[Gllug] Microsoft don't acknowledge Linux trademark.

[Chris Ball]

On Tue, 2001-11-06 at 22:31, Steve Nicholson wrote:
> Interesting article, I get the feeling they are trying to stop people
> from telling everyone what M$ vulnerabilities are by being responsible!?

Yes, exactly.

> I do appreciated what he is saying, stopping telling people how to exploit
> these vulnerabilities and it will make the world a safer place.

His rationale makes a tiny amount of sense.  Think about it, though:

Microsoft would get in less trouble in the media and lose less
reputation if there wasn't exploitable code for their weak systems. It
would it save them money.  And there's nothing wrong with that, but the
the key point for me is:

Would they still acknowledge and quickly develop patches for exploits
that hadn't be proven by code that took advantage of said exploits, and
/weren't/ out trawling the Internet already or causing systems to be
compromised?  I don't think so.  Would this in fact /decrease/ the
security of their product, rather than 'make the world a safer place'? 
I think it would.

And I'm not even usually a Microsoft basher.  :-)

> And yes I think they should have acknowledged the Linux trademark.

Undoubtedly, they should have.  Whether there are consequences for them
not doing so is something else; does anyone think they did it on
purpose?  Do they have anything to gain by Linux losing its trademark?
Does this form a challenge to the trademark, or would that only really
be made by an unchallenged 'Foo's Linux Distribution', without
acknowledgement of the trademark..?

~C.

-- 
$a="printf.net"; Chris Ball | chris at void.$a | www.$a | finger: chris@$a
         "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."          


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug