Slashdot Mirror
EU And Microsoft Clash Over Vista Security
An anonymous reader wrote to mention coverage of further clashes between Microsoft and the EU, this time over security in Windows Vista. Microsoft is 'urging' the EU to allow all of the security elements of Vista to remain intact. The EU seems to be under the impression it's not asking for security to be lax; it just wants the software company to ensure a fair playing field for all businesses. From the Newsday article: "European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plans to launch its Windows Vista operating system with built-in protection from hackers and malicious programs. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters that the European Commission is "ready to give guidance to Microsoft" concerning Vista but added that it was up to the U.S. software maker 'to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance' with EU competition rules."
How about they release a European version with no seucrity and we all sit back with some popcorn and watch as they all get hacked. Not that Microsoft security works or anything but least it makes hacking more challenging and slows em down a bit. I wish I lived in Europe because about a third of my computer repair jobs are caused by Norton.
now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
The solution to me seems to be the approach used in linux, bsd, whatever. Fully document the security APIs, or command-line tools to configure the security aspects. Let other vendors write their GUIs for controlling security, such as firewalling, using that API. Let people pick the tool that fits their needs best, while all providing the same type of security through the OS.
"When Microsoft failed to meet Commission requirements, the EU executive fined the company another 281 million euros (about $350 million) this summer. "
All I want to know is when we get our 2*281 million euros?
If you divide that by the population of Europe you get about 3 euros each, that's enough for at least a beer each.
You can use whatever firewall you want, both in software and hardware. You can use whatever virus scanner you want, both software and hardware. When vista pops up with the security center it doesn't even focus on Microsoft products - your first choice are compatible third party products.
So what is the point of all of this?
The other security implementations would be like asking Unix to allow replacement of Sudo, root and user permissions and replace it with a third party app that would just give you want you were wanting to begin with in the first place.
What lame articles. Neither one says what the hell the thing being bundled is, other than "security" as though security could possibly be a product or module.
Ok, one of the articles made a brief mention of a firewall. Is all this noise about something as mundane as a software firewall?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They don't want to make Vista less secure, they just want to avoid that MS starts to integrate more and more 'features' neatly tied together as so called 'security'. Eg. further integration of the MS firewall in Vista, possible integration of anti-virus software in Vista. Because MS is still walking the same path as before, and doing the same as before (Netscape, anyone ?). So it might be better to warn MS from the beginning, then to react when the damage has been done.
It's hard to say what should be inherent in the OS and what shouldn't. However, most forms of computer security should be inherent to the OS and not part of some third-party solution. For instance, I want my OS to be resistant to running arbitrary code and be able to give me control over and info about programs and processess are running on my computer. If I have to get third party support to do those things the OS is failing me.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
It looks like Microsoft is simply using Vista as a way to force the EU to back down or be the ones responsible for EU nations to not have Vista when everyone else gets it.
This is a win-win for everyone, really:
1. Such a delayed release would be the ultimate proof of monopoly. Stifling an entire continent. Courts will churn. MS heads will roll.
2. Delayed EU Vista means at least part of the world's computer infrastructure will work when Vista's new DNS scheme allegely will break teh Interweb everywhere else. (I don't have the link... google it)
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
The days of Microsoft execs bluffing down any who dared stand in their way are gone for good and Microsoft is stuck with a top level management team that only knows that one strategy.
EU enforcing competition rules, the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the continuing rise of Linux/open source - Microsoft needs something more than a bunch of attack dogs repeatedly banging their heads against a brick wall in Europe to deal with the huge amount of trouble the company is in these days.
Seriously, this is just plain stupid. An OS should be able to protect itself from malicious programs etc. If something or someone is preventing my OS from running the way it should be, or running at all, I sure as heck want the OS to be able to fix itself or prevent it from ever happening in the first place. I'd rather not have to wait for a third-party vendor's program to get updated etc.
Can someone tell me why nobody is going after Apple? It seems like the EU is persecuting Microsoft for trying to make a good product. Apple's OS sure doesn't leave a lot of room for antivirus/spyware companies to make products... Yet the EU isn't bitching and moaning about it, are they?
