VectorLinux
November 26, 2014, 07:52:57 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Windows Software Restriction Policy  (Read 4805 times)
sledgehammer
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1428



« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2010, 10:41:05 pm »

Quote from retired1af:
Quote
Ahhhh, that old wive's tale again? I submit that MS didn't purposely code Windows to "break" WordPerfect,

Quote from the United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit [Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.505 F.3d 302, 309 (C.A.4 (Md.),2007]:

Quote
Notwithstanding the fact that the primary threats at issue in the government action stood outside of the PC operating-system market, Microsoft was found to have unlawfully monopolized that market. Microsoft II, 253 F.3d at Id. at 64, 71, 74, 76, 77.

and
Quote
Here, Novell alleges that Microsoft specifically targeted its products for destruction as a means to damage competition in the operating-systems market. Novell's allegations go beyond mere speculation. They are supported by internal Microsoft communications. For example, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates specifically suggested waiting to publish critical technical specifications of Windows 95 until “we have a way to do a high level of integration [between Microsoft Office and Windows 95] that will be harder for [the] likes of ... WordPerfect to achieve.” J.A. 95. Otherwise, Gates noted, '[w]e can't compete with ... WordPerfect/Novell.' Id."
Novell v Microsoft, surpa, p 316.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Microsoft won the suit, not because its illegal injuries to Word Perfect were "old wive's tales" but rather because Novell's lawyers, for some inexplicable reason, waited some eight years to bring suit, i.e Novell's suit was barred by the statute of limitations. See page 322.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 12:51:20 am by sledgehammer » Logged

VL7.0 xfce4 Samsung RF511
retired1af
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1267



« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2010, 05:00:44 am »

Read it again. It wasn't coded to specifically block out WordPerfect. MS purposely held back bits of the code so application developers couldn't write apps for the OS. And that STILL doesn't excuse Novell (and later on, Corel) from designing an absolutely crap product.

Novell blew it on all levels, not only with WordPerfect, but with Netware as well. They could STILL be sitting on top of the world if it wasn't for fatal marketing blunders made back in the 90's.
Logged

ASUS K73 Intel i3 Dual Core 2.3GHz
sledgehammer
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1428



« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2010, 11:59:22 am »

I read it again.  Microsoft as much as admits that Word Perfect is the better program, that, to paraphrase Churchill, "Word is a modest product that has much to be modest about." Gates' quote, at page 316, puts this to bed:

Quote
'[w]e can't compete with ... WordPerfect/Novell.'
.

So, to use an oxymoron, he "competed" illegally.  You are no doubt correct that, while the rape was in progress, WordPerfect made some questionable decisions. The point is that Microsoft intentionally and illegally destroyed WordPerfect.  Whether repeated by wives or judges, of that there can be no doubt.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 12:47:56 pm by sledgehammer » Logged

VL7.0 xfce4 Samsung RF511
retired1af
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1267



« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2010, 12:33:36 pm »

You're barking up the wrong tree in blaming the "big bad Microsoft" for WordPerfect's shortcomings and demise. Novell and then Corel destroyed WordPerfect. Microsoft didn't help matters any, but the total blame can be placed squarely on the companies that held/hold the product.
Logged

ASUS K73 Intel i3 Dual Core 2.3GHz
BlueMage
Vectorite
***
Posts: 274



« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2010, 02:45:45 pm »

Regarding the use of flash disks, the primary infection vector is through corrupted autorun.inf I found - so for my domain, I've disabled all auto-play capabilities.  The users didn't even complain.

So, Andy Price, that's another possibility for mitigating infection while still allowing your users some freedom.
Logged

Acer Laptop:  Vector 5.8 SOHO Final & Windows XP Professional & USB (still alive!)
Compaq POS (almost dead): Vector 5.9 Light Beta 5
Quad-core BEAST: Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit & Vector 5.9 64-bit beta-2
Old 500MHz media box:  Vector 5.8 SOHO Final (dead)
701 EeePC:  Puppeee (based on Puppy 4.01)
Andy Price
Packager
Vectorite
****
Posts: 237


« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2010, 03:58:39 pm »

I agree that it's useful to disable autorun, but the virus writers now disguise their executables with plausable sounding names (adapted from the contents of your flash drive) as well as diguising them with the standard folder icon. Other viruses infect any executables they find on the flash drive, so sooner or later the user double-clicks on an executable and installs the virus him/herself - even when logged on an as a limited user. The only way I've found so far to prevent this is with Windows' software restriction policy.

Perhaps the virus situation here in Cambodia is particularly bad with the constant use of flash drives to exchange files, pirated software, non-updated Windows installations and infected internet cafes. It's rare to come across a computer which doesn't have a virus and my lockable USB flash drive is my most valued possession!
Logged
Pita
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1311


« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2010, 06:28:46 pm »

Putting malware into their own microsoft programs in order to destroy competition
is an old trick of Gates. When MSdos operating system started there was a
competitive operating system which apparently was better. It was mainly used in Europe.
MS then programmed their software that it will crash when used on that OS eventually killing it.
MS eventually paid that company some money years later when MS came under pressure in
Europe for its illegal competition destruction behaviour.
Logged
bigpaws
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1857


« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2010, 05:26:04 am »

Quote
MSdos
was MicroSoft

short for MicroSoft Disk Operating System

Bigpaws
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!