Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Visual Studio .Net: Now with more Viruses 406 breaks the story (and 8000 readers submit) that Microsoft distributed Nimda-infected copies of Visual Studio .Net in Korea. I don't even know what to say here; nothing seems adequate, except to point out that "trustworthy computing" does not seem to have had any effect whatsoever. just updated their story to point out that it probably won't infect the people who installed Visual Studio .Net, but it's still a rather nasty faux pas for a company that's supposed to be cleaning up its act.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Visual Studio .Net: Now with more Viruses

Comments Filter:
  • So.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:23PM (#3702404) Homepage
    Did McAfee or Norton give this press release?
    • Re:So.... (Score:2, Funny)

      by rector ( 580924 )
      In fact, the virus was found by a Microsoft employee manualy without any special software.
  • I mean, come on, anyone ELSE see this as similar to when the Cult of the Dead Cow released Back Oriface 2000 with CIH preinstalled? :)

    Seriously, before any of the "OH ITZ M$, THY SUXX!!!1111" posts come out, lets be honest. Any company can make that mistake. It takes a special moron in Quality Assurance to release that one.

    I have to ask though... what would YOU do if you were MS in this case?
    • Couple things to note:

      MS has a very good system of preventing viruses (used to be documented in a knowledge base article until someone realized that article said they used UNIX systems because they were impervious to Windows viruses).

      What probably happened is that a system was infected before the help files were compiled, and then once they were compiled (rendering the virus intert) the AV software did not pick it up. Once the masters are checksummed, then no one will notice because the subsequent copies have not been tampered with.

      Again, the virus is inert. But this is a HUGE publicity blow to Microsoft, so it is a BIG deal.
  • by overbom ( 461949 ) <> on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:25PM (#3702423)

    or maybe that doesn't quite say it. Hmmm, what am I trying to get at.

    "trivially breakable"

    It only infects one file that's never referenced by the system, and there are all sorts of unlikelihoods that prevent this from being executed. Still, bad press is bad press. :-)
  • way to go (Score:2, Funny)

    by TheKubrix ( 585297 )
    If they only had been using a Walmart Lindows box......
  • Sue 'em (Score:4, Funny)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:26PM (#3702435)
    The guy who wrote that virus should sue Microsoft for distributing it without his permission. We're talking about theft of intellectual property here!
  • by gatekeep ( 122108 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:27PM (#3702445)
    Hell, nimda is a better feature than that stupid paperclip thing!
  • by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:28PM (#3702448) Homepage Journal sure that it was a quality worm that went out the door.

    None of your shoddy open-source crap here, no sir!

  • virus?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by hikeran ( 561061 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:28PM (#3702450)
    I'ts not a virus/spyware.. it's a feature that enhances your web experience.
  • by Restil ( 31903 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:29PM (#3702461) Homepage
    "You probably won't get any viruses from installing our software!"

  • Why is this under the BillBorg icon, and not the Monty Python "it's funny!" foot?
  • by 1000101 ( 584896 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:31PM (#3702483)
    The "third party" that translated the software into Korean had something to do with the problem.
    • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:44PM (#3702609)
      So how do we tell "Genuine Microsoft Quality Products" from "Shoddy Software Created By Third Parties And Put Out By Microsoft"? Is the hologram a different color or something?
    • by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:50PM (#3702646) Homepage Journal

      That's a load of hooey. Microsoft's customers didn't ask them to use a third party to translate the files, nor did they purchase the product from the third party. If Microsoft can't even handle the elementary security step of scanning the product for viruses before putting it on a CD, how do you even know that the mysterious third party isn't replacing important DLLs with DLLs that are functionally equivalent but have a hidden backdoor.

      Clearly Microsoft isn't really checking these files. Which means that when Microsoft says "Trustworthy computing" what they are really saying is that you should trust them, and all of their "third party" allies despite the fact that they have a horrific track record.

  • Well, at least we can still trust Microsoft on one count...

