ActiveX is not MS's Nemesis

ActiveX is not MS's Nemesis

Post by Zahid Hussai » Fri, 14 Mar 1997 04:00:00



ActiveX controls and method of software delivery is very good news
for MicroSoft. MicroSoft already claims that this method of software
down load is no different from ftping binaries. If you clink on
a link and accept a piece of software then the User alone is
responsible. It was your choice to download that software. You may
pursue to sue the author of the renegade software, but MS is not
responsible even though their OS is insecure and ActiveX is insecure.

This has serious repercussions on other software vendors to the
benefit of MicroSoft. MS OS with integrated IE will come with
MS Authenticode already preloaded. Other companies will have to
(possibly) pay fees to MS to have their Authenticode registered.
Lets explore the following scenario:
(a) you use the the Internet a lot and download software from
    various locations.
(b) you start to observe problems with your MS OS.
So you ring MS asking for advice to correct the problems.
The MS support guy very politely ask's you:
  Q Sir/Madam have you been using the Internet?
  A Yes
  Q Sir/Madam have you been downloading software?
  A Yes
  Q Sir/Madam have you loaded software from any source other than MS?
  A Yes
  MS: Sorry Sir/Madam you have voided your warrenty, we are not
      responsible for consequences arising from running third party
      software. [click]

Now we get Pavlovian response from the vast majority of the clueless
Win97 users. They will associate non-MS product with danger and in
the future restrict their visit to MS.

This is a win-win position for MS. They win because they ship their
Authenticode with their OS, so the User does not have fiddle setting
it up and locating other authenticodes. They win because others will
have to register and pay fees for Authenticode thus putting them at
a disadvantage in the same way as the pre-loaded OS/software situation.
They win because non-MS sites will become associated with danger.

Regards,
        Zahid

Views expressed is that of the author's alone.
--

VLSI (DSP) Designer                               IMS: ZHUS
MOS Design, Texas Instruments Ltd                 vox: +44 (0)1604 66 3405
Northampton, UK NN4 7YL                    Speed Dial: +8 447 3405

 
 
 

ActiveX is not MS's Nemesis

Post by Brian Kimbal » Fri, 14 Mar 1997 04:00:00


[snip]

Quote:> MicroSoft already claims that this method of software
> down load is no different from ftping binaries. If you clink on
> a link and accept a piece of software then the User alone is
> responsible. It was your choice to download that software. You may
> pursue to sue the author of the renegade software, but MS is not
> responsible even though their OS is insecure and ActiveX is insecure.

Disgusting, isn't it?

Quote:> This has serious repercussions on other software vendors to the
> benefit of MicroSoft. MS OS with integrated IE will come with
> MS Authenticode already preloaded. Other companies will have to
> (possibly) pay fees to MS to have their Authenticode registered.

The key word being possibly.  I really don't think M$ is stupid enough
to charge for that.

Quote:> Lets explore the following scenario:
> (a) you use the the Internet a lot and download software from
>     various locations.
> (b) you start to observe problems with your MS OS.
> So you ring MS asking for advice to correct the problems.
> The MS support guy very politely ask's you:
>   Q Sir/Madam have you been using the Internet?
>   A Yes
>   Q Sir/Madam have you been downloading software?
>   A Yes
>   Q Sir/Madam have you loaded software from any source other than MS?
>   A Yes
>   MS: Sorry Sir/Madam you have voided your warrenty, we are not
>       responsible for consequences arising from running third party
>       software. [click]

And then the entire industry sues M$, and the DOJ steps in and saves the
day...

Quote:> Now we get Pavlovian response from the vast majority of the clueless
> Win97 users. They will associate non-MS product with danger and in
> the future restrict their visit to MS.

But you're assuming that the rest of the computer industry won't do
anything.

