4 ms·

Undetected only in the tongue-in-cheek sense. AARD was obviously intentional.

amiga386 3y ago
Intentional? Where is the specification explicitly asking for it? All we have are some memos asking Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? My point is that internal QA processes mean nothing if the company itself has nefarious intent. It can approve every violation of trust it wants to. But here we are cheering Dave Plummer reminiscing about 1990s Microsoft firing an intern and overlooking their underhanded behaviour as a company.
- hinkley 3y ago
  The AARD code ended up costing MS $280 million, not counting lawyer costs, in 1996 dollars when the new owners of DR DOS took them to court. Microsoft did unforgivable shit like this all the time, which is why some of us have never forgiven them. Bill Gates is a piece of shit trying to buy his way into heaven.
  - lordfrito 3y ago
    This is the way...
    - hinkley 3y ago
      There’s a reason Melinda’s name is on the foundation. I emphatically believe that if they hadn’t met he’d have spiraled out of control by now. I was going to make a joke about Melinda Gates deserving a Nobel, not Bill. In doing so I just learned that Bill tried to persuade the Nobel committee by using Jeremy Epstein’s help. What kind of help could Epstein provide other than blackmail?
  - duped 3y ago
    > Bill Gates is a piece of shit trying to buy his way into heaven. On the one hand, he fucked over some tech bros. On the other, he's using the money he made off that to cure malaria. What a garbage human being.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      He tried to make the entire Information Age about him. Do you think if Bill Gates and Larry Ellison didn’t exist, that Google’s original mantra would have been, “Don’t Be Evil”? I don’t.
- toast0 3y ago
  > Where is the specification explicitly asking for it? Edit: actually check the docs [1], there are some specs. But anyway, assuming that memo was all... I never worked for Microsoft, and I know they did do some real design and specification work in this time period, but in my experience, this looks like as much of a specification as I usually get: > Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS." Tell me what the user's outcome is (user with DR-DOS is uncomfortable and thinks they have bugs), tell me what the desired user response is (buy MS-DOS and retry), and let me figure out the rest. Sounds like detect DR-DOS explicitly or implicitly, and fail occassionally, and cast asperssions in the error messages. Something like relying on internal layout of memory where MS-DOS always does it one way but DR-DOS doesn't always would be great (add comments to make sure MS engineers don't change it!) ; but I think they went with direct detection and intentional breakage. I don't think this was a good choice for MS, but I don't think the specification was unclear even if it wasn't detailed. I've done similar work that I don't feel bad about; unapproved 3rd party clients were using my service and I held them to a very strict API; not my fault they didn't have API docs and only reverse engineered 2/3rds of the requests. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180803194008/http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01133.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180803194008/http://antitrust....
- metabagel 3y ago
  I don’t get why you think QA should catch and presumably block a feature which the executives of the company were asking for. QA works for those same executives. There’s nothing rogue about the Microsoft example.

Intentional? Where is the specification explicitly asking for it? All we have are some memos asking Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? My point is that internal QA processes mean nothing if the company itself has nefarious intent. It can approve every violation of trust it wants to. But here we are cheering Dave Plummer reminiscing about 1990s Microsoft firing an intern and overlooking their underhanded behaviour as a company.

hinkley 3y ago
The AARD code ended up costing MS $280 million, not counting lawyer costs, in 1996 dollars when the new owners of DR DOS took them to court. Microsoft did unforgivable shit like this all the time, which is why some of us have never forgiven them. Bill Gates is a piece of shit trying to buy his way into heaven.
- lordfrito 3y ago
  This is the way...
  - hinkley 3y ago
    There’s a reason Melinda’s name is on the foundation. I emphatically believe that if they hadn’t met he’d have spiraled out of control by now. I was going to make a joke about Melinda Gates deserving a Nobel, not Bill. In doing so I just learned that Bill tried to persuade the Nobel committee by using Jeremy Epstein’s help. What kind of help could Epstein provide other than blackmail?
- duped 3y ago
  > Bill Gates is a piece of shit trying to buy his way into heaven. On the one hand, he fucked over some tech bros. On the other, he's using the money he made off that to cure malaria. What a garbage human being.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    He tried to make the entire Information Age about him. Do you think if Bill Gates and Larry Ellison didn’t exist, that Google’s original mantra would have been, “Don’t Be Evil”? I don’t.
toast0 3y ago
> Where is the specification explicitly asking for it? Edit: actually check the docs [1], there are some specs. But anyway, assuming that memo was all... I never worked for Microsoft, and I know they did do some real design and specification work in this time period, but in my experience, this looks like as much of a specification as I usually get: > Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS." Tell me what the user's outcome is (user with DR-DOS is uncomfortable and thinks they have bugs), tell me what the desired user response is (buy MS-DOS and retry), and let me figure out the rest. Sounds like detect DR-DOS explicitly or implicitly, and fail occassionally, and cast asperssions in the error messages. Something like relying on internal layout of memory where MS-DOS always does it one way but DR-DOS doesn't always would be great (add comments to make sure MS engineers don't change it!) ; but I think they went with direct detection and intentional breakage. I don't think this was a good choice for MS, but I don't think the specification was unclear even if it wasn't detailed. I've done similar work that I don't feel bad about; unapproved 3rd party clients were using my service and I held them to a very strict API; not my fault they didn't have API docs and only reverse engineered 2/3rds of the requests. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180803194008/http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01133.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180803194008/http://antitrust....
metabagel 3y ago
I don’t get why you think QA should catch and presumably block a feature which the executives of the company were asking for. QA works for those same executives. There’s nothing rogue about the Microsoft example.