"Morro" in the cloud: a retraction and apology

"Morro" in the cloud: a retraction and apology

Summary: Earlier this week I wrote a post defining "Morro", what it is, what it does and separating fact from fiction. I'll get the harsh truth out first: I was wrong, quite a bit wrong, and it's not easy to admit to it but it needs to be said.

SHARE:

Earlier this week I wrote a post defining "Morro", what it is, what it does and separating fact from fiction. I'll get the harsh truth out first: I was wrong, quite a bit wrong, and it's not easy to admit to it but it needs to be said. I decided this evening after receiving more confirmed information on the product to draft this, and release now once it was appropriate to do so.

I had spent many hours researching "Morro", now known as Microsoft Security Essentials, as well as background reading on possible connections to the software. As I try and write about developing technologies, this would have been something to report - Microsoft being the first organisation to develop a cloud anti-virus - in terms of timeline anyway, we know Panda released theirs first.

I also spent a lot of time speaking to friends and colleagues, especially last month, trying to find information on Morro. In some of the conversations, I was led to believe that Windows Azure would be a foundation platform of which Morro would be developed upon. As Morro is based on ForeFront and Windows Defender, being developed by the ForeFront team, and as ForeFront had made its way to Azure, I connected the dots. This was my interpretation of what I knew at the time, rather than the miscommunication from one particular person.

I used an article, written by the Guardian, which as a reputable source of information almost concreted my theory that Morro would be based in the cloud. We now know this is not the case.

In terms of me explaining how I thought Morro would work - this was purely opinionated and best guess-work on my part, if you will. By explaining how I thought it would work may well help others understand how I considered the system to work. Few links were provided during this part of the post, simply because I didn't have the fact to back it up with. For me, I write posts as I do essays: when I want to source them, I'll reference them, but in a blog environment it is better with a link, rather than a bibliography on each post.

Maybe now, you can see I was misguided, headstrong on my own opinion but also felt I was right in what I was writing and saying at the time of publication. I had no will nor want to deceive or cause confusion, but we all make mistakes. I hope I can recover from this one by apologising here in the open and admitting I was wrong at the time.

I'm issuing a retraction to the article found here, and my utmost and most sincere apologies for misinterpreting my research and my understanding. I also apologise for the editors of blogs and websites who linked back to my post, and based their opinions around mine. The problem with a popular blog on a very popular network is people expect accuracy and often a reputation proceeds with it. When a big network appears to get it wrong, the aftermath and fallout from that single post can spread far and wide. This I thoroughly regret.

For an accurate, up to date (as of this post's publication), please visit Mary Jo Foley's "All About Microsoft" blog or Ed Bott's Microsoft Report.

Topics: Software Development, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

16 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Nobodys Perfect.

    At least your big enough to admit it.
    jdbukis
  • You did better than ComputerWorld

    ComputerWorld said that Microsoft changed their schedule re: XP availability when they were in fact wrong all along. You, on the other hand, properly retracted your post.

    You're better than one of the biggest mags and sites in the business.
    eganist
  • Thanks for the display of integrity

    maybe others will learn from you.
    snafu_77
    • And on that note, could you please.....

      try to get some of that honor and integrity to rub off on Jason Perlow. When he screws up, he fights like hell before finally attaching a weaselly disclaimer to his blog. He will never admit to being wrong.

      Unlike you sir, whom I applaud.

      Economister
      • Or...

        Murph, Sam Diaz, or Chris. All of them are constantly F.O.S. and never have they come out an apologized.

        Seems ZDNet prefers to generate page hits via flame wars rather than good IT info.

        - Sam
        JoeMama_z
    • Thirded

      Thanks for owning up to an error.

      Amazing to think that the man from IBM said the world only needed 4 computers, the man from DEC said noone could conceivably want a PC at home ... and Bill Gates wasn't initially impressed with the Internet.

      Join the bunch of 'losers' ;-)
      jacksonjohn
      • I think it

        Was the world wide web he was not impressed with, rather than the internet.
        jdbukis
        • On splitting ...

          ... I think it was Ernest Rutherford who first split the atom ;-)
          jacksonjohn
          • Not quite

            He took the credit for it. It was one of his subordinates who did, apparently. My college is named after him and that's the story from the college master.
            zwhittaker
          • ... quintessence

            ... and in the end it doesn't matter so much who invented it, who reported it first, who organised it first or who marketed it first ...

            ... but what it ACTUALLY is.

            Nonetheless compliments to whoever ACTUALLY was 'the first alchemist'.
            jacksonjohn
  • @ Zach

    You've helped restore this fellow's opinion of the iGeneration with this post.

    Honestly though, you didn't start this fire, that "credit" goes to PC world, who the Guardian also quoted.

    edited to not antagonize the trolls.
    rtk
  • Here's your hug OOOO :) nt

    nt
    TGGR
  • RE: Morro Mistake

    Honest mistakes are made every day; owning up to one's honest mistake is rare nowadays. Sincere thanks for doing the right thing!
    tjkilmu
    • No honest mistake. It was malicious. Why can't people tell the difference?

      Zack knowingly fabricated false information. That is not an "honest mistake". I don't understand why people keep saying this.
      Qbt
      • Not necessarily

        I see this ridiculous post by a guy (Whittaker) who admits he was "hammered" (his word) when he wrote it as not vicious but what is to me much worse: a blatant disregard for positive journalistic ethics, that is, the attempt to confirm all your facts before submitting them for publication. One of the problems with blogs is there is very little factual cross-checking. People speak from on high as if they were uttering gospel truth, when all they have is their ill-informed opinions. Mostly it's the pooling of common ignorance with no attempt to tell the truth as measured by objective standards. Fortunately in this case the blogger's opinions were so egregiously wrong as to raise concerns. So an "apology" - really a self-serving, rambling whine - was written.
        Gray Hawk
      • [deleted]

        ...
        zwhittaker