Slashdot Mirror
EC Watching Microsoft Security Moves
Rob writes "The European Commission is looking into Microsoft Corp's recent moves into the desktop
security market, according to Symantec Corp, one of the companies that stand to lose the
most if Microsoft leverages its monopoly to compete. We've not filed any official
complaint," a Symantec spokesperson said. "We've responded to a request for
information from the European Commission... we were not proactive, they came to us."
Microsoft announced last week that it will offer an enterprise desktop security
package comprising antivirus,
antispyware, firewall and centralized administration. That's in addition to its OneCare
consumer offering, currently in beta."
How about making an O/S that is secure to begin with? Charging people or supplying add-ons to fix one's own problems?
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
the more you* become greedy. the more hungry you will be and OH you will have more hungry enemy to bite you. * microsoft
First Adobe gets hit with integrated PDF creation in the new version of Word, and now Symantec is on the list of features Microsoft is going to incorporate in the next version of Windows. If there is anything they should have learned by now from the success of Linux, the benefits of allowing specialized developers creating software packages they know, understand and excel in doing properly, should have been clear to Microsoft by now. But I guess that's another thing that Microsoft think they can do better than anything else, what's new?
This issue -- MS moving into the security market -- has always struck me as a non-issue.
If MS just did their job and made a secure OS, like OpenBSD (or the other BSDs), there wouldn't be a huge market for security band-aids.
E.g. suppose MS began to apply formal methods, semi-formal methods, code reviews and so on in an effort to eliminate sources of insecurity -- yet did not sell a single "security" product. Not even a Snort.
Would the EU then claim that MS was taking away their oxygen supply of the "security" band-aid selling companies?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
If they add security measures to their system, already existing security companies will call them a monopoly and sue them, whereas if they don't, customers will get angry at Microsoft for not including everything in there for them and will switch to other systems.
I do find it funny that after years of badgering by the community MS is finally doing something about security and they're getting in trouble for it from the EU.
I mean, they could have just made their system more secure, and while that probably would have impacted Symantec's business as well, they wouldn't have been in doodoo about it, but we take what we can get I suppose...
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
Microsoft: Spend your energies fixing the problems, not undercutting them! This seems to me like the smoker who uses asthma medicine to take care of his wheezing. It's a temporary fix, sure, but the larger problem remains.
....I think someone is going to be throwing some chairs shortly.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Personally, I would be happier if you didn't need an antivirus and firewall on windows to start with. It's just more bloatware to eat away your CPU cycles and waste your RAM. Not to mention that if there is a de-facto antivirus on windows, you can be sure any virus will target *that* first, making the concept rather disadvantaging.
Next thing you know they'll be offering their own development interface, media player, web browser and e-mail client... Oh wait...
It's right for Microsoft to be interested in security. It's wrong for them to attempt to profit from it. I don't think I need to go into any lengthy discussion about those notions.
If you ask me, Microsoft should create a mode of operation in Windows that will disallow all programs and libraries except for the ones indicated in some list. This would be most useful for corporate desktops but could also be useful for a bunch of other users as well. It would prevent the installation of software that is unwanted and all manner of things. It would change the way people use their computers, of course, but then I think it should change. It would do wonders for Microsoft's security reputation and I can't imagine it would be particularly difficult to implement. But we already know most people would simple turn that off anyway -- it impedes their access to the wonderful experience of "internet browsing" and downloading cool new things. (They get what they deserve IMHO) And since MS still essentially controlls the desktop, it's not like anyone would consider switching because Windows became a little more annoying...
Are we going to see 'Security Fix For Microsfot Anitvirus KB99999' in the future?
Windows badly needs a bundled Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware solution. Perhaps MS shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing for the users for once.
Microsoft SHOULD include antivirus in the OS, they should have years ago.
