Re: OT - grc.com down?
From: Joseph V. Morris (jvmorris@erols.com)Date: 03/17/02
- Next message: r smith: "Re: help interpreting netmon activity?"
- Previous message: Donut: "Re: Tiny vulnerability not fixed."
- In reply to: The Equalizer: "Re: OT - grc.com down?"
- Next in thread: Alexander Delarge: "Re: OT - grc.com down?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Joseph V. Morris" <jvmorris@erols.com> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:52:52 -0500
Hi, guy,
Well, we're getting way off the original topic (as Dave has noted), but I
thought you deserved a thoughtful response.
First, I didn't start making nasty comments about Steve. Tony did.
Swingman asked why, and Cichlidiot responded (perhaps in the wrong part of
the thread).
Actually, when I started writing that response (to Cichlidiot), all I
really intended to do was point out that _some_ people weren't even all
that happy with Steve in regards to SpinRite. In one sense, I did
(indeed) go overboard later in my response (by getting further off-topic).
However, in the course of writing it, I was confronted with the dilemma of
what happens if I fail to say everything I (or others) believe about the
subject that Swingman (or was it Tony?) raised?
"The Equalizer" <equalizer@not.real.address.com> wrote in message
news:3C93B601.841AA114@not.real.address.com...
| "Joseph V. Morris" wrote:
. . . .
| > Spinrite first appeared in the Windows 3.x era. There are more than a
few
| > Win3x users that bought (since you couldn't download it via the Web,
at
| > the time) SpinRite and had their Winchester drives (as we used to
refer to
| > them) irrecoverably damaged as a consequence. . . . .
I was warned off (again, please note that I have never used SpinRite) by
an FBI IS specialist, when I proposed incorporating SpinRite as a
recommended system utility for an application that I was developing for
them. It was several years later that I began to hear the horror stories
from individuals that _had_ bought it and tried to use it. (And again, as
your Google search makes quite clear, this is hardly the dominant
response.) I thought I had made in clear (in my response on this
particular subject) that I was simply recounting the rather emotional
response of other individuals that would never again have anything to do
with Steve Gibson.
| I was around for that saga. IIRC, here is a response to that difficult
| situation Steve was in, that he had posted to UseNet or to whom it may
| concern:
|
|
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22steve+gibson%22+Spinrite+3.0&start=1
0&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&selm=93161.083140ASDBT%40ASU
ACAD.BITNET&rnum=12>
|
| I think this explains exactly what happened, and demonstrates Steve's
| basic integrity and honorable efforts to take responsibility for his
| errors in judgment.
Well, actually no. That doesn't address the complaint that I had heard
(repeatedly, by now). Specifically, Steve doesn't address the complaints
I found as to what happened when certain individuals ran SpinRite on their
particular system configurations; it simply addresses a delay in the
release of SpinRite 3.1. That's hardly the same thing. As a matter of
fact, I'm fairly certain that the hostile reaction resulted from an
earlier version of SpinRite, but I'd have to fire up an old computer that
I'm no longer using to confirm that.
|
| I often appreciate your contributions here and in the grc.com tech
| forums, JVM. But I'm not sure why you are distorting this particular
| OLD news, out of context, with no supporting documentation for your
| adverse commentary on Steve's Spinrite product. Were you just going for
| implication and innuendo?
Well, on that particular issue, I'm not really distorting. I'm simply
noting responses from multiple early SpinRite adopters who will never,
ever have anything further to do with Steve Gibson. (Indeed, many of them
were unaware of the fact that Steve had a website when this subject first
came up.) Now, some of these guys are, in fact, active in USENET
newsgroups to this day (indeed, originally, that was where I found all of
them), but they're unlikely to read this thread, for the simple matter
that they could care less about the GRC newsgroups and website. (I know
them after all these years, I know they aren't going to read this
particular thread, I know what they have emphatically stated repeatedly in
other USENET newsgroups and threads.) Actually, all I was trying to do
was also bring this information to Swingman's attention. He, of course,
can do his own Google searches if he chooses to pursue this matter
further.
