| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Think tanks at risk for corruption | |
|
||
| Time: 11:59 EST/16:59 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Steve Clemons, executive vice president of the New America Foundation, is on a crusade against what he views as a dangerous and growing phenomenon: special interests and corporate lobbyists using non-profit think tanks in their efforts to promote their pet policies. Several tank officials and analysts, who spoke to UPI on the condition of anonymity, said that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a small Arlington, Va.- based think tank that promotes free-market principles, receives a significant portion of its funding from the Microsoft Corp. The sources said that the think tank essentially lobbies in favor of issues important to Microsoft through op-ed pieces and policy briefs by tank officials. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:05:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (216.78.253.242) at 12/28/2002 1:47:53 PM |
|
I don't see what is the big deal here. "Think tanks" are always been pushing agendas, there is nothing new in this. The computer industry is a relativeley new entity so to some degree could still be more innocent than other kind of industrial groups but they are catching up fast.
|
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/28/2002 2:56:31 PM |
|
Wait... think tanks can be corrupted by massive amounts of money and this installation of bias managers?
I don't understand! *cough*... give me a break. Think tanks are often FORMED for this very purpose. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/28/2002 3:42:44 PM |
|
#7 - "IMHO, it's much easier to include a backdoor in closed-sourced app and get away with it than including it with an open source app."
Why? While open source apps supposedly have "many eyes", this hasn't decreased the number of exploits (relative to closed source apps), so one would have to conclude it would also not decrease the potential for back doors. I know at my company, we safely guard our source trees, using a combination of Windows authentication, code reviews, and policy management. We can trace every single change ever made back to the person who made it, when they made it, and for what reason they supposedly made it. But, as I mentioned, since the number of bugs are about equal between closed source and open source, I have to conclude it is about as easy (or hard) to include a back door into a closed source app as it is an open one. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/28/2002 6:19:07 PM |
| raw, I'm not sure exactly what your link has to do with anything. Other than the name of a symbol, there is no evidence of an NSA backdoor. Also, there is no evidence of the removal code being rogue either. So, um, what was your point? |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/28/2002 6:49:30 PM |
|
Ah, I get it.
Countries. Here's one reason: money. It cost a heck of a lot to write an operating system, development tools, network protocol stacks, office software, etc. Why pay billions of dollars to write software that already exists? As for using open source - non open source can be decompiled and reverse engineered. Perhaps it would be easier to to not have to do that, but then, there are 100x more apps written for the non open source platform called Windows. Using Windows will save you money. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/28/2002 7:30:17 PM |
|
A single team of how many programmers? How many lines of code is the operating system that this team is going to inspect? 1 million? 10 million? That's a hefty amount of code for that team to inspect. How 'bout the productivity software, dev tools, media players, XML parsers, etc.? A few hundred million lines of code isn't an easy thing to audit. Perhaps my numbers are extreme (though I highly doubt it). It will still cost hundreds of millions if not billions to inspect that much code.
"There are open source alternatives to nearly everything, but granted that most do not have the same amount of features that their closed-source apps have." If the open source alternative doesn't have the features that non open source apps have, then I wouldn't consider the open source offering an alternative. I think it is pure folly to claim that the best open source operating systems, dev tools, and productivity software approach the quality or richness of the best non open source software of those categories. |
| #7 By 135 (209.130.164.80) at 12/28/2002 8:59:13 PM |
|
Hmm, interesting. Most of these "thinktanks" aren't think tanks at all, they are organizaitons funding by special interests with the express purpose of writing papers that support a particular agenda.
Cato, American Heritage, Brookings Institute are certainly examples of this. It may be disingenuous for Microsoft to do this, but the fact also remains that their competitors do the same thing, this is especially apparent with articles that back Linux as we've seen posted many times here. It's all part of the game. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/28/2002 9:12:11 PM |
|
gg, fear not, on this thread I don't feel like discussing the inately evil GPL. :-)
I think that if one can use "plenty of diagnostic tricks you can perform to ensure that your OS won't rat you out" then, you can use these tools on Windows systems too and save yourself the trouble of writing the OS/tools/apps from the ground up, or verifying that the open source apps are trojan free. As for developing apps natively (I assume you mean native in terms of native citizens of the given country) - what better way to write an app, then to build it on the richest foundation currently available? I write apps for Windows for several reasons. One huge one is that Microsoft has provided extremely rich APIs for me. It is my opinion that the Microsoft platform in terms of OS, productivity suites, and servers is the richest platform currently available. This makes my life as a developer so much easier. This post was edited by BobSmith on Saturday, December 28, 2002 at 21:24. |
| #9 By 135 (64.213.170.195) at 12/28/2002 10:58:46 PM |
|
gg - "But note that the reason for other countries not wanting windows is quite valid: They want the local software market to develop /natively/ and having the source -does- provide them with greater security against sneaked in back doors."
This reason is valid? So it is your opinion that the United States should only be using software written by Microsoft and other American companies? Using Linux would be a generally bad idea because open source has had a history of being trojaned, and even then many of the lead developers are not Americans and therefore cannot be trusted. Interesting position. I don't know that I agree with it. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/28/2002 11:48:33 PM |
|
dupe - "Jeez, you use the same tactics as the lame Linux advocates use yet you think you're somehow better than them."
