File: MISTAKES.TXT Guy Dunphy Notes on the mistakes Mickeysoft have made. Information hiding in DOS and windows ------------------------------------- Refer to the book 'Undocumented DOS, Andrew Schulman & others', particularly the section 'Pandora's Box & Information Hiding'. Another Mickeysoft Mistake is that DOS does not provide enough 'official' services to allow adequate application functionality. (Nor does Windows I hear.) So programmers are forced to dig into the 'unsupported' guts of DOS to get their jobs done. How horrible! Of course, this has a few side effects that I'm sure never crossed Muckysoft's mind, even if they do work out rather nicely for MonkeySpit:- * By ensuring that most major software packages (from MS's competitors) must rely on 'undocumented' DOS features, M acquires the ability to seriously annoy both the users of those products and M's competitors. M merely has to change the way some such features work in new releases, and all existing software using those features stops working. M, of course, can claim total innocence: "Hey, we told you not to use that!" In fact, it also gives M a way of forcing their own customers to upgrade Mickeysoft applications when M chooses, by altering undoc features used by those same Mickeysoft applications. (Yes, Mickeysoft applications _do_ use lots of undoc DOS features.) If _all_ DOS necessary services were 'documented' (and therefore had a real or implied guarantee of future compatibility) then M would lose this very usefull control over software 'in the field'. You never know, users might just decide to stick with a utility they like, and never upgrade it! (Gasp) * The features may be undocumented _publicly_, but naturally Mickeysoft software developers would have access to all such info. Does this happen to give them some advantage over programmers developing applications that compete with M applications? You bet it does. * Competitors spend a lot of time figuring out how the undocumented stuff works. This is good for M, because that is time the competitors did _not_ spend writing competetive application software. Or thinking about how operating systems _should_ work. This is just another example of the dangers of allowing something fundamental to an important part of society (ie a common computer operating system) to be held in the control of a private company. Not only does this deny the democratic principle in that the millions who use and depend on it have no say in its form or evolution, but it also creates an extremely unfair power of monopoly over many related activities for the controlling company. Effectively, the controlling company gains the ability to legally blackmail all those who depend on the existance of their product. One of the principles of Democratic Design is that _all_ information about the resulting product, be it a can opener or an operating system, will be freely available to anyone. Also refer to- Democratic design TECHNOL\DEMOC_D.DOC Computer operating systems considered important TECHNOL\COMP_OS\COSCI.DOC Design rules: info filing/safe evolution TECHNOL\DESIGN_R.DOC The IBM PC horror TECHNOL\APPENDIX\CONSPIRE.DOC Just plain obnoxious bastardry ------------------------------ Then there are the vastly irritating things Muckroscum does. For instance:- * The ".DOC" file suffix, now used by Word for Windows. Thanks, Microsux, for commandeering such a generic suffix for use with your proprietry application. You could have used .WWN, .WWD, etc. but oooh noooo....., it had to be something already in general use to indicate an informative ASCII text file. After all, nobody _owns_ the .DOC extension, right? So why shouldn't you use it, eh? (Ever heard of showing consideration for others?) So now, when we see a file like 'HINTS.DOC', and try to view it, what we often see is a heap of binary rubbish. 'Ah! A Murkosunk file. Drat.' we think. 'Is it worth going into Winkooze, and starting WforW, just to see this file? Probably not.' we continue. So we end up chewing through it in 'dump' mode, scanning the strings amongst the binary formatting trash, just to check it out. * Violation of the software self-containment principle. When you install a new version of some MS utility, or even an entirely new utility, it not only alters/creates files in the directory you expect, but also modifies files in a branch common to all windows tools. This is the WIN\MSAPPS\... tree. Result:- Can't keep different versions installed at the same time. When you put in a new version, you lose the old version, even if you carefully hide it's directory during install, so the new version can't deliberately clobber the old one (which it will try to do). You are also likely to find that unrelated older utils may stop working, and you will now have to update them too. The problem here, is that MS seems to think that their entire range of software products are really just different bits of one