Yes, it will make Norton, McAfee and the like totally irrelevant. Yes it will put Symantec folks out of a job _eventually_. But frankly I'd rather have an internet free of spambots, packet bots, and the like. These things should be in the OS, bundled with it, unremovable, and difficult to disable for the average user, who is likely going to be the one spreading virii unknowingly.
video game, ecchi, bbs and classic computing fans unite to eat sushi
The European Commission is looking into Microsoft Corp's recent moves into the desktop security market, according to Symantec Corp, one of the companies that stand to lose the most if Microsoft leverages its monopoly to compete. I'm telling you in this massive craze of usurpation and takeovers, eventually we'll be pushed back to the good ol' 50's where only a few will exist!
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
I mean, really. Norton AV and security products are terrible. Everyone knows this. And why SHOULDN'T AV/anti-spyware be part of the operating system? I mean, really. Those seem like OS functions to me. Anything security-related should be built-in.
Yes, MS should fix their security holes. But then wouldn't that put Symantec out of business, too?
They did it to themselves by allowing there to be a market for anti-virus software in the first place.
If MS fixed bugs the way Apple or Sun fixes bugs, there would be no need for any AV software at all - MS or otherwise.
Maybe you think having anti-virus pre-built into MS is bloatware, but I find it to be useful and frankly it should have been incorporated years ago. Bloatware is putting in things that are useless, like AOL ;)
Antivirus, spyware protection, firewall, internet browser (to name a few) --- these are things that should come in any OS product. In fact, they should be as mandatory as TCP/IP protocol.
If anything this will help those people who never buy anti-virus software...they just unpackage their computer, plug it in and turn it on...and then they get slammed with viruses.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"The European Commission is looking into Microsoft Corp's recent moves into the desktop security market, according to Symantec Corp, one of the companies that stand to lose the most if Microsoft leverages its monopoly to compete. We've not filed any official complaint," a Symantec spokesperson said.
So, the Symantec spokesperson says things like "according to Symantec Corp"?
Comprehensive is having everything you need in one package, a monopoly is not allowing anyone to provide replacements for parts of that package.
If Microsoft were to make it so ONLY their antivirus would be able to work, then we'd have a problem. Otherwise most people will still use 3rd party software because a company that only makes security products will probably do a better job.
There are NO OSes are immune to security woes, including OS X, linux etc. If you think you, well you need a lot of education. MS already fixed the no ports open by default with XP SP2, now they only have to fix the default Administrator priviledges on home computers. EVERY other problem is created by the user, lauching untrusted applications in any OS will be make vulnerable.
"We've responded to a request for information from the European Commission... we were not proactive, they came to us."
Sounds like someone is already scared shitless of retaliation. "It wasn't me -- it was all him, I swear!"
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I don't really know whether it's good or bad that MS is going down the route of having actual security products & schemes.
On the one hand, as many people here have said, it'd be useful if they concentrated on making the OS itself robust and less vulnerable to exploits etc. That's just common sense, and if their press is to be believed they're doing that. Time will tell.
On the other hand, they could release Vista, no exploits are found or at least publicised, and that wouldn't mean it was perfect. Antivirus and firewall would still be needed, so why shouldn't they provide them?
The real problem would be if they bundled them free-of-charge. Regardless of their quality, that would kill a large proportion of third party commercial equivalents, and I don't necessarily see Free/Open alternatives necessarily catering to that market.
Game dev and music blog
I had to read the title a few times to pick out "moves" ... somehow I thought the EU was watching MS's security "movies" ...
(let me guess - the movie's short and has no plot...)
What is that crap with iptables, that is patently unfair. Let me choose what I want, don't ship or make your own seperately available security software.
As much as I hate Microsoft, I cannot see why they don't have the right to create an Addition to their operating system. Why doesn't Mozilla sue Microsoft for putting Internet Explorer onto Windows? Why doesn't RealPlayer sue them for Windows Media Player? The fact is, Windows, as terrible as it may be can come with as much [spyware infested] programs as they want, for it's their product.
I love the way a lord of the rings reference gets a score of -1, Troll - very funny whoever modded that ;P
Haydn
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
I believe that Microsoft has an obligation to provide this as a core functionality of the OS. Otherwise it is the equivalent to buying a house without a roof, and then having to pay again so that it is livable/usable. While it should be appreciated that Microsoft has recognized that there is a legitimate need to correct these issues, doing so by offering a new product line is the wrong way to go about it.
