At the upcoming CanSecWest conference, hackers will be focused on the benjamins. Those that can crack the Google Chrome browser will walk away with 20,000 Google-supplied dollars, enough to buy a mid-level car or pay for six months at a private university.
Last year conference attendees also tried to bring Chrome to its knees -- to no avail. Maybe Google hopes to make it a double.
Another $105,000 will also be paid if various other bits of software can be broken, including Safari, IE, FireFox and a host of mobile OSes.
Good luck to all participants, though failing to crack these systems would make me feel better about their security.
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/07/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Google raised a ruckus when it accused Microsoft of using IE to steal its search results to feed them to Bing. (here's comedian Stephen Colbert's take.)
Now Microsoft is hocking one in Google's direction, claiming Google makes money from spam sites -- even as it bad mouths them.
The Microsoft argument, put forth by Bing exec Harry Shum, is that these spam sites often carry Google ads and thus feed Google's bottom line. According to Shum, 70 percent of spam sites carry ads for Google and presumably send money to help Google execs buy yachts, mansions and even unmanned flying drones (yup, it's true).
While Google punishes sites for playing games with its algorithms, is it doing enough to stop spam sites? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/04/2011 at 1:18 PM3 comments
Microsoft has two views of patents: When it holds them and can sue, they are like bows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air. When Microsoft gets sued, patents only block the sun -- they rain and snow on everyone.
So it's hard to tell exactly how Microsoft feels. According to a recent blog from two high ranking Microsoft attorneys, the company is looking at patents from both sides now,
including up and down.
Redmond is now lobbying Congress to tweak (but not fundamentally change) patent law by reducing the number of junk cases and advising for a little more give and take. For instance, if a company sues Microsoft, but Microsoft actually invented the technology before its adversary filed a patent, Redmond should be let off the hook -- leaving it with a dizzy, dancing feeling.
One item in particular to help kill off junk cases is the notion of prior art, or the ability to show you were working on this stuff before any patent was filed. At the same time, Microsoft wants to award patents on who filed first, rather than who invented first. These two items to me seem contradictory.
Microsoft also wants more money to fund the patent office, even as it seems to want to somewhat neglect the laws this office enforces. Some of this fundage could go to spiking bogus patents -- another Microsoft goal.
Finally, Microsoft wants to limit awards to actual damages and get rid of excessive judgments.
I'm not a huge fan of software patents, probably because I don't have any.
In this item I was clearly biting the rhymes (stealing lyrics) of a famous songwriter. Who was it? And should we modify or just kill off software patents? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/04/2011 at 1:18 PM9 comments
It's tough to be rich. You have to decide which house to spend the weekend in, where to take your mega-yacht next and how to redecorate your Gulf stream. And the endless pampering really takes its toll.
That's why Microsoft co-founder took a badly needed vacation on the Antarctic on his 200-foot yacht (one of several big boats).
Before Allen arrived on his yacht, named the Octopus, there was a problem with one of the two helicopters on board (helicopters are like underwear to the rich -- you really should change them everyday) and it made an emergency landing on the water.
Even though Allen was miles away at the time, the poor guy must have been traumatized.
We can help. I'd like to start The Paul Allen Fund. Money collected will pay for Microsoft stock, boat fuel and rock-and-roll memorabilia. How much you gonna give? Answers (facetious of course) readily accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/04/2011 at 1:18 PM3 comments
Readers share their experiences with IBM's software:
I recently downloaded IBM's Lotus Symphony and I tried to use it. Having been a Lotus 123 (on DOS and early Windows) and WordPerfect (also on DOS and early Windows) fan, I was disappointed to see the current state of Lotus products. OpenOffice.org has more functionality. And funny enough I could not export a CSV file to Lotus 123 format. We needed to import some information into Domino and it had to be in Lotus 123 format. After I failed to find the old format in Symphony, I uninstalled it. It also seemed to have a bigger footprint on my hard drive than OpenOffice. Having gone from Exchange 5.5 to Lotus Notes 7 (a political move) and then back to Exchange again, I am not a fan of Big Blue. And now my company has moved e-mail to the cloud and are encouraging us to use Google Docs, which I do like. As long as you don't want to do anything advanced in Google Docs, you are okay.
-Roy
I have been a user of Lotus Notes for the past five years. Prior to that most of my messaging experience was with Outlook/Exchange. Lotus Notes 8.x has improved quite a few things, but basically it seems that they are just now catching up with Outlook 2003's mailbox interface. I am not a Lotus Notes fan at all, but the new interface is much improved compared to their prior interface -- however, Exchnage would be my e-mail of choice for many reasons.
Basically, when I use or buy software, I do so to make my home or office life more efficient. If there is a more efficient way to do something at a reasonable cost (even if a higher cost), I do what I can to take that route without overspending. If the benefits outweigh the higher cost then it's worth the additional cost (and vice-versa). In this case, I believe the benefits of Outlook are enough to make it worth the procurement in most, if not all, environments.
-Travis
Lotus Symphony, was not only hard to use, but it was a DOS-based program with a Windows front end!
With 640k you could load any large spreadsheets or databases. Also most users weren't able to multi-task. Lotus also made a report generator call "HAL" that did not work very well!
Did you ever hear of a program by Borland call "Reflex?"
-Frank
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/04/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Steve Ballmer once called Linux a "cancer." Redmond has lightened up considerably since those ill-chosen words were said.
Microsoft has a new opens source chief, Gianuga Rabellino, who spoke with Redmond writer Kurt Mackie. Rabellino's main issue is not writing open source or porting apps to Linux, but insuring interoperability.
New to the job, Rabellino spends most of his time traveling and listening. Gianuga already has some open source chops -- he is still the vp behind Apache XML and also founded an open source consultancy.
What should Microsoft do to support open source? Thoughts welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/02/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Here's a weird one: Google this week complained that Bing is copying Google search results and presenting them as Bing's own. The results involve misspelled words like Boug Darney.
Microsoft quickly copped to the plea, admitting it "harvests" both clickstream data and search results. In fact, Redmond has apparently been doing this for years. Users of IE have long been asked to opt into the sharing of their clickstream data -- much of which obviously involves Google.
My take is this: It may not be totally cool for Bing to mimic Google so closely, but for Google to complain about anyone invading its privacy is more than a bit sketchy.
Who's right and who's wrong? Vote at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/02/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Back in the day, Lotus Symphony was supposed to be the ultimate suite. Lotus already had hit a home run with Lotus 1-2-3, written by Jonathan Sachs and Mitch Kapor (with inspiration from VisiCalc).
Lotus thought that if three functions were good, then five were better, and so Ray Ozzie wrote Symphony, which added a word processor and communications program, and then rewrote Lotus 1-2-3's spreadsheet, graphics and database.
Symphony bombed due to it being far too hard to use (couldn't the same be said for Notes and Groove?).
After IBM bought Lotus, they revived the Symphony brand. Symphony, like its long-gone MS-DOS predecessor, is a productivity suite.
In fact, I think IBM has done a dang good job maintaining the Lotus brand and moving the technology forward. I saw IBM change in the late '80s -- the blue suits and red ties were gone, polo shirts and hair that actually crept over the ears were in. Call me crazy, but I think IBM is kinda cool!
IBM even kept Lotusphere, a trade show similar to Tech-Ed. And it was here that IBM, er Lotus, announced a bevy of online services meant to compliment Symphony (echoes of Windows Live?).
LotusLive (echoes of Windows Live?) lets Symphony users work together on files in the cloud and store the same files there. LotusLive isn't brand new, but is enhanced with a number of social networking features. For instance, the hosted e-mail is now integrated with key social sites. Hmm, sorta like the latest version of Outlook!
The big difference between Office and Symphony may not be in the features, which seem comparable, but in the price. Office costs and arm and half a leg. Symphony is free.
Are you a Lotus customer or an ex-customer? Share your feelings and memories at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 02/02/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
When you have nearly 90,000 or so employees, losing a dozen here and there is no big deal. But in Microsoft's case, these aren't mailroom workers or bathroom attendants we're talking about. We are talking about some serious cats.
Matt Rosoff, formerly of Direction on Microsoft, a consultancy agency, gathered the most important firings and defections into a slick little slideshow. Rosoff focuses on big shots that left over a long period of time.
We're taking a different approach and will tackle the recent mass of departures in our March cover story.
