Finally read some news about it here.

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Yahoo and Microsoft released software that built a bridge between their previously exclusive online instant messaging (IM) systems.

The move fulfilled a promise the US Internet titans made late last year and marked the first time rival global messaging service providers arranged to co-mingle members.

Incidentally, I am a great believer in Microsoft Exchange, having studied for that exam several years ago. MS Exchange is terrific, and I thought that it gave Lotus Notes a run for its money. Open source equivalents are only starting to catch up these past year or two imo. While I'm not up to date anymore, MS Exchange was pretty rocking back then, and likely still is. Active Directory is also a compelling study, along with Linux equivalent directory services, LDAP.

Technorati Tags: Yahoo messenger, live messenger, instant messenger, Microsoft Live Communication Server, LCS, LDAP, Active Directory

powered by performancing firefox

"Content providers have opposed the (creation of a) not-to-text registry, saying that it was invasion of privacy. They said that our [pending guidelines] are sufficient. But the NTC thinks there is a need to do this. The present way of doing things are insufficient. The content providers will be submitting their position paper by Monday but we intend to have the registry up by next week," Sarmiento told INQ7.net.

It has to do with how the NTC has decided to put up a registry for people who do not want to receive spam-text to sign up to.

You have to wonder how the Content Providers decided to get into the business they're in when they started. Sure things looked good a few years ago when there wasn't any regulation, and text spam was considered a minor nuisance, but betting your business on providing a service whose way of announcing itself is via spamming - something that no one in his right mind really wants seems difficult to justify.

I mean really, who likes receiving unsolicited information? Even more so, who wants to pay for it? I'm fairly sure even the people behind the content providers themselves wouldn't, so if you're a businessman, why would you do that, let alone invest your business into it? I'm sure every single content provider thought that they themselves wouldn't abuse it, hoping not to draw too much attention to themselves to cause bad press. But the sheer number of them, and the fact that it only takes just one wreaking havoc and destroying the reputation of the whole, makes for a shaky business plan right there.

This is just me, but it'd probably be a good idea for the providers to make their own 'opt-in' registry, listing down the information in one area where people who want to receive it can look and decide for themselves if they want it. I'm not completely convinced that people don't want to pay for information received via their phones. I myself subscribe to movie news, which I get every week, and I wouldn't mind subscribing to anything else I might find worthwhile.

What I am sure of is nobody wants to pay for stuff they didn't ask for. Incidentally, I'm almost sure that it's illegal to make someone pay for it too, but that's for another story.

powered by performancing firefox

Company groupware is one of the most difficult to implement not only because of its complexity, but there's also a great deal of politicking involved, forcing programmers to do the one thing they hate most - talk to the user.

See, groupware is software that directly affects how people work, the reason why it is both powerful and feared / avoided like the plague. Hence, coders need to know how to make it work for users, often a difficult task because really, no one can really say what they want themselves.

It's a constant hit or miss, general or specific, go large scale or microscopic plan of attack, unique to each company and in the end the same for all, all the while trying to convince company honchos that the promise of increased productivity will lead to the proverbial 'savings' in the end (at which point I saw how MS terrific advertising machine work its magic, which is getting execs who should know better to sign ginormous checks in pursuit of a MS 'ideal' workplace).

At any rate I digress. This post is about Google Calendar, which along with Gmail, Gtalk, and the news that Google is now an ICANN Registrar - essential if in case they wish to offer domain hosting, which in turn is essential to run hosted applications like groupware - (sorry could only find a Feb. 2005 link. If you've newer news please let me know?), seems to be amassing the tools to eventually offer company groupware - like most Google solutions, likely free, and paid for by ads.

If this is really going to happen, then heaps of praises to Google for doing something that Yahoo should have but did not. Yahoo Calendar, My Yahoo, Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Small Business etc. are all tools for that purpose, but they stopped short for some reason.

If however, this is not Google's direction (and I've been wrong many times before about them, so I'm not gonna even try), then they should.

Remember how it is we'd joke about one day we'd rule the world? Those guys at Google are actually doing it. If that is their goal, hosting groupware is just about as all-encompassing a solution I can think of to get a an organization's files onto their servers for them to do whatever it is they want with them (which is again fodder for another article).