As a software developer, I could only wish that I could get away with selling a product that could only be secure/viable/etc. by having the user buy another product to plug the leaks. How about trying to improve system testing or cooperating with other vendors to isolate and contain threats? Nah, that would be way too productive.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Frankly, some of the products being complained about are things that by all rights should've been incorporated into the OS years ago... and which are already standard offerings for almost every other popular operating system in the industry. At the very least, there are very valid reasons for MS to include network security features in their OS - they simply BELONG THERE. In some cases, Microsoft is only doing what the rest of the industry has been doing for decades.
Now, the anti-malware provisions are a different story. In many ways this is Microsoft cleaning up their own mess. If they provide the products free of charge (as with the Anti-Spyware Beta) I really don't see a problem - they're addressing their own issues. At the end of the day, Symantec's (and others') cash cow is a product that makes up for another product's deficiencies. This would be like Fram getting PO'd about Ford making gas inlet doors that can't be opened from the outside, because that reduces their market for locking gas caps.
If MS sells the crap, though... just plain wrong. I'd use a Microsoft security product as a supplement to other solutions if it were free, but I sure as hell won't actually pay them for it. They created the security holes in the first place; I'll accept proactive solutions but I won't pay for a reactive workaround by the same people responsible.
I can see your point, but it creates some nasty vulnerabilities. What stops the virus writer from exploiting these same hooks? Every hook is a new opening for malware to overwrite/modify the virus definition files, disable the AV function, escalate privileges, inject arbitrary code, create a fake AV UI that actually installs malware, etc. I'm not sure that letting 3rd party software modify the AV system is a good idea.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I'm a bit surprised to see that this isn't already mentioned, as it struck me as immediately relevant when i heard they were buying an antivirus company last year (sybari?) i think. Now if they are selling an anti virus/spyware product, and profiting from it, what interest do they have in actually hardening their os, and making it secure? In that regard they will lose out on money. So there is no incentive to make a secure system. IN fact they could claim that without this add-on they cant gurantee the reliability or security of the os or network. Now the fact that they are selling this is just a lowly business practice profiting from their own weakness. But had they started pushing this as a feature itself like the media player browser etc,. as a core of the os, the implications towards anti competitiveness would be vast, but then theyd not profit from it.
If they are so aware of their inner workings and their exploits doesn't this beg the question why don't they fix them and not realease the os with them? Instead they market an upsell profiting from these exploits. shameful
iptables is built into the kernel. If you don't want to use it, on RedHat/CentOS/Fedora you can 'chkconfig iptables off'. effin 'tawd.
From the Full Article (emphasis mine):
It's still not completely clear how either of Microsoft's desktop security products will be delivered, how deeply integrated into the operating system or Microsoft servers they could be, and how they will be priced
If Microsoft wants to create an unbreakable OS that spyware, malware, viruses and whatever are useless against, more power to them. That should be their job.
But if Microsoft wants to charge for the OS and not make it secure, they can't go out and sell the security stuff at extra charge. And if it comes autobundled, it better be superior to anything else, or else it is just like the browser fight.
Just my 4 cents (I found two extra in a payphone).
Use Linux and never worry babout all that crap again.
Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
The problem with PDF creation at least is that is it a *very* important feature for a word processor nowadays. I have gotten at least one person to switch to OpenOffice because they needed to produce PDFs from their wordprocessor documents, and didn't want to spend money on Acrobat.
I can understand why Microsoft thinks that they need to provide that feature - the lack of it potentially will cause some people to switch to alternative products.
Their trying, it's called trusted computing and DRM, the main problem is that their leveraging DRM and trusted computing to prevent users from copying things instead of preventing privilege escalation for data and applications so that a virus, worm, IE or Firefox are highly limited on the damage they can cause to the system.
Try infecting a already signed email with a trojan or virus.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I dont see how having a "microsoft" brand or "norton" or whatever is a big difference to the end user.
... norton, ms, mcaffee they all turn your pc into a slug and eat your resources to a dim.
...
... Dont you find it the least bit curious that they are realeasing it with Vista, and not with their last office package which makes more sence because thats where outlook is packaged and not with the os! or its last service pack with all of its other security components they released? All they are trying to do is sell Vista as being more secure, DUH!