giant package. The idea of maintaining independence and self-sufficiency among the many 'parts' has either not occured to them, or they find it more attractive to operate otherwise. Of course, if they _did_ manage to so interlock all their products that they must needs be upgraded as a unit, then that would certainly place users in a very dependent position, and dramaticly raise the stakes for competing software developers. * Fascist Megalomania. Another aspect of MS's attitude that is worrying, is their possesive approach to configuration of user's PCs. When you are installing MS software, the words on your screen "Setup is updating your system" have become something to be dreaded. There often seems to be an enormous amount of hard disk activity going on, much of which is unexplainable in terms of simply unpacking and copying the required files. Frequently it will turn out that the install program was engaging in a comprehensive trawl though all your storage space, building up a catalogue of what other software you have installed. Personally, I find that this gives me an instinctive feeling of violated privacy, regardless of the reasonableness of objecting to such prying. As for why this feeling arises, and can even be rationally justified, see the arguments on 'computers as an extension of the mind' in MANIFEST\IDEALS\DATA_OWN.DOC However, some suggestions have been raised that this sort of uninvited system exploration is more than mere rudeness, but actually has a quite sinister intent. For instance, here's an interesting post relating to the dreaded Microsoft Network attempt to subvert the Internet:- ----------------start post------------ From lhecking@nmrc.ucc.ieTue Jun 6 23:23:36 1995 Date: 06 JUN 1995 10:10:15 GMT From: Lars Hecking Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Xpost from comp.risks (Was: Re: Virus in Widows-95 ...) In article johnv@tower.actrix.gen.nz (John Veldthuis) writes: Just because it does not replicate itself does not mean it is not a virus. This virus is evil because it will watch all programs run on your machine and then when it connects with the proper site it will feed all this info onto someone. Now just imagine if it was more than what they said and could transfer information that you dont want known. This is especially so about commercial places. Someone should take a lawsuite out against Microsoft Have a look at the following,especially the second part ... : ========================================================================= : ----- SECURITY FORUM appended at 14:42:34 on 95/05/24 GMT (by BRESLAU at : YKTVMV) : Subject: F.Y.I. : : NEWSCOPY FORUM appended at 13:30:46 on 95/05/24 GMT (by 61822135 at VIEVMA) : Subject: Windows 95 Warning on comp.risks, in Information Week : Source: Usenet newsgroup comp.risks, Originator: : cnorloff@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil : (unverified) : Date: Wed, 17 May 95 13:44:40 EDT : Discuss: OS2ARENA FORUM on IBMPC : : Microsoft officials confirm that beta versions of Windows 95 include a : small viral routine called Registration Wizard. It interrogates every : system on a network gathering intelligence on what software is being run : on which machine. It then creates a complete listing of both Microsoft's : and competitors' products by machine, which it reports to Microsoft when : customers sign up for Microsoft's Network Services, due for launch later : this year. : : "In Short" column, page 88, _Information Week_ magazine, May 22, 1995 : : The implications of this action, and the attitude of Microsoft to plan : such action, beggars the imagination. And here comes the interesting part :-O : An update on this. A friend of mine got hold of the beta test CD : of Win95, and set up a packet sniffer between his serial port and the : modem. When you try out the free demo time on The Microsoft Network, it : transmits your entire directory structure in background. : This means that they have a list of every directory (and, potentially : every file) on your machine. It would not be difficult to have something : like a FileRequest from your system to theirs, without you knowing about : it. This way they could get ahold of any juicy routines you've written : yourself and claim them as their own if you don't have them copyrighted. : : Needless to say, I'm rather annoyed about this. : So spread the word as far and wide as possible: Steer clear of Windows 95. : There's nothing to say that this "feature" will be removed in the final : release. : : David : Klaus Johannes Rusch IBM Austria : Team OS/2 AD/M Customer Projects : ----------------end post-------------- OK, so this comes from an IBMer. Still; no, I don't think I'll be installing Windows 95 (or Windows 90 anything). From a Mickeysoft TV add for one of their ridiculous products:- "Be unreasonable. Insist it can be done. Show them how." Thanks, fellows, that is the best suggestion you ever made.