Firewalls, updated Service Packs, anti-virus software upgrades are all in vain. Core system files are changed, security is breached, and your computer is taken over just like that! Isn't trusting Microsoft for the future of technology so compelling? Certain sectors in the industry are starting to believe that Microsoft put this code in there intentionally, saying such:

The recent security problem regarding the rendering of Windows Meta File images was so bizarre that it has to be an intentional backdoor in the operating system, Steve Gibson said in a podcast posted Thursday.

He said he can find no other explanation for the existence of the WMF rendering problem, and no reason for the ability in Windows to use such image files to execute computer code.

"This was not a mistake. This is not buggy code. This was put into Windows by someone," Gibson said on the Security Now podcast.

Now I don't know much about writing code to make a simple video file executable, and even less about why I'd want to make that video file an executable to begin with, but I do know BORG activity when I see one.

Damn that Captain Picard! If he had just left them Borg alone in deep space like he should have then we wouldn't have this problem! Those smart buggers undoubtedly chose Redmond as their first point of attack! AAAAiiiiIIIEEEEEEIIIIiiEE!

Wittnesseth thee maillog!

Jan 7 15:28:55 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[13812]: EE215382A1: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAPOJJzSjiB3egHMAAIBzAABTAAAAZG9jdW1lbnQudHh0ICAgICAgICAgICAg from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky.p@MM)

Jan 10 11:57:49 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[31837]: 33157381D9: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAACQdjPMyus3XtgAAF7YAAAYAAAARmlsZS1wYWNrZWRfZGF0YUluZm8uZXhlTVqQ from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Sober.U@MM)

Jan 10 22:59:54 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[5653]: 61B1C38222: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAACQdjPMyus3XtgAAF7YAAAYAAAARmlsZS1wYWNrZWRfZGF0YUluZm8uZXhlTVqQ from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Sober.U@MM)

Jan 10 22:59:56 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[5653]: 427A838222: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAACQdjPMyus3XtgAAF7YAAAYAAAARmlsZS1wYWNrZWRfZGF0YUluZm8uZXhlTVqQ from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Sober.U@MM)

Jan 11 09:52:15 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[7829]: 2C4BB38222: reject: header Content-Type: application/octet-stream;??name="text.zip" from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: Mail filters have determined that your email appears to be infected with the Bagle virus.

Jan 11 15:44:33 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[13525]: 6331838222: reject: header Content-Type: audio/x-wav;??name="message.scr" from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: Files attached to emails that contain or end in "scr" are prohibited on this server as they may contain viruses. The file named "message.scr" was rejected.

Jan 11 16:16:25 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[14100]: C5AC438281: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAG+7KjSjiB3egHMAAIBzAABUAAAAZGV0YWlscy50eHQgICAgICAgICAgICAg from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky.p@MM)

Jan 12 08:55:14 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[19697]: 525F338278: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAA2HLDSudsW6AF4AAABeAAAOAAAAcG9zdGVyLmRvYy5waWZNWpAAAwAAAAQA from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky@MM)

Jan 12 12:29:23 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[23231]: 48BBB38284: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAADa8KzSjiB3egHMAAIBzAABXAAAAZGF0YS5ydGYgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky.p@MM)

Jan 12 14:27:48 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[25587]: 9ECAD38278: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAPEyLDQfcz4+ANgAAADYAABRAAAAZG9jLmh0bSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky.p@MM)

Jan 12 14:27:53 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[25587]: 32B4A38278: reject: body UEsDBAoAAAAAAPEyLDQfcz4+ANgAAADYAABRAAAAZG9jLmh0bSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: VIRUS (W32/Netsky.p@MM)

Jan 12 14:59:56 my_client_mailserver postfix/cleanup[26319]: 9681D38284: reject: header Content-Type: application/octet-stream;??name="document.zip" from my_client_mailserver[127.0.0.1]; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=: Mail filters have determined that your email appears to be infected with the Bagle virus.

As Shaquille O'Neal would sayeth: BOOOYAAASSSHHHAAAAKKKAAAAAAHHHHH!!