... pfft whatever ... whatever sells i guess.
Unless micrsoft can actually make money off this endevor then its a waste of time for them, which means they are shipping a defective product and this will have backlashes on microsoft.
Heck we need to consider what AV really is, its just some tool that sits and stops brittany-nude.jpg.exe from being open or allowed to do harm on the pc. The malicious program can still do the harm and cause the same problems.
Insted of making a system to actully fix the problem realistically, ms is putting yet another bandaid on the situation _trying_ to make them look like the victors to the consumers.
Big pull wool over ya face deal here, still the same nonsense ms tactic. What ms needs to really worry about is biting too many hands that feeds them, they've started being more aggressive in the market then ever before and they can only pick so many fights before they start loosing them.
I yearn for the day when ms is just another software developer and not the only software developer, freedom to code slowly slips away from us when we condone yet another market in which microsoft will successfully plug away from the rest of us. We shouldnt let that freedom disappear for the OSS developer or other Businesses. If such a concept does not concern you then why would you really care what happens
Also i would be looking at code maturity here as an issue as well, norton has been playing the AV game for a while, MS is about to embark on this, i wonder how hard it is for the next worm to break this wonderous AV that is currently in beta stage and cause more millions in losses for people
I guess MS is just one of those businesses that people get burnt by they then the same person just sticks their hand back into the fire
Heck this virus issue has been around since when? the days of 286! virus' have always been an issue, why now all of a sudden MS gets the idea that its time to implement AV? simple more hype so people will blindly purchase MS products and not stear away to linux, which realistcally holds a big threat for them.
I think i was preaching this nonesense since windows 98 was out and about and since then very little has changed, how come all of a sudden its going to change now with this magical vista os appearing, i remember the same bs was said about xp, unhackable, secure, safe
'Fraid you did, if you bought Windows. And if you/your company is like my company, you will be doing so again soon when Vista goes "final".
There's a silver lining, though; I don't really find Linux to be quite end-user ready -- there are still some frustrating incompatibilities, hiccoughs with laptops, etc. But as long as Microsoft keeps releasing pre-beta software and making consumers pay through the nose for it, they erode the difference (and adoption disincentive) between their "professional" releases and what the community can come up with in its spare time.
Or, perhaps I'm simply talking out of an oriface != mouth.
"A plan's just a list of things that don't happen" -- Mr. Parker, "The Way of the Gun"
yes they should, as long as it's free to the customer. If it's a paid add on, there's no incentive for them to make their primary product, the OS, better and more secure. In fact, it would pay them more to release a LESS secure OS, because the *need* for antivirus and firewall would be greater then, increasing sales in that direction, so they get ya coming and going.
It's a connundrum similar to Sony. One division markets media, another division markets media viewing/using hardware. The media/content side wants all sorts of strange DRM to "protect their IP", whereas the hardware side would (most likely) want to offer more open and more functional hardware because consumers would rather have that.
If Microsoft starts charging for antivirus software, they may under various legislation be seen to ship a defect product that can only be fixed by making an additional purchase of a Microsoft product. This will open up the field for numerous lawsuits including class action in those countries that have it in their legislation.
The thing is that if Microsoft knowingly ships a product with open attack-vectors, and these can only be fixed by applying another product from Microsoft for which there is an additional charge, I am sure it can be argued under various legislation that they have shipped a defect product and you are entitled to a replacement product without the defects and/or a compensation.
Microsoft shipping an anti-virus product for their own operating system is significantly different from anti-virus firms shipping such products for Windows. Since Microsoft is 100% responsible for the design and production of their operating systems and applications, and have sufficient knowledge to produce a product to prevent attacks from viruses and spyware targeting their operating environment, they are also 100% capable of clearing those attack-verctors from their own products either by re-design or re-writing the software being attacked.
So the solution, both from a legislative and technical point of view, is to fix the original defect products, hence there will be no need for the second product and no business can be made from it.
