Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux
jasonmicron writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has completed the aquisition of Sybari Software this morning. Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux definitions. Current customers will continue to receive support but new customers will not have the option to purchase the software under Unix / Linux. From TFA: Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux."
From the article:
Well this says to me one of two things:
You be the judge.
I guess I'm just happy Microsoft can't buy linux and drop all support for that.
Im not saying that virii arent in existance for unix or linux it just seems that most A/V for linux seems to be geared at protecting windows machines from the real world. Seems that linux is the armor protecting the sheep (windows) from slaughter.
Got hosting
Whats the point when clam is comming along so nicely?
Virus scanners on unix are only any good for protecting downstream windows clients and clam is ideal for this, although admittedly not quite ideal for real-time scanning of NFS/SMB shares, but for mail / web virus scanning its more than sufficient.
If clam continues the way it is, there will be a very small market for unix virus scanners.
Jason
How these acquisitions are chosen.
Microsoft needs to expand into the video game market. They buy the one game company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then ends).
Microsoft needs to expand into the virtualization market. They buy the one virtualization company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then suffers).
Microsoft needs to expand into the antivirus email filter market. They buy one of the antivirus companies with support for linux/unix (which then ends).
Funny how these coincidences work.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
if you want to keep distance from sendmail, theres ClamSmtp.
from their site:
ClamSMTP is an SMTP filter that allows you to check for viruses using the ClamAV anti-virus software. It accepts SMTP connections and forwards the SMTP commands and responses to another SMTP server. The 'DATA' email body is intercepted and scanned before forwarding.
What ? Me, worry ?
So here's a question for you guys. If you owned this company or a similar one, and Microsoft wanted to buy you out for a good price, would you choose not to sell for ethical reasons regardless of the profit you would make?
Discuss, discuss
Sure, I have a good 10 years of Linux use under me as well as development... I've seen Linux inside and out and a lot of the same problems exist there too.
Like 30 piss-poor similar programs with no 1 solid one... Look, I'm all for variety but getting a SINGLE solid set of apps out before branching 30 mediocre ones into even more mediocre ones serves nobody.
Linux has had some of the same fundamental flaws for all of those 10 years, most are still not fixed... but people rag on MS for not fixing things that are broken for 6 months, not sticking up for MS but it is the truth.
In-fighting exists everywhere and stifles creativity and innovation. For those who say that everything is fine as it is, please get a clue.
Patent-slinging is degenerative, it hurts companies ability to innovate and it also stifles Open Source. They are broken and it is holding everyone back.
These are just a few off the top of my head, I can go on if you'd like but I think you get the drift and can come up with a bunch of your own. Year after year fo the same tactics grows old and really makes me wish for a wholesale change.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Once their work is finished, there will be no Linux antivirus tools left, so windows will be more secure!
Actually, they're doing it so that more Windows machines will be responsible for Windows being more secure. Most antivirus tools for Unix and Mac systems are not really about protecting those systems from viruses. Instead, those tools are often used to scan for *Windows* viruses and prevent the machine from becoming a carrier for further Windows infections.
This whole thing is somewhat amusing anyway, as Microsoft found themselves in the position of needing Unix anti-virus software when they purchased Hotmail. You see, Hotmail originally ran on BSD machines and thus was incapable of scanning email for virus attachments. Microsoft got on the case of a few anti-virus providers at the time to get them software for BSD. Oh the irony.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
*Sigh*...
Apple has earned the respect of the Slashdot crowd, it wasn't just given to them. Don't you remember Rob's (CmdrTaco) comments when the iPod was released... that sure didn't strike me as unadulterated praise.
I'm not saying that everything Apple does is golden, just that at least they take you to dinner before they screw you. Microsoft treats everybody like a two-bit hooker...
That's one possible outcome. The other one would be
5. Customer decides to ditch all remaining windows installation and use only Unix in the future, ceases to care about malware
6. Customer saves money (for licenses), saves more money (for administration), and also saves time and hassles
7. M$ loses customer
8. M$ loses money.
They're really gambling here - they take away the middle path and hope that out of the remaining options, you'll choose the one that gives them more money instead of the one that gives them less money. Obviously, they think they *can* pull it off, but in the end, nobody likes a bully, so even if they gain some money in the short term, they do lose customer trust over the long term.
The fact that they fail to see this and *still* think that they can base their business model on terrorizing people instead of acting in a benevolent way where the customer is king just shows that despite everything, they still aren't thinking about what'll happen in the long term and where they'll be in, say, 50 or 100 years.
Which, incidentally, is exactly the timeframe where the current high-ups like Gates and Ballmer and the like who cashed in big time won't be around anymore to care about the losses that will come.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
besides i had never even heard of this AV company before, and I suspect their *nix AV products were not exactly selling like hot cakes. So from a business POV this makes perfect sense.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Not really...
For example, When Chrysler and Dailmer merged, did they drop redudant lines, and stop production of cars that compete with our products of the new merged company? You bet.
Second, MS did not purchase this other maker to "stop them from making producting for a competing operating system". Clearly, MS purchased them for their head-start on MS's own platform. It actually does make a difference.
Third and finally, one thing to note is that when the DOJ's consent decree with MS expires it will no longer be assumed that MS is a monopoly to the DOJ, meaning anything that requires that for a basis will have to be litigated from scratch, with MS being proven a monpoly in desktop OS's. With the state of the market it will prove prodigiously hard to prove that: between Linux and Mac Windows pretty clearly does not have a monopoly.
Actually, since this is still clearly an anti-competitive business move, intended to further strengthen their already illegal monopoly in the OS Market, the legality is certainly debateable. Attempting to purchase all the companies that make anti-virus software for Linux as a method to eliminate commercial anti-virus software for a competitive OS would indeed be relevant to the OS debate, especially in the realm of server OS space, even if all of the open source anti-virus projects can't be eliminated until a software patent stranglehold has been established...
A lot of folks here are probably already aware that this isn't the first time M$ has done this. In June 2003, M$ purchased GeCAD's award winning RAV Anti-Virus, and eliminated it, as well.
Of course, something being legal, whether marginally so or not, has nothing to do with whether it's ethical.
And, as has already been observed, when you buy the right politicians, the legality of your actions seems to be effectively irrelevant.
I'll add:
7. Windows servers get infected with a virus.
8. Virus shields stop functioning because the Windows servers are infected.
9. Everyone becomes infected.
10. Companies wish their virus sheilds were still running on *nix.
This is the SECOND AV maker that supported Unix/linux that MS has bought and then stopped Unix/linux support. How many will it take to convince you? Four? Ten? All of them?
Microsoft didnt buy ALL of the makers for unix / linux antivirus. They bought a single one.
/. SOP, but that's because tactics like this are MS SOP.
This is true. But while this makes it practically different than monopolizing oil barrels, I do believe the intent is the same. If MS could buy out all *nix AV makers, do you think they would? I do.
Bashing MS is
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually the sales of *NIX versions were cut about 5 months ago. How do I know? I called and asked about it, then realized after the fact that it was the company MS was buying out.
So, erm, bit late.
I just finished reading an article on Linux viruses which I thought to be quite interesting. Here's the link.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Actually quite a few institutions and organisations have this kind of setup. Servers use Unix systems because of their inherent security and stability. Clients use Windows because most users find it easier to work on.