Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Sues Microsoft, May Delay Vista
AuMatar writes "Symantec filed a lawsuit against Microsoft over patents on the volume management technology in Vista. They're seeking an injunction to stop Vista from being sold until the suit is completed. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling it should be interesting to see if the injunction is granted, since Symantec does produce software which uses the patent. If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay."
True, but we don't have crippling DRM in XP.
So now they pay someone else to help them delay Vista. LOL how pathetic.......
What Symantec is doing is rather interesting. Either asking for an injunction is to truly stop MS from causing their business damage, or it is just a lever to get into MS's checkbook. Either way, it is going to be interesting to see how this one plays out. While Symantec is not the 600lb gorilla the MS is, it is certainly in the 300lb range.
My
... I'm sure it will be time for MS to announce their next generation of OS. or maybe server. who likes using 3 year old server software???
I think people use 'Ubuntu' in their posts to sound cool.
What? Vista might be delayed? I'm shocked.... SHOCKED!!
In soviet Russia, Linux compiles YOU!
Wait a second. What code are they using? Is there some sort of automated backup in Windows? I didn't think any work was being done on the FS, so it seems that the code they allegedly stole isn't deeply coupled with the OS, right?
-- n
How many people think this is hillarious since windows is the only OS symantec can make a profit on, since it is the only one that performs poorly enough to NEED something like symantec?
Think about it, how many of us linux users are regularly downloading a virus cleaning program?
Symantec suing MS is like Karl Rove suing the republican party. It may be valid, but one would not exist without the other. That's just funny to me.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"Symantec alleges that "Microsoft has deliberately and surreptitiously misappropriated Symantec's valuable data-storage technologies, misled and thereby convinced the United States government to issue patents to Microsoft based on technologies invented by Symantec, attempted unsuccessfully to persuade Symantec to forgive Microsoft' s misdeeds under the guise of expanding a business relationship, and ultimately built portions of its next generation operating system on this house of cards."
2 words. holy shit.
When are they gonna learn?
Microsoft announces another edition of Windows Vista; Windows Vista Forever.
In celebration of it's release, ID Software and Microsoft are teaming up to release Duke Nukem Forever on the same day!
Attention Symantec employees: Start looking for a new job.
This is clearly an instance of "democracy with American characteristics", involving lawyers to get somewhere.
Anyway, M$ can't afford to stall the launch any further, which means the users will have to pay for Symantec's share.
Hell, M$ might even start thinking more about security just to piss off Symantec. Or maybe put them out of business entirely, because they live like a parasite on M$.
*Microsoft Board Room Exec's Shit guys, the date is coming closer and closer, and we have NOTHING. What the HELL are we going to do? *Board members think for a while* Hey, I have an idea! Let's get Symantec to sue us for something stupid, and create an injunction that stops our product from coming out, so that we don't have to delay it again, and can use someone as a scapegoat! ...
Excelent idea! Give this man a promotion, a Ferrari, and hell, tell the programmers to take the week off!
Semantec and its technology is annoying. Microsoft and its technology is annoying. Both have insidious business tactics (lifetime subscription, or die?).
I have a hard time picking which of these two companies is telling the truth here. Okay, it's slashdot, I'll align (reluctantly) with Semantec. A paragraph from an article:
The courts will have to arbitrate, but I wonder that Microsoft went into that contract under a huge smoke screen, all smarmy and friendly -- Semantec probably thought they were getting a backstage pass, a partnership to be the virus, etc., technology provider with Microsoft for the long anticipated Vista.
Vista: (from definition 2., Merriam Webster): an extensive mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)
Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what it was called?, etc.).
If I were a technology company, I'd only take one of two paths: I'd either formulate a strategy such that when my products are mature and interesting enough to Microsoft, I'd sell the technology and company outright (hello Visio), or I'd absolutely refuse to work with them at all. Anything in between seems to be a kiss of betrayal.
Of course a company always has to consider the heavy price that might be paid by not cooperating at all with Microsoft. Remember Netscape? And Microsoft has demonstrated the price to pay for that kind of bullying ("Janet Reno can go to Hell.") is one they're willing to absorb.
Well, a rambling post, but no solution to the Microsoft juggernaut. Hang in there Google!
Instead, Symantec is alleging that Microsoft stole trade secrets from them (this is the contractual violation part) incorporated them into Vista (hence the petition for injunction).
