Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Igor Peshansky]

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later...  The surprising thing is
that they only started redirecting to the Microsoft site yesterday (the
day before I showed one of my colleagues how to download Process Explorer,
and it was still the old SysInternals.com site).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

RE: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Dave Korn]

On 08 November 2006 14:12, Igor Peshansky wrote:

> Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later...  

  The acquisition was some time ago as it happens; it was fairly widely
discussed at the time.

> The surprising thing is
> that they only started redirecting to the Microsoft site yesterday (the
> day before I showed one of my colleagues how to download Process Explorer,
> and it was still the old SysInternals.com site).

  And guess what!  The scumbags have withdrawn all of sysinternals' source
codes, using the bogus 'explanation' that it might cause "integration problems
[...] with other Windows components".  MS is acting like the worst cliched
stereotype of itself.  <spit>

  Never forget, however, that your use of the tools remains governed by the
original sysinternals license, which contained no provisions for transfer or
assignment[*], and not any new "improved" MS licensing terms...

    cheers,
      DaveK
[*] -
http://web.archive.org/web/20050323060844/http://www.sysinternals.com/licensin
g.shtml
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Jonathan Arnold]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 08 November 2006 14:12, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> 
>> Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later...  
> 
>   The acquisition was some time ago as it happens; it was fairly widely
> discussed at the time.

Yup, and I was just waiting for the hammer to fall.

>> The surprising thing is
>> that they only started redirecting to the Microsoft site yesterday (the
>> day before I showed one of my colleagues how to download Process Explorer,
>> and it was still the old SysInternals.com site).
> 
>   And guess what!  The scumbags have withdrawn all of sysinternals' source
> codes, using the bogus 'explanation' that it might cause "integration problems
> [...] with other Windows components".  MS is acting like the worst cliched
> stereotype of itself.  <spit>

And that was it exactly.  What an incredibly bogus explanation! And to do it so
"breathlessly" to make it sound like it even made sense:

http://blogs.technet.com/sysinternals/archive/2006/10/30/sysinternals-site-migration.aspx

"Source Code: The number of source code downloads didn't justify
the migration, support, and possible integration problems it might
cause with other Windows components down the road."

Ack. Gag me with a spoon already. "Justify" indeed.

-- 
Jonathan Arnold                       http://www.buddydog.org

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Brian Dessent]

Dave Korn wrote:

>   And guess what!  The scumbags have withdrawn all of sysinternals' source
> codes, using the bogus 'explanation' that it might cause "integration problems
> [...] with other Windows components".  MS is acting like the worst cliched
> stereotype of itself.  <spit>
> 
>   Never forget, however, that your use of the tools remains governed by the
> original sysinternals license, which contained no provisions for transfer or
> assignment[*], and not any new "improved" MS licensing terms...

Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
package on the site on that date:

http://dessent.net/tmp/Sysinternals-all-2006-07-18.rar [13.1 MB]

Brian

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:35:25PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>   And guess what!  The scumbags have withdrawn all of sysinternals' source
>> codes, using the bogus 'explanation' that it might cause "integration problems
>> [...] with other Windows components".  MS is acting like the worst cliched
>> stereotype of itself.  <spit>
>> 
>>   Never forget, however, that your use of the tools remains governed by the
>> original sysinternals license, which contained no provisions for transfer or
>> assignment[*], and not any new "improved" MS licensing terms...
>
>Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
>fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
>package on the site on that date:
>
>http://dessent.net/tmp/Sysinternals-all-2006-07-18.rar [13.1 MB]

Wow.  "Somebody" showed remarkable foresight.

It never occurred to me to do that.  I thought the site would stick
around in more-or-less it's standard form.

I'm so naive sometimes.

cgf

RE: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Dave Korn]

On 08 November 2006 20:35, Brian y wrote:


> Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
> fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
> package on the site on that date:

  Please pass on my greatest thanks to "somebody".  The archive has been
promptly snarfed and mirrored!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Charles Wilson]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 08 November 2006 20:35, Brian y wrote:
>> Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
>> fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
>> package on the site on that date:
> 
>   Please pass on my greatest thanks to "somebody".  The archive has been
> promptly snarfed and mirrored!

Notably, other "somebodies" put similar archives on the various 
file-sharing networks...