It goes on:

Microsoft said that this move was in response to the clamor from Internet shop owners who recently had difficulty purchasing the original Microsoft Windows operating system due to an alleged shortage of supply in the local market after a government crackdown on unlicensed software.

Microsoft Philippines licensing specialist Jasmin So said that the COEM for the Windows operating system will be available to Internet cafes and other consumers until November 30, 2005.

"The COEM licenses can now be bought by the public without the need to purchase the bundled hardware. This is in response to the clamor for Windows software by the public. This is one way we can help them," added Mae Rivera-Moreno, Microsoft Philippines PR and community affairs manager.

Ok so here comes the part where I break that down.

• Firstly, the Microsoft Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) rule of selling software at a discounted price only if bought with a brand new PC is an internal company directive towards their distributors and retailers. This means if an OEM product is sold to you even if you didn't buy a new PC, then the one at fault is the retailer (and/or distributor), and NOT the end-user. It should not be construed therefore that an end-user who does this is breaking any law (other than Microsoft's internal one). It's important I think to inform those who don't know this, and suspect that being allowed buy OEM by Microsoft, is being granted a reprieve from some law. No sirree.
• Second, everyone knows OEM software's been available for years - even without buying a new PC. The fact that OEM is sold so openly only means that MS has been turning a blind eye on its own directive for years. This pretty much takes the teeth away from the 'generosity' announcement above. How can you say it's ok to sell OEM until November 30 when it's been done for years, and will probably still be done years later? Which brings us to..
• If selling software at an OEM price has been an accepted option for years as it has been, then why not sell the darn things at that price to begin with? In effect, you are cheating those who buy the complete boxed versions, since they're paying more when they could've gotten it far cheaper via OEM. And don't tell me all those manuals are important - they can all be downloaded easily. Don't tell me either that the license is any different from the OEM one. As long as it allows Windows Update, and it keeps the NBI from confiscating your machines, it's completely the same. Again it's important to let people know this, so that they can save.

Truth is, the past few months has seen a veritable windfall of profit for MS. They've effectively made a ton of money off of instilling fear into the hearts of internet cafe owners whose livelihood was threatened by this.

However I have to ask, is that a good way of doing business? Is bullying people to buy your software the best way for sales? Is offering boxed software (the complete set with manuals and everything, OEM is only the CD and the sticker license) while turning a blind eye towards your own OEM policy, in the end, smart policy?

In the end I truly believe that this will taint them in the long run, giving their name and the name of proprietary software as a whole a bad taste in the mouth. In the interview the MS PR said "This is in response to the clamor for Windows software by the public. This is one way we can help them,".

If you really want to help, then sell the damn things at a fair price. I mean, their market advantage is so good, it's almost ridiculous how they can do all the above and still get away with it, people are still lining up for their software.

How about open-source sofware you say? The fact that it's not been widely accepted by the cafes just means, to me, that it's failed to provide a suitable alternative. I think the last paragraph in the article (it's since been edited) where, a cafe owner threatened, that the BSA's clampdown was "forcing them to think about open source software", only makes me wonder one thing: Why don't you go ahead then?

quick footnote: Why does inquirer use the same urls for different articles? I'd had to use a google archive for the link above. What about permalinks or archives? The url used to be http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?index=7 which of course now leads to a totally different topic. Seems basic.

Couldn't help it, because (1.) today Microsoft today announced a new version of MS SQL, said to be targetting rivals Oracle and IBM.