I'm tired of their whining. Microsoft, I hope you ignore them, by making your product more secure (as long as you aren't selling the security separate, BIG point there) you are in the right, and I hope you tell the EU to take a hike. Nobody I know is going to NOT buy your product because it's more secure.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
This was brought up by someone in another discussion in a different context, but I think it applies equally well to Microsoft's current problems with the EU.
If they would simply modularize many of the components that come with Windows, they might wriggle out of a lot of legal troubles.
For example: I go to install Windows from scratch. On the installation screen, i get a list of components...
[x] Windows OS (base system, required)
[_] Internet Explorer
[_] Windows Security Center
[_] MS Firewall
[_] MS Antivirus
[_] MS Anti-Malware
etc.
I can check any of these things that i like, and they'll be included in the installation. For OEM installs, they could just include everything by default.
Most importantly, make them removable through Add/Remove Programs, so that if i decide at a later date that I no longer need a feature, i can uninstall it completely.
Suddenly a lot of the monopolistic legal troubles get much less worrisome for Redmond. EU worried about MS including Anti-Virus or Firewall? No problem, make them un-checked in the default install. Leave them on the disc, and make them freely available for download at the MS website to make it abundantly clear that they're a free service.
Not that I expect them to do any of this of course, but it would certainly help reduce the amount of resentment that many people feel towards them, even from their own users.
When MS ships it's products with it's own security software
(antivirus, intrusion detection, ), the market will shrink
dramatically. No one of the competitioners would have a chance
to sell it's products to private ans small buisness customers.
And i think we all know what happens when there is no more
competition at the free market. The quality goes down the drain.
BTW. This would end in a monoculture of security-products
by MS, and monoculture makes the whole infrastructure
extremely vulnerable for real big or well organized attacks.
Microsoft spends most of its time producing new OS features in collaboration with other vendors. DRM, drivers, APIs all designed to make MS OSes work better with the rest of the products people will buy. That takes much longer, and more code, than the rest of the OS does.
But its "security" features are MS only. Of course that must be to protect the MS "near monopoly", always its #1 priority. Since the security market is neither very profitable nor already dominated by MS, I expect that their "security" also protects revealing other serious defects of the OS. Whether more monopoly protection, unnecessary security problems, or just bad coding. Therefore I don't see Microsoft opening those facilities for the EU before Vista is released, if ever.
--
make install -not war
The logical conclusion of the European Commission is that Microsoft should not incorporate these security features in Vista.
To make sense of this decision, you have to remember that the European Union was based, as far as the economy is concerned, on the idea of "fair competition" meaning that monopolies should be banned, and major companies (or states) cannot squeeze smaller competitors out of a market. Whether the squeeze is due to state protectionism, unfair tariffs or a dominant position -- which is the case here -- is irrelevant.
So, yes, it sounds ridiculous and bureaucratic at first sight, but it makes economic sense. And it may even provide better products in the end (I don't trust Microsoft products anyway).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
O'RLY?
They are trying to push MS into a no win situation.
A) MS doesn't include as complete and inclusive security as possible. This leaves the doors open for third party security developers, it also leaves the door open to the OS for malevolent people who will take advantage of the fact that many people won't think to add a product later for security.
B) MS includes all the security they can, possibly making it so that people don't need third party software for security. BAM new anti-trust action because they aren't being fair to people who made a living covering bad MS security architecture in a previous version and aren't being given an equally bad architecture to help "protect" for a profit this go around.
People complain that MS releases insecure OS products, then complain when they want to include more security features?!? bah
I won't even get into how Apple is bundling everything they can under the sun into OS X when the same actions by MS would be tantamount to kicking the interwebs dog.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
20 years of bitching about MS security. Now its time for 20 years of bitching about them trying to fix it.
Should we have MS take out all other other utilities and apps they have added over the years to Windows like IE, defrag, networking, etc and go back to the days when you needed to select and install all these apps on your own? We all know the MS apps and features aren't the best out there, but they are "good enough" for the vast majority of people who don't like tinkering with their computers.