The future is in beta
great situation for microsoft damned if you do damned if you don't
I would suggest to them a rewriting of their os to make it secure from the get go instead of just piling on crap onto crap.
too bad for all the companies out there that wrote software for windows - looks like they are going to have a rough time of it in years to come.
Code Red - IIS.
I Love You - Outlook.
Sasser - LSASS.
Slammer Worm - MS SQL Server.
The best thing Microsoft could do for thier users today is to return progman.exe as the default shell and allow IE to only run in the users context. Give users full control over what programs can run as a service (including Microsofts own services). Fix the NT kernel so user space programs cannot hook into the system.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
The OS should support any software you deem good to run on it while withstand attacks from software doing stuff without your permission. Preventing all malware thereby is NOT an OS task, since who's going to prevent your programs from being considered malware and therefore not run?
One part makes the engine (the kernel), the second part makes a check on it to prevent you from running stuff that corrupts other tasks (the user-layer wrapper around the kernel) and a third part allows you to do stuff to all software equivalently (the user-side OS support tools that have exceptions from some limits). Or in microsoft terms, the user-layer wrapper is left out (is faster without) and the software-side doesn't have any exception because that makes it faster. OK, leaving my car at a car park in front of the department shop with open doors and the engine running can get me out of the car park quicker, but don't come to me that it's a task of the car developers to keep me from that.
Comprehensive is having everything you need in one package, a monopoly is not allowing anyone to provide replacements for parts of that package.
Nope. A monopoly is having enough of a market share for a product or service that their is no effective competition (from a market perspective not a technical one). Windows has dominated the desktop OS space to such an extent it has been ruled a monopoly by the courts in many different countries. Once a company has a monopoly, it is easy for that company to do several things including suppressing any potential competitors and using that monopoly to move into new markets without having to compete fairly. Doing so is illegal.
Example: Ford can give away all the free gas they want with their cars right up until they have a monopoly on either gas or cars. Once they have a monopoly on cars they can make their cars run without gas, but they cannot bundle their cars with gas. There are also restrictions on what they can do to restrict what kinds of gas their cars can use etc.
Right now MS has that monopoly on cars and they just announced they are going to get into the gas market. What they need to avoid, legally, is bundling that gas with the car in any way. It is illegal for them to give anti-virus software away with the OS, provide a discount if a customer buys both, or in any way leverage their current monopoly to help their new product along.
Otherwise most people will still use 3rd party software because a company that only makes security products will probably do a better job.
Abusing a monopoly is all about bypassing competition. Your assumption that MS will compete against other companies is not necessarily the case. If MS gives the product away and includes their costs in the price of Windows, everyone will have to pay for their product whether they want it or not. If they provide discounts for customers who buy both (or bundle both on the computers they sell) their is no fair competition. It is like expecting a fair deal when one party is aiming a gun at another. MS has the power to crush and OEM PC business and as such is in an unfair position to bargain with those companies to get their antivirus pre-installed. And that is what needs to be protected against by the courts.
This should have been done years ago. Hopefully MS will just build it into the OS instead of selling it as a separate package. It seems like MS is trying to do so many thing. Next thing that will happen is that MS will be selling different OS flavors like for home users, developers, business users, etc. I think that Linux OSs are good because they do not get as many attacks like Windows. If Linux does get more popular there will be more attacks and they will have to develop some additional security measures with anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc built into them. MS finally realizes that they do need to do this.
That is the key here. Microsoft's software does have problems, most software does. The big problem is that the users are in no shape or form secure. I can't count the number of times people do the same things over and over even after you tell them that is what screwed them up in the first place.
MS added a firewall to XP and now they are integrating AV. I say good for them. That is one more step to making the system more secure. Since there are many FREE AV packages I don't see a big loss here to those charging; especially Symantec.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
``If there is anything they should have learned by now from the success of Linux, the benefits of allowing specialized developers creating software packages they know, understand and excel in doing properly, should have been clear to Microsoft by now.''
Oh, they probably do know that. However, now you're talking about quality. Making the best software isn't and has never been their top priority. What they are doing here is using their monopoly position in OSs and Office Suites as a springboard to domination in other markets. This move is all about control, which they can use to make more money.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
``If you want a Truly secure OS which doesn't need any type of protection, then you want Palladium. Simple as that.''
