[ale] MS Propaganda representative

Dennany, Jerome {D177~Roswell} JEROME.DENNANY at ROCHE.COM
Wed Apr 17 15:52:02 EDT 2002 




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]
To: ale at ale.org
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.

More information about the Ale mailing list