Just because this request to ensure a "level playing field" is focused on security makes it no less valid than if it were aimed at other elements integrated into the operating system.
I Agree that i microsoft is integrating security products into its vista operating system that would enable it to enter markets where it has not got a large hold (i.e. Anti virus - where it is the main driver but not the main supplier...) and by virtue of its desktop OS monopoly becoming dominant in that market, then thats wrong. Especially if these integrated products are add ons masquerading as core operating system components.
It would be fine if Microsoft ensured that their Operating system was sufficiently secure not to require any additional software, but not to include a load of features in the operating system that ensures its system security sotware becomes dominant.
If it wants to sell these bits seperatley (reduce the cost of the OS and sell the security bits as additional extras) thats all fine too then those of us who use the OS can choose - but lets make it clear that selling a vista version with them in and one without at the same price is the same as integrating them in the first place....
This becomes an even bigger issue if the Microsoft Security products / components are written to take advantage of elements of the OS that other providers cannot gain access to (either due to lack of documentation or through some other means). That would give rise to the same interoperability issues as we have seen previous law suits attempt to resolve.
In short if MS want to secure their OS thats great, if they want to simply wipe out any external security providers to gain an extra revenue stream in the future (by say later charging for the components initially included for free), or become dominant in that area so as to play down securty vulnerabilities in their products thats not. After all would you buy your antivirus from the same guys who seem incapable of preventing their OS being succeptable in the first place?
Last point - If microsoft are in the business of supplying both the OS and the security software (and additional services such as one care) doesnt that leave a rather nasty potential conflict of interest?
Perhaps the EU folks will come up with some clever wording, but this looks to me like MS bashing by reflex. It would be completely inappropriate to release an OS that isn't as secured as it's possible to be (and MS has had more than enough well documentd problems with security) - and yet the EU seems to be suggesting that MS should leave holes, presumably for smaller companies offering anti-spyware and anti-virus protection.
It's a Catch 22 for MS - no matter which way they go they'll run afoul of one group or another, users or regulators.
Disclosure: No, I've represented either side.
http://www.browdelaw.info/
Yeah, I'm a New York Lawyer. That's the good news, and the bad news.
From what I have been reading, Microsoft is designing Vista in such a way as to make it difficult for products that compete with whatever token security schemes Microsoft is planning to foist upon its hapless user base to be installed and/or run properly. Microsoft should make any and all APIs necessary to implement alternative (read: better) security solutions for Vista public. If it doesn't, I think it is fair to say that Microsoft is once again using proprietary standards/code to stifle the competition. That seems like a clear anti-trust violation, given Microsoft's technically undeserved but nonetheless practical monopoly of the commercial desktop PC operating system market.
Like most things that Microsoft touts as benefiting the user (think Windows Genuine (Dis)Advantage, DRM, and the "recommended" options on various configuration pages), whatever so-called security Microsoft puts into Vista will undoubtedly profit Microsoft first and the user as a mere afterthought, assuming that Microsoft can think up a good marketing gimmick to scare users into paying for it.
I'm still planning on not wasting money on yet another overpriced, under performing piece of Microsoft Buggy Bloatware, namely Vista. Ubuntu Linux is working well for me and doesn't seem to suffer from the gaping security holes most major Microsoft products (Windows, Office, and IE) are infamous for.
I must admit that Microsoft has a lot of nerve, trying to exclude competitors from cleaning up the security disaster that Vista is expected to be, so that it can make users dumb enough to buy Vista also pay through the nose to fix flaws that wouldn't be there if Microsoft sold quality programs in the first place.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
I'll feed the troll.
Apple don't have a monopoly. Microsoft do.
The EU isn't whining at MS for making their OS more secure; they're "whining" because MS are blocking anyone else from making any security software for Vista. And when a monopoly is abused in such a fashion, people lose jobs. And the economy tends to take a nose dive when lots of money is suddenly no longer made.