I don't see any of the specific discussion that I made about SpinRite as
being fairly characterized as 'implication and innuendo' under these
circumstances. I wrote from memory (and so indicated) and I certainly
tried to qualify my statements on that particular subject. Since the
sources were largely derived from USENET posts and private e-mails
subsequently received (years ago, I might add), that was about as far as I
was willing to go.
| Spinrite (I now have 5.0) has saved my and my company's butt/s many
| times when we needed hard drive maintenance and competent data
| recovery. Shit happens. Really glad I've had Spinrite to help out, and
| really look forward to the NT version for NTFS. It'll happen, and be
| first rate when it does.
I was talking about an extremely early version of SpinRite (I thought I
made that clear) -- and the reaction it drew from several early adaptors
who actually spent a lot of time 'under the hood' with their PCs. I said
absolutely nothing about recent versions, primarily because I have no
knowledge or input on them.
| As for the rest of your diatribe at Steve, that seemed to be quite
| biased also. Not worthy of one as obviously knowledgeable and
| technically competent as you seem to be, imo.
Well, let me go back and take a look . . . . First, you are aware of
course, that I'm perfectly willing to rip any vendor (especially Symantec)
when they screw up -- in my personal opinion? That's clearly documented
in the GRC newsgroups, itself. And I assume that you are not maintaining
that Steve himself is inviolate as far as critical comments are concerned?
Okay, I see I said:
"To some extent, Steve's writings on Internet PC security are a valuable
introduction to the novice PC user who has become concerned about these
issues. However, there is a lot of hype, sensationalism, and
self-promotion in his writings, he doesn't date his pages and he doesn't
correct them afterwards when situations have changed. He does not
acknowledge the work of his predecessors on whom some of his 'original'
work would appear to be inescapably based. . . ."
Well, most of that is rather clearly personal opinion or observation (on
my part), but it's also a widely held opinion by quite a few others. I
don't see any 'bias' there, just a statement of my opinion, which
(apparently) is rather widely shared by quite a few others.
Next paragraph: I will stand by my previous observation about the
overwhelming use of personal pronouns on Steve's part and the amazing lack
of acknowledgment of the work previously done by other in the computer
security field. And I will, again, acknowledge that Steve is getting a
bit better on these issues recently.
I will also stand by my previous assessment of Steve's reaction when he
finally recognized that BID was not a personal software firewall (PSF),
but rather an IDS (no matter what Network ICE's marketeers may have
subsequently said in response to Steve's promotion). I was there when
Steve was unabashedly himself promoting BID as a personal software
firewall. His conduct in this affair borders on being disgraceful;
indeed, it is the primary source of many critics who consider that his
efforts are largely self-promotional.
Similarly, (and after reviewing my initial posting) I will stand by my
(personal) characterization of the general tenor of many of the GRC
newsgroups. Please note: this is a 'general' characterization, and not
intended to characterize any (or all) specific individuals who post there.
Indeed, there are quite a few people there who are indisputably quite
knowledgeable, informative, and though-provoking in their comments. (As a
matter of fact, I just got through the other day referencing a most
interesting observation by Phil Youngblood in an entirely different
forum.) Unfortunately, these individuals' postings tend to get lost in
the overwhelming volume of shrill nonsense.
Steve is quite aware of what he can do to improve the professional quality
of both his website and of his newsgroups. (After all, no one's ever
accused him of being stupid, AFAIK.) At first blush, I can only conclude
that his failure to do so either reflects an unwillingness or a (very
personal) inability to do so. I really wish he _would_ do this. As both
you and I recognize perfectly well, his site is the entry point for many
individuals when they first become concerned about computer security in
general and internet security in particular. However, after that 'initial
entry', many of these novices are being led down the wrong path (again, in
my personal opinion).
I don't know if the above makes you feel any better about me or not. I
can simply state what I feel. In the final analysis, I can only be true
to myself.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris
jvmorris@erols.com
ICQ #29438199
This is a NEWSGROUP message; except for privacy reasons, please respond
therein; an e-mail COPY is always appreciated, of course.
Almost all electrons used in the creation of this message were recycled.
No electrons used in the production of this message were harmed or
mistreated in any manner.
- Next message: r smith: "Re: help interpreting netmon activity?"
- Previous message: Donut: "Re: Tiny vulnerability not fixed."
- In reply to: The Equalizer: "Re: OT - grc.com down?"
- Next in thread: Alexander Delarge: "Re: OT - grc.com down?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
