Re: A place where non-mention of VMS is good !

In article <EMGdndmFPeMFkfzYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx>, davef@tsoft-
inc.com says...
Paul Sture wrote:
In article <87bqn4j1o5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, prep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

Dave Froble <davef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Going off topic a bit, but I'm compelled to ask, is Microsoft doing
something good, and are the third party security vendors justified
in their criticism?
MS is trying to redefine `secure' as meaning secure income for them,
no matter what you think or want.

There's nothing to say that third party security vendors have a
right to a reason to exist. (Sorry Larry.) They cropped up to fill
a need. If that need goes away, they won't like it, but that's just
too bad.
No, it is do YOU have the right to select non billy-*** to run and
guard YOUR data etc. The data that perhaps YOU will be prosecuted for
if it leaks. If you thing billy gives a *** about it, read the
licence.

I have no idea what the issues are. Knowing Microsoft, I'd be
prejudiced toward thinking they aren't being fair. But not knowing
the issues I cannot say that.
Can you shed some light on the conflict between Microsoft and the
third party security vendors?
The 3rd party people get thier money because YOU want to give it to
them. This is moraly repugnant to the goat and chair brigade, so they
lock YOU out from being able to make that choise.

MS will have as little security as they can, and if it gets in the way
of `the windows experience' well tough...

If you think drag and drop etc is wonderfull, you should see what
happens when a Medical practice staffer grabs the patient record
directory and fumbles it onto the remove update folder... Not billy's
problem, not bill's liability.

Right on cue Paul!

Even worse, the data gets dragged to another person's records. Then
someone gets the wrong drugs.

But it's the fault of the organization that chooses to run an
application that allows such to occur. Hey, I'm not defending
Microsoft, I have many problems with what they have done to computing.
But I also don't subscribe to the lynch mob mentality. I wasn't aware
of the issue, and just asked for clarification.

Here's a current example of what happens.

http://www.winternals.com/Faq.aspx

"Q. What are you announcing?

A. Last summer Microsoft announced the acquisition of Winternals, a
privately held (LP) company based in Austin, Texas and Sysinternals, a
community forum site run by two of the principals from Winternals.
Winternals is a leading provider of systems recovery tools for
Windows-based enterprises worldwide, and Sysinternals is one of the
leading community and enthusiast sites for people interested in
information about the internals of the Windows operating system. Today
we are announcing the plans for the future of their product offerings.
Q. Will you continue selling Winternal¹s portfolio of products?

A. Microsoft is meeting all standard customer and partner commitments
through their terms. After investigating how these products and
technologies could best complement existing Microsoft technologies to
maximize future customer value, the decision has been made to withdrawal
Winternals Recovery Manager, Defrag Manager and Protection Manager in
their current form from the market effective November 17th 2006. The
functionality and usage scenarios of many of these products may be
addressed by Microsoft offerings at a later date. The Winternals
Administrator¹s Pak will continue to be available from Winternals until
Q2 2007."

Read the rest and weep. It contains such gems as:

"Q. My support contract with Winternals on Administrator¹s Pak (or other
tool) is about to expire (or has just expired). Can I still renew it?

A. No, there are no plans for renewal."

IOW, current customers have been completely shafted, with no promises
whatsoever that the functionality they have now how will be replaced in
future offerings.


I'm not a lawyer, but, I'd think that Microsoft would be responsible for
any obligations of any entity they purchase. I'd guess they could just

It doesn't sound like they are ducking any obligations. It sounds like
they stopped selling the product and won't renew any existing support
contracts when they expire. Existing support contracts remain in effect
until they end, and then no renewals. This seems to me completely legal
and within their rights, though thoroughly despicable. It also sounds
like they are reserving the right to use the technology in some new
product in the future, but haven't promised anything.

The only out I see is if they are breaking some kind of anti-trust laws
by buying a competitor to kill their products. (I don't know what the
other 2 products specifically mentioned actually do, but Windows
includes a built-in defragger, and third parties, including the
Diskeeper people who make Diskeeper for VMS sell competitive or add-on
defraggers. If M$'s actions significantly reduce competition in the
windows defragger market, then anti-trust might apply. (IANAL.)

purchase the assets, but that's not what appears above. I'd wonder what
their responsibilities are. If the customers paid for a product, and
paid additionally for right to use, I'd think Microsoft might be
responsible for continuing to allow usage. Of course then it's a case

If the license is for a limit term, then I guess if the owner (M$)
refuses to renew the license, then the customer is SOL. But if it is
a perpetual license, then the customer can continue to use it
indefinitely, just at their own risk once support expires.

of the lawyers getting rich and everyone else losing. If Microsoft
wanted to just erase the availability of a product, then their cheapest
course would be ro reimburse all customers the cost of the product.

Next question. Is there a decent demand for the capabilities of the
software? If so, what's to stop anyone from developing and selling a
product? What's the functionality? I'm looking for some new things to do.

I'm sure the original owners have signed a no-compete contract as part
of their buyout, but anyone else (or anyone who refused to sign and get
truckloads of money) could re-create the products. M$ is probably
thinking no one in their right mind would do this, since M$ could
immediately turn around and bundle the product with Windows, thus
killing their market.

All this is extremely reminiscent of John D. Rockefeller and the
Standard Oil Trust.

--
John
.

Loading