  • by Skweetis ( 46377 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:33PM (#3702498) Homepage
    GET /default.ida?nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnHahahahahahah hahahahah hahhahahhaha heeheeeheeehee aaahahahhhhh


  • Give it a rest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:33PM (#3702499)
    Slashdot is rapidly becoming useless with the constant derision it heaps on Microsoft. Let's have more computer news and stuff about FreeBSD and Linux and less "make fun of" news about Microsoft. As if Linux doesn't have it's problems. You might end up like Larry Ellison and his ridiculous "Unbreakable" claims.

    Of course, that's a problem with the Linux crowd. Feer of being, and being seen as, professional.
    • Slashdot is rapidly becoming useless with the constant derision it heaps on Microsoft.

      Oh come on.
      Just like deleting the MS viruses in your inbox and ignoring them, you can just as easy ignore these Slashdot topics.
    • When MS says they're going to do an about face on their history and enter 'trustworthy' computing with a straight face, they are going to get laughed at when that claim looks strained.

      It's as simple as that. You'd probably be much more upset at us if we didn't all point out up front that we know we're flaming MS. :) That's the difference. When somebody makes a claim they dont keep, they wont get much support or benifit of the doubt (especially if they are the goliath.) I thank god the world works this way, or nothing would ever change.

      Sometimes I wonder what MS would have to do to actually lose some market share if the anti-MS crowd wern't so passionate - probably kill a few people in the middle of a crowd, caught on videotape, I'd wager, although I imagine they'd just point out that the guy holding the gun wasn't an employee .. just another MS perma-temp. ;)
    • Re:Give it a rest (Score:3, Informative)

      by Violet Null ( 452694 )
      Let's have more computer news and stuff about FreeBSD and Linux and less "make fun of" news about Microsoft.

      Go here []. See the section entitled "Exclude Stories from the Homepage"? Find the box that says "Microsoft" and check it. Scroll all the way to the bottom and click the "Save" button. Walah.
    • you can always uncheck microsoft articles in your slashdot settings and then stop reading the comments posted under those articles. I for one want to know when Microsoft incorporates viruses into their software and any other time they screw up.
    • Agreed completely... I even stoped sending in stories since most of them are reject... reviews on linux products (distros, softs, hards, etc), new stuff I found, interesting server stuff, lots and lots of stories... none of them were published...
      • I also quit submitting stories after two were quickly rejected a couple of weeks ago. The kicker is that the story popped up submitted by someone else 4-5 hours later. I guess the news I submitted wasn't old enough *shrug*
    • Re:Give it a rest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan@elite m a i> on Friday June 14, 2002 @03:19PM (#3703401) Journal
      I don't know where to start.

      Slashdot is rapidly becoming useless with the constant derision it heaps on Microsoft. Let's have more computer news and stuff about FreeBSD and Linux and less "make fun of" news about Microsoft.

      Slashdot is hardly rapidly becoming useless. There is no lack of abundance of news about FreeBSD, Linux, Apache, Space, OS X, Wireless, and just about any other significant I/T and geeky topic.

      And while Linux has its problems, and you may not share the editors views about Microsoft, there are two facts about Microsoft that are hard to ignore:

      1) They are huge. Absolutely huge. They have a lot of influence in the I/T and software industry.
      2) Sometimes their market presence and control gives them reputation beyond what's deserved.

      You may not agree with #2, but consider: .NET barely exists right now. Their ads make it look like people are running serious production solutions on it right now. They claimed months back that Trustworthy Computing was their #1 priority. They just made a major gafe. They've ignored simple security problems for years because it suited them.

      I wouldn't claim their technology is useless. It has its high points, a few better than open source alternatives. The problem is that it's all too easy to fall into "They're big, they're #1, so it must be the best" viewing of Microsoft. Most of us who bring up reports like this one do so because we've put up with far too much of that kind of reasoning.

      As if Linux doesn't have it's problems. You might end up like Larry Ellison and his ridiculous "Unbreakable" claims.

      Of course, that's a problem with the Linux crowd. Feer of being, and being seen as, professional.