Patents come into the picture because Symantec is also alleging the Microsoft filed for patents on this technology, claiming to have invented it itself.
Symantec knows Microsoft will soon release an antivirus package. The XP firewall has already cut into the Symantec bottom line. Symantec needs to start grabing for cash while they can. This is a golden moment to get cash so their shitty R&D can come up with some Norton snake oil.
Interesting. So you hate Microsoft because it is unreliable and has bad quality and dont want MSFT to ship Vista...so that Linux can catch up in terms of reliability and quality.
Very interesting indeed
The recent Supreme Court decision has (almost) put an end to injunctions. Since the damages in patent cases are restricted to "actual" (meaning lost business profit) damages, it is hardly worth the bother.
Expect to see patent holders pretty much ignored by all large companies, from now on.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
frivolous lawsuits
Ahhh, yes, I almost forgot that in Slashdotland all patent lawsuits are, by definition, frivolous.
E pluribus unum
Unless you have some weird way of thinking that id would somehow buy Duke Nukem Forever and finish it, I guess you were talking about 3DRealms. Ok, it has been so long since they last published a game you no longer know their name.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
23 May 2006.
Microsoft released its latest patch set today for all versions of it's Windows Operating systems.
24 May 2006.
Symantec Products Failing en-mass.
Reports are coming in from all over the world today that Symantecs software is failing on all versions of windows, Symantec cannot explain it, and microsoft are not commenting.
sigh...
This is a perfect example of where submarines are used and why companies have to have them to do business.
It will take Microsoft all of 5 seconds to identify patents that Symantec is violating and force them to cross license. It's a waste of tax payer money (use of the courts) and a stupid desperate move on symantecs part.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Ah, that would explain those ancient Mayan predictions of something terrible happening to the human race in 2012.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
learn2link n00b
, May Delay Vista
Sigs are for Terrorists.
Symantec did not PRODUCE/CREATE the software patent in question - it was aquired by Veritas! Not trying to split hairs, but that is the whole truth. Bill
"If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay." Or, if they find yet another reason they should work more on Vista, expect them not to settle to cover their butts much like a certain company once did due to source code theft (A company and game I happen to have the greatest respect for).
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
You apparently have forgotten that Symantec now owns Veritas -- you know, the company that had probably the most-used volume management software out there? Need I remind you that Veritas Volume Manager has been a part of Windows for many years? Windows 2000 even had VxVM incorporated into it. When you have a 2000 or XP disk that is configured as "dynamic" instead of "basic", you're looking at a Veritas Volume Manager disk, not a straight NTFS/FAT32 disk.
Even the article itself (emphases mine) says:
Microsoft said in a statement that the suit "stems from a very narrow disagreement" over terms of a contract with Veritas to license volume management technology, which allows operating systems to handle large amounts of data.
Apparently, Symantec either thinks that Microsoft has misappropriated the technology that they use in Veritas Volume Manager and incorporated it into Vista without giving Symantec that they want or they're using this as an excuse for a money grab. Either way, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's anti-virus product.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Does this mean that Windows will finally have a real volume manager? Oh the humanity! Are we finally done with primary and extended partitions, and dynamic volumes, and all that crap? Can we just do something as elegant as "vgextend vg00 /dev/sda2" or similar ARC path crap?
Holy cow, maybe Vista WONT suck.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You are missing the point that if they could do security, they would. They're not making horrid software on purpose -- this really is the best they can do. It's sad, really. There are ten new viruses a day. Millions of zombie bots wreak havoc on the internet. Botmaster spamkings brazenly demand ransom and shut down opponents with traffic storms. Absolutely no other OS from any source provides a fertile ground for this menace to grow. The only possible cure for this absurdity would be to ban Microsoft products entirely.
If Microsoft products were not so easily exploited (or were banned from the 'net), the Internet would be a much more pleasant place for the common person.
So no, they're not able to make secure software for the purpose of putting Symantec out of business. If I had points today I would have modded you funny.
Whenever they ship XP SP3 (Vista) it will have inadequate security. The first security hole in IE is going to be a raging vector for spyware because the default firewall config doesn't block outbound connections. Naturally if spyware doesn't have to overcome a firewall to deliver its reports that's helpful to whom?
I'm in the trade, so dealing with this stuff is my bread and butter -- I've installed more of their product than anybody I know, but really this is truly pathetic. It saddens me to know that my fellow humans reason so poorly as to keep this vendor a monopoly.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Even more: You hate microsoft because you think they develop shitty software, but you want them to keep it that way and not to improve their products.
