Slashdot Mirror


Gates on Spyware and OS Competition

Ant writes "CNET's News.com has an article that says Microsoft plans to offer its own anti-spyware software." prostoalex writes "Both OsNews and InfoWorld talk about Bill Gates' speech at the Computer History Museum in California. Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."

40 of 690 comments (clear)

  1. 800lb Gorilla by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would make sense for Microsoft to make an anti-spyware product, after all, they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware. I would also think that given the sheer amount of brainpower that they could apply to the task that they would put forth a good product. But, they have not been known as innovaters in the application world (I know, some would say in the OS world as well). Anyway, I wonder how the other folks who make and sell (or give away) anti-spyware software will react to the 800lb gorilla's entrance into their domain?

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:800lb Gorilla by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MS Engineer 1: "Hmm, here's a security vulnerability."

      MS PHB: "Well, let's get to work on patching it."

      MS Engineer 2: "Wait, couldn't we not patch it and instead sell the patch together with others as a piece of software with an annual update fee?"

      MS PHB: "Congratulations, you just got promoted."

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:800lb Gorilla by Osrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will be the same response that Microsoft always seen to get when they introduce something like this... lots of people complaining that they're not doing it, then they build something and lots of people complain that they've made a change.

      "Microsoft need to do something about security" - Microsoft release XPSP2 - "Microsoft changed a bunch of securty settings and now my badly written app does not work anymore".

    3. Re:800lb Gorilla by MoThugz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would make sense for Microsoft to make an anti-spyware product, after all, they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware.


      If they are really are the ones who know the most about protecting Windows from spyware, then almost every Windows user is doomed.

      Heck, Mr Gates himself faces the very same spyware problem.
    4. Re:800lb Gorilla by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "MS Engineer 2: "Wait, couldn't we not patch it and instead sell the patch together with others as a piece of software with an annual update fee?""

      I've met quite a few software engineers, and none of them would suggest that. (Nor would a PHB promote them, they'd take credit for it instead.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:800lb Gorilla by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not every corporation.

      I've worked in a 120,000-employee corporation in 2002, and almost every single person I met there actually had a clue. There was no political bullshit, we had clear objectives and reasonable timelines, the only hassle was that it'd take a few days to get specific software and hardware.

      A colleague of mine worked for a subsidy of IBM last year, and told me it was the same way there, no bullshit, no slacking and no sloppiness, of course that makes only two small examples, but that's just to say such generalizations are bad overall.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    6. Re:800lb Gorilla by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, not at all. If bridge engineers were forced to call their bridges "done" when they weren't, THEN we'd have serious problems.

      As it is, serious mission critical software developed by honest companies generally works well, as do bridges. Software sold by sleazy business folk is sold before the engineers are satisfied with its quality, and it always "collapses."

      All that is to say, engineers aren't the ones releasing unfinished software that doesn't work right.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  2. Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gee Bill, what about Mac OS? Considering how good that OS is these days, not to mention the Mac hardware, you probably shouldn't turn your back on it in a dark alley. I think it'll be here 10 years from now.

    1. Re:Mac OS? by bladx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, i agree

      what's the deal? my summer internship (a school district) uses macs like crazy.. of my experience (and i know, it is not very much) mac os x has, by far, been the most stable OS i have had to use in the workplace. i'm not sure why it would go away so suddenly.

    2. Re:Mac OS? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The falling price of components will also drive down the prices of Macs. There will always be a market for higher end computers, with actual though put into design and implementation, with the unified vision of a central authority. In fact, the rise of Linux and other open-sourced operating systems will only help Apple integrate Macs with other common OSs, as standards will be truly open. If Linux had the marketshare to define standards, that would open the door to any number of competitors who could make inter-operative software. A rise in the Linux platform's popularity (at the expense of Microsoft's marketshare) would only help smaller players gain traction. While the future of PowerPC is uncertain, depending largely on IBM's dedication to it, Apple and the MacOS are bound to have markets well into the future. If a company can assure tight integration and thoughtful design of hardware and software, there will always be those willing to pay a premium for a premium user experience.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    3. Re:Mac OS? by tonywong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because Mr. Gates doesn't perceive Apple as being an OS vendor unto themselves. He looks at Apple as the premier research division of Microsoft.

