On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:42:16 -0600 "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> > RH can worry about it, but it's a (deliberate) misconfiguration with > > M$ software and not something others can readily do anything about > > without stepping into proprietary "standards" (ha, ha). > > > In this case, it was a http URL, and an FTP client wouldn't have > > gotten it. But a browser that adheres to standards works. So, who's > > fault would you say it is? > > For the record, can you explain exactly which standard IE6 fails to > adhere to? Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it up. I can also say they have their own version of XML, used not only with later versions of IE, but also tied to .NET and Passport and other projects. The MS MO is to take what works, tweak it to make it work with their own product and ONLY with their own product, get people using it, then tweak it a little more. Want proof? Look for some lawsuit dealings between Sun and MS concerning a little item you may have heard of: Java. That method is what got them into court in the first place. Now they're back in court because they're working to make sure XP works poorly or not at all with Java. At least, that's one part of the MO. There's also theft of intellectual property and pressuring OEMs to play the game the MS way or be punished. Oh, and destroy the competition through FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), which they've outlined as a strategy against linux (exposed through leaked memos and emails-search out the Halloween Documents for but one example). > What evidence do you have that it's a deliberate misconfiguration and > not a bug that the vendor will resolve when they're notified? History. Read about it. It's all over the internet, some phony, some real. Especially look into their "embrace and extend" policies of years past, since this has been one of their preferred methods of killing off the original authors of both software and standards. While you're at it, you might look into the open portions of .NET and contrast them with the proprietary portions, some of which have been leaked. Smacks very much of another instance of using the work of others (open standards) to help cement the widespread usage of a "standard" so they can later play the change the standards game they like so much. As for resolving problems when they're notified, when has MS gone to much trouble to fix a problem they've been told about? I mean, OTHER than those that have brought a lot of bad press. IIS is unsafe. They still haven't fixed it. They aren't going to. They'll silently let it die. There are known problems with Messenger, IE and OE that they've yet to even acknowledge (keep an eye on the security sites and subscribe to bugtraq if you want to see what's going on). Even after they acknowledge it, expect the problems to continue for some time before they even attempt to patch it. I can't recall what the service was called, something like Active Folder or somesuch. It was exposed back in 2K server as having a humongous security problem. They promised to fix it, slipped the date several times, then decided not to do so and released XP instead. That information is available on the internet. Read a couple of the XP newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general is a good one to start. Check out the types of problems that people are having daily, many which get reported daily. This has been going on for months, and nary a single acknowledgment or attempt to fix many of these things. So much for listening to the users! Yes, much of this is circumstantial. It was the last few times they did it, too. But they did it. And it was circumstantial the next time, and they did it again. I don't have to fall for it too many times before I can predict it. -- I like to get behind early. That way I have more time to catch up. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