Goten Xiao
Bear in mind that the EU isn't saying that Microsoft can't include security software in Windows Vista. What they're saying is that MS can't include it in such a way as to exclude competitors. For example, take a firewall. If MS integrates their firewall into the network stacks at the physical-code level so that no other firewall can take over, that's not allowed. However, if MS adds hooks to their network stacks to allow other modules/drivers to tap in and filter packet traffic, and then implements their firewall completely using those hooks and makes it so you can replace the loading of MS's firewall modules with a third-party firewall's modules, that's perfectly fine. And for anyone who says this can't be done, I'd point out that Linux and *BSD implement their firewalls in exactly that manner so obviously it can be done.
I believe Apple isn't a target because the EU's complaints are about interoperability between clients and servers. Since OSX is built upon BSD/Unix protocols, the protocols are already well publicised. MS on the otherhand keeps the details of its protocols ambiguous at best.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
So the EU is concerned that MS is going to stifle the cottage industry that sprang up from MS's inability to secure its products? To me, if you start a business based on another company's mistakes, you need to be ready for when that company fixes its mistakes.
Let's put the FULL burden of securing Windows on Microsoft's shoulders. Then they will have no excuses.
I'm so sick of expensive 3rd-party bloatware that may or may not protect you (you never know if you're just throwing money away).
If you really want a non-MS solution, you can always use an external firewall appliance. There should also be a market for bootable CD-ROMs that check for rootkits (though ideally some of this functionality should be built into the BIOS/MB).
You will get a coupon good for a free mouse pad with any purchase of Vista, and the lawyers will pocket $150 million of the $350 million.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
does anyone else think it is just a little ironic that Microsoft is being governed to preserve a market that it essentially created because it sucked at writing secure code for so long?
And where, pray tell, is Apple bundling anti-spy or virus-ware in with OS X? Unless you are talking about their making the OS more secure in the first place...
"Hey, Apple doesn't have any viruses, but MS Windows has over 100,000! Let's file suit against Apple, we want a level playing field here!" from the EU anti-trust folks...
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
And the one in the media spotlight. If you actually do some research you discover that for as much as people whine about MS's anti-competitiveness it's much, much worse in other areas. If you want a scary one look in to Sysco. They own basically every grain silo in the US. They, in a very real way, control the US food supply. Yet nobody makes a fuss because they aren't in the limelight.
It's just how it goes, when you are the one making all the news, you are the one that takes all the shit. The US is another great example. Doing some research you find that plenty of countries engage in imperialistic behaviour, shady deals, etc, etc. However none of them are the news makers the US is and none of the have the same military might, so the US is the one that draws the most ire.
What part of Microsoft does the EU not understand?
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
The reason that nobody is going after apple, is because MS's idea of security is building a spyware scanner or a virus scanner or a firewall. Apple doesn't include this kind of stuff in the OS. Instead, the only security that Apple includes is a user/permission system for who can access and run files. Also, in Vista, MS is making it impossible or really hard to install another virus/spyware/firewall tool. So you won't be able to use any other tools like this from anybody else. The MS security tools that are the item of complaint are things that don't need to be part of the operating system (Virus Scanner, Firewall, Spyware Scanner). The tools that apple includes (File Permissions system) are part of the basic operating system, and nobody is complaining about Vista including these sorts of features.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
So I watched the /. community and European Union argue how insecure Windows is and how bad that is, and then I watched them argue how Windows is unjustly implementing security and shutting out competition. Obviously, Microsoft cannot win, ever.
Sometimes I think the world is just full of dumb-asses. (sounds like a Jack Handy quote)
The bundling of the applications that Microsoft is going to do with Vista is perfectly fine, just as long as they allow you to FULLY uninstall these apps. They won't be able to compete with the other OS's out there if they don't do this (aka Mac and *nix). As for Microsoft not disclosing the documentation on their networking, I believe the EU is doing a damn fine job, since most people use Windows and it doesn't allow other OS's to play nice with them.
No one is stopping Vista from implementing user access controls or other mechanisms to lock the leaky OS down. What they are objecting to are MS muscling into the firewall, antivirus, antispyware markets by installing or offering to install Windows Defender, preferentially promoting Windows Defender or using undocumented APIs in Windows Defender to make it run better than the competition. No doubt Bitlocker and other aspects of security could also be considered as preferentially pushing MS tech to the detriment of an existing market.
