Microsoft Actually Not to Blame for Sidekick Data Loss
Posted 10/16/09 at 01:46:42 PM by Paul Lilly
Put away the pitchforks for a moment, because that whole data loss thing involving the Sidekick and Microsoft's Danger unit might not be the Redmond company's fault after all. So who is to blame? Oracle, Linux, and Sun, Microsoft said in not so many words.
"Sidekick runs on Danger's proprietary service that Microsoft inherited when it acquired Danger in 2008. The Danger service is built on a mix of Danger created technologies and third party technologies," Microsoft explained to TGDaily. "Microsoft's other cloud computing projects are totally separate from the Danger Service and do not rely on the Danger Service technology."
There's actually a whole lot more to the story for anyone who cares to read through it all, including a possible sabotage scenario. In short, this could be a situation where it was simply easier to point the finger at Microsoft, justified or not. And more than just pointing fingers, the Redmond company finds itself on the receiving end of two class-action lawsuits alleging that it, along with T-Mobile, failed to "adequately ensure the safety, security, and availability of the data belonging" to Sidekick users.

Image Credit: Flickr Robert Scoble
OK....
Submitted by lien_meat on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 11:09pm
Look, I'm not gonna say that it wasn't a failure of Sun software, Solaris, Linux, or Oracle, cause of course that is possible, but lets not assume that just because Microsoft says it's not their fault, and they point a finger at everything that isn't Microsofts' product (convienient how they didn't say "Oh, well, Solaris' ZFS filesystem failed" or "the Oracle database crapped out", or "Linux died...", they just pointed a finger at EVERY non-ms product in use...), and we are just supposed to believe it.
Sorry, I don't see it that way. If they were managing the company (they were supposed to be), they are in fact responsible to at least have decently educated/skilled staff that can manage the systems, and also have good data integrity/redundancy. I have to manage/fix/extend systems and software packages every day (I'm a programmer) that I didn't program, install, or even possibly have any prior knowlege about before having to deal with the problem at hand. That DOESN'T make me NOT resposible if I didn't take proper precaution and I bork something up.
This is a pretty low move. I hope people don't just believe the claims at face value, and at least hold MS responsible enough to document precisely what actually went wrong, and WHY.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###
If MS owns Danger....
Submitted by ghot on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 6:59pm
...then MS is responsible for what Danger does or does not do....If I own a Rottweiller that chews a kids leg off, can MS laywers get ME off the hook and sue the dog instead?
Take an OS, and edit out all the efficiency, and what you have left is a post-XP Microsoft operating system :)
A negative article from Apple Insider
Submitted by einstein1971 on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 2:11pm
Wow, Apple Insider found a disgruntled former employee from Danger to say speculative negative things. Well, that's just shocking. And we all know Apple Insider is fair and balanced. I mean just look at the name--very open to the PC...
might as well
Submitted by mesiah on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 9:20pm
Might as well try and get a fair and balanced opinion of the oposing party from a politician.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






