Re: SysInternals acquired by Microsoft

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Thanks for your post Kevin.

I agree with all your points, and I guess at times, we can make things look
like MS is the "evil empire" when in fact, most of the times, they are just
exercising their right to do things they believe will benefit mankind, and
for the most part, they have. :-) They certainly gave us, like thousands of
computers, if not millions, the opportunity to create a business and
prosper.

I, myself, have been faced with engineering dilemmas in the
telecommunications, one of the first early successful shareware developers
in this market, and today, the among the last of the mohicans of the
commercial BBS market, a legacy market that pretty much help mold and start
all this CyberSpacing and user hosting market.

Since day one, I felt the design pressure to execute uploaded or email
"data" in the name of automation. Since day one, I felt the design pressure
to do unsolicited tapping, P2P and communications with end-users and/or
implement software licensing control with centralized HQ "Permission Server"
concepts.

But it was something you simply didn't do. None only was it an engineering
ethic taboo to do this of thing, there were laws and legal liabilities
issues that came with it as well. Never mind the PR problems that can
result because of it.

But over time, you began to the trend, with small introductions little by
little. You watched the PR issues and you saw the growing short attention
span of consumers. You saw further encroachment, going a little further and
further into an untapped but still technically illegal communications
market.

You're right, the "bad guys", the spyware, the who AVS market, the security
attacks on MS software, the Auto-Update market, etc, all slowly open and
change the mindset of the consumer.

Fast forward to today - Live communications, Services, etc, is the new
fundamental MS strategy. In fact, I just read an article with Ray Ozzie
claiming we are seeing the beginning of the end for the PC.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14081106/

Just consider that even thought it is now open season, I still have a moral
problem adding some logic to my own products. :-) In fact, I have delayed
the release of a new test drive demo simply because I got stuck arguing
about the "ethics" on forcing demo requirement to a) be connected, b) auto
register and c) control the run-time licensing in real-time. Everyone but
me wants to do it. :-)

Anyway, your point is well taken, Microsoft isn't really at fault here.

My only concern is once Microsoft does it (or anything for that matter), and
makes it a fundamental aspect of future telecommunications, everyone else
will join in and begin to do it as well - including the Bad Guy.

We can trust Microsoft doing a serious job in addressing security. They got
a great guy in Mark to help them make it happen with new patent pending
security technology, protecting activex installations, concentrating on new
process or device loading protection logic methods built into the OS by
default, etc.

Is that enough?

Based on the market reaction with similar 3rd party solutions, many people
in the industry believe it is. In fact, check out SecureWare
(http://www.securewave.com), one of the hottest companies doing this default
protection mode stuff. Personally, the success of this company and the
interest it has gathered is one of the main reasons Microsoft acquired
SysInternals. Many people think SecureWare is potatoe hot and primed for
acquisition.

Thanks again for your comments.


--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com











"Kevin" <kevin11@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:#veTbt4sGHA.4444@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Hector Santos" <nospamhere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eJUI8ZFrGHA.2256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just ask these questions to yourself:

Do you trust inserting a CD on your machine? Today?

Do you turn off the internet when you install software?

Many moons ago, you had ask PERMISSION to do any outside communications.
This has slowly evaporated.

I understand and agree about this. I use dial-up, so I know when
something
is trying to connect. That something is then hunted down and excised.


If you are familar with UCITA (Formerly article 2B, google it) the
provisions of US Interstate Commence Laws dealing with Computers and
Software Consumer Sales needs to change in order for this market to
prosper.
Microsoft had not been successful in making that happen legally with one
of
the biggest Lobbies in Washington in history. So MS did it the back end
way - by changing the mindset of the users with the paranoid of spyware
and
security. In the name of SECURITY,. MS now has the ability to control
your
machine.

I agree, but I consider Microsoft as much a victim as the consumer.

I know plenty of people that are Micrsoft customers, but are not on the
internet, or do not always have a regular account. That is why Microsoft
provides phone activation, as should any respectable company. Required
software can be obtained on CD.



/>
First it started, Auto Update,
Next Web Base Windows Authentication Checks,
Next .NET with its automaticed "communicity hooks" and direct online
help,

etc, etc.

Today, UCITA is no longer important - Microsoft has succeeded in
molding
the market and mindset of the computing industry; users and developers
as
well. It is OK to do unsolicated open network communications and if you
want
to use Windows, you have no real choice in the matter.

Still think I'm paranoid?

Do your google search on UTICA (and ARTICLE 2B) and then see's Ed Foster
article, "UCITA running on empty"

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/07/02/010702opfoster.html

Where Ed is wrong with is that Microsoft no longer needs UTICA to pass.
In
the name of security, MS has succeeded in molding your mind. Of course,
MS
was helped with Apple's IPOD, P2P, SPYWARE, GOOGLE DESKTOP, networking
of
your searched computers, etc, all opening the door to this wild wild
west
of
network computing.

Microsoft is more a reactive component in this system, but it is the
people
that steal copyrighted material or develop or knowingly release malicious
software that brought about this situation. Microsoft would be perfectly
happy to continue providing software that does more, better, than have to
rewrite everything because of a few malefactors.

On the other hand, I am sure that many people at Microsoft are happy to
finally be able rewrite a lot of their code, because there is now a
market-requirement.




Finally, do you think Mark will be allowed to tell MS,

"Fellas, some of this stuff is unethical..."

Yes, the marketing folks need frequent reminders of this. Always have,
always will.



and still be employed by MS? I don't think so, instead, you will hear

"you will pay for controlling it what we want to run and
don't want to run."

And so will the door be opened to the next leaner, cleaner, operating
system, word-processor, spread***. In other words, Microsoft's
successor.

And Microsoft would not have manipulated the situation as you describe in
order to make it easy for someone else to come up with an OS with 1 /
100th
of the features at 1 / 10th the prices with 0% risk for infection via the
internet.

Who needs a word-processor that is capable of generating output destined
straight for the presses? We barely need underlining, boldface, italic,
and
4 different fonts, for school projects. For a spread***, if it could
read
/ write Excel format, but all it had was simple summing, etc. enough for
grocery list or to track bank sub-accounts, the kids could actually use
it.

And this is exactly what the people who are constantly attacking Microsoft
products are hoping to achieve. They reverse-engineer illegaly in order
to
find ways to exploit weaknesses in any software that runs on Microsoft
operating systems, forcing Micrsoft to devote resources to repel the
attacks, giving these people a head-start on integrating the
fixed-technology in their own software which is, no surprise, in
competition
with Microsoft.

Basically, corporate espionage being played out in the front pages of the
business technology section, under the guise of "security", with the blame
always on the victim, Microsoft, and never on the actual attackers.

Thanks for your posting.




.

Quantcast