      Well, that wasn't anything like our petty digs at MS.

      Do you mean afraid to make claims like Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing" initiative and Oracle's "Unbreakable"? I don't see this as a problem in the open source world. OpenBSD is the only distro that comes close to making anything like an unbreakable claim, and it has history to back it up. We speak softly and upload running code. We release timely information about bugs, security holes, and patches. Cover ups are few. That's professional.

      Of course, yet again, it's so easy to confuse "big" and "professional".

  • by Real World Stuff ( 561780 ) <> on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:33PM (#3702506) Journal
    According to the Article, it appears that "Microsoft's flagship developer tools picked up the digital pest when a third-party company translated the program into Korean...".

    Ultimately it was MS's responsibility to verify they did not shit in their own bed, but how many of us look at every line of code in a distibuted or outsourced project.

    Just my $.0199999
    • They can be expected to verify the ISO image.

      Do you think they approved the disc without verifying all libraries, resources, etc., were present and properly named? (Okay, this *is* Microsoft but work with me here)

      If we can expect them to perform that level of checking, why can't we expect them to run a virus checker at the same time?
    • many of us look at every line of code in a distibuted or outsourced project.

      Well, we at least install it and see if it works right. We do this on machines that have AV protection.

      Bottom line, ther is NO excuse for this type of FU. Whoever is in charge of MS's QA should be fired. Immediately.

    • Ultimately it was MS's responsibility to verify they did not shit in their own bed, but how many of us look at every line of code in a distibuted or outsourced project.

      Well, you'd think they'd at least compare MD5 sums of the binaries they know didn't change. Besides being easy to do, it's just common sense.
  • Aside from the Trustworthy Computing crap, what does this really say about the industry-wide practice of outsourcing product translations? Anybody who's done software development knows that even the best products give internationalization secondary consideration, but I don't think anybody ever considered how little consideration is given by US companies to the translation and distribution of international versions of software. Perhaps this should serve as a sort of larger wake-up call for all of us.
  • Mod the parent up.....score +5 Funny. I was the first to find this thing on our servers and I understand why we got.....Microsoft getting it is TOO funny!
  • by elsegundo ( 316028 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:35PM (#3702526) Journal

    Leave out the middleman when it comes to distibuting viruses! Give it straight to your customers!
  • by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:36PM (#3702536)
    Microsoft today announced it's new "Don't ask, Don't tell" security initiative. Microsoft is now requesting that customers no longer ask if there are any security holes in its software. It is also strongly urging all media outlets to stop telling people about any possible security issues.

    A spokes person from Microsoft was quoted as saying "This is the best chance we have at cleaning up our image."

  • ..that the Korean government is investing in linux systems?

    Or maybe this is just another sleazy MS retaliation tactic?
    The fact that it backfired might just be proof.
  • Slamming MS (Score:5, Informative)

    by glh ( 14273 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:38PM (#3702553) Homepage Journal
    OK, someone messed up.. but it isn't as bad as it sounds. First off, it wasn't MS that put the virus in, it was some third party thing they used to convert the language to Korean. However, MS should have at least run virus scan on it before they shipped it. Second, the person running VS.NET would actually have to install IE 5.5 over IE 6 (why would anyone do that) and browse a certain help file in order for it to get infected.

    I'm not trying to defend MS. Just pointing out the facts (or at least how they were stated in the article). On one hand it's kind of funny to read through all the quick one-liner jokes about MS (definitely worth a chuckle) but I think MS isn't quite as bad as they're being made out to be.

    By the way, anyone know the company that wrote the nimda infected software?
    • Re:Slamming MS (Score:5, Informative)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:54PM (#3702692) Homepage Journal
      Actually, according to the article at least, Microsoft did scan the files for viruses prior to shipping. However, they apparently have it set up to only scan files that they expect to be there, and therefore missed the added Nimba file. The way I read it, the Nimba file is not really part of the package and can never be accessed in normal usage of the product, and can only be accessed if the user goes looking through the actual help files that come with the system.

