MacWorld Predictions?

[mikec#IM]

Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:


Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.

crazy was wrong too, but that's okay. those articles are poorly written.

You can spin any way you want...it was obvious what you said. And now you try to change it...and guess what, you are still wrong.

You said "Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search" in post 102. This is 100% false.

It was wrong when you said it the first time, the second time, and every subsequent time. Repeating it will not make it true.

 

[mikec#IM]

It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
Why do you think this is not real? You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information.
And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.



It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.

Archie,

For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)

But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.

 

[mikec#IM]

archie, you are wrong again. I am not "in IT." I was a microprocessor designer for many years, and now I'm in an unrelated field.

And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT *addition* of WDS, but *prevention* of other (unsecure) search tools.

And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.

I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.

Seldom? I thought we were all kum-bay-yah after the battery discussion I don't recall any major disagreements sicne then.

As for your post, it is spot on.

 

[archie]

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.

"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."​

Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when I say that is what it does as well.

 

[archie]

Archie,

For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)

Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.

But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.

It does, you just said so yourself.

 

[cmaier]

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.

"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."​

Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when I say that is what it does as well.

All that says is: "if you are going to have search, you must control what can be searched." It does NOT say: "you must have search."

Your statement was that SOX requires search. Not that "SOX required microsoft to take its search tool and add policies to it."

 

[mikec#IM]

Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.

"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."​

Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when I say that is what it does as well.

Hmmm...this just looks like permission setting to me. It's not SOX related.

Sorry, but you keep providing "evidence" that have nothing to do with your assertion.

 

[mikec#IM]

Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.

It does, you just said so yourself.

"Moron?" Oh, the humanity! I hope the mods protect me from such harmful insults! Last layer of defense when you know you are wrong...name calling.

"Software companies were called upon"....um, I really think youdon't understand how software get's made and marketed. There are lot of "SOX" related software software/solutions out there, bu again, WDS was not made to adddress that. Integratiing it with Active DIrectory != SOX driven.

Maybe I should pick another obvious "free" software upgrade, and you can try to spin that. Or will it all be SOX related, no matter what?

I'm not sure why you said "you said so yourself" (referring to this being SOX related). I never did, and that is a lie. You like to lie, as you are patholgoically incapabale of separating your incorrect interpretations from reality.

Amy Winehouse callled...she wants her crack pipe back.

 

[Dieter Bohn]

we're done here.