What exec was the biggest loss and why? You tell at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 01/31/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Here are a couple of readers' takes on different office software suites:
I have used OpenOffice and Microsoft Office for years. There really is not a lot of comparison from my perspective. Microsoft Office, while definitely overkill for most situations, just can't be beat for ease of use and compatibility with everything produced. You can argue that the new OOXML doesn't touch ODF formats and other format wars, but the simple fact is everybody uses either DOC or PDF. PDF means using Adobe Acrobat reader, and DOC means using MSOffice if you want total compatibility (especially on the macro front). XLS is even more entrenched, having no significant format competition and perfect compatibility. You can play this game with every product in the suite.
That said, I do use OpenOffice/LibreOffice a lot. It is mostly compatible (reads most formats perfectly, but has issues with code/macros) and is cross platform -- a killer feature for me. Moreover, it utilizes open standards which guarantees that if the developers stop working on it, and Oracle kills its version, I don't lose access to my information. Granted, the defacto DOC format is just about as resistant -- given every other product makes sure to conform to that standard too -- but it is nice to see a default format that is, by definition, a standard and not proprietary format. Lastly, 90 percent of all documents (including presentations, spreadsheets, etc.) and their producers don't use a tenth of the power of OpenOffice, let alone MSOffice and it's additional features.
Given all this, and the realities of Microsoft as a business, I still choose Microsoft Office for most of my work. It is more expensive, and it is only useful on my Windows machines, but it is very annoying opening Microsoft-produced documents and either not being able to use them or being limited because that feature is not yet enabled in OpenOffice/LibreOffice. If/when LibreOffice fully supports VBA or its equivalent that is embedded in documents far too regularly, then I will definitely switch permanently to it. Until then, it just doesn't cut it for me on my Windows machines.
-Tom
I am a long-time (and gray-haired) developer / DBA in a Microsoft-bound (VLP) shop, and have both a MSDN and MAPS subscription, but I use exclusively "non-Microsoft" applications outside of the development and data world. While I am kind of the "open source evangelist" in my company, around 20 percent (15) of the people are using OpenOffice 3.2.1 along side MS-Office, with the blessing and encouragement of my boss, the IT director.
I've used OpenOffice.org for years -- originally as a porting option between my user base's multiple products. MS-Office imports pretty well, but doesn't offer any way to export to others. Now I use it because it is, IMO, a better product for routine business and personal use. Built from the ground up as a unified program, there's no need for all the seemingly redundant applications of the MS-Office suite.
It also doesn't suffer from (as much of) the overly zealous "we know what you're thinking and trying to do" automation -- which just annoys the heck out of me. I seem to spend more time in battle with Word than with the words.
LibreOffice is the spin-off of OOo, and I've got that late beta in service, along with OOo 3.3.0. I will likely migrate over to that, once it goes RTM.
-David
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 01/31/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Hopefully you learn something new everyday. Today I learned what MHTML is: It is a protocol handler that stands for MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate HTML (who thinks of this stuff?).
So why does MHTML matter? Because hackers can use it to crack IE in a similar fashion as a server-side cross-site-scripting vulnerability.
The attack vector points to a seemingly innocent (but ultimately malicious) link. Click on the puppy and your Windows machine could be running bad code in no time.
Experts are generally unconcerned, thinking this kind of attack is too complicated for the garden variety (read dense) hacker. Nonetheless, Microsoft is checking it out and already has a workaround -- simply block MHTML scripting. Hey, I could have thought of that!
Posted by Doug Barney on 01/31/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
On Friday I brought you speculation that Windows Server would be ported to the low-power ARM processor family, making for energy-efficient servers that could drive the cloud or green data centers.
I pointed out that even if this happened, Intel wouldn't take it lying down, and because Intel has supported Windows for so long, the advantage would go to Intel.
Apparently someone was listening, or perhaps mediocre minds think alike. Now there's a report that Microsoft wants Intel to build a 16-core Atom processor. Hmmm, this could make for energy-efficient servers that could drive the cloud or green data centers -- what a concept!
The Atom has an advantage, as it already runs XP and Windows 7 on netbooks.
Are you interested in fast servers that don't break the electricity bank, or are other approaches, such as virtualization and better cooling, more attractive? Shoot your thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 01/31/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments