[I18NGR] Βρώμικες τακτικές κλειστού λογισμικού
Τα πάντα ρει
ta_panta_rei at flashmail.com
Fri Jan 12 00:52:14 EET 2007
Το παρακάτω μπορεί να ενδιαφέρει όσους θέλουν επιχειρήματα κατά της
εγκατάστασης κλειστού λογισμικού.
Βρώμικες τακτικές για να χτυπήσεις ύπουλα τους ανταγωνιστές σου: Κάνε
το προϊόν σου να έχει επίτηδες προβλήματα συμβατότητας ή σταθερότητας,
αν διαγνώσει ότι τρέχει με το πρόγραμμα του ανταγωνιστή. Στην
προκειμένη περίπτωση θύμα ήταν το DR-DOS, ένα ανταγωνιστικό του
MS-DOS λειτουργικό σύστημα από την εταιρεία Digital Research.
Εδώ προβάλλει άλλο ένα πλεονέκτημα του ανοιχτού λογισμικού: δεν έχει
τρόπο να κρύψει τέτοιες ύπουλες πρακτικές κατά του ανταγωνισμού.
Microsoft admits crashing DR-DOS, in memos
Authored by: tz on Friday, January 05 2007 @ 01:33 PM EST
I still haven't found the "crash lotus and tell people to use excel"
in the "treasure trove", but remember the Win3.1 crashing DR-DOS
Read the whole thing, but it starts to get juicy around "U":
In September 1991, David Cole, Microsoft's MS-DOS and Windows program
manager, outlined the plan to Brad Silverberg, Microsoft's senior
executive responsible for MS-DOS and Windows: It's pretty clear we
need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM
version of it. I checked with legal, and they are working up some text
we are suppose to display if someone tries to setup or run Windows on
a alien operating system. We are suppose to give the user the option
of continuing after the warning. However, we should surely crash at
some point shortly later. Now to the point of this mail. How shall we
proceed on the issue of making sure Win 3.1 requires MS DOS. We need
to have some pretty fancy internal checks to make sure we are on the
right one. Maybe there are several very sophisticated checks so that
competitors get put on a treadmill. Aaronr [Aaron Reynolds] had some
pretty wild ideas after 3 or so beers, earleh has some too. We need to
make sure this doesn't distract the team for a couple of reasons 1)
the pure distraction factor 2) the less people know about exactly what
gets done, the better. Please advise.
More random tidbits:
What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has
bugs, suspect that the problem is DR DOS and then go out to buy
MS-DOS. Or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he
Silverberg instruction to Microsoft product support group: windows is
designed and tested for ms-dos. not dr dos. it says MS-DOS on the box,
not MS-DOS or DR DOS . . . this is what to tell the world (in a nice
way). using a system other than ms-dos puts the user at his own risk.
Φthere is another "fix" for them: use ms-dos
In addition, despite the extensive DR DOS testing that Microsoft had
done internally and by independent testing laboratories (see, infra,
Statement of Additional Material Facts at 3-5, 11-12, supra),
Microsoft falsely told PC users, OEMs and software industry
publications that Microsoft did not test DR DOS: Silverberg statement
on Compuserve Forum:
Oh, I forgot to say that Windows is designed and tested to work with
MS-DOS. We do no testing at all with DR DOS and we do not know first
hand whether it's compatible with Win 3.1 or not. There is no code in
Windows that says, "if DR-DOS then . . . ". We don't detect it.
Microsoft instructions on what to tell a customer about DR DOS 6.0
compatibility: The standard response is: Windows is only tested with
MS-DOS operating systems. DR-DOS claims to be 100% compatible with
MS-DOS, so if that is true, then the user shouldn't have any problems.
There is really nothing we can do. Exhibit 291 (emphasis added).
October 1991 report to Microsoft's OEM sales force on what to say
about DR DOS and Windows 3.1: "And Windows 3.1 is not being tested on
DR DOS 5.0 and 6.0."
Microsoft statement reprinted in InfoWorld:
Microsoft does not test Windows on anything other than Microsoft's
MS-DOS. We don't have the development or testing resources, nor do we
consider it our job to test Windows on other systemsΦ Engel Decl.,
(InfoWorld, November 22, 1993).
As shown above, Microsoft designed the AARD code to detect DR DOS. As
late as January 28, 1992, the non-fatal message was to state: "The
Windows setup program has detected another operating system on your
Microsoft changed the text of the message to blind the fact that its
purpose was to detect DR DOS. Silverberg: I am wondering if we should
change the detection words to say we failed to detect MS-DOS, rather
than say we detected an operating system other than MS-DOS. The latter
words would make people think we are looking for DR DOS . . .
Having changed the message to conceal its true purpose, Microsoft
falsely denied that the message was designed to detect DR DOS.
Moreover, notwithstanding the AARD code and its creation of
intentional incompatibilities, Microsoft falsely stated that it had
done nothing to create perceived incompatibilities between DR DOS and
More information about the I18ngr