People who keep old cars and bikes going
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for making pattern spares for vehicles out of production?
It strikes me that keeping abandonware going should be legal provided its status is made clear.
Microsoft Equation Editor was sentenced to death on January 9, 2018 at the age of 17, when a software update from Redmond removed five files necessary for the application to function. Only a few months ago, the Windows giant thought its Equation Editor could be saved: its software engineers, lacking access to the ancient app's …
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for making pattern spares for vehicles out of production?
Here in the US, prosecution would most likely result from failure to obtain the obscure but required federal and state agency permits, and for neglecting to submit an EIS* performed by an accredited firm. For software patches, the EIS may not be required.
Abandonware: logical follow-on to Caveat Emptor. "Oh, you thought we'd support that forever? And no, we won't release the code. We own it (lost it, sold it, destroyed it, misfiled it somewhere...)
*Environmental Impact Statement: months to perform @ multi-K $
"Has anyone ever been prosecuted for making pattern spares for vehicles out of production?"
Not really a good analogy. This is more like making a tool that enables you to modify a vehicle to fix an inherent fault. Which is unlikely to be illegal. Pattern parts would depend if they were still under copyright and / or patents.
Microsoft have NOT removed equation editor. All they have removed is the ability to edit equations originally built in the 3.0 version of the product (so from Office 2003 and older). Rather a large difference.
Apparently the author of the article hasn't actually read the Microsoft page he links to:
"You can insert and edit new equations using the editor built into Office version 2007 or later. For more information about inserting and editing equations, see Write, insert, or change an equation. However, you will not be able to edit existing equations that were inserted using Equation Editor 3.0 in that manner."
The current equation editor will not edit equations created in Equation Editor 3. It is also not as capable as 3.0. Many teachers and academics have now lost the ability to edit their own equations in their documents and presentations. Fortunately, I still have an XP machine with Word 2003 and the editor intact - sometimes there are benefits to not getting updates.
See here for some of the problems:
When asked, I make a few repops for various makes & models ranging from chainsaws & 2-wheel tractors, to cars, trucks & airplanes. Including badges & logos, along with drive-train and suspension parts and the like. The restoration crowd pays nicely for quality parts. Nobody's bitched about it. Yet.
>Has anyone ever been prosecuted for making pattern spares<
Not in the USA, since the /reason/ it is legal in the USA is /specifically/ because of the strength of the after-market automotive spares industry.
Other countries (Aus, Malaysia), not so legal. It would depend on if the company (say "microsoft") was trying to protect the market share of a more recent product ("ms office 2016")
>Microsoft have NOT removed equation editor<
Microsoft HAVE removed Equation Editor. They have not removed the ability to edit equations (except equations created using Equation Editor), because Office now has the ability to edit equations natively.
"Microsoft HAVE removed Equation Editor"
I just checked. The updates just disable the ability to edit very old versions. You can still create / edit new equations.
"because Office now has the ability to edit editions natively"
So it still has an equation editor built in. Which the article didn't in anyway make clear.
It still has an equation editor built in. The only thing they have removed is Equation Editor.
Office still includes Word and Excel. It no longer includes Binder, Microsoft Mail, or Equation Editor.
If MS removed Excel from Office, you would still be able to make spreadsheets using Word tables and VBA. Would it work exactly the same? No, removing Excel would be much worse than removing Equation Editor.
An example of how users get screwed by MS again. One BIG reason for sticking to a product is the ability to keep updating or re-using existing work, and for the science lot MS has just thrown that away.
Yes, WORD has its own equation editor function now but it is a bit crap compared to the one just dropped and those with many existing documents and papers are now looking at having to re-enter it with all of the typos / bugginess that brings.
WTF were they thinking? Can't they have a format converter that actually works if they are going to do this?
Another example of something unique, and quite handy, that people actually use, being purchased and then screwed up by Microsoft.
My wife is a retired Math teacher. Equation editors are quite hard to find (good ones, at least), and she liked this one. Without going to LATEX, this is probably the only one worth using, as her school is a Microsoft shop.
