Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 9

Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry

Author:

detikon

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jun 14, 2002

Comments:

Well actually just one, Nimda.

You can read more here.

[editor's note, by RobotSlave] Gratuitously offensive language removed.

More diaries by detikon

	Trustworthy Computing !?!
	Attn: Yoshi
	If it ain't broke...break it!
	Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]
	[ I just can't ] stop whining
	Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?
	What is MS really saying?
	Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?

Note: The link for Nimda refers to information on Symantec's (Norton Antivirus) website. So all you [justifiably] paranoid [people] can calm [profanity] down.

[editor's note, by RobotSlave] I find it quite odd that this diary assumes that an MS developer will not be running basic antivirus software, without ever mentioning the concomitant liklihood of a Linux developer running a kernel devoid of recent security patches, with all sorts of ports open, and who knows how many default-installed, insecure, unpatched server-applications running.

To prevent a non-data-destroying worm, all a Korean dev has to do is run a [gosh-darn] antivirus application. Contrast this with the fact that all linux users, even the most casual non-developers, must do at least 15 hours of dense technical reading before they can even begin to understand the basic principles behind securing a Linux box.

In shorter words:

Contrast:

$150 bucks on O'Reilly books, at least 15 hours reading, and who knows how many dozens of hours work patching and securing Linux, depending on previous experience and technical aptitude

vs.

Pay $40 for antivirus software, point and click to install antivirus software, set to automatically update when prompted. Activate Windows Update, set to automatically update when prompted

	Maybe... (none / 0) (#1)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 06:04:03 AM PST

	...Microsoft techs will finally start patching their own machines. In optimal case, it could lead to the company really testing their patches before rolling them out, or at least tasting their own medicine regarding the broken ones. The only security book I purchased (Hacking Exposed) was under $15 in local translation (even less when I bought it because of USD exchange rate fluctuations - in last months dollar fell like a rock). It was great cost/benefit ratio. All other materials I got from the Net. It can be successfully argued that reading from a laptop is not so comfortable as from a book, but on the other hand it is easier to transport a laptop than a bookshelf, and it is easier to search for a reference on home computer over ssh than to drive for a book over half the city or even over hundreds or thousands of miles. Nor you can ask a bookshelf to find you all your books with a keyword and open them on the proper pages. You are right with the time required to read; but the study time is most of the cause of the difference between the ones who know and the ones who stay dumb, so I don't think it is so much of a disadvantage. Of course, I wasn't born in a culture where wanting everything without both waiting and effort is common. $150 for a book? If the books are this expensive, it is itself a good justification for existence of xerox machines; it even becomes cost-effective to hire someone to babysit the copier if you value your time (done that few times); I'd guess it'd cost less than half, including the work. I have some such books - though usually not because of cost, rather because their (un)availability.

	Labor Theory of Value. (none / 0) (#2)
	by RobotSlave on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 02:02:42 PM PST

	Contradiction present. Not worth full post. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Contradiction? Where? (none / 0) (#3)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 04:43:11 PM PST

	What was ever wrong with labor theory of value? Money can buy you books, but not the knowledge. Money can buy you a consultant, but not the skills. You can't eat money, maybe except of chocolate coins. I can imagine a society model without money. I however have problems imagining a society model without labor, spare utopian everything-done-by-machines-including-the-maintenance-of-the-machines settings (which could get unstable or at least unbelievebly boring).

	Ignore RobotSlave. (none / 0) (#8)
	by tkatchev on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 11:41:51 PM PST

	I think he has a penis-size complex. -- Peace and much love...

	I thought this was a diary entry (none / 0) (#4)
	by detikon on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 08:14:35 PM PST

	My diary entry. Please point out where the publisher has the right to blatantly alter the aspects of a "copyrighted" work. I would seriously love to see that. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	huh maybe (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 08:21:20 PM PST

	The editorial notes I can see but butchering entry and changing the title of your copyrighted work without your permission. I think it would have been safer to have deleted it. If anyone has a cached or offline copy of the pre-butchered entry, please step forward.

	Please, please. (none / 0) (#6)
	by elenchos on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 09:21:29 PM PST

	Whatever you do, don't hire a lawyer and sue us for, uh, whatever law we violated or, you know, what we did to you. Violated your right to... uh, something. Please, I beg you. HAND I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	I'll take a crack at this (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 12:43:34 AM PST

	Since RobotSlave loves to argue copyrights, here goes. Since the diary entry or post is the copyright of the author the title, context or author's name can be changed without expressed permission of the author. Making edits such as substitution of words in place of profanity is not a good idea as there is no mention of this in the Terms of Service. Other than being extremely weak (especially the section regarding "Display Source"). Seriously I would love to see the guys at Adequacy.org bitch about Netcraft, IE, Netscape, Mozilla, etc. in court.