Let me say that I knew when posting my original comment I would get modded up and down at the same time. The issue is sharply divided.
/. story quote from the article, here it is again:
To the parent: You obviously are on the Anti-MS side of the issue. I'm not really too enthralled by the idea of responding to your post, but here goes anyway.
In case you didn't even read the
"European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plans to launch its Windows Vista operating system with built-in protection from hackers and malicious programs. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters that the European Commission is "ready to give guidance to Microsoft" concerning Vista but added that it was up to the U.S. software maker 'to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance' with EU competition rules."
Let's go over it, shall we?
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure.
But wait, now they might actually be achieving that goal, and what happens? Nothing less than whining from people who should've already known it was coming. There have been so many companies and industries in the past which have been forced to change, to adapt, or to go extinct in the past that adding another one (which I still think is not going to be the case anyway) is hardly a surprise.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU.
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
That things will stop working. Programs rely on the presence of these enriched tools. You can see this with the EU's Windows XP N edition. People found that all sorts of things stopped working, games wouldn't play videos and such. Why? Well if you remove Windows's video playback engine, anything that uses it for video playback will stop playing video.
Same is true of IE. To actually remove IE, and not just the executable (which you can delete if you want) you have to remove the HTML rendering engine. That means that help stops working. MS help files are HTML, and if there's not an engine to render them, then they can't work.
It would be the same as trying to remove the Gecko Rendering Engine from a program that uses it. If you do, it'll break.
So you want to talk a support nightmare, that would be it. People would turn off a whole bunch of stuff without knowing what it is, and then cry because their programs didn't work and blame MS.
OK, First things first, I hate MS products. Best MS product I have is an MS keyboard and mouse. I run linux.
But
This is ludercrous (and no, I can't spell that), since what they are saying is MS is not allowed to make thier software secure.
That's like saying to car manufacurers 'OK, you can make cars, but no making saftey equipment, that'll deprive the NHS (or Medical Insurance companies, whatever) of thier work!'.
What a load of rubbish.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
It seems as though Microsoft is / will have it's security products built into Vista, and will most likely build them into the TCP/IP stack at some level. Here is what most people seem to be ignoring here, and it's pretty simple.
d =l1o2uFAj23U~/
As it always has been, you can choose to use or disable any part of any feature in Windows. As it sits now with RC1, you can enable / disable features at will. Wireless networking configuration is built into Windows XP, but as everybody here knows who has a wireless network device of some sort, upon driver / software installation, that application takes over the duties of the Windows feature, usually by default. I don't know why anybody would have a reason to think that this would be any different from having a firewall in the OS, which, at the request of the user (by way of installation) gets replaced by some other product. We'll leave the discussion about inferiority for another time.
People really should stop talking about a feature of Vista as if its sure to be some set in stone incumberance, and it most likely will not be.
Oh, but it's built into TCP/IP! Anybody here ever installed the Novell client in Windows? Ever see what it does to your network protocols? Microsoft has said time and time again that it is keeping with backwards compatibility, are we naive enough to think that this won't include clients, protocols, craptastic software firewalls and anti-virus-viruses? Not so much. For those of you that need to experience a Novell client install for yourselves, go ahead. It's uninstallable. http://download.novell.com/SummaryFree.jsp?buildi
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Ok so let me get this right. Everyone complains that MS Windows is not a secure OS. MS spends a lot of time and $$ to "resolve" these problems. Now everyone is complaining that they are doing something about it. Is there a way MS can win at all with everyone?
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
In fact after you install it, it whines at you to get some. MS will sell you some, Onecare live, though it's not a particularly good deal pricewise. However installing any AV makes it happy, it doesn't want it's own, it just wants any AV app.
EU: We want efficient security in your next release. ...can we just double the fine?
MS:
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Show me an article where MS is literally blocking anyone else from making security software for Vista. It looks to me like they're finally making their own.
