Security as a Profit Center?

Harry Erwin writes "This article seems to suggest Microsoft is now considering charging for security. I don't mind vendors like Counterpane Internet Security selling security services, but I would prefer operating system vendors to treat security as part of the core functionality of their products, if only because effective security has to be designed into the operating system from the start. This proposal would create a two-tier Internet and probably make things worse rather than better. Security is like public health and education--if you think it's expensive, consider the alternative."

Comments

The alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative to government-provided, very costly and wasteful medical care is not nothing, as the poster implies. It is private, competitive, and inexpensive health care with much less bureacracy. I just wanted to point this out.

Slashdot's at it again

[squarooticus]

Security is like public health and education--if you think it's expensive, consider the alternative.

Is this really necessary? Slashdot's editors too often present opinions about important political issues as fact in the middle of what should be a news story. Every bit of this sort of bias and leftist pandering makes Slashdot less a place for geeks to gather and more of a voice for Rob's political views.

Since when?

[unicorn]

I've never paid for a patch. They are all freely downloadable from their support site currently.

Re:All joking aside

[dbarclay10]

There's a difference between common sense OS security (closing unneeded ports, cutting down buffer overflows, doing intelligent rights/process management) and doing "extra" security that *should* be more $$$ like virus scanners or personal firewall software; things that shouldn't be totally integrated into the installed OS to begin with.

That's so wrong-headed it's not funny. I'll go through it as best I can, but let's start with the basic premise that including a lot on the CD you get is a bad thing:

Why, exactly, is this bad? Because Microsoft wants to do this? That's why they were convicted of being an illegal monopoly, right? WRONG. They were convicted for unfair business practices. They included IE in Windows installations, and IE sucked. Vendors wanted to offer Netscape as well as or instead of IE, and Microsoft clamped down on them and said "do it and die". This is what they did wrong - not for trying to offer their customers more bang for the buck, but for disallowing their customers CHOICE.

People want things to be included. Look at any Linux vendor - everything is available and packaged. Debian is a great example - there's very little software that isn't available as part of Debian.

Okay, next let's move on to the other part of your statement; that is, specifically that it should be allright to charge for virus scanners and personal firewall stuff.

What more do I have to say, you ask? Haven't I already covered this? Well, yes, actually, I have :) But that you specifically mention these things, as if it's what MS wanted to charge more for, is telling in and of itself. The article NEVER mentions virus scanners or personal firewalls. Did you read it?

That's a laugh...

[Pollux]

This article seems to suggest Microsoft is now considering charging for security.

In other news...

California convicts in correctional facilities around the state will now be running a daycare service for parents.

Lumberjacks from the state of Michigan will be opening up a private hospital neighboring their lumbermill. They advertise that amputations are their specialty.

And finally, George W. Bush announced that he will be dedicating himself to balancing the budget and eliminating the national debt within 10 years.

Case in point: If you don't have the skills, don't sell the services.

Re:Before everyone flips out

[The Bungi]

The only thing that is more pathetic than a Linux zealot is an AC Lunix zealot. Don't waste keyboard lubricant on these people.