But only after the delay because it would be all Symantec's fault, every bit of it, nothing whatever to do with slipping schedules.
So says Oz the great and terrible.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
No, just crippling Product Activation.
So all my MP3's will play around the same volume with me having to fiddle with the speaker controls! Yessss!
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Whew!!! Thanks for small favors. Now that Symantec is suing Microsoft, they're able to use the lawsuit as an excuse for delaying the launch of VISTA for a few more months.
How much cash is Billy going to "settle" for so that they can hold back the launch of the biggest piece of vapor in history?
As if a million heads had cried out in utter confusion and then exploded.
Are you literate?
Microsoft just steals all the employees.
Example: compiler vendors
Haven't had a good laugh in a while. Funny thing is, I can actually see that happening
Ah, that would explain those ancient Mayan predictions of something terrible happening to the human race in 2012.
The POPEs, don't forget the POPEs !
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
You need to read TFA. Has nothing to do with security software. Think Volume Management.
Microsoft is in a position to place antivirus/spyware apps into their OS. Symantec makes ~50% of all revenue from NAV. This lawsuit isn't much more than corporate blackmail. Microsoft agrees to not bundle their AV, or otherwise completely screw NAV, and Symantec agrees not to tie up Vista in court.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/libra ry/symanteccomplaint.pdf
MS: "Ok, how much will it take to make you go away?"
SYM: (in DR EVIL vioce) "ONE BILLION DOLLARS!"
MS: "a billion?!"
SYM: "Well, ya see, we gotta pay out taxes..."
Maybe Vista won't see the light of day...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
While I don't doubt that Symantec has a valid point and that MS is using some of their IP without licensing it I have to ask...
Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?
It seems like the world is getting more and more "locked down".
There is less and less anyone can do without knowingly or unknowlingly trampling someone else's IP.
To make matters worse there are Patent Trolls, locking up broad patents with the hopes of suing people to make money.
Those who can't sue.
All this has lead me to question the presumptions behind both copyrights and patents.
They were originally designed to spur innovation by protecting the people who invest their time and resources to research and develop new products or create original content.
It *SEEMS* to me that both are now acheiving the oppsite goal and limiting and hurting innovation.
While I don't think we can just get rid of either overnight, I think some careful consideration needs to go into reforming the laws to make sure that they serve their original purposes.
Just some thoughts that this discussion brought up for me...Cheers.
..I would wager that the bulk of slashdotters fall into the "all or most of the above" camp when it comes to using various operating systems. The demographics here probably (directly) use at least two if not more than two operating systems on a daily basis. It's really a SWAG but I bet I am right, a possible example, guy running linux or solaris or a BSD server(s) at work, palm OS maybe on a PDA, a mac OSX laptop, a dual boot desktop at home with linux and XP or 2000, a media server running linux, etc.
You hate microsoft because you think they develop shitty software, but you want them to keep it that way and not to improve their products.
If you call adding DRM and further anti-piracy measures "improving", then I hope that they will be "improving" their products, even if it does mean a few more delays.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
(Twiddling fingers like Dr. EVIL)... FIFTY-FIVE ***BEELYUN*** DOLLARS!
(Picking themselves up from floor, ms lies again and chortles) THAT KIND OF MONEY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's not a delay. It's a feature.
I have nothing to say.
"Car careens off road to miss roadkill and causes Vista delay" "Vista release postponed due to high rainfall in the Amazon" "Tazmanian fruitbat goes extinct - could cause late release of Vista." ...
all software patent lawsuits are, by definition, frivolous.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
It isn't so much that microsoft cannot put out a secure product or even patch security with other product they hold. It is that microsoft hasn't seen the need to yet.-
You see, as long as companies like symantec are out there, Microsoft has an ace in the hole. It can push security off onto site admins and disclaim responsibility if an incedent occures. Now recently, the general public has described security as a bigger importance. They are puplicaly chastising microsoft for holes in software, bugs and glitches. They are seeing increases in automated attacks and identity thefts wich opens a whole new market to microsoft.