Come one, people. Now you're modding on autopilot. "The solution is to use linux and open everything" is NEVER insightful on Slashdot. It's the automatic response.
in Vista, MS is making it impossible or really hard to install another virus/spyware/firewall tool.
Link? (I'm curious, not doubting you.)
Why the hell are you using HTTP for an include from your own site?
9 06.php) [<a href='function.include'>function.include</a>]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable />
/>' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in <b>/home/latty/public_html/content/home.php</b> on line <b>16</b><br />
<b>Warning</b>: include(http://www.lattyware.co.uk/content/blog/0
in <b>/home/latty/public_html/content/home.php</b> on line <b>16</b><br
<br
<b>Warning</b>: include() [<a href='function.include'>function.include</a>]: Failed opening 'http://www.lattyware.co.uk/content/blog/0906.php
Some of the security companies have already partly succeeded in hacking their way around these new security features to allow their software to work. If they can, any malicious entity can. Clearly the added features are not effective enough.
MS can't be achieving their goal of security at all here. Remember, they make additional money from people using their security software - software that attempts to cover security holes that they put there in the first place (hopefully non-intentionally, but I would not be too surprised...). They BENEFIT by locking out other security companies and leaving their OS in need of security software.
Can you honestly tell me that you think MS will try to eliminate the need for any security software, including their own, when such software can be a nice big constant - not one-time as with the OS itself - revenue stream?
Im not a fan of microsoft, hell im not even neutral to em, and i live in the EU (Wish i didnt because importing stuff is a bitch and they keep trying to take our pound away... but thats another story). Microsoft accidentally created this market through bad coding and this gave rise to the big security players. The tech community routinely bludgeons M$ about the bad secuirty in its products and as it takes steps to counter its own bad coding and poor security issues in the past it gets slapped with an anti-trust suit. Its a no win situation for microsoft. It created the market so how is it monopolistic to take it away by fixing problems?
Effective monopoly
If you think unfettered monopolies are good for the consumer/end user, then you need to take a trip to the DMV. Anybody that has ever had to stand in line at that hellhole can't possibly argue in favor of monopolies.
I remember reading a modded up post awhile ago where the user said that "by the Open Source advocates telling Microsoft to open up its source code that they are already admitting defeat of their precious".
The only reason EU is doing this is because Symantec has been bitching about this. They're scared shitless because their entire business model is around fixing someone else's problems.
And frankly, I've had experience with Symantec, and it's awful. I haven't played with OneCare yet, but I've heard good things about it.
This is the basis of this entire issue. MS's new security features apparently prevent any software that they don't specifically allow from getting low-level system access - access of the sort that security software needs. Their own security software, naturally, gets access. The problem is that other company's doesn't.
Some of the other companies have apparently found ways to bypass these features to enable their software to work - but these bypasses can also be found and used by malicious hackers and so forth, so one would assume MS will patch them, and then the third party security software gets disabled again.
I wouldn't be too surprised if MS offers - for some sum of money, of course - to allow certain companies access in an attempt to please antitrust prosecutors - but that still leaves out any of the freely available software.
The EUs complaints have always been about other applications like IE, Windows Media Player and and now the whole host of security programs that Vista will have like Defender etc. These go be installed by default and if there is no way to chose not to install them or in some cases like IE no way to remove them then MS is abusing its monopoly. IANAL but if MS did provide you options to remove these and not make various OS features dependent on them then the EU wouldn't have a problem.
I agree that MS should have clear options giving you control over what to install - even if its under some custom install option and shouldn't make the basic functioning of the operating system dependent on these programs - there is no reason an operating system needs a browser for instance but MS did try to claim it was an integral part of the OS. Ofcourse most people want a browser/media player/firewall with their OS and so even making it the default option isn't so bad, but we should be able to replace it with something that has identical functionality.
Sadly even if MS does give you the option of not installing their software, most users will still go for the default install and so even bundling completely optional software MS will most certainly become the dominant force very quickly. As long as those of us who want to do use alternate software can I don't necessarily have a problem with this because I think it reflects people demanding more from their OS. The danger is in a lot of people accepting MS default antivirus, which because they didn't apply Critical Update KB2702570213750153132.3e107, wasn't able to protect a lot of systems from the next W.NastyThing. A fake sense of security is as dangerous as no security at all.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Heck, inclusion of a text editor and an IP stack and a UI and solitaire and minesweeper meet that bar. By that logic, any additional functionality is unfair.