No, the difference is that the tactics are used to ridicule the Linux advocates. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/29/2002 1:44:31 AM |
|
gg - If the reason is valid for other countries, than it must be valid for the US as well.
It's not babbling, I'm simply pointing out logical flaws in your arguments. dupe - So your saying these breaches were not at all important? This post was edited by sodablue on Sunday, December 29, 2002 at 01:47. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/29/2002 1:58:15 AM |
| gg, perhaps you're right. Personally, I think that after a few years of catch up, the team would be looking at where Microsoft is now. During the catch up time, Microsoft would be movng ahead, so it is entirely possible that they'd never get caught up. Also, if you write your own platform from the ground up, only your apps will run on it. The apps from other platforms won't run on it and you won't be able to run apps for other platforms on it either. That sounds like a bad position to be in. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/29/2002 1:23:23 PM |
|
Rambo2000 - I don't think you fully understand just how excruciatingly tiring it is to listen to your claims.
These claims aren't new, I've heard them over and over and over again... These claims have been going on since at least 1997. But, It ain't gonna happen. There's less excitement today with Linux than there was in '98/'99. Linux mindshare is dwindling, and the marketshare has remained stagnant since that time. Come back when you have results to show for your claims. Come back when Open Source has actually proven itself to be financially successful. Come back when Mozilla has more than 2% of browser marketshare because it is such a dramatically better product than IE that people are adopting it like wildfire. Your claims are false. You just refuse to see that. |
| #14 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/29/2002 6:38:32 PM |
| BAM! |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/29/2002 8:09:38 PM |
|
Rambo2000 - No, I don't live in a cave. I'm monitoring just about every trade journal.
You see, there's a difference between you claiming something and what's actually happening in the world. What's actually happening in the world can be supported by way of statistics, such as server adoption rates by companies, etc. "More and more companys are moving and supporting Linux, you're getting to hear about Linux all over the net which say it's gaining support fast. " Prove it. "Linux isn't about being financially successful, it's a diffrent way of doing things, a better way. " What's better about it? "As for Mozilla having 2% of the market, how do you know?, how does anyone know?" It's trivial to monitor web logs. "IE as got the market for one simple reason, most people use whats in by default" Ahh, such an old myth. If this were true Napster would never have existed. "Sodablue and Parker, I can spot bias views a mile off" The thing is, my bias comes from critical thinking and years of experience. Did you know I was using Linux in 1992? When did you start using it? Exactly how much experience do you have with it? How much experience do you have with systems at an enterprise level? How many end-users have you had to support? There's nothing wrong with bias. It all depends on what process you used to arrive at the bias. "I'm more intrested in people who have a open mind to anything. " I happen to have a very open mind. But you've yet explained how Linux is going to make our lives better. If you can do so without resorting to "Microsoft is evil", I'll listen. If you can also explain how I'm going to get rich as a developer targetting Linux, I'll listen. If you can't address either of those two statements, then I really don't see what the point is of you posting here. |
| #16 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/29/2002 11:33:48 PM |
|
Rambo2000 - it appears that sodablue and parker have pretty much demolished you, but they seem to have ignored your Mozilla claim...
"As for Mozilla having 2% of the market, how do you know?, how does anyone know?" No need to worry about how many times it was downloaded. Lets just look at Mozilla's actual USAGE. Lets look at the results of INDEPENDENT onestat.com June 24 - Mozilla had 0.4% market share ( http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox7.html ) Sept 30 - 0.8% - http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox11.html Dec 16 - the Mozilla market share was updated to a whopping 1.1% ( http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox15.html ) Arguing with actual FACTS and STATISTICS in my corner is so fun. You should try it Rambo. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Sunday, December 29, 2002 at 23:34. |
| #17 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/29/2002 11:37:57 PM |
|
While perusing onestat.com I couldn't help but notice OS market shares...
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox10.html 1. Windows 97.46% 2. Macintosh 1.43% 3. Linux 0.26% LOL. Why do we hear so much about so little? |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/30/2002 12:04:17 AM |
|
You know, maybe Rambo2000 should define what he means by "Microsoft will lose".
Perhaps in his mind he feels that Windows losing 5% of it's marketshare to Linux is a tremendous win, even if Windows does still dominate it by 3 or 4 to 1. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 12/30/2002 1:09:15 AM |
|
gg, IIRC from my stats classes, the misrepresentations that could skew data like NAT are equally applicable to all categories, so they are statistically negligable. IOW it is likely that an equal number of BrowserA is skewed in equal porportion to the number of BrowserB. Anyway, even with a margin of error of 10%, IE is still kicking booty.
blue, if Linux goes to 5% and Windows drops to 90%, Microsoft would be up 18 to 1. :-) |
| #20 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/31/2002 12:36:18 AM |
|
yes dupe, i meant DESKTOP OS marketshare. And good point about NATs not mattering on these stats.
Colonel Troutman calling Rambo2000? Come in John. Why did you leave? I taught you better than to be scared with facts and undisputable evidence. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 at 00:36. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:05:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
