASDAQ Quotes
system or Financial Times quote system. At any given time, the
availablity of a single server might be less than 98% but the
redundancy, trivial application, and hiding behind Linux and/or UNIX
front-end devices allows Microsoft to claim reliability as high as
99.999% (when hundreds of redundant servers are used).
When Microsoft is asked to show superior TCO, they typically attempt
to compare a high end UNIX server along with a high end NetWare
server, to a single Windows server. The Windows server might only be
capable of serving 50-60 concurrent users, while the Linux or UNIX
server is capable of servicing 1000 or more concurrent users, and the
Linux or UNIX server could be running SAMBA (eliminating the need for
NetWare servers entirely), and the single Windows machine has a lower
reliability level and requires more frequent manual intervention and
manual routine scheduled maintenance, but by assuming that there is
only one administrator for each server, and assuming that the UNIX
server administrator is higher paid, and then trimming the "window"
for the cost recovery to a relatively short period, say less than 2
years, Microsoft can make Windows appear to be more "Cost Effective"
than Unix.
Simply put, by using absurd benchmarks, Microsoft can quell critics.
Furthermore, Microsoft can forbid the disclosure of benchmarks because
the license agreements require that Microsoft give prior written
consent before the benchmark can be published. In Microsoft's
interpretation, a benchmark can be ANY form of comparison between
Windows and any other competitors product, or for that matter, between
any Microsoft product running on Windows, and any competitor's product
running on either Windows or any other competitor's product.
Legally, in some countries, Microsoft can't just "stop" the
benchmarks. They have to provide their case, which shows that the
proposed benchmark is "in error" before quashing the publication. In
most cases, even though the parameters are absurd, even though the
cited benchmarks relate to obsolete technology, and even though the
statistics are carefully doctored, Microsoft has the right, through
their license agreements, to prevent the disclosure of any benchmarks
that contradict Microsoft's "authorized" benchmarks.
> http://lists.mattware.com/pipermail/sdw2003/Week-of-Mon-20071126/0215...
>
> If they complain a little more, maybe they'll also receive free Ferarri laptops.
More likely, they would have all of their Microsoft Windows licenses
revoked, and would have to repurchase them at full retail price. They
might even have ALL of their Microsoft licenses revoked, and have to
repurchase ALL MICROSOFT SOFTWARE at full retail price. After all,
the license was violated, the Windows licenses are null and void, and
since the applications were used on unlicensed versions of Windows,
the application licenses are also null and void.
Furthermore, under the terms of the VISTA Licenses, Microsoft can
permanently disable those computers, preventing the user from running
Windows on those machines until they purchase new licenses.
Of course, Microsoft isn't completely unreasonable. If the publisher
of the benchmark is willing to publish a benchmark that Microsoft
likes, they might be willing to offer new licenses at a fraction of
the retail price, perhaps even only a few dollars per workstation,
since the original violated licenses were legally purchased.
> Related:
>
> INQhack survives Vistability test in Volesville
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The Vole (Microsoft) supposedly invited The INQ over for tea because
> | we are notorious "Microsoft doubters" - and we were accompanied by
> | other supposed Vole doubters such as the folk from lifehacker and
> | a very nice man from Slashdot, as well as some Microsoft MvPs.
> `----
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36312
There were some broken links in the article, but I found them
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/11/30/nets-top-malware-targets-vista
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/12/08/microsoft-vista-costs-20-more-to-build
What I find most interesting is that they were allowed to disclose any
of this. Normally, when Microsoft flies anybody to Seattle/BelleView/
Redmond, they require that you sign a Nondisclosure Agreement before
they authorize the air-fare and hotel.
I wonder if Microsoft will be sending the Inquirer a bill for the Air
Fare, Hotel, and Meals, along with the time spent making their pitch?
> Microsoft desperately wants my love -- and yours
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I spent December seventh, eighth, and ninth in Seattle as Microsoft's
> | guest. Microsoft flew me there from Florida at its expense, put me up
> | in a nice hotel, provided decent food, and comped me and four other
> | invitees to this "special conference" with presentations about the
> | marvels of Vista and other recent or upcoming Microsoft products. They
> | didn't quite play the old Beatles song "Love Me Do" in the background,
> | but it was the event's unstated theme.
> `----
I find it interesting that Microsoft is trying so hard to get
Linux.com writers and editors to love Vista.
It looks like they were just trying to get them brainwashed, and keep
them away from others who could be adversely influenced by their
questions and comments. I've been invited to a few of these
"brainwashing sessions", and the last one I attended with 100 people
from the insurance industry turned into such an embarrassment for
Microsoft that they called be for a Job Interview. I was rather
amused when they suggested that they didn't want to hire me because I
"didn't have the Microsoft Religion". Heck, I'm just surprised they
didn't try to burn me at the stake.
But this article is great reading. I can't discuss my own experience
(I do honor NDAs), but it was very similar to the tactics used in
these articles.
> http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/12/12/085222
> Bribing Bloggers
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | This is the most frustrating thing about the practice of giving
> | bloggers free stuff: it pisses in the well, reducing the credibility
> | of all blogs. I'm upset that people trust me less because of the
> | behavior of other bloggers. Don't even get me started about PayPerPost.
More interesting is the possiblility of intending to discredit the
bloggers by offering them a free trip, hotel, meals, and a week-end of
fun on Lake Washington, in an attempt to influence them, then having
them write about the bribes, and continue their tirades. After all,
only a fanatic would take the free meal, booze, and hotel and then
completely slam their host. It's just rude. Everybody knows that,
especially politicians and other influence peddlers whose opinion can
be obtained for a price.
