http://www.windowsitpro.com/authors/author/author/5777324/rsscomment/5777324en-USSun, 27 May 2012 07:19:01 GMTSun, 27 May 2012 07:19:01 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/remote-computing/nt-news-analysis3891#commentsAnchorWed, 11 Aug 1999 14:25:49 GMT
In NT News Analysis: “Is It a Tool or a Curse?” (October), David Chernicoff wrote about Back Orifice (BO), the program that a group of ethical hackers who call themselves cult of the Dead cow (cDc) produced. I have two comments about this program and its effect on Windows NT users.
First, this program doesn’t exploit any holes in the operating system (OS); it uses only the built-in Windows APIs. As an IS support person for a company that uses Microsoft for its desktop environment, I’m frightened by this factor. How do you patch security holes when the company that produced them denies they are a problem?
Second, many NT users have an it-won’t-happen-to-me attitude about this kind of program affecting their computers. Although cDc has not yet produced an NT version of BO, another program, NetBus, allows this functionality—and more—on NT. NetBus functions almost the same way as BO does, and hackers can include it in self-extracting ZIP files. When installed, this program connects via IP and runs every time a user logs on to the computer. The program shows up only in the process list and takes the name of whatever the executable was originally called (e.g., explorer.exe). NetBus shows that NT is vulnerable, and that we need to be wary of the software we come in contact with.
--Thomas Steiger]]>Thomas Steiger Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:25:49 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/remote-computing/nt-news-analysis3891#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/product-review/the-future-of-nt-compatible-hardware#commentsAnchorWed, 11 Aug 1999 11:11:42 GMT
I enjoyed reading Craig Barth’s “The Future of NT-Compatible Hardware” (August). In the sidebar “Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks,” the author tried to dispel three myths of why NT Workstation is not a viable client computing solution. I chuckled after reading Myth 3: NT Doesn’t Leverage All Hardware. The article mentions that Microsoft supports direct memory access (DMA) bus mastering to boost the performance of EIDE devices, and that Microsoft provides support for DMA via an updated atapi.sys and dmacheck.exe utility in Service Pack 3 (SP3). For months, the company I work for has been trying to get Microsoft’s DMA feature to work. Microsoft’s DMA support is patchy at best, and to get it to work, your hardware and BIOS must comply with very stringent conditions that 90 percent of PCs and BIOSs never meet.
--David Wong

I’ve found that the majority of Intel chipset-based systems work just fine with the Microsoft DMA feature. The only exception that I know about involves the mobile 440BX platform, which has trouble with the implementation. Service Pack 4 (SP4) will address this problem with a new atapi.sys driver that supports Ultra DMA/33. Even if the DMA feature doesn’t work with all systems, chances are you can find a third-party alternative (e.g., Intel’s PIIXIDE.SYS).
--Craig Barth]]>David Wong Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:11:42 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/product-review/the-future-of-nt-compatible-hardware#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/interoperability/nt-news-analysis4651#commentsAnchorFri, 06 Aug 1999 13:43:16 GMT
Craig Barth’s NT News Analysis: “Linux: From Dark Horse to Legitimate Contender?” (December 1998) gives several misleading impressions about Linux. I feel compelled to correct them. First, the author uses the term freeware (versus open source) five times in the article. Labeling Linux as freeware associates the OS with low-quality software typically given away over the Internet. A substantial difference exists between freeware and open source software. Using the term open source would more properly convey to readers that Linux is different from the freeware they might be familiar with. Second, the GNU (http://www.gnu .org) General Public License (GPL), under which the Linux kernel and many included utilities are licensed, is not nearly as restrictive to commercial software development as the article implies. The database and office-suite vendors who have developed products for Linux have not given away their intellectual property rights, and their applications are not in the public domain. For example, Microsoft distributes a version of NetMeeting that runs on Linux. The application is not in the public domain, and Microsoft has not given away its intellectual property rights to the product. The GNU GPL applies only to software that incorporates GPL code. Developers who write code or write code that calls libraries that are GPL-licensed own the rights to their applications. The GPL is not a deterrent to commercial software development. The GPL works well as a license for people who want to share the tools they wrote to solve their problems. In the case of Linux, the group of people is very large. Developers need not incorporate GPL code to write significant applications for Linux any more than they need to incorporate Sun’s code to write applications for Solaris. Linux is often a suitable platform for commodity services, especially in small organizations. The tools for enterprise deployment of Linux are not currently widely available. That factor is a significant deterrent for now, but the situation may change. Resellers making their best bid for a contract are realizing that Linux offers a way to cut costs and give them a competitive edge. The obstacle to developing for Linux now is the limited number of rapid application development (RAD) tools available, not the GPL. This situation is changing quickly. Will it change fast enough? I don’t know, but I would not dismiss open source software yet.
--Anthony E. Greene

Thank you for the corrections. Watch for further information in upcoming issues.
--Karen Forster]]>Anthony E. Greene Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:43:16 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/interoperability/nt-news-analysis4651#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/performance/nt-news-analysis4417#commentsAnchorFri, 06 Aug 1999 13:38:43 GMT
I was surprised to read the speculative statements about Microsoft’s reaction to the continued success of Chili!Soft in “Power to the Pepper!” The article states that Microsoft has reason to be concerned about Chili!Soft extending ASP to other platforms, and that Chili!Soft has come under fire from Microsoft executives. Developers are the backbone of Microsoft’s success. The company spends more than $250 million annually and employs 2000 people to provide the information, tools, resources, and support that developers need to build applications for the Windows platform. Microsoft and Chili!Soft enjoy a long-standing positive relationship, one that continues to provide value for our respective customers. Chili!Soft has done some amazing work extending ASP (both on NT and to other platforms), providing the opportunity for more developers to access ASP functionality and create value for their customers.
--Tod Nielsen, General Manager of Developer Relations, Microsoft]]>Tod Nielsen Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:38:43 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/performance/nt-news-analysis4417#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/performance/nt-news-analysis4417#commentsAnchorFri, 06 Aug 1999 13:37:10 GMT
I cringed when I saw the big angry pepper tramping on poor little Microsoft in NT News Analysis: “Power to the Pepper!” (November 1998) about the deployment of Active Server Pages (ASP) outside Microsoft Windows NT and Internet Information Server (IIS). The article does a disservice to ASP developers looking to leverage their skills on other relevant platforms ... and to the many organizations struggling with interoperability issues. According to the article, Microsoft executives condemn Chili!Soft’s cross-platform approach to enabling Web applications with ASP. The article fails to support this strong statement with specific sources. Chili!Soft’s experience paints an entirely different picture: The company enjoys a strong relationship with Microsoft. Microsoft’s Developer Relations Group (DRG) and ongoing support for entrepreneurs played a key role in the formation of Chili!Soft. During the past 2 years, the company has received invaluable guidance from members of Microsoft’s IIS, Visual Tools, and Platform Marketing groups. Multiplatform ASP is important to customers because it meets their long-term needs. By taking a platform-agnostic approach to ASP, Chili!Soft is extending ASP’s advantages as a Web application platform. The growth and popularity of ASP development tools, third-party components, and ASP-based applications make multiplatform ASP a win for customers.
--Charles Crystle, CTO & Founder, Chili!Soft]]>Charles Crystle Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:37:10 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/performance/nt-news-analysis4417#commentsAnchor