Which isn't really big news, except for the line I got from this article:

In order to promote the use of SQL Server and Visual Studio, Microsoft also said that it would offer free versions of the two programs for personal use so that individuals can create their own databases, Web sites and software programs.

which means it's going up against MySQL as well. So a few things:

• Oracle, IBM, SAP, are giving the standard 'why do we have to worry' responses, but really they should even a little bit, because when MS gets around to selling things to businesses, they are at their element. They do this not by targetting the techies, but by going after the bosses. Everyone knows the bosses know dipshit about software, however they still control the checkbooks and that's what really counts. Besides what do the techies know anyway? The reason why they're stuck working in those freezing closets managing those big beige servers is that they aren't the boss! So inasmuch as you have to respect some bosses for their guts and ability, MS will first confuse them with technicalities, then provide layer upon layer of flashy tech-lingo and presentations designed to make them think they know what they're buying. Before you know it, some old and respected S&L operation is switching to MS SQL because the owner thinks it's (insert tech-lingo here), remembering to pronounce it correctly as "sequel" while doing so. Doesn't matter that the head Unix guy is threatening to resign, what does he know anyway, working in that freezing backroom closet's probably got his brain fried. It's happened before, and MS is the best at it.
• As per mysql, I doubt it though. That's because MS SQL on the web means IIS, and IIS means No.Way. to most web sysads. If that doesn't scare you enough, IIS needs to run on *gasp* Windows, and well, need I say more? It's hard enough to try and make a popular, money-making dynamic website. Throw in the problems of maintaining a security nightmare like IIS just to make your work more interesting. Hosting would probably be pricier, and why not? Therapist fees for the sys admins alone would add quite a premium.

Sub MS blogpost (2.) would be the Internet Café Pabuenas pakulo by Microsoft.ph, which is interesting for two reasons, one because if you purchase ten Windows XP or two Microsoft Office, or ten CAL licenses purchased from an authorized reseller, you'll win a bonanza of internet cafe essentials as prizes, namely:

• 5 PCs (Intel Pentium 4, 19" Monitor, complete with speakers, webcam, microphone)
• 1 Hub
• 1 year subscription of DSL (estimate at PhP6,000/month)
• 1 neon panaflex signage of iCafe and Microsoft
• Store Stickers that say "This Internet Café uses Genuine Microsoft Software"
• Windows Genuine Stickers for the PCs
• Photo Oppty / Press Release

and two because of the promo duration, September 9 to November 30, 2005. Which by itself isn't noteworthy, except if a. You haven't heard of this, b. it's already November 7, and b.1. You happen to be an internet cafe owner or plan to be one - then you'd be asking as I have, why hasn't this been as promoted as well as it should have? Internet cafe owners - oh i'm sorry - iCafe owners should know about this! I mean, goodness! A photo oppty with the MS folks! WOWWW!

Seriously, it should be spread around, so it's good my friend Ge, who did that page, showed it to me by accident really, when he wanted to show off a .aspx example, when I asked him what .mspx was when I saw it on the MS SQL page, where he answered it's just .aspx but of a different name, probably to sound more "MS Techie" - but that's for a different blog post :).

It just makes sense. See, MS Office has been Microsoft's big money making monster for years, a collection of bloated elephantine over-featured over-done software which everybody used or had to use. Microsoft therefore has to support the concept of individual installations (and licenses) of software on individual machines - the foundation of their business.

But here came the concept of 'software as a service', delivering software on the web, and Microsoft had a choice, either go with that, or defend it's chosen foundation to the hilt, and now we know it did that - to it's detriment.

But even if MS missed that particular boat, software on the web per se isn't that a big deal I think. In fact it's sorta old, and if not done properly can be a bust. I mean, how exactly will, say, Excel, be better for the customer if done via web? They can always do other stuff right? Unfortunately, MS is pressed for time - hell, right now they're just pressed, period. They have to do something right now to maintain investor confidence and keep good people from leaving, among other things.

Even Bill Gates is making the rounds, he's in the news almost every week. I thought that guy was supposed to be retired, or in one of MS' labs dreaming up stuff as a software architect like he said he would.

Really, MS missing the boat seems to be de rigeur nowadays. There is hardly any area I can think of anymore where MS is the undisputable leader. Migs said .Net, and that's true compared to Java, but I'm not even sure that made serious inroads as MS hoped it would.

If you think about it, MS is actually in an easy position - if the media hype surrounding their Live.com announcements is any indication, they can still drum up attention without having to be number 1.

That's actually easy to do. They just have to make big announcements of business plans on any number of technological advancements over the past three years they missed out on.

--

oh btw, I tried signing up at the currently beta live.com. Just wanted to see what domain name they'd be using for the free email part.