      Assuming that by "help files" they mean "VS.Net Documentation" then there are quite a few help files covering everything from JScript, VB, C#, C++, to the Windows Platform API, the C# class library, and more - which means it'd be practically impossible to manage to find the one Nimba file amoungst the croud. However, if they just mean tool help, then that content is a lot more limited, but I somehow doubt that is the case.

      I have to wonder how much about that "scan only files that should be there" is really spin doctoring, and if they didn't really scan the disk and are instead coming up with an excuse for having missed the presence of the file.

      Anyway, the Slashdot writeup is, as usual, way overblown in its anti-Microsoft slant. If they're going to write tirades about McAfee scaremongering [], then they probably shouldn't do it themselves.

      (And, by the way, Michael is the author of both articles...)

      • 'I have to wonder how much about that "scan only files that should be there" is really spin doctoring'

        That's exactly what I thought. Who the hell writes scanning software that instead of 'scan *', only scans stuff on a list? The very fact that there ARE extra file(s) should immediately set of warning lights to any validation procedure worth it's salt, unless it's coded by a band of retarded monkeys.

        Oh wait, we're talking about Microsoft, nevermind.

    • On the contrary, I think this is worse that it's made out to be...

      Since we know for a fact that they didn't scan for a virus before burning it to CD and shipping it, why the Hell should we assume they do that for any of their products?

    • Re:Slamming MS (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrResistor ( 120588 )
      It's actually even more difficult than that. The infected file isn't an actual help file, it's an extra file that's not even supposed to be there, and isn't linked or referenced anywhere in VS.NET. They'd have to install IE 5.5 over IE 6 and browse to the directory the help files are kept in and actively search for and open the infected file.

      Really, it's a close to harmless as you can get, considering the astronomical improbability of someone executing the infected file by accident. Of course, one should never underestimate the ingenuity of fools, so I have no doubt that it will happen.

      On the whole, I have to give MS credit for the way they are handling this. They are offering free clean replacements to everyone who has an infected copy, they have a patch out, and they are spreading the news so that people are informed and thus able to fix the problem. I'm a little curious about the "patch", but I suppose it's a more reliable solution than just telling people to delete the file.

      Yes, I am pointing and laughing at MS right now, I am typically an MS basher after all, but at the end of the day I have to say that I wish they would deal with more of their problems as honorably as they've dealt with this one. It would have been really easy for them to sweep this under the rug and pretend it never existed.

    • Re:Slamming MS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:05PM (#3702770) Homepage
      I dont think anyone is going to excuse this just because MS was lucky that the chamber wasn't actually loaded. The trigger went off, and thats all the ammo I need to demand someone revoke the gun license.

      As for outsourcing, this is absolutely ludicrous that companies neednt take accountability for the actions of their contractors. Thats how all the clothing manufacturers dodged the anti-sweatshop movement. Now Nike/Espirit/Adidas/Gap/Etc doesn't employ the sweatshop workers, they contract them! Brilliant, and insedious. While it may not be fair to compare that to the IT world, it shows the extreme consequences of allowing companies to divest accountability for services and products offered under their brand. If we dont hold MS accountable in the least, wheres the motivation for them to be more careful with their contractor selection skills? They will continue to select contracts based on politics and economics rather than on the quality of the service/product being outsourced.

      I realize that its not *entirely* their fault, but it doesn't help with the kind of facade MS puts on. Just like Oracle's "unbreakable" claim, if you want to make claims that simply are not true or that you cant deliver on (I dont care if its your fault or not, you made the claim), you're never *ever* going to get the benifit of the doubt in this kind of situation. If you wanna make claims you cant back up, you dont deserve the benifit of the doubt. :)
  • From the article:
    "It's extremely unlikely that a developer would ever accidentally get infected by Nimda," said Flores. "They would have to try hard just to run the worm."

    So I guess its more like an Easter Egg. I hope this isn't World Cup related.
  • by Geeyzus ( 99967 ) <mark_madej@y[ ] ['aho' in gap]> on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:40PM (#3702567)
    That's an automated network stress testing utility, I'll have you know. Kudos to Microsoft for bundling this!