Now there has been enough case laws and examples that pretty much provide that microsoft or symantec cannot be held liable for security problems with thier product or the products they are protecting. This opens the gateway for microsoft to get into the bussiness of securing thier own products by selling third party software. It is simular to buying a car and having new locks and a security alarm that disables the ignition added after you take possession of it because one in five keys work in every other vehicle. They still aren't planing on fixing the software, just giving you access to more stuff to buy that covers it.
Symantec, i think is looking at this and making plans to go the netscape way but they have an ace in the hole. They bought a company the microsoft licenses software and concepts from. If symantec can delay Vista's release until it asures themself of larege enough royalty payment, it displaces losses from microsofts competing products, they can achive two or more goals. First, they can ensure profit after thier product enter old age. Next, they can jack the price by the added expense of royalties so that it is unlikley casual upgrades would be done. Now microsoft has plenty of products riding on Vista and Vista's introduction so thier near future business model is at risc. This places the ball completley into symantec's court wich should be a win-win situation for symantec.
I think microsoft entering the antivirus and firwall game trigured this defensive posture from symantec. So the parent poster who tanted microsoft should start thinking more about security isn't actualy seeing the cause of the problem or how microsoft is responding to security. He is corect about the end user getting stuck paying for it though. It sadens me that what i just described might actualy be happening.
I think you are stretching it a bit to leave out software, though. I don't think I've ever seen anyone here say that the entire patent system should be scrapped.
Windows Media Player, anyone?
it took ten years. Well I was actually there. Msft already had (and still does have) pretty good "volume management" software before they got in bed with Veritas. It was in the product since first release back in 1993. A couple of us were slated to work on improving what Msft already had. From a marketing perspective, being able to say that we had the software, Veritas Volume Management (VVM) that was the "gold" standard (from a marketeers point of view), was something that many thought we HAD to have. I really question whether this turned out to be true. I argued vehemently against this contract, which I read from cover to conver. Clearly I argued ineffectively. One of my arguments at the time, was that we would never be able to claim we were better than what was out there because it certainly wasn't in Veritas' interest to produce a better product for Msft, while they still had a bunch of other OEMS using customized VVM. It was a done deal with Msft though. I certainly got inklings that within serveral years there was at least ONE very senior executive who wondered aloud why the heck this contract got signed. Makes you wonder how many folks actually did read the contract. In my own case, I retired within a year of the contract being signed, and have been happily self-unemployed since.
"Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it."
-- Steve Balmer on Linux and patents.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
VxVM has the same roots in the dark and distant past with the volume management used in AIX. Now, wasn't the infamous SCO suit against IBM based in part on the claim that IBM's developers contaminated the Linux kernel while porting AIX's volume management to it?
Does anyone else but me see a sort of exquisite irony here?
And whats even more funny is that Windows wouldnt exists without anti-virus!
--They still aren't planing on fixing the software, just giving you access to more stuff to buy that covers it.--
Reminds me of a Daffy Duck / Porky Pig cartoon from days long past. Daffy was the manager of a hotel, Porky the visiting businessman. For those who don't remember, there was a mouse chewing on celery in the room, he calls down to get something to take care of it. Daffy brings a cat. then the cat annoys porky, calls down again and gets a dog... process goes all the way to an elephant, which is chased out by....a mouse.
A.A
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
Hmm... Don't know if Microsoft has been in talks with Symantec, but as for steam rolling over them, I would very much say so (not saying it's necessarily a bad thing though):
...and the list goes on. And their apps are getting a LOT more bothersome for their clients - especially the activation part. Someone I know bought NAV, only to discover it wouldn't let him activate it on 2 PCs or something (unlike the old version), and now it's not working anymore (plus pay for updates - getting too expensive, he moved to AVG too). And incredible bloat (NIS will bring a 2GHz PC to its knees), and countless bugs (we had tremendous problems with SAV at work, countless crashes, problems with office, you name it).
-They're going to offer an antivirus (in addition to their existing spyware removal software), making the use of SAV/NAV/NIS and such junk mostly pointless. [Not counting that most people seem to be moving to other AV apps lately like AVG and such - especially since NAV is getting harder to crack]
-They're including a basic firewall out of the box (not the best, but NIS is crap, that'd be like downgrading, if someone wants a better firewall, they'll get something that's actually better)
-Starting with Vista, they're replacing deployment tools, i.e. replacing RIS for WDS, but the interesting point here is XImage, which will likely replace ghost - the only symantec app that wasn't *total* crap yet (although lots of people have moved to/prefer acronis apps instead).