I recognize that ability to compete is important, but at some point MS has the right to design their own products and let the customer decide if they want it or not. At this point, there are many mature, stable, viable OSes that can run on the same hardware, and lots of software that will run on those platforms. The barrier to entry is... well, down. I think it's time to let the market sort this out.
Linux application security consists of "run it as 'nobody'" or "just don't do that." Clearly this is not a realistic option on Windows, where regular day to day usage of your computer includes exploring the massive catalog of software available on the Internet, and so an application firewall is a sensible precaution. Personally I see absolutely no reason why this should be a third party product.
Is it ironic or just Microsoft bashing when people complain there is not security in Windows but when MS finally incorporates security in Windows they turn around and say MS is being anticompetitive? Admittedly I have bashed MS myself but I welcome MS beafing up security, which is one of the reasons I have bashed them. What I wouldn't like is if MS were to prevent users from installing third party security software if they so wished, ie being anticompetitive. I didn't see anywhere in either article where they said MS was doing this though.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Im in know way backing MS i prefer BSD and use it at home 90% of the time except for gaming and other Win apps that i cannot port to Linux/unix... However I think the EU is being rediculous... Trying to remove Microsoft Security out of Vista ??? Are they seriously trying to open the European users to hackers? Obviously they aren't targeting Apple OS's to the same scurienty(sorry been a long day cant spell) Apple OS is more tightly integrated than MS... And im sure Apple has their own Security suite built into Apple.. Anyways from a Microsoft Approach they should give in and say alright here you go a base Vista no security no nothing the just the plain OS... Because they know and i think most others know most buyers from Europe wont buy the Vista European version they'll buy the other versions...
I will say it again but it was modded up a long time ago by another user. By the open source advocates saying for MS to open up they are already admitting defeat.
Personally I have never payed for windows 1.0,3.0, 95, 98, 2k and now XP. It has given me access to the world and lots of people who use it; it has had its trouble in the days but with good user care the OS works wonders and has provided unlimited time to do millions of different things. As much as Slashdot plays the fear-mongering card of DRM/BSOD/Bugged it has really not been invasive and a great majority of Windows users go on with their lives enjoying the over all good that outweighs the bad.
After the little fiasco with WindowsUpdate which WGA was the only problem because I had a pirated version. I am now ready to actually buy Windows because of what NT/XP have shown to be a good product as much hating goes on here about it. Other users who paid for it legally enjoyed the OS even with WGA they went on using it like they regulary did and got their updates on time except for me and many other pirates. Not that non-tech people care about updates anyway, I just kind of wish I had paid for XP in the beginning and not have to go through the hassle of getting an on-time update from MSupdate.
I think the majority over time will move on and updgrade their OS to Vista; although the minority will put up a very vocal fight on the message boards.
Yes, that is what the competition rules are concentrating on BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS NEEDED!
The idea (smilarly to the invisible hand that capitalists, such as MS lke to expound) is that if there are competitors, then the innovation in the field is increased by that competition. If there is little to no innovation, then the product becomes a commodity and the goods become cheaper. By these two methods, the consumer is benefited.
Your complaint is that the laws on murder seem more to be about punishing the murderer than helping the victim. Duh.
Let's go over it, shall we?
... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure.
I believe the scream is because MS is going to BUNDLE security applications in their OS. It is not making the OS secure, it is bundling software with it. That is illegal.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista.
Dream all you can - Vista will cure cancer and AIDS, the world saviour. The same untrustworthy people will exploit the same ol' holes. Mainly PEBKAS.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU.
That is sooo much different from where? Of course strings are pulled, it is the way in politics. What you should point out is how exactly that is so bad?
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on.