  • Just remember,

    It's not a bug, it's a feature!

    Now instead of working with those pesky Outlook and MS Word middlemen your system comes complete with virii pre-installed!!
  • The box comes with a virus ridden OS.

    And if you're a developer you can infect your products right from the delivery platform and onto the CD burner.

    No more waiting around until some moron uses Outlook to download one. Even boxes not connected to the net can be infected.

    If GM made a car this shoddy, they'd be dead.

    Will somebody hurry up and sue M$'s ass off.
    • If GM made a car this shoddy, they'd be dead.

      Lets just put this to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL.

      If GM makes a shoddy car, people DIE in a storm of fire and steal. Are we okay on that so far? Good, good.

      If MS makes shoddy software, NO ONE DIES.

      See how they are different? See how we have stricter standards for one, and not the other?

  • MCSEs have reviewed all code and certify it contains no unchecked buffers, the code is secure and Trustworthy.

  • If you actually read the article, there are very valid reasons (albeit mistakes) that this happened, and the likelyhood of the virus actually running on the machine is next to none. The Help system wouldn't ever open it.

    But hey, this is Slashdot. Let's all miss the relevant parts of the article and just bash "M$"! Yay, fun.
    • by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:19PM (#3702891) Homepage Journal

      You are missing the point. The problem isn't really that Microsoft is shipping a virus (although you have to admit that this is pretty darn funny). The problem is that Microsoft is shipping files that they don't know about. This file could have been anything.

      Microsoft has set up their business so that their customers have to trust them. There is no way for Microsoft's customers to verify that Microsoft software is safe. Yet time and time again Microsoft has shown that they simply are not particularly trustworthy. It has gotten so bad that it isn't just /. that is laughing at Microsoft. This particular story was published by CNET (which is a very Microsoft-friendly news source).

      • Now all we need to do is find a way to slip a GPL-ed file onto a Microsoft CD the same way this virus got there.

        They could clearly argue that the file was NOT part of their distribution, and therefore the product does not have to have source released under the GPL. But I'll bet until they finally came to that conclusion, there'd be a TON of Brownian motion in Redmond on the part of execs and lawyers.

        So before someone actually does this, the need to let the alternative energy people know, so the heat source can be tapped.
      • Microsoft has set up their business so that their customers have to trust them. There is no way for Microsoft's customers to verify that Microsoft software is safe.

        Umm, how about running a virus scanner?

  • by Paul Lamere ( 21149 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:50PM (#3702652) Homepage Journal
    This is just another example of Microsoft trying to bundle everything with windows. Now that they are bundling Nimda, Melissa is going to go right out of business.
  • Flores said that under Microsoft's security policy, the company normally scans every file being transferred to the master of a program. But in this case, the company only analyzed files it expected to find. Since the Nimda-infected file had been added by the worm, the company overlooked it.

    I would think one might look for something that shouldn't be there when trying to detect a virus. I guess MS has some more "advanced" method that I just can't grasp.

  • by Kozz ( 7764 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:52PM (#3702669)
    Truly, life indeed imitates art(satire). Microsoft Bundles Worm with IIS [].
  • by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @01:52PM (#3702676) Homepage Journal
    • No longer vulnerable to this virus

    How would you know they'd fixed IE if they didn't distribute a virus that no longer worked?
  • by Cheap Imitation ( 575717 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:05PM (#3702772)
    Leave it to Microsoft to change the meaning of "Virus Free".

    Now, instead of meaning it ships with no viruses, it means they include them at no extra charge!

  • But a third party company screwed this baby up in transition, not M$. Using this as a "M$-is-so-evil/incompetent" story is pretty inappropriate.

    There's many, many other reasons to dislike Microsoft. Taking one out of context only strengthen's Microsoft's hand and makes those who oppose Microsoft look petty.
    • But a third party company screwed this baby up in transition, not M$. Using this as a "M$-is-so-evil/incompetent" story is pretty inappropriate.

