«

An in-depth look at Vista DRM that exposes some of the FUD being peddled.

A contrast becomes apparent between the emotive rhetoric and actual reality.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:53:30 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> An in-depth look at Vista DRM that exposes some of the FUD being
> peddled.
>

See
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
QUOTE

(On another note, it seems a bit of a war of words may be erupting with
George Ou over at ZDNet. He decided (without ever hearing my talk or
seeing my slides) that what I'd said in the slides was wrong. Quite a
remarkable feat really, since he's never actually seen them. I offered to
send him my slides with all the information in them as soon as I got back
into the country, but he went ahead and posted his preconceived
conclusions anyway, still without ever actually having seen the slides
he's commenting on (and to cap it all off, he even provided a permanent
record of this when he unilaterally decided to publish my private mail to
him pointing this out). Possibly realising how badly he's shot himself in
the foot, he's since been trying to get hold of a copy of the slides from
other people in order to find out what it is he's been attacking for the
last week or so (the string of flames in private email have been
particularly childish). Now I can understand a speculative article
pointing out possible issues with the talk, but "debunking" something
you've never even read seems a bit rich... to cap it all off, his parting
shot about $1000 cards illustrates that he has absolutely no idea what's
in the slides. To turn one of his own comments back on him, "George Ou,
if you're reading this, it's obvious that you've done no research
whatsoever before you made your claims, since by your own admission
you've never seen the slides you're commenting on. Is inventing content
and attributing it to others in order to criticise it the standard of
journalism applied at ZDNet?". Unlike George, ZDNet isn't paying me to do
this stuff and I really have better things to do with my time so I'm
going to pretty much ignore it, I just added this note in case people had
seen one of his rants and were wondering what the story was).
UNQUOTE


> A contrast becomes apparent between the emotive rhetoric and actual
> reality.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673

"David Mohring" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:53:30 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> An in-depth look at Vista DRM that exposes some of the FUD being
>> peddled.
>>
>
> See
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
> QUOTE
>
> (On another note, it seems a bit of a war of words may be erupting with
> George Ou over at ZDNet. He decided (without ever hearing my talk or
> seeing my slides) that what I'd said in the slides was wrong. Quite a
> remarkable feat really, since he's never actually seen them. I offered to
> send him my slides with all the information in them as soon as I got back
> into the country, but he went ahead and posted his preconceived
> conclusions anyway, still without ever actually having seen the slides
> he's commenting on (and to cap it all off, he even provided a permanent
> record of this when he unilaterally decided to publish my private mail to
> him pointing this out). Possibly realising how badly he's shot himself in
> the foot, he's since been trying to get hold of a copy of the slides from
> other people in order to find out what it is he's been attacking for the
> last week or so (the string of flames in private email have been
> particularly childish). Now I can understand a speculative article
> pointing out possible issues with the talk, but "debunking" something
> you've never even read seems a bit rich... to cap it all off, his parting
> shot about $1000 cards illustrates that he has absolutely no idea what's
> in the slides. To turn one of his own comments back on him, "George Ou,
> if you're reading this, it's obvious that you've done no research
> whatsoever before you made your claims, since by your own admission
> you've never seen the slides you're commenting on. Is inventing content
> and attributing it to others in order to criticise it the standard of
> journalism applied at ZDNet?". Unlike George, ZDNet isn't paying me to do
> this stuff and I really have better things to do with my time so I'm
> going to pretty much ignore it, I just added this note in case people had
> seen one of his rants and were wondering what the story was).
> UNQUOTE

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=286

"The irony is rich, of course. Gutmann had the time to write more than 7,000
words on the subject last December, add another 3,000 words in January, many
of them dripping with sarcasm. He had the time to add another 14,000 words
in the intervening months. When Microsoft prepared a response, he had the
time to compare them to Nazis and violent street criminals. The organizers
of the Usenix Security Symposium invited Gutmann to speak at their event in
Northern California last week, and he had the time to prepare 132 PowerPoint
slides; then he had the time to fly halfway around the world to give that
talk. He’s had the time to update the notes at the top of his website at
least three times this week alone.

But a couple of bloggers point out the ridiculous errors in his column and
ask for some explanations, and he “has better things to do with his time�?

Maybe they do things differently in the Southern Hemisphere, but where I
come from, that’s called “slinking away with your tail between your legs.�

I hope every publication that picked up this ludicrous story will run a
follow-up noting the complete collapse of Gutmann’s claims."

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:40:27 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> But a couple of bloggers point out the ridiculous errors in his column and
> ask for some explanations, and he “has better things to do with his time�?

He pointed out that those "bloggers" were writing about something that
they have never seen.

Isn't that sufficient?

If that is not sufficient, then he also said: "to cap it all off, his
parting shot about $1000 cards illustrates that he has absolutely no idea
what's in the slides."


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."

On 19 Aug 2007 10:53:14 +1200, Jonathan Walker <>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:40:27 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> But a couple of bloggers point out the ridiculous errors in his column and
>> ask for some explanations, and he “has better things to do with his time”?
>
>He pointed out that those "bloggers" were writing about something that
>they have never seen.
>
>Isn't that sufficient?
>
>If that is not sufficient, then he also said: "to cap it all off, his
>parting shot about $1000 cards illustrates that he has absolutely no idea
>what's in the slides."

Gutman is not the only expert to point out how horribly flawed Vista
is.

In this weeks news:
PC Magazine Editor Throws in the Towel on Vista

MacNN caught this incredible defection and loss of faith by a former
Vista booster, PC Magazine editor-in-chief Jim Louderback, as he steps
down from his position. "I've been a big proponent of the new OS over
the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my
computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine
months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't
work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly. The upshot
is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I
definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating
system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy,
was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do
the unthinkable: I might move to Linux."

"Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:40:27 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> But a couple of bloggers point out the ridiculous errors in his column
>> and
>> ask for some explanations, and he “has better things to do with his time�?
>
> He pointed out that those "bloggers" were writing about something that
> they have never seen.
>
> Isn't that sufficient?

This is from someone who seems to not actually have tested his theories in
Vista, and admits that his article may be biased.

The holes are in the arguments he has presented for some months on his
website, rebutted on a number of occasions, and perpetuated in a recent
globetrotting expedition (which is somewhat amusing for someone who claims
to be so concerned about "global warming").

When asked to front up with the slides for his presentation, and some
answers to his many preposterous claims, he has been found wanting.