      I'm only semi-kidding.

      OK. I'm not.

    4. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until X, the OS was a toy, inferior even to Windows.

      And from that toy sprung forth revolutions in photo, print and video graphics. The toy seems to have served many industries very well.

    5. Re:Mac OS? by Fulkkari · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, right. Just because you only buy low-end machines doesn't mean everyone do the same. Macs are pretty popular in the media industry and have a group of very loyal fans. Unless they are going down, I doubt Apple is going down either.

      I don't see any reason for Mac OS to be a GUI on top of Linux either. First of all, it would be yet an other transition. Secondly, they wouldn't win anything at it. Linux kernel doesn't have all the stuff the Darwin kernel has. I think it's ridiculous that you are suggesting that they would switch a nice kernel that they have complete control over to a third party kernel they don't have control over which doesn't even have the same features.

      Don't get me wrong. Linux is okay and I use it too, but the truth is that it's being hyped way to much. Linux is not superior in any way as some people (like you) seem to think. Soon these people will learn that there are alternatives to Linux also. It isn't just Windows or Linux.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    6. Re:Mac OS? by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I once read an article about the CEO of harley davidson. In that he said "harley davidson is not a motorcyle company, it's a fashion company".

      Apple is the same way. Apple sells products that people buy because they want to be "cool".

      Now just because something is cool that does not mean it sucks. Both Harleys and Macs are great products that just also happen to be very fashionable.

      AS long as apple can define "cool" it will do just fine, whether it's selling computers or earphones does not matter all that much.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Mac OS? by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MacOS X is "Darwin plus Apple UI magic". I suppose maybe you meant to say Darwin x86 plus Apple UI magic. The point of Apple selling MacOS on Mac computers is that they get to control the whole widget. As such Apple gets to add all sorts of nice little features into the OS that they know specifically will work in x number of machines.

      Quartz Extreme is an excellent example. By the time Jaguar was released most of the current Macs would support it out of the box, by 2003 all Macs sold supported QE. Since Apple was deciding to replace their long used Rage 128s with Radeon and GeForce GPUs they were able to add a very useful feature to the OS that all shipping systems would be able to utilize. Tiger is going to utilize the advanced shader programmability of newer Radeon and GeForce GPUs in two systems called CoreImage and CoreVideo. By the time Tiger ships most if not all Macs being sold will support these features out of the box, many systems sold right now can support these features.

      Writing their OS for commodity PCs would pretty much remove that ability. When it wouldn't be guaranteed all of their customers would be able to see the new features it wouldn't be worth while to even add such features. It took Microsoft a long time to get USB and hot plugging working right in Windows. Since so few people had USB ports on their computers there was little impetus to fix USB functionality in the OS. Apple on the otherhand was replacing ADB on their systems with USB and their USB support was pretty exceptional. It's taken Microsoft a long time to get their WiFi support up to a moderately useful level because for long time no PCs were really shipping with WiFi capabilities. Apple however rolled out with extremely good WiFi support because their systems were shipping with WiFi capabilities built in.

      When a single company builds the hardware their OS is going to run on they tend to have excellent support for their hardware. Linux from any particular distribution is very hit-or-miss with hardware from particular vendors. Even HP doesn't support every bit of hardware in their laptops that have Linux as an OS option. They only support what SuSE and Red Hat support. Apple supports every piece of hardware on any Mac capable of running the OS.

      OSX for commodity PCs would not be the same OSX that runs on Macs. Without spending hundreds of millions of compatibility testing it would be exceedingly difficult for Apple to support the range of hardware that Microsoft does. As we've seen with Linux, hardware vendors do not want to write drivers for any OS but Windows and they're usually none too cooperative in releasing specs for their products.

      As such Apple would have to pick up the slack or hope they could get thousands of programmers to contribute homegrown drivers. In the first case they would have to spend lots of money to make sure a huge range of hardware worked properly and in the second they would have a slew of half-complete drivers shipping with the OS. Spending a lot of money supporting the menagerie of PC hardware would make selling OSX for PCs unprofitable in the extreme and shipping half-complete drivers and only offering partial functionality for people's hardware would kill their sales and make the whole enterprise unprofitable.