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=sysinternals

--
Chuck

RE: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Dave Korn]

On 09 November 2006 04:00, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 08 November 2006 20:35, Brian y wrote:
>>> Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
>>> fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
>>> package on the site on that date:
>> 
>>   Please pass on my greatest thanks to "somebody".  The archive has been
>> promptly snarfed and mirrored!
> 
> Notably, other "somebodies" put similar archives on the various
> file-sharing networks...
> 
> http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=sysinternals


  Yes, that's good to know.  The mirror had to be taken down for fear of
licensing/copyright issues.  It would have been a shame for all that knowledge
to be lost to the world forever...

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Robert Pendell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09 November 2006 04:00, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 08 November 2006 20:35, Brian y wrote:
>>>> Yes, this was foreseen to happen when the announcement was made, and
>>>> fortunately somebody made a copy of every utility and source code
>>>> package on the site on that date:
>>>   Please pass on my greatest thanks to "somebody".  The archive has been
>>> promptly snarfed and mirrored!
>> Notably, other "somebodies" put similar archives on the various
>> file-sharing networks...
>>
>> http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=sysinternals
> 
> 
>   Yes, that's good to know.  The mirror had to be taken down for fear of
> licensing/copyright issues.  It would have been a shame for all that knowledge
> to be lost to the world forever...
> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK

Since the older software is still under the older license do you guys
think it would be safe for me to re-distribute the software on my own site?

On a, sort of, unreleated note here.  Did anyone notice that NTFSDOS
disappeared?  I still have an older copy of it.  The read only version
but that has always worked out fine.  Can't find it on the "new"
sysinternals site.

- --
Robert Pendell
shinji257@uplink.net

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFVrbROzNfzNFG1LQRAiD7AJ911NkEu195AdUFWb+X2MqDPKpKAwCfVlQ6
xxu4HsakOug31qMGtygxeio=
=0+bi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Dave Korn]

On 12 November 2006 05:53, Robert Pendell wrote:


> Since the older software is still under the older license do you guys
> think it would be safe for me to re-distribute the software on my own site?

  No.  Neither license permits redistribution.

> On a, sort of, unreleated note here.  Did anyone notice that NTFSDOS
> disappeared?  I still have an older copy of it.  The read only version
> but that has always worked out fine.  Can't find it on the "new"
> sysinternals site.

  I didn't notice that, but I did spot something about how they weren't going
to support the entire tool range.  I see TDIMon is missing as well.  Ah,
here's the rationale for not migrating NTFSDOS:

http://blogs.technet.com/sysinternals/archive/2006/10/30/sysinternals-site-mig
ration.aspx

Downloads: We will be migrating most Sysinternals tools to Microsoft.Com
Downloads which has additional bandwidth for a better end-user experience. At
Mark’s direction, we are not going to be migrating 100% of the tools for one
of the following reasons:

1.     It only worked on Win9x or DOS – the number of downloads didn’t justify
the migration. These were eventually going to be removed from Sysinternals
anyway.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Microsoft acquired SysInternals?

[Robert Pendell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12 November 2006 05:53, Robert Pendell wrote:
> 
> 
>> Since the older software is still under the older license do you guys
>> think it would be safe for me to re-distribute the software on my own site?
> 
>   No.  Neither license permits redistribution.
> 

Ahh... OK.  Never did read through the original license agreement.
Thanks for letting me know about that.

>> On a, sort of, unreleated note here.  Did anyone notice that NTFSDOS
>> disappeared?  I still have an older copy of it.  The read only version
>> but that has always worked out fine.  Can't find it on the "new"
>> sysinternals site.
> 
>   I didn't notice that, but I did spot something about how they weren't going
> to support the entire tool range.  I see TDIMon is missing as well.  Ah,
> here's the rationale for not migrating NTFSDOS:
> 
> http://blogs.technet.com/sysinternals/archive/2006/10/30/sysinternals-site-mig
> ration.aspx
> 
> Downloads: We will be migrating most Sysinternals tools to Microsoft.Com
> Downloads which has additional bandwidth for a better end-user experience. At
> Mark?s direction, we are not going to be migrating 100% of the tools for one
> of the following reasons:
> 
> 1.     It only worked on Win9x or DOS ? the number of downloads didn?t justify
> the migration. These were eventually going to be removed from Sysinternals
> anyway.
> 

Well that explains alot.  I love NTFSDOS though and use it for
file-recovery purposes.  I guess I can see where they were going with it
though.

- --
Robert Pendell
shinji257@uplink.net

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFV/NLOzNfzNFG1LQRAkCoAJ4wjje8YarU61ILWUNl0KB8UHxozgCgndrl
ly6CH7P7SccQ3ypb72i4+Xg=
=xB0R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----