Yes, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way is to let one company (especially one with a reputation as bad as Microsoft's) control it. The right way is to let people choose lists to trust (much like APT repositories). I actually think that's a good idea.
Coupled with sandboxing (so applications cannot access files they have no business accessing, even if they belong to the same user), and safer programming languages (no more buffer overflows, injection vulnerabilities, and memory leaks), this would provide an enormous boost to security, at the expense of very little usability.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The European Patent Office has granted numerous anti-virus and firewall patents, which the EU Commission wanted and still wants to legalize in Europe:
ZDNet UK: EC slipping software patents "through backdoor"
TheInquirer.net: EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door
That would be much more anti-competitive than any bundling decision that Microsoft could ever take.
It's the same with the Media Player, which the Commission wants to be un-bundled from Windows: Today's computers are multimedia devices, and it's just logical to me that software like that would be pre-installed on a computer when I buy it. As long as those multimedia data formats aren't patented, people would still have the choice to download alternative solutions like MPlayer.
Getting back to Symantec: That company is a crying baby. They can't seriously insist that Microsoft deliver less secure software just so that Symantec can make some more money! If the EU Commission were to support Symantec's special interest in this case, then it might as well start putting out Stalin-like five-year plans for the European IT markets.
There must be a limit to (near-)monopoly abuse. If MSFT were to decide that everyone who wants to buy Windows has to buy Office, then I'd also be against it. But I can't see the reason why MSFT shouldn't provide some security software. In fact, my own experience is that Windows' built-in security tools cause a lot less trouble to my system than Symantec's Norton anti-virus and firewall tools (which also leave a lot to be desired in terms of usability).
Having had to run around and help clean screwed up machines twice this year. Hit by zero day virus outbreaks I firmly belive that the only thing a virus scanner is good for is telling you that you are already screwed and usually after the fact.
What we really need is some script kiddie with a attitude release one of these worms with a truely destructive payload, then and only then are we gonna see any real change. Imagine something like a code red worm that stayed alive long enough to propigate itself say 48 hours then destroyed anything on the disk, or flashed the bios with crap if it could.
The only real fix is to fix the darn OS, as it sits right now most of clients connected to the internet are a train wreck just waiting to happen.
Got Code?
``If you ask me, Microsoft should create a mode of operation in Windows that will disallow all programs and libraries except for the ones indicated in some list.''
While I don't think Microsoft "should" do anything other than whatever the hack they want, I agree that it's a good idea. However, as I've written in other places (soon, I'll put an essay on my site so I can link to it), there should be multiple whitelists that users can chose from. This increases users' freedom and limits the possibilities for abuse. Companies could put up a lists containing only the software used at that site, etc.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I don't think Windows, Linux, Unix, Mac or any other OS guarantees that the product is 100% secure from all present and future threats. MS takes significant steps toward protecting Windows users and the haters refuse to see how this is a good thing! The truth is that they like the fact that Windows has bugs. The more bugs/security issues the faster the ship sinks.
" How about making an O/S that is secure to begin with? Charging people or supplying add-ons to fix one's own problems?"
Name an OS that is? (No Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, and MacOS are not secure)
Vote for Pedro
As the resident techie, I've always been called on to fix and secure the computers of my friends and family and I always sang the praises of Symantec. Well after years of this, yesterday I finally removed Symantec Internet Security from my computer for PC-illin. I frankly got tired of having to reboot once a day due to memory leaks, perfectly good software from being run (even as administrator and after I explicitly stated the software was ok), and having to make special exceptions every time I wanted to install something new. Final straw was having random applications hang with no warning or response until I rebooted. I personally think Symantec should be scared - at least until they stop adding features without fixing their bread-and-butter.
Please read my post. Bundled != integrated. Then go back and read it again, and maybe you'll get it.
No; bloatware is when a single program tries to do more than it should. It may, however, be redundant; that's not the point. Anyway, a) they can put all the browsers that will run on XP in there and it won't take up too much space, b) it's the default install, and you can remove all the ones you don't want; in fact, it would be trivial for them to give you that option when you select the one or two that you want to keep, c) see below.
