Posted on 08/15/2003 10:30:34 AM PDT by HAL9000
Just days after announcing that it planned to halt development on Outlook Express, Microsoft has been forced to change its position following internal confusion and an outcry from customers.
As reported earlier this week on silicon.com Microsoft had planned to stop product development on Outlook Express, which forms part of the Internet Explorer code bundled with consumer versions of Windows.
At the time Dan Leach, Office product manager, said: "The technology doesn't go away, but no new work is being done."
Under that vision, consumers would have been directed towards the company's MSN software, while businesses would be encouraged to purchase Office, which includes the full Outlook client.
However, Leach has now distanced himself from his original comments, claiming that while Microsoft had originally planned to halt new work on Outlook Express, the situation has since changed.
"I sat down with the Windows team today, and they tell me my comments were inaccurate," Leach said Friday. "Outlook Express was in sustain engineering, but customers asked for continued improvement, and we are doing that. Microsoft will continue its innovation around the email experience in Windows."
Leach blamed communication problems for the confusion.
"The Outlook Express team has been in the process of making this change known inside Microsoft," he said. "They just hadn't reached me before I left for Asia."
The lack of internal communication underlines the growing challenge faced by Microsoft as it attempts to co-ordinate software development activities over an increasingly diverse range of markets.
Odd. I can't remember squirming at all. When a process is open to the world, from time to time things happen that let the world see your dirty laundry. You fix it and move on. Nothing to squirm about.
On the other hand, when a process is secretive and proprietary, lots of bad things can happen and then be hushed up. I prefer openness.
Obviously, what you left out gives your message a different spin. And obviously, that is inaccurate and misleading. It's much more accurate with my addition...
Actually, it was more spinful with your addition, which attempted to smear the FSF incident with part of the truth.
Factual information is just too easy to come by to be papered over by spin, half stories, and false reassurances from "the community".
As opposed to spin, half stories and false reassurances from a proprietary software vendor?
At least with open software, the users will know that something has happened. If Microsoft's download servers had been hacked we would never have heard about it from Microsoft.
Hardly.
Is that the best you can do? You must really be off of your game.
Or has apologizing for Microsoft these past few months sapped all of your strength?
I guess I can understand it. BugBear, Slammer, Blaster. So many things to apologize for. And wait until the confirmation comes out that ConEd couldn't get ahead of their grid failures because their systems were being hammered by Blaster. You'll be spinning like an Indy car wheel.
Poor guy. Maybe Microsoft should take a break from selling software for a while.
Oh, wait....
Maybe you will get that rest after all.
Oh, that hurt.
Maybe it would hurt more if it didn't come from Bill Gates number one bootlicker.
Like this?....
The hacked site wasn't "the Linux development servers," it was the Free Software Foundation FTP site. It houses no Linux core source code, only code for GNU userland tools.
Nice hush up.
A little advice. When something like this happens, best to not downplay the importance with spin. It usually comes back to bite you. Especially when the facts don't support your spin.
Like the fact that FTP.GNU.ORG is host to GCC, the C compiler that is used to create binaries for the kernel and most server apps like Apache. Your false assurances that this web server doesn't house important Linux code just blows what little credibility you have.
And your intentional omission of the small fact that although the FSF server was hacked, no trojans were found in GCC or any other software, makes you an obvious Micrsoft shill, sent forth with your brother minions to lie, spin, deceive and generally make a lot of negative noise about Linux, GNU and the GPL.
As I said before, you outed yourself, troll.
While I agree that the FSF hack was a very bad thing, and made worse so by the fact that it went undetected for so long, it's possible to read too much into that.
Every time there is a security hole in a program, it's been there since the software was shipped. For instance, the recent RPC hole that makes Blaster possible has been there since Windows NT was shipped. That's 8 years ago.
The FSF guys are putting systems into place to keep better track of their system. It should have been done long ago and many of us have had some stern words for them.
If they fix it properly and it doesn't keep happening, then it's not a very big deal. Granted, it could have been, and we'll all be watching to see that it does indeed get fixed and get fixed properly.
However, the thing that kept the hack from being a disaster instead of just an embarrasment was the MD5 system that's been in place for several years. Having MD5 sums of all of their posted software mirrored all over the world allowed everyone to verify that the code available for download had not been compromised.
If they don't fix their problems, and the same thing keeps happening again and again, then likely the programmers that keep their code on the FSF servers will simply put the FSF crew in the same category as Microsoft, Hopeless, and move their stuff somewhere else.
I don't have to claim anything. I, and anyone else, can go here.
For those like yourself, who refuse to see the truth unless they are clobbered over the head with it, I'll post the relevant section...
We have lots of evidence now to believe that no source has been compromised. The evidence includes the MO of the cracker, the fact that every file we've checked so far isn't compromised, and that searches for standard source trojans turned up nothing.
TheEngineer points out that you intentionally omitted the fact that GCC -- the same tool used in compiling the Linux Kernel -- was open to attack.
I omitted it because it wasn't yet part of the discussion. The original discussion referered to the source code for Linux. I pointed out that this server doesn't host that code.
On the other hand, TheEngineer was the one that brought up the GCC angle, yet didn't include the fact that the investigation has concluded that it was not, in fact, compromised, just as you have eluded to as well.
It's pretty obvious who the shill is here.
Considering that you just tried the same tactic as he did, it is.
It's not like they sold software that was infected with Nimda.
Too bad Microsoft doesn't use MD5 hashes to verify that the software that they ship is the same software that they developed.
I posted to make a limited but important point: That your assurance to js1138 that the hacked site didn't house important Linux code was false and misleading:
The hacked site wasn't "the Linux development servers," it was the Free Software Foundation FTP site. It houses no Linux core source code, only code for GNU userland tools.
I pointed out that FTP.GNU.ORG is host to GCC, the C compiler that is used to create binaries for the kernel and most server apps like Apache. That's pretty important core Linux code.
I prefer openness.
Perestroika would be a better description.
...many of us have had some stern words for them [FSF].
Really? Did they call you a Microsoft shill?
Fortunately, neither you nor I have to rely on the FSF for the data.
You can get a copy of MD5 sums from a mirror and validate all of the code yourself if you doubt their claims.
You seem to be making a lot of noise about how you distrust their claim, so put your money where your big mouth is and produce some evidence that what they say isn't true. All of the tools are available to you.
We all will be right here when you come back with your evidence.
Or perhaps you just want to throw FUD around with nothing to back it up?
But since it's the "community", you bend over and take one for the Gipper...
Funny you should mention "The Gipper." I was just thinking that Ronald Reagan's comment about the Soviet Union was appropriate.
"Trust, but verify."
With GNU software and available MD5 sums, you can verify their claims. With proprietary software, you just have to trust them. Verification is NOT allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.