(WORD has its own equation editor, which is *different * from this one? The mind boggles)
// near contest between the WTF? and FAIL icons
And might go offline for a time due to cloudy issues or connection problems. Also Google reserves the right to 'read' all documents created on their cloud.
If I was in business I would not put any business sensitive data into a Google Doc. If Google can read them then industrial spies can too. If you think the likes of NK, Iran, Russia, China etc are not sniffing those in search of industrial/tech secrets you are naive.
"You missed the pun."
I think it was just ignorance / poor education along the lines of someone using broke as an adjective when they mean broken. In the three English dictionaries I have to hand - Oxford, Longman, and Collins - the conjugation of bite is bite-bit-bitten. That is, bit is only used for past tense, and not as past participle. And it sounds awful.
a) How can they be so stupid as to lose source?
b) Only seems to affect older versions?
c) MS word gone downhill since 2003 (so has Windows). Excel and Word used to be best and most widely used windows. From 1st versions it was very good.
e) LibreOffice opens, edits and saves both old and new Office docs and has an equation editor. Works on more platforms and much cheaper.
The story and analogies are a little confusing.
ALSO, I don't open Office documents from untrusted sources. Stopped using MS Office in early 2016 and stopped using Windows (except for some games) since Dec 2016. I have two newish machines (desktop & 10" Linx tablet/netbook) with win10, just to boot and laugh at the update cycle. Idiotic GUI and update system even compared to win 7 with Aero off, though even win7 is too flat. I have Win7 ultimate on a Compaq and it's sad compared to a properly installed XP ... or Linux Mint with Mate desktop, that has REAL themes. MS idea of a theme seems to be a couple of desktop colours and a different desktop slide show!
Really MS have lost the plot, but I was confused by the article too.
Open Source fans usually rattle off a long litany of reasons why having access to the source code is desirable.
The vendor losing said source code is not usually one of them.
Well done, MS. Maybe it was Visual SourceSafe wot did it?
Given that Equation Editor was a 3rd party tool, sublicensed by Microsoft, I suspect they never had a copy of to the source files in the first place. Assuming they had access to source code in the first place, it is not the same as having a copy of it which you can keep "just in case the original author loses it".
Good point from both of you. But, whatever the reason for that lack of access to the source code, this has worrying implications for users:
- MS doesn't have the code, so what you did with the app may not always be accessible, as almost happened here.
- lacking source code may (or may not, depending on how good we are scanning binaries) have implications on the discovery of vulnerabilities. And Office is well known as a vector of malware.
- at best, you can assume "feature freeze" on this functionality.
- one would assume, but wrongly so apparently, that whatever proprietary, closed-source, code MS is selling you, they themselves at least have the source.
BTW, it's not Data Science, it's Design Science. see https://superuser.com/questions/198358/differences-between-mathtype-and-equation-editor-format-in-microsoft-word
A source code escrow mostly is written to cover the case where the party owning the original code goes out of business. If they are not, the escrow would not necessarily trigger. Design Science is still running.
MS has, in a past life at least, though others may argue that it still happens, shafted partners. For that reason, there are large disincentives to giving MS source code access. And, in that context, the fact that Word now packs its own little editor would hardly be reassuring to the code's originator.
So, basically, while I am willing to live with "binary blobs" as an end user, I am less than thrilled that a vendor of MS's stature would pass on code that they themselves don't have good visibility on. It's not the end of the world, but this little mess is a direct, practical and not just ideological, argument in favor of Open Source.
If they can find a way to have the ntbackup frontend on the new windows server backup thingy, then it'll be a sure winner.
Setting it up (windows server backup) takes a tad longer than setting up a backup job in ntbackup. And you don't have a drill-down approach if you just want to restore one file. (unless I'm mistaken).
But for now I am forced to use WSB to back up VM's and data, as ntbackup just can't do that.
Didn't they use sourcesafe ?
Anyway, I will bet that the source isn't "lost". It's all there. In fact, probably a bit too much.