What's left? Winfax? Nope. Already a basic fax client in windows (it sucks, but I can't say winfax is great either, and most people/businesses that still use faxes nowadays don't do it via PC either). Doubt they sell many licenses.
Oh, PCAnywhere! Well, terminal services/citrix ICA is what everyone and their dog seems to be using these days (and apps like VNC/radmin). I haven't seen someone using it in a LONG time - definitely NOT mainstream either.
What else? Partition magic? Bleh. Those who wanted it bought it while it was Powerquest's - and it doesn't even seem to be updated anymore (symantec's specialty seems to be driving products into the ground - like novell seemingly). Buggier than ever, sounds like everyone prefers acronis apps for this nowadays.
The only thing they seem to have left that's worth buying is their new acquisition, veritas products. But I'm sure they'll manage to make them suck too, and drive them into the ground like everything else.
It seems they're not improving anything, they'd be the LEAST innovative company I could think of, and their junk just keeps getting worse.
Perhaps Veritas licenses alone can't keep the company afloat (unsurprisingly), and they're looking for a ne business model ala SCO (litigation, to prevent a new/better/more secure OS, or plain extorsion)
I'm sad to see many companies and products having been crushed by Microsoft over the years (OS/2, Corel stuff, you name it), but if there's one company I won't miss, it definitely is Symantec.
i dont think vista is ever going to come out. This will give Linux oses a big advantage because they will have been developed in the last three years. That could be a major redhat selling point: Dont use something 3 years old use a new os.
new to website. .. .very powerful name
*grins* ty!
A.A
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
Probably ain't true but still. This is MS we are talking about. If they can lie about something, they will.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Reminds me of stacker.
Though that worked out well for the primaries of stacker ($600 million settlement, or something like that), the company failed during litigation........
One wonders if Microsoft is trying to "phase out" Symantec in the same fashion. Obviously, they believe it is cheaper to litigate/settle than license or buyout.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Right in the face, go Symantec. Symantec is in da house!
I think perhaps the steamroller is on the other foot. Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years. When someone wants to flame their OS the first part that gets raked across the coals is security. With Vista they seem to want to step up and take responsibility for security by including a virus scanner. Isn't this something everyone has been saying they should have been doing all along?
"We shouldn't have to buy 3rd party software to be able to use Windows! That just ain't right."
So they step up, granted they sure shuffled there feet getting there.
"M$ is steamrolling 3rd party software that we bitched about having to buy in the first place! That just ain't right."
I'd say Microsoft just can't win no matter what they do, but the opposite seems to be more the case in reality.
As for Symantec "talking" with Microsoft, what do they really have to say? "Hey Microsoft, please don't make your product better because we want to continue to profit off picking up the slack." That'd kinda be like the oil companies saying, "Hey car companies, please don't make your cars more fuel efficient because we want to continue...
oh nevermind
Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
Technically, you may be right. Practically though, it'd be very difficult fo Symantec to challenge MS' anti-virus offering and succeed on merit. Many big-time legal battles are fought to achieve something other than stated in the suit... SCO vs IBM being a prime example.
Symantec would love it if MS continued to remain their biggest source of revenue. And for that, MS has to keep releasing virus-prone OSes forever. With MS changing tack with Vista, Symantec would definintely look to collect as much as possible, before going down.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Expect Microsoft to have another excuse for further delay.
What are the chances of Vista coming with preinstalled Duke Nukem Forever?
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
to Longborn.
Not just that, but Veritas also wrote a file system for NT. I suspect it is this that they are accusing Microsoft of pinching.
lol. I mean, come one, when will people learn? For some reason people never believe it can happen to them.
Deleted
The judge has the power to issue a preliminary injunction before trial if the judge is convinced the circumstances warrant it.
All the Supreme Court patent decision really did was tell the lower courts that in patent cases, when they're deciding whether to issue an injuction, they're supposed to apply the same standards as in other cases.
To justify an injunction you're supposed to show that it's necessary to avoid "irreparable injury." If being awarded damages at the end of the trial will end you up in the same position as if an injunction were issued, the judge is not supposed to issue an injunction. (Obviously the rule is vague enough to provide a lot of wiggle room.)
Hmmmm... I was there on the other side. What you have conveniently missed out, is the file system work that went on at the same time. Selective amnesia, maybe?
So now it's gonna ship even later than never?