      No one is going to switch to MacOS X-x86 if their hardware isn't likely to run properly. Developers aren't going to bother supporting an OS on another architecture that only a few people use, fewer of which even want to buy their products. You don't see many commercial Linux applications for Linux/PPC or Linux/MIPS. Microsoft killed their Windows NT ports because few third parties bothered porting their applications to non-x86 archtectures even though the OS environment was the same. Vis à vis don't hold your breath waiting for Apple to release OSX for PCs.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    8. Re:Mac OS? by mwa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
      -John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

      If you're trying to discredit Dvorak, this is a bad example. The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history. People used to fly through applications using TAB and function keys. Although they usually still can, they don't.

      Try waiting for a bank teller, loan processer, application taker, or yout typical computer user to do anything now and it's tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, .... just to move focus to the next text box. I find myself silently screaming TAB, dammit, TAB! TAB to the button and hit ENTER!

      What's worse is I'm finding applications that no longer implement focus shifting with tab. "Web apps" are notoriusly bad. Worse yet is where most workspaces "have room" for the mouse. Mousing literally causes in pain in my neck in my workstation.

      AFAIC, there's still no evidence that people actually want to use a mouse. They simply don't know of any other way.

    9. Re:Mac OS? by Brendor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is important to remember that before Windows 95 (some would say 2000) all of Microsofts' OSes were less than toys . . .

  3. Seems to be the american way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why spend the man power fixing his faulty product when you can use 1/2 the time time and just create a bandaid fix!!

  4. prostoalex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.

    The only thing I see is in the OsNews article where Bill Gates is quoted to say "fast forward 10 years, the two leading OS technologies will be Linux and Windows." But "leading" is very different from "only". Nowhere does it say all other OSs will disappear.

    prostoalex, YOU must substantiate your statement NOW. Or are you spreading more anti-MS FUD??

  5. Anti spyware? by News+for+nerds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If MS just a bit disclose the hidden places of OS to the very owners of OS/PC, spyware will be immediately found and killed. Just make those HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run keys and other obscure parts more open and clear to users. Make non-technologically-competitive pieces of OS components open source. Don't lie to your own consumers.

  6. Sounds bad to me. by rincebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me, or does this sound like a revenue service waiting to happen?

    I submit that Microsoft will only judge as spyware products which either install themselves without explicit permission, or products which are not owned by companies who pay Microsoft.

    I hate to be so cynical, but I've been burned by too many Microsoft "features" [in recent memory: IE upgrades only available to XP users, and a Windows ME setup CD refusing to install to a FAT16 partition formatted by its own boot disk] to believe much of what they say.

    Just my $0.02 USD.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  7. Same old Bill Gates. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than look at how the crap gets installed and dealing with THAT, let's talk about software to remove the crap AFTER it gets installed.

    Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there.

    Not to mention this will be another DAILY download update along with:
    #1. Security updates
    #2. Anti-virus signatures

  8. He's right by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gates makes the point, which is correct, that UNIX is losing marketshare, not Windows. If anything, scientists/network admins are moving to a combination of Linux and Mac just because UNIX-creators (*cough* Sun *cough*) haven't innovated in years.

    The battle for desktop supremacy, however, is already won. I like the fact that I can run UNIX apps on my iBook, but I just built a tower for Windows. There's just too much breadth of software to shift away from the platform. MS has also come up with some good stuff recently (.NET, which in some cases is what Java should've been) that cement their hold.

    Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening. I think people are finally settling on the fact that UNIX is a rock-solid server, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great desktop. Whether it's Windows or some other windowing system that wins the crown, I'm not sure, but classic UNIX is pretty much finished.

  9. What an endorsement by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can pretty much spin this as "see even Bill Gates says Linux will be around ten years from now".

    This should give pointy hair bosses pause in claiming that Linux is just too risky.

    What a huge step to be so publicly recognized as the most prominent threat to MS for an OS that is not controlled by any one cooperation.

    In the end it will be inevitable that an OS becomes a commodity. MS tries to fight hard against this by building up the OS to do everything short of singing and dancing for you but I don't think that will save them in the long run.