	Sometimes, I despair. (none / 0) (#10)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 04:04:01 AM PST

	I have this fantasy that some day, there will be an inter-web-diary-log where everyone understands the distinction between a publisher and a copyright holder. From the look of it, that day is a long way away, indeed. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Publisher (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 10:55:25 PM PST

	The publisher has the right to change the appearance (ie slight changes to the cover of the book or adding opinions made by critics) or the distribution method. Did the author sign over exclusive rights to the publisher? Please show me the section which allows the publisher to drastically alter the authors work (ie title and content) without the authors permission. Also show me where in the terms of service (pre-submission (I have an offline copy of the current TOS)), where the the maintainers are allowed to substitute words or infringe on the authors copyright.

	You poor stupid children. (none / 0) (#15)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 11:30:48 PM PST

	We've published detikon's work under a title of our own choosing, not his, which, if you had any familiarity with the publishing world at all, you would realize is a very common practice. We have removed offensive language without altering the sense of the diary, and added clearly marked editorial commentary. These, too, are common, accepted practices throughout the publishing industry. As is clearly stated in the submission policy, Adequacy (quite generously) offers a non-exclusive contract, so detikon, if he is unhappy with the treatment of his work here, is free to seek another publisher. You don't even seem to grasp the distinction between contract law and copyright law. It's hardly surprising, then, that you can't figure out what statuate or principle to base your argument on. As with any legal question brought up by the uniformed at Adequacy, I suggest you consult with an attorney in this matter before attempting to argue it in public. If you can not afford a member of the bar or locate pro-bono assistance, you may have a nearby law school that has arranged for law students to meet with the public from time to time and address legal concerns under the tutilage of a professor. Please avail yourself of expert legal assistance if you are not sufficiently experienced or mentally equipped to address such matters on your own. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	but you forget (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 17th, 2002 at 03:29:39 PM PST

	These are often acceptable practices only when the author has transfered rights to the publisher. This allows for a single registration to cover the entire composite work rather than individual pieces. It also allows the work to reach a much wider audience. Since no transfer of rights is required in order to submit the work for publishing the publisher holds no rights to copy ( except under the terms of fair use) or alter the authors original work. However, editorial comments is a widely acceptable practice. Now for the substituion of words. Since the publisher holds no right to alter and there is no mention of this in the ToS the puiblisher has in fact infringed upon the author's copyright. According to what is written at the bottom of page the author actually retains the rights to the work published or otherwise. If the copyright is not registered the author (detikon) can seek no legal damages. However, you can be ordered to cease distribution (remove it from the site). I seriously suggest that actually sit down and read copyright law rather than offering up your own interpretation. One last item. In regards to the trademarks Adequacy.org calims to hold ("News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software") You had better actually register the trademarks. If someone were to do so first, the maintainers of this site could find themselves in a lot of trouble. Also claiming to hold ownership of an unregistered trademark (trademarks must be registered) is [legally] not a good idea. You do know what false advertising is don't you? Adequacy.org could find itself permanently enjoined from further use of, claims to, or registration of those various items as marks. If you would like to start a debate in regards to Internet copyrights and publishing I would be gald to provide you with references (ie the amended US Copyright Law) and legal precendents regarding those particular subjects.

	I forget nothing. (none / 0) (#18)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 02:24:59 AM PST

	The thing I like most about user "detikon" is that he always posts anonymously when he's losing an argument. I'm afraid that you're going to have to take your notion that copyright has to be registered to be enforced, fold it up until it's all corners, and stick it up your ass. We've been over this before. You don't understand the most basic differences between copyright and trademark law. Publishers most certainly do have the right to make minor alterations to submitted works. Get used to it. Note that this has no effect on the copyright holder's ownership of the work in question. Suck it up. While I'm engaging in your fantasy of sitting down and "actually reading" copyright law, why don't you engage in my fantasy of actually talking to an attorney about these issues? If you're so certain of your trademark claims, go ahead and try to register the trademarks Adequacy holds. Don't bother arguing-- do it, and then post the relevant documents. Put up or shut up. We've already started a debate on copyright law, haven't we? You can go ahead and post sections of the laws that you don't understand again; you've done it before, after all. If you do it again, we'll just link to your prior failed effort, and delete the duplication. The sad thing here is that you haven't learned a damned thing from your failures. If you want to make a fool of yourself again in exactly the same way, then bring it on. There's no law that says you can't waste your time being wrong over and over again. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Well, you went and did it. (none / 0) (#20)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 03:28:09 PM PST