MS then distributed IE for free and never paid a penny to them.
i remember that MS recently did lose a lawsuit for this, but the damage was done
Are Symantec doing Microsoft a favour so that they have a really good excuse for the next postponement of Vista?
Symantec CAN get a Temporary Restraining Order at the start of the trial if they can demonstrate that they will probably succeed on the merits of their case.
The Permanent Injunction comes along at the end.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
new word.
No problemo...
the entire patent system could (should?) be scrapped. Along with the entire copyright system.
... your wish is my command.
Trademarks aren't too bad though, I suppose we can let those stay, as long as we make sure trademarks aren't twisted and misused into pseudo-copyrights once we've scrapped the present copyright system.
Personally I hope they both go up in a ball of flames. Not that I have any issues or anything...
This is so ironic. MS does a deal with Symantec for data-storage technologies, what ever that is, then cancels it and now Symantec is sueing them. If Symantec had any real technologies they would have devised a system for not getting 'viruses' same with Microsoft.
..
.. new legislation, increased enforcement [and ] industry self-regulation."
.. now that would be real innovation® (Microsoft Corp).
Meanwhile over on capitol hill
"Gates downplayed the idea of a technological fix to the spam problem. "There is no silver-bullet solution to the problem,"
No Mr. Gates, there is no Microsoft technological fix since it is Microsoft Windows that is the root cause of the problem. All those hacked Windows desktops awaiting use in the next phishing or DOS attack.
"Gates advocated
No Mr. Gates, making hacking a twenty year felony crime is not going to fix it either. What they should do is make it a twenty year felony offince to sell such a defective OS such as the one you produce.
"While trumpeting Microsoft's investment in antispam technology"
Why not make an OS that cannot be hijacked by the next spamking
davecb5620@gmail.com
That court ruling about injunctions requires that the plaintiff prove tangible loss of income/revenue because of the infraction.
If Vista is still the better part of a year away from the shelves how exactly again is it causing a loss of revenue for Symantec?
It's like saying I'm suing you for punching me in the face because I see you walking over here, and you have your fist doubled up, and I want to get paid before you hit me!
I agree with the sentiment that this is a desperation ploy from Symantec because they realize that any percentage to which Microsoft improves security and protects from viruses/worms is a direct percentage out of how much people need a company like Symantec around and ergo hits bottom line fast.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
MS might have an interest in this suit not being thrown out. It could "in good faith" pretend to negotiate a settlement until Vista is nearly really ready to be released.
If Symatec should resist, MS can cite their efforts and the Supreme court decision to have the suit blocked. For MS this could be a real win, because no longer would the delay be attributed to their lack of execution. Moreover, a premature release to avoid the former critique could open them to further attacks should the software have easily discovered flaws.
Perhaps some will continue to complain, but the focus will no longer be solely upon the deficiencies of MS real or imagined.
f) Profit!
steampunk web design
Given my feelings on the topic of Microsoft I've got mixed feelings on this. As far as my mind goes it's clear cut though. Software/Idea/Method Patents are the business equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. They are already badly hampering progress in the software field. It's virtually impossible to write a useful program that does not infringe upon existing patents.
There is some semi-valid excuses for corporations stockpiling such patents for defensive purposes. There are no excuses for actually attacking with them.
It is very rare to find a programmer that is prepared to defend software patents
I think you're projecting. I know plenty. Software patents have been one of the driving forces in the industry, making it what it is today. Yes, it's been abused. What good thing hasn't?
My guess is the programmers opposed to the entire software patent process are the ones that look at every new codebase as something that should be rewritten.
E pluribus unum
... you are seriously forgetting about the most used symantec product in the corporate environment. Symantec Corporate Anti-virus. We use it, every company I support uses it (lots of companies). One client has over 7,000 machines running the client end of it, meanwhile there's all the domain controllers running the server end as well. Licenses... cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching! Unlike their comsumer level Norton AV, Symantec Corporate AV, in my experience, actually does it's job without being intrusive, AND it's nowhere near the resource hog that Norton AV is.
Ghost isn't as big as it used to be, and the rest is junk as you mentioned. I just needed to add in the corporate AV... it's their one decent product. If Symantec goes under, I won't miss all the other products, but the corporate AV would be missed.
That was really insightful... but what a pain to read!
Is it possible that Microsoft WANTED Symantec to sue them in order to have an excuse to ship Vista late?
There's also another concept which helps free software to be more virus resistant : it's its diversity.
There are dozen of different distros out there, each using a different kernel, built using a different version of gcc, software linked against different libraries. Compare this to windows. The 12 different flavors of Vista that are announced are basically exactly the same OS with different functions crippled depending on the flavor. But same fucking kernel compiled with the same stupid Visual studio, linking against the same libraries.
Same reasoning could be made for architecture, Linux is does *NOT* equate to "Intel x86" (whatever do think the commmercial developpers who ship binary-only driver). You can get it on PPC, Spac, ARM, whatever else.
With some historical isolated exceptions (Alpha, Itanium), windows runs only on x86 and derivated (AMD64) architectures.
Now take in account all the customisation that end users may have made (running custom-build kernels with different optimization is very common amongst advanced linux users) which is plain impossible (except for a few gov or mil organization, nobody has access to Windows kernels).
All this leads to one conclusion : it's damn hard to have a single binary that can be run accros all possible linux installations. That's something commercial developper have to put up with. And they usually comme up with a collection of multiple packages that can run on a very specific subset of distributions (see this soft I've recently downloaded as an exemple).
For a viruses it's even harder, because the viruses must be small enough to fit inside the e-mail or the exploit's payload. So there's no option to do huge binaries with every library dependency statically compiled in (like OpenOffice.org does) or using multi-architecture binaries (like Fat-binaries on Mac).
Viruses also highly depend on specific version of kernels and libraries to be able to exploit bugs, escalate access rights, etc. There are some efforts to provide a standarised subset of libraries, etc.. (see LSB) so binary applications could be easier to make. But be sure you'll never see such an idiocy as a LSB certified, standarized exploitable kernel bug !
So, if a virus is designed in the traditionnal Windows way, it'll only be able to annoy a very small subset of all users, and only for a short period of time (version update are more frequent in Linux world - new distro every few months - than in Windows world - new OS every few year).
So yes, you're right *in theory* : there could be users dumb enough to enter their root password just to get a nice KDE applet showing the weather. But most of the time the virus it self won't be able to make it to the "asking-root-password" stage and are very likely to crash before, due to missing libraries or incompatible ABI.
The very single thing that pisses of first time Windows-to-Linux switchers - that they can't just download random SETUP.EXE files and install every crapware by clicking on it - is what protects linux users from being vulnerable to spywares and virus.
Then how are software distributed on Linux, is it possible for a virus to take this way ?
On linux there's a few different way to get new software for you system.
- For those who want bleeding edge software : getting software distributed as source and custom-compiling them. It's not trivial (see the "couldn't play Quake on Linux" trolls lying around slashdot). And in my humble opinion, the kind of idiots that just clic "yes" and give root password everywhere won't be able to do it. On the other hand, you pointed to these viruses in EXE-packed-in-password-protected-ZIP. (At least, if there's some "here's a cool source code, and those are the instruction to get it running" worm, it'll show the "quake-on-linux" trolls proof that even compiling isn't that much complicated). Very unlikely.
- The standart way most user, even
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Here is the deal. I dont think that I am taking sides, but in a way, everytime im "fixing" a windows box, I wish with all my heart that MS had some kind of "security" or scanner that could detect or clean malware.
Vista is starting to have the workings of anti-malware/security right? (or its supposed to) and thats not a bad thing from the users perspective.
However, this is a bad thing for Symantec. Like the integrated browser "solving" the browser war, Vistas integrated features may make many portions of Symantec's software redundant. Yes, we want Windows to have some security, backup, spyware detections etc, (and even a virus scanner would be nice) but that would hurt companies who specialize in this! And, unfortuneate for semantic windows Vista will be the only OS of the near futre that would need a security/backup suite (ok maybe a few macs)
I think Symantec senses a possible "end is near" and is moving to head it off. Yes, i would like free builtin security tools but at what cost? Thousands of offshore outsourced jobs could be lost!
Patent nigger.
You're joking, right? How are you browsing the comments exactly... Oldest First?
Did you consider that the threat to Symantec's business from Microsoft improving its security and releasing its own well integrated AV products at a very low cost might be so great that Symantec would find any way it could to lash out at them?