  10. What a politicaaly contrived statement by microbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market

    What a politically contrived statement. He can't say "only windows" (read monopoly), so their must be at least 1 other OS, and people would laugh if an open source operating system wasn't included.

    Now all of a sudden he takes the wind out of the sails of the Linux zealots, and appears all controversial. Yep... in 10 years it there will be Windows and *nix, just like today.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  11. Actually, Google Vs Microsoft more likely by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1144882004

    The above link has three pertinant quotes.

    "Microsoft's fortunes grew with personal computers or, more specifically, supplying the software for what used to be called "IBM-compatible PCs". It is easy to forget that 20 years ago there were a number of standards competing for dominance. (Of the others, only Apple survives.)"

    "Google knows it cannot remain just a search engine company, because that leaves it vulnerable if someone else comes along and does it better. That is why it keeps adding services. The best publicised has been its proposed e-mail service, Gmail, which has upset privacy activists because it will include advertising based on the content of the e-mails. But it is likely to prove extremely popular because it will make searching through e-mail much easier and quicker, and because it offers a gigabyte of storage. For most users, that means they will never have to delete another e-mail. "

    "But Microsoft is vulnerable if a competitor shifts the focus away from the PC and on to the internet. And we all know the company most capable of that."

    Take that all to the extreme - If network centric computing and a company like google go to the logical conclusion of their efforts, subsuming encyclopedia software (remember encarta?), email, games and eventually word processing and other applications into an always on, globally available internet technology that would free you from not just your desktop but from even needing a permanent computer of your own, wouldn't the most logical thing to beat be problems with privacy?

    After all, if you can eliminate "spying" on a distributed system like that, then you've aready eliminated spyware as a matter of course (maybe by using thin clients and making all the intelligence and security reside in the server and communication layers).

  12. What's left in 10 years by Quiberon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A free one and a non-free one. What they're called, who knows. The free one will successively drive out the non-free one, though.

  13. Mac-Tel?-Apple Dreams and x86 Nightmares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " If Apple ever releases a PC version of OSX, M$ is screwed. But that won't happen now, will it?"

    This sems to be a common wet dream amoungst x86 PC users (you never hear Apple users lusting after a x86 machine). I recommend you buy an Apple and just get it over with. You'll be happier. Apple will be happier. The only ones who wouldn't be happy is those with a heavy investment in all things x86.

  14. Paranoia by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, and Symmantec and McAffee are secretly making all the computer viruses so they can sell anti-virus software.

    Sounds like you need to get your tinfoil hat resized again.

  15. Windows?!? by linolium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you think they should improve their operating system's security before they sell additional anti-spyware software? This just seems like another way to coax more money out of consumers..

  16. Windows kills jobs now? by ion_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article (emphasis mine):

    As to how Microsoft is going to beat Linux according to Gates, it seems to be via its software's value, rather than the price. Bill Gates is trying to create software that needs little maintainance and little support. By doing so, he hopes to cut down the number of IT administrators needed on companies (a good admin costs overall up to $200,000 per year for a given company here in the Bay Area, for example). On the other hand, Linux rivals (e.g. Red Hat) are making money primarily by support calls and require capable administrators. Gates hopes to elliminate this need.

    Wasn't it supposed to be Linux that kills jobs?

  17. Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Say you buy a new car, drive it out of the shop down the hill only to find that the brand new car with all the shining new features is missing steering and brakes. Then after you have crashed, your kids have been buried and you have after 2 years of legal battles and medical recovery the car company comes around and fixes the brakes. Would you then still feel you have something to complain about?

    There are two kinds of people who complain about MS. Those with somekind of hatred towards MS for whatever reason and those who of us who are tired of the constant delays, promised features that are moved to the next version and just plain shoddy code.

    It is like with IE, geezus MS how long is it going to take to get proper PNG support. Or with AMD, exactly what is taking so long to get 64bit support out? Linux and BSD got it now for ages, are opensource developers really that much better and more motivated?

    The list goes on, Longhorn? The next big thing? Well not really, features and improvements are being dropped left right and center until what is left over is still just another point upgrade and not the much needed rewrite that windows needs.