	I've deleted your repetitive, poorly-informed bleating, and I refer you to the last time we went over this. You lost then, too. I see you still haven't spoken to an attorney. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I think otherwise (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 03:40:57 PM PST

	Unlike detikon I actually have access to an attorney which practices intellectual property law. In fact I have access to three at any given time. It seems more to me that your inability to produce any arguement or proof (big surprise) is what lead to the deletion of my post. You see I believe that when you read my post and failed to produce a quality counter-arguement (beyond consult an attorney) you realised that you were full of shit and simply deleted my post. Seems to be a rather common theme at this web site.

	no you're wrong (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 03:46:53 PM PST

	I believe he's just been sucking a little too much osm/Yoshi cock. Yet, his ability to piss and moan and drag shit out which isn't bad for a simple sushi chef.

	Nope. (none / 0) (#23)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 05:00:20 PM PST

	I deleted your post because the issues have been discussed before. At length. If you've got access to lawyers who practice copyright law, you should consult with them about the specific issue at hand before shooting your mouth off. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I already have (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 18th, 2002 at 10:01:22 PM PST

	Stephen D. Davis: University of Missouri (B.A., 1978); University of Michigan (J.D., 1982). Phi Beta Kappa. Associate, Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, 1982-1985 William H. Jones: University of Iowa (B.B.A., 1985); John Marshall Law School (J.D., 1989). Associate Lead Articles Editor, John Marshall Law Review, 1988-1989. Law Clerk to Justice Howard C. Ryan, Illinois Supreme Court, 1989-1990 David J. Adams: Michigan State University (Economics, with honors, 1993); University of Illinois (J.D., cum laude, Harno Fellow, 1996). Extern Law Clerk to Judge Richard Surheinrich, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1994. Associate: Schiff, Hardin & Waite, 1997-1999 Then there's me. Leslie Notaro: University of Iowa (B.B.A., 1985); John Marshall Law School (J.D., 1989). Associate Lead Articles Editor, John Marshall Law Review, 1988-1989. Law Clerk to Justice Howard C. Ryan, Illinois Supreme Court, 1989-1990

	Oh. Now I see. (none / 0) (#27)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Jun 19th, 2002 at 11:14:08 AM PST

	So let me get this straight. You claim to be an associate at a Chicago law firm with a total of three partners, a firm that doesn't claim any particular expertise in copyright law. Gee, I'm ever so impressed. Now, listen. I didn't ask you to just list the names of some attorneys. I asked you to get their opinion on the specific matter at hand. You clearly haven't discussed this with them. Frankly, even if you are who you claim to be, we here at Adequacy aren't terribly impressed with arrogant little pricks fresh out of law school playing understudy at personal-injury outfits. Allow me to quote a choice bit of advertising copy from your web page: "Getting to the point also packs a wallop and wins cases. If you have a club, use it." By all means, go consult with the partners at your firm, explain to them the importance of the time you've spent wrangling with your betters at Adequacy, and then come back and share their opinion with us. Believe me, we're dying to hear it. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I think you're silly. (none / 0) (#7)
	by gzt on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 11:08:43 PM PST

	"Fneh fneh fneh, my copyright hurts!" You make a lot of money as a magical computer monkey, so go buy yourself something interesting to say. Cheers, GZ PS Where? Obviously the editors have the right here.

	Installing an antivirus doesn't secure anything. (none / 0) (#12)
	by gordonjcp on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 02:55:30 PM PST

	It just kills viruses. It still leaves Windows wide open. At least with Linux you can attempt to close a few of the security holes, but Microsoft refuse to acknowledge that there are significant problems with their software. If you're that worried about security, run OpenBSD.

	antitrust (none / 0) (#13)
	by detikon on Sun Jun 16th, 2002 at 10:47:08 PM PST

	According to Bill Gates' own testimony Windows has become sloppy and bloated. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Really? (none / 0) (#16)
	by gordonjcp on Mon Jun 17th, 2002 at 02:47:12 AM PST

	I often wonder what Bill Gates really thinks of Windows. I've got a copy of DOS 2.11, with source code, which came from a company that developed early PC software. As operating systems go, it's very simple and crude, but it was the most advanced stuff out in 1983. Not only that, but the code is really tight. It's a work of art. I imagine Bill Gates looks at Windows now, and wishes he could get it back to the fast, stable, simple stuff that was in early DOS...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.