While it would be nice to see M$ do this (and*themselves in the
process), it won't happen.

        kimball

 
 
 

ActiveX is not MS's Nemesis

Post by Soeren Juelsgaar » Fri, 14 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> ActiveX controls and method of software delivery is very good news
> for MicroSoft. MicroSoft already claims that this method of software
> down load is no different from ftping binaries. If you clink on
> a link and accept a piece of software then the User alone is
> responsible. It was your choice to download that software. You may
> pursue to sue the author of the renegade software, but MS is not
> responsible even though their OS is insecure and ActiveX is insecure.

> This has serious repercussions on other software vendors to the
> benefit of MicroSoft. MS OS with integrated IE will come with
> MS Authenticode already preloaded. Other companies will have to
> (possibly) pay fees to MS to have their Authenticode registered.
> Lets explore the following scenario:
> (a) you use the the Internet a lot and download software from
>     various locations.
> (b) you start to observe problems with your MS OS.
> So you ring MS asking for advice to correct the problems.
> The MS support guy very politely ask's you:
>   Q Sir/Madam have you been using the Internet?
>   A Yes
>   Q Sir/Madam have you been downloading software?
>   A Yes
>   Q Sir/Madam have you loaded software from any source other than MS?
>   A Yes
>   MS: Sorry Sir/Madam you have voided your warrenty, we are not
>       responsible for consequences arising from running third party
>       software. [click]

> Now we get Pavlovian response from the vast majority of the clueless
> Win97 users. They will associate non-MS product with danger and in
> the future restrict their visit to MS.

> This is a win-win position for MS. They win because they ship their
> Authenticode with their OS, so the User does not have fiddle setting
> it up and locating other authenticodes. They win because others will
> have to register and pay fees for Authenticode thus putting them at
> a disadvantage in the same way as the pre-loaded OS/software situation.
> They win because non-MS sites will become associated with danger.

> Regards,
>    Zahid

> Views expressed is that of the author's alone.
> --

> VLSI (DSP) Designer                                  IMS: ZHUS
> MOS Design, Texas Instruments Ltd            vox: +44 (0)1604 66 3405
> Northampton, UK    NN4 7YL                    Speed Dial: +8 447 3405

They lose, bacause I can show my customers how fast and well their
boxes do their specific tasks under Linux!
Regards
 __________________________________________________________
/**********************************************************\
|*  Soeren Juelsgaard                                     *|

|*  Aalborg University                                    *|
|*  Department of Communication Technology                *|
|*  Applied Signal Processing and Implementation          *|
|*          __   _                                        *|
|*         / /  (_)___  __  ___ __  ___                   *|
|*        / /__/  / _ \/  //  /|  |/  /                   *|
|*       /____/__/_//_/\_____//__/|__|   Rules!           *|
|*                                                        *|
\**********************************************************/
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 
 

1. Compatability with ActiveX and all that MS stuff

Dear all,

  it's apparent .. to me at least .. that one of the major reasons
why MS make so much progress, is that they provide support for
duplicating so much of what is out there .. e.g. building Netware
client support into their systems, enabling the reading/writing of
WP files in Word etc.

  Are there licensing reasons why Linux (or any other system) cannot
do similar and build word processors which can read Word files,
do OLE etc?  Or is it 'simply' a matter of doing the work, and working
out what the file structure is ?

--
Thankyou,

         yours faithfully,
                        Danny Cox

Danny Cox, GMAP Ltd, GMAP House, Cromer Terrace, Leeds, LS2 9JU, UK

2. IP tunneling with iproute2 and kernel 2.2.1

3. Why am I not 'Logged in' ?

4. Apache fail to manage Cgi running background task. Why ??

5. Is ActiveX Microsoft's undoing?

6. Domex SCSI Controller

7. I'm not as think as you drunk I am

8. Feedback on 2.2.15 (wasRe: Kernel Stable: 2.2.15pre4 )

9. gpcp works if I am running as `root' but not otherwise.

10. Microsoft's ActiveX and compatibility with the rest of HTTP based server/clients.

11. I could not find the FAQ, so I am asking (I think) FA Q's

12. MS mouse not compatible with MS?

13. correction: 20 ms not 20000 ms