      If GM includes defective 3rd-party gas tanks and brake-pads in their vehicles, will you absolve them from blame? The sad thing was that this wasn't even a very subtle flaw. Microsoft could easily have found it with a slightly more robust virus checking process.

      "Trustworthy computing" means that your 3rd party suppliers are going to have to go through the wringer, too. Otherwise the phrase has no meaning, and there's nothing at all wrong with making this point.

  • And in other news, an Pakistani foreign national was detained in New York City today for what officials are calling "a suspected case of viral bioterrorism". The man, Rumollea Abdula Jabala, 30, was reported to be "coughing and sneezing", and "blowing his nose" by onlookers, who promptly called officials to report the situation.

    Jabala, who came to America on a work Visa, denies official reports that he deliberately caught the flu to infect persons in the USA whom he would come in contact with.

    Jabala is currently being held in a city hospital, under armed guard, until officials can verify any terrorist links.
  • Perspective (Score:3, Funny)

    by alacqua ( 535697 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:20PM (#3702897) Homepage
    They're worried about the viral nature of the GPL?
  • Trust No One (Score:2, Informative)

    by bsd-mon ( 515734 )
    I wouldn't say that the Trustworthy initiatiave failed, but this will hopefully teach MS the number one lesson in security and viruslessness - trust no one. In the end, my email system is only as virus free as yours. If you are infected by Klez/nimda/... you still harass my bandwidth and my procmail filters. I'm just not dumb enough to run that .exe that just sent me.

    Just because MS code and systems are "secure" and "virus-free", as soon as they hand the code off to someone else, the code is only as virus free as their system is.
  • view.asp

    And it will run on any platform too. :)

  • The latest release of Nimda has been infected with the Visual Studio.NET virus.
  • by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:48PM (#3703171) Journal
    See here [] for details.
  • Banner Ad (Score:3, Funny)

    by krulgar ( 250929 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @02:50PM (#3703180) Homepage
    When I read this article, the banner ad was for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET.

    It's that kind of policy that keeps me reading /.
  • Just to be fair... (Score:2, Informative)

    by newerbob ( 577746 )
    ...about three times that I can remember software from APPLE came with viruses. And this was direct from APPLE not by way of a translation company.

    Microsoft's agent that put the virus in is the culprit here, and the risk, as pointed out, is low.

  • by moocat2 ( 445256 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @03:07PM (#3703310)

    So, Microsoft only scans the files they expect to be part of the install but they ship all the files anyway. While there is no way from the outside to prove or disprove this statement, I think it's odd they aren't consistent in which files they choose to scan and which they choose to ship. A decent process would use a consistent way to manage it.

    At a minimum, I find this an example of the sloppy techniques I see all over the industry. Of course, sloppiness is one of the reasons that all these viruses keep finding new ways to infect software so I think it's a pretty big slap in the face for MS's Trustworthy Computing program.

  • ...or a complete incompetent doesn't know that Nimda is still out there and probing, daily.

    I'm seeing 40-80 probes daily (heh.. intermixed with 40-80 MS SQL port 1433 probes daily), on my firewall at home on a goddam dialup, fer krissakes...

    How the hell can *any* company, or *any* subcontractor not be aware of this ongoing problem?

    How the hell can any company with any pretensions to "Trustworthy Computing" have let this happen?

    Make no mistake (Micro$oft apologists notwithstanding): there is absolutely no excuse for this unparalleled screw-up.

    Do these people really think they are so all-powerful as to be immune to this sort of thing, or do they think they are so all-powerful that they just don't need to care?


  • Something about how Open Source software could have a virus on it?
  • They always screw up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @04:27PM (#3703788) Journal
    Most of the time that MS uses a third-party company, that company screws up. My question is, who exactly is in charge of seeking out and contracting with those companies? Fire him big time.
  • At last... (Score:4, Funny)

    by hakkikt ( 173329 ) on Friday June 14, 2002 @04:53PM (#3703947)
    ...M$ includes a really efficient piece of code with their compilers.

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court