The real problem is they have no idea what combination of patches and modules actually compiles to the binaries they've been shipping. So they can't "tweak" the program without a thorough testing cycle of the base source beforehand.
The voice of reason being drowned out again.
The software precisely described as Equation Editor 3.0 has been removed.
No it hasn't, there is something with a vaguely similar name doing a vaguely similar job but not as well (and as far as I can tell based on completely different code). So EE3.0 hasn't been removed at all!
This does have advantages as an argument, of course. M$ could remove Microsoft Office, then claim they haven't because there is still an Office suite (LibreOffice) with a vaguely similar name doing a vaguely similar job and based on completely different code.
Oh, and I think that M$ are one of the very few software suppliers which really try to maintain backwards compatability with earlier versions even though this helps people run old software for a decade or more without any further payment.
Damn, I think I just ended up taking Microsoft’s side on this one. Apart from them being dumb enough to lose the old source code. There must be a developer out there somewhere with a copy on a floppy.
Anyway, you can buy the paid version from a 3rd party. Hmmm.......conspiracy antennae just twitched a bit.
So let the upvotes commence. Go on, you know you want to!
Airplane engine... In flight... With a spanner. Yeah, no, I don't think so.
I once discovered a bug in Logitech's serial mouse driver (DOS) that forgot to account for a separate mode bit when checking the display setting. I found where it made the comparison. Then I found an inefficient bit of code nearby, tightened it up, which made a hole big enough to add my patch and a jump around it. All in machine language, not a source line in sight.
Then I sent the patch and an explanation to Logitech. They didn't respond, but the next release of the driver was fixed.
The point being that any reasonably competent machine language programmer can do this stuff. It only LOOKS like doing brain surgery on yourself if you only ever work in high level languages.
"The point being that any reasonably competent machine language programmer can do this stuff."
At one company I worked for we had some embedded code that was taking a little too long to run. We had the source, great, but not the VAX software to compile it on (£75000 IIRC). Fortunately we had the compiler output and and assembler. Each subroutine looked something like this:
mov R3, R9
mov R4, R10
.....lot of code not using R3, R4, R9 or R10 at all
mov R9, R3
return (not using R3 or R4)
We guessed the compiler had been ported from one cpu architecture to another and this minor redundancy had not been noticed. But it hardly mattered.
Write a macro to remove all that redundant code and suddenly everything ran a lot faster.
We had a device where there was 16K of ROM code space and the Keil 8051 C code compiled to about 400 bytes too much.
What shall we remove?
I compiled the code to intermediate assembler and started looking. I found several issues of wasted space such as a move from one register to another immediately followed by the same instruction. The odd padding NOP that wasn't needed. There were JMP to RETs that could have been just a RET and so on.
I ended up writing a parser, in C of course, with about 10 passes of the assembler, doing one compression at a time, nothing fancy. Obviously, there had to be computations changed for anything after a JMP/RET replacement until said RET was reached etc. ISTR having to keep a table for each module for fixups at the end, labels I am sure.
We saved enough code to have a couple of hundred bytes spare for actual bugs found during testing, although that code was never replaced, the first and only version lasted for the life of the product - which wasn't that long really,
Anyone that bought the Philips Pager that Alan Shearer advertised all that time ago will have used that code.
I am one of those guys exasperated by the thought of retyping hundreds of equations for the next lecture. So I patched the EE based on the 0patch guide and I'll post my comments on the process here.
It took me some minutes to find the required EQNEDT32.EXE version 2017.8.14.0 on one of my computers. Desperate users can also find the files online. The rest of the patching process was painless.
It may be possible to substitute EE patching with installation of the freeware MathType -- something not mentioned in the ElReg article. A comment on the 0patch blog states: "... we recommend Equation Editor users download and install the MathType 30-day trial. After the trial period, it becomes MathType Lite, which is free forever, has essentially the same features as Equation Editor, and will receive the same security updates as a MathType registered version." I didn't try it, but maybe someone else could comment on the functionality of MathType lite.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018