[ale] MS Propaganda representative

Wed Apr 17 18:35:34 EDT 2002

I agree. What I liked about .Net is the ability to easily and quickly
make changes across an intranet.  But what I have a problem with is MS's
insistance that their products be used across the internet. Microsoft
wants you to use Office across the internet.  That is where MS expects
to make their money.  They didn't create this new development
environment so business could better maintain their intranet.  They
created it so they can force people into subscription services for MS
products.  They are relying on developers to use VisualStudio.Net and
when the platform is well enough ingrained, they'll start pushing the
subscription thing.  And don't believe the portability claims.  If you
read the EULA you may only use VisualStudio.Net to write for Windows. 
Willfully using VS.Net means you agree not to port to other platforms. 
And no open source.  If you use VS.Net you are directly/indirectly
extending MS's monopoly.

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 15:52, 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.
> 
> <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.
> 
> <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. 
> 
> <SNIP>
> DLL's can be updated dynamically and programs changed almost
dynamically.
> </SNIP>
> 
> This already happens with products like Symantec's live update.  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).
> 
> <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.
> 
> <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.
> 
> <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.
> 
> 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!)
> 
> 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.