Vista Delays are gettign to be like gasoline price hikes... anything will delay it. Prince of Serbia sneazes... Vista is delayed. MtDew stuck in a vending machien in Redmond... Vista is delayed. Vist just might be the next great Duke Nukem. VISTA FOREVER
MadOgre.com
Convenienly? I look at my post and I see bitching about what happened before the contract was signed. You folk didn't contribute any work to Msft before the contract was signed did you? Like I said, I left the company not long after. So I actually can't enumerate all the technical improvements that Veritas made in the Msft file system environment. But really, are you saying that VRTS improvments to NT were that responsible for the domination that OS now enjoys? I contend NT would have sold just as many copies. Given that, why did Msft need to tie their own develoment hands? Even If I wasn't deemed capable of doing the work, there certainly were enough people in Msft who could have done it. In the end would not VRTS as a simple matter of survival done the development as a third party? Hey, I'm not critical of VRTS. You folks wrote a great contract that worked great for you. I just think Msft got into a deal they never needed to.
You were there from the other side? Were you with Veritas before the contract or were you one of the local Redmond hires they brought in to do some of the work?
When you talk about file system work, while I imagine you can't say for trade secret reasons, file system improvements are an interesting concept.
Are you saying that you changed interfaces and methods in EVERY file system that Msft developed and maintained? If so, how is it wrong for Msft to try to use an embedded set of capabilities for all its worth? Or did Msft respond to VRTS suggestions and create new interfaces? Were those private interfaces that only VRTS was given knowledge of? Were those interfaces ever published in the very popular File System Developers SDK? Is Msft now using these private interfaces for other development purposes? Its a long time ago, but did Vrts change the On Disk Structure? If the ODS was changed is it only VRTS who can munge them now? I can't imagine that I'll ever know the answer to these and other questions. Msft will eventually settle with Symantec. It will cost Msft more money. That's ok, they have a pile.
All things considered this is nothing compared to the systemic problems that msft faces in terms of OS developement.
Msft is carrying a very heavy load trying to move forward with NT. They should publish cheaply as much of the OS build as they possibly can. Let others carry some of the support/development load. Besides taking some wind out of the Linux PR, I believe the geek world would love to play around with the OS. Some interesting things might get developed. Bugs might get fixed faster.
Even more: You hate microsoft because you think they develop shitty software, but you want them to keep it that way and not to improve their products.
Your comment is pure speculation. The original poster did not mention why they hate Microsoft. You're the only one that said it was because they develop shitty software.
I, personally, have a strong dislike for Microsoft, but it is not because they sell shitty software. I dislike the fact that they use their monopoly to retard progress in the entire industry and make life harder for people in the interests of their own profit. I dislike that they break the laws and I dislike that they spread constant misinformation. I dislike that they buy companies with innovative products and then kill those companies and their products.
Secondly, you make the assumption that Vista is an improvement. While in some ways this is sure to be true, in others it is sure to be completely wrong. They already ripped most of the real features out of vista, like a database filesystem and a usable shell. They have, however, kept all of the anti-features, like DRM, intentionally broken OpenGL support, bundling of other products, and more built-in nonstandard replacements for standards (PDF). It is by no means clear that Vista will benefit users more than it hurts them and it is clear that it will continue to apply illegal tactics to remove innovation and choice from additional computing related markets.
In short, you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about someone else's statements, based upon your own ignorance of what is going on and your assumption that others have the same level of awareness.
MS has a crystal clear understanding of business ethics. What you can get away with is legal. What you can't get away with is government interference in innovation.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
MSFT is returning to its roots and has made a deal to ship Duke Nukem Forever as a "freebee" with Vista.
They are willing to wait...
-from the Signs of the EndTimes department
Using today's market caps and exchange rates, Microsoft is a 123 million British Pound gorilla, while
Symantec is a 9 million British Pound gorilla.
No no no. Veritas does have their own file system (vxfs) - a driver exists for linux - but they didn't write one for Windows. At least not one they've released or made public.
1. And Amiga did it cleaner/nicer, one .library and bingo a new FS is supported. Too many layers = too many bugs and too many documents to read.
/dev/disk_a etc...
2. Why not just dump the NT kernel and go bsd/unixfs and plug everything ontop like Apple did with OSX. All those crappy A: C: D: crap
can then move to
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You can't fix a wrong answer no matter how much money you throw at it!! If people where not so greedy we'd all have computers with firmware & flash memory OS's that you'd have to physically come in my house break it with a hammer!! AND companies like Symantec wouldn't have existed in the first place....
That last one is the important line. They only ever sold it to about 2 customers before it got canned.