Because they're a monopoly, and monopolies have to play by different rules.
Let me repeat that, 'cause you don't seem to be getting it: Microsoft is legally a monopoly, regardless of what you would like to believe, and they must therefore play by different rules.
Microsoft is the only single company in the world with that much power, and that's more power than any single entity of any type should be given. It doesn't matter what your definition of a monopoly is: by the US's, the EU's, and probably that of every other place in the world that has such a definition, they are a monopoly, and so are no longer allowed to be anticompetitive.
Oh, and you're either an idiot or an astroturfer. Either way, go away.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
1. Note thet Microsoft is going to sell their security products as a separate cost item, not integrated them into the operating system (and that appears true even with Windows Vista). As such, this leaves the customer to choose the best solution for their needs regardless of the vendor (Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Grisoft, Trend Micro, Panda, etc.), which means Microsoft will likely not run afoul of any authority around the world.
2. I hate to say this, but hackers/crackers target Microsoft because it's the biggest guy out there in the desktop/small server software industry. What will happen when Linux/FreeBSD becomes very popular in the future? That's right, you know the hacker/cracker crowd will go after Linux and FreeBSD with a vengence.
Linux has never had problems with malware or viruses. I have used Linux on my home computer for about 5 years now. Both Linux and Mac OS X are alternatives that are quite usable and versatile despite not being vulnerable to malware and viruses. There are various reasons for the differences. For instance, unlike Windows most ordinary users do run with full administrative privilges most of the time and Linux also does not use Active X technology. There are other differences as well but for whatever reasons, Linux and Mac OS X have not had problems with malware and virues. Of course, when using Linux I still download the latest security patches and use one of the free firewalls that are available for Linux. With Linux, for security reasons, there are perhaps a few less automagical features but, once it is installed and properly configured, I find it to be an enjoyable easy to use operating system. Being user friendly is not an adequate excuse for Windows not having better security.
So also, Linux and Mac OS X both show that security can be achived without requiring Microsofts Palladium technology in which untrusted computer owners (such as us) would lose contol of our computers by the restricitons imposed by Palladium. Microsoft will undoubtedly someday use their security problems as an excuse for pushing Palladium and other similar DRM related restricitons on us.
If they add security measures to their system, already existing security companies will call them a monopoly and sue them, whereas if they don't, customers will get angry at Microsoft for not including everything in there for them and will switch to other systems.
The users will (eventually) switch, no matter what.
"I'm not pissed off at microsoft!"
"You will be. You... will be."
Linux has never had any problems with viruses or advertising related spyware. There are virus scanners available for Linux but very few Linux users bother to use them because there have never been any Linux viruses sucessfullly circulating in the wild. There have been about 19 Linux viruses written but a Linux user would need to be terminally stupid and run as root to catch any of them. There are about 100,000 Windows viruses actively circulating in the wild and no Linux viruses actively circulating. I have not personally used any of the other OSes that you mentioned, and know less about them, but my understanding is that viruses and adware are only a problems for Windows and DOS.
By not being secure, I assume you are refering to the fact that Linux users need to download the latest security patches and use a firewall just like Windows users. I also avoid running unnecessary services on my home computer that I do not use such as SSH. Well Linux is not perfect, but the need for most of these add-on security products such as virus scanners, spyware removal programs and registry cleaners seems to be a Microsoft only problem. I am just a home computer user that uses both Linux and Windows and not a system administrator or security expert but, I have seen for myself how easy it is for Windows to become infected with adware, viruses and Worms. With Windows I always used a firewall with the tightest possible secuity settings, downloaded the latest virus signatures and security patches, used hard to guess passwords and did not click on attachments. Despite that my Windows computer always sooner or later had problems with all of the above. I have used Linux for 5 years and never had those same kind of problems. Linux is not perfect but at least in many ways it seems to be much more secure than Windows.
after all the acquisitions made by symantec, the only problem that I can see, is that syamtec is about in the same situation like Microsoft is.
That's why syamtec CEO says: we were not proactive, we were called and we just answered....
saluti
Massimiliano.