    If I need something done and you do it without being asked then I will be gratefull. If I ask you to do something and you do it then I will thank you. If I have to keep nagging you for years to do something and then finally you do it in a half-assed way then I am going to think your a fucking asshole.

    Get married and you will find that this is pretty normal human behaviour.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  18. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by g0qi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a well known fact that all versions of MS-Windows have backdoors built in, allowing US spy agencies to heck into, do something funny, and/or sabortage the "enemy system".

    Listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot. I know Microsoft Windows code is closed-source. But here's a fundmental fact that nobody understands- it's open-source to every employee working under windows in Microsoft. That's about 14000+ employees mind you, and they belong to every nationality you can think of, even those you can't spell. Maybe their livelyhood depends on them keeping quiet, but I'm sure you are the one spreading FUD around.

    Stop scaring the people. Stop this nonsense. I'm surprised you didn't find a place for terrorists in your comment somewhere.

    --
    Yea. I know.
  19. Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well... here is something else that people say:
    a) Windows should provide it because it's their responsibility to be secure
    b) Windows bundling anti-spyware software puts anti-spyware folks out of business because no one will buy it because the bundled is too easy to just use it.

    So... yet another case where Microsoft will be damned if they do it and damned if they don't. I'm sure it will be feed for all the "M$" bashers no matter which way it goes.

  20. Linux:Microsoft::Kids:Establishment by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing that someone who has been working at a large company worries about more than a bunch of new fresh, stubborn, idealistic faces who is willing to devote all their time to work coming in and taking over. That's true even in the existing system.

    Microsoft is a very large company. It has an established hierarchy, and people who have worked for years to reach their positions, and now have guaranteed status. They're concerned about someone walking in and taking what they've spent a long time getting and rely on.

    Linux is a loose network of some of the most devoted-to-work people, who want to stir things up and change the world, even if it results in a lot less money for them. It is a hypercompetitive meritocracy -- you can't work up any type of "status" that you can live off for years (well, maybe if you work at IBM).

    Microsoft/Linux is just another example of a neverending struggle. It's just a little more blatant than most.

  21. TAB, dammit, TAB by DrJay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'cause Tab is really helpful in Photoshop....

    --
    ______ This mind intentionally left blank.
  22. Re: more obvious if you translate back to software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem you analogize is a direct result of an illegal monopoly. It is not THAT M$ drags its heels, it's that M$ CAN drag its heels and still extract a premium from the market. This is a key difference between monopoly and free market.

    It's not that they do evil, but that they are in a position to do evil without consequence as a monopoly. There is no material reward for them to play nice, because material rewards flow ONLY from maintaining the monopoly. An employee who figures out a way to make it harder to defect from M$ deserves a promotion, but an employee who figures out a way to ease the customer's experience is just eccentric, irrelevant to the actual business of making money.

    This is distinctly different from a free market where easing a customer's experience improves customer loyalty and increases the likelihood that you'll make a profit.

    The only way you can help M$ to do a better job is to bring them back into the free market by breaking their monopoly. Don't buy computers with M$ products pre-installed. Don't let your boss do so. Make sacrifices to break the monopoly and your children will inherit a better computing experience.

  23. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by fmaresca · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ok. But:
    1- 14K+ employees workin in the OS? I don't think so.
    2- 14K+ employees can read and understand the code? Again I don't think so.
    2- With only two or three hackers working in the compiler(s) is enough to make a backdoor that is not visible in the source, and present in every OS.

  24. My OS predictions by plopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in 2014 we will be running Windows XP, SP7.

    Seriously, they are having problems writing Windows for AMD64. While open source OSs chug along. Will linx run on mainframes? It already does. Will windows run on mainframes? It probably will never make it. As long as there is a spectrum of hardware Windows with its sloppy architecture, coding and design will be locked into to the low end of the market. billg is out of touch, or just plain doing market speak (same thing really).

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  25. Re:Too much control? by FortranDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can see the reason why they prefer you not let Windows know. It could be possible for a virus to check on this (through Windows) to see if NAV is running or not. Knowing if NAV is running would be helpful. Not knowing leaves the virus writer guessing.

    --
    "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."