Dr. Dobb's Journal November 1998
Thanks to that bastion of American media The Wall Street Journal, it looks like I'm finally in line for a promotion. In an article entitled "Old E-Mail Dogs Microsoft In Fighting Antitrust Suits" (August 27, 1998), the WSJ discussed DDJ's September 1993 article, "Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code," by Andrew Schulman. Proving once again that it knows less than it thinks it does, the WSJ blithely dismissed DDJ and its readers as "a technical monthly with a cult following."
So what does this have to do with my career's ups and downs? Okay, since a cult is nothing without a cult leader...well, you get the idea. Strong shoulders for heavy crosses, and all that. From now on, please address my correspondence to "BabaRom-Jon, Spiritual Leader, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Enlightenment."
Actually, the WSJ article did fill in a few historical potholes, AARD-wise. To recap: Our article unraveled a mysterious error message ("Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53") that Windows 3.1 beta users encountered when using MS-DOS-compatible operating systems such as DR-DOS (then owned by Novell, now the property of Caldera). Although the code that triggered the message was obfuscated (in fact, it was the only encrypted code in the release), the plaintext signature "AARD" -- the initials of a Microsoft programmer -- was clearly evident. Hence, the title of the article.
As you might imagine, once word of our upcoming article got out, it didn't take the Microsoft PR juggernaut long to crank up. Consequently, we spent a lot of time hearing Microsoft PR reps and execs explain why publishing the article would serve no real purpose. In all sincerity, they professed, their only concern was how you, dear reader, could be best served. (Ah, for those days of a gentler, kinder Microsoft.) They also insisted that any such error message was the result of a rogue programmer acting alone. In retrospect, the assault was a mere warm-up to more refined PR efforts, like those Elizabeth Lesly Stevens described in her "Making Bill" exposé in Brill's Content magazine (September 1998). The difference, of course, is that, unlike publications Stevens mentions, we didn't unhitch the article.
If we're to believe the WSJ, it appears that those Microsoft spokesfolks who bent, twisted, and chewed on our collective ear were less than straightforward. According to Microsoft e-mail subpoenaed by the government and reviewed by the WSJ, the AARD code was the result of an orchestrated plan in which, according to a Microsoft response published by DDJ in January 1994 and reiterated in the WSJ article, Microsoft hoped "to help reduce product support costs by determining whether 3.1 was running on a version of DOS for which it had been tested." Whatever.
In fairness, it should be repeated that the AARD code was only present in the "Christmas" beta release, and not included in shipping versions of Windows 3.1. If you're interested, both our AARD article and Microsoft's response are available at http://www.ddj.com/ddj/1993/1993_09/9309d/9309d.htm and http://www.ddj.com/ddj/1994/1994_01/9409o/9409o.htm, respectively.
Putting aside all the money lawyers are making dealing with Microsoft's legal woes, is there an upside to all this? You bet. I get new business cards. As for the WSJ, it should do what it does best -- stick to Monica.
--Jonathan Erickson