One can only guess at the possible backlash. Did Microsoft make them
check their laptops at the door? Did Microsoft take a tour of the
laptops while they were in the conference room? Perhaps they were
plugged into a WiFi at the hotel that allowed Microsoft to connect as
Administrator and download their entire C: drive while they were
sleeping.
Perhaps Microsoft is planning on revoking all of their Windows
licenses, just to punish the publishers.
Yes, I'm being very cynical and paranoid - but then I think there
might be good reason to be that way.
If Microsoft is so desparate that they are flying in their worst
critics, you can bet they are trying to hide a really ugly story.
It's pretty clear that they are getting really freaked over Linux, OS/
X, and the failure of Vista.
Let's face it, Microsoft may be hiding XP sales as Vista Business
Edition sales, but when the customer connects to register the new copy
of XP instead of Vista, and the identification information shows that
this "hardware" is actually a VMWare virtual machine, you can't blame
Microsoft for getting a little freaked out.
There is a story here that Microsoft doesn't want told. Perhaps
nobody asked the right questions, or perhaps the early answers were so
evasive, that it was clear that the talking heads being given this
task of selling Vista to Linux hackers was just not qualified to
answer the hard questions.
Microsoft might also be looking for ways to effectively discredit the
Vista doubters. Bill Gates has often said "Keep your friends close,
keep your enemies closer". Getting close to them, studying them for
several hours in a group, as they share their hostilties in discretely
recorded sessions, can give insights on how they can be discredited,
how they can be influenced, or how their influence can be neutralized.
There is a good reason why the WinTrolls in COLA give none of their
own personal details, but expect to give us all the details of our
personal lives and demand proof of every claim we make. If I provide
a comprehensive and honest background, then it can be taken out of
context and used to discredit me. The same is true for all of the
other effective Linux advocates.
> | [...]
> |
> | Do not, under any circumstances, consider upgrading an XP system to
> | Vista... even if it's fairly new and even if it's Vista Supremo
> | Premium Ultra-Capable.
> `----
Great "bottom line" quote.
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/28.html
>
> Microsoft's Laptop Giveaway Becoming PR Disaster?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | This thing is starting to feel like a PR disaster. Bloggers are
> | starting to smell blood and this thing very well may begin to
> | turn into yet another episode of bloggers gone wild.
> `----
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061228/23174_id.html?.v=1
You can't blame Microsoft for trying to bribe a few bloggers. After
all, effective Linux and OS/X advocacy has punched a huge hole into
Microsoft's market share. If OS/X ends up on 14 million iMacs, that's
almost $14 billion in PC revenue that is going to Apple instead of
Microsoft customers like Dell, HP, and Lenovo. If Linux ends up on 14
million PCs, that's $14 billion in revenue that can easily be
identified as NOT going to Vista. If 28 million PCs are being shipped
with Windows XP, that's $28 Billion in PC revenue that has REJECTED
Vista.
If there are only 90 million PCs shipped this year, from January 31st
2007 to January 31st 2008, that a drop of $10 billion in PC revenues.
If 70 million of those PCs were dropped in price from $1500 per PC to
less than $500 per PC, that's $70 billion in lost revenue for PCs sold
by Microsoft's OEM customers.
Vista may be the worst marketing disaster EVER for Microsoft. While
Microsoft increased their revenues and profits by over 20% based on
the promise of similar increases in revenue and profits for OEMs and
corporate customers, the reality has been that OEMs have had a $100
billion shortfall in expected revenues and profits. Gateway was on
the verge of becoming a penny stock before Acer bought them, IBM's
dump of Laptops and Desktops to Lenovo is now looking like a brilliant
move, Dell and HP are openly dissatisfied with the performance of
Vista and the impact of Vista on their profits and revenues. Lenovo
has openly declared war on Vista, offering Linux Ready PCs almost to
the exclusion of Vista machines capable of running Aero-Glass.
Dell is threatening to offer a hybrid Windows/Linux machine, and HP is
poised to ship Linux based PCs to retailer shelves if profits and
sales don't pick up by the end of the Christmas Season.
Who can blame Microsoft for wanting to spend a few $million to protect
a $100 Billion/year industry that nets Microsoft almost $12 billion
per year in revenues.
Bloggers and usenet posters have been doing lots of damage.
Pengunistas and Mac users have been hammering away at Windows XP and
Vista for years. After almost 8 years of telling us how great it
would be, Longhorn became a Steer, was released as Vista, and has
turned out to be an Eye-Sore.
Remember, there are millions of PC users who purhased Vista machines
that didn't get Aero-Glass, they didn't get all of those highly touted
features. The couldn't get drivers for 3rd party hardware, and 3rd
party software didn't run. Tools that were critical no longer
functioned. Software that was supposed to prevent viruses was letting
through 40% of the viruses that were blocked when XP was used with
Symantic or McAffee antivirus software.
This time, there is no vaporware announcement. There isn't even a
promise of "Service Pack 2" in the near future. The license terms are
so restrictive that corporate lawyers refuse to accept them. Many
companies are refusing to accept Vista on any terms. Many companies
are opting out of support contracts, opting to take ownership of their
"per employee" XP licenses. More companies are openly endorsing
desktop virtualization, and some are even offering virtual desktops
for either Linux or Windows or both.
None of this bodes well for Microsoft. Not only is Vista not
indespensible, it's "non-grata" (no thanks) from most of the key
decision makers. CIOs and CTOs are under extreme pressure from CEOs,
CFOs, COOs and corporate Lawyers to "Say No to Vista". OEMs are
getting some really nasty pushback from corporate customers, many of
whom are opting not to return leased equipment unless the new
equipment is shipped with an XP license under XP License terms.
|
|