Oh phleeeeze
Too bad I already posted. The parent is not a troll; better inherant security does in fact reduce or eliminate the need for antivirus and other "protective" software. Look at it this way: If viruses are prevented from infecting executable files by filesystem or policy security (like "Don't allow writing to existing executable files", which seems pretty reasonable) and personal data is protected by limited access to it until the user specifically grants access, then most malware is totally useless. Limit network connectivity to trusted applications, and zombie machines become useless.
One problem, of course, is that deciding which software to trust is a hard problem. The operating system has to be the initial root of any trust relationship. Adding things like email, document editors, and any other software requires the operating system to know what security should be applied to these applications. Things like Google Desktop and any other useful utility require broad permissions to access data, and are potentially difficult to secure. How do you specify that, say, Google Desktop is trustworthy but Gator/Claria isn't? To really secure personal data, you almost need an operating system that directly classifies data and protects access to it not only to applications but tracks the data through each application and prevents its use from being mixed with other classifications. For instance, personal credit or financial information should be classified such that it is only mixed with unclassified information (like the Internet, email, or any other way out of the computer) under controlled conditions that the user is made directly aware of by the OS. Otherwise, it's easy for rogue applications to spoof trusted applications to gain access to personal data and misuse it.
My basic point is that for a truly secure operating system, a very comprehensive model of all the data and applications that will use the OS is necessary to define the security policy. Microsoft is probably not able to create such a system simply due to the complexity versus ease of use, not to mention the monopoly issues. For instance, if Microsoft starts protecting personal data by not letting it be opened by untrusted applications, the Internet at large will cry out that they are abusing their power, despite the fact that such a step is necessary for true security. The problem is that Microsoft has wedged itself into complete gatekeeper of commodity PCs, and there is very little chance of a standard method for securely managing data and applications emerging on its own in the free market that works with the existing monoculture. Microsoft can neither be the initiator or the adoptor, and so general computer security suffers. I don't really see any solution until a lot of backward compatibility is dropped and a lot of work is done on a secure data model that isn't too difficult to use for normal people.
Why is that? If MS want to sell firewalls on the same basis, then fair go. If they want to include it bundled, saying that "it's free so good for customers", then they would have to reduce the cost of Vista. Because on one hand they say it's free and on the other one, they justify the cost increase by saying "but you're getting so much more than you used to".
/. community?
How can you get stuff for free that costs you money?
PS aren't YOU part of the
Why the hell do people get pissed off when MS includes basic, handy tools such as the windows firewall? For the average user that is just fine for them. For other people who want more custimization and features there is ZoneAlarm, Kerio Personal Firewall, etc. I think it would be great to have more basic tools included with the OS so I can get simple tasks done but if those simple tools eventually just aren't enough I can still go buy a better featured product from another company. That is how it should be.
Same here, I agree compleatly. I use ZoneAlarm, the paid for version, on my PC and I love the level of control it gives me. I'm planning on getting a MacBook Pro when Apple releases a version with the Merom, Core 2 Duo, processor (and am hoping it is released within a couple of weeks) and have been looking for a firewall that offers the same controls as ZoneAlarm. I know OS X has a built in firewall but unlike ZoneAlarm it doesn't allow the user to set website controls, allowing some websites to use cookies, javascript, and objects while blocking other sites from using them. My one problem with ZoneAlarm is that it doesn't work with Netscape above 4.x or with Firefox. The only "modern" browser it works with is IE.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Is it a correct paraphrase that you see a risk that if it's easy to install third party security software, people will wind up installing malware that pretends to be security software? And that making the OS and the security software part of the same monolith provides useful tamper-resistance?
The downside is that if 95% of the desktops in the world are running the same security software, then as soon as the security software has a vulnerability we'll get something like the Witty worm but far more devastating.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Oh phleeeeze ... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
Oh, well, then that settles it! Courts are never ever wrong, especially on technology-related issues.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Apple doesn't include this kind of stuff in the OS.
Wait - so OS X doesn't even come with a firewall? What's all this then?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
The problem isn't that Microsoft will own the "Windows Security" market. The problem is that such a market exists in the first place. What about all of the other markets that are formed around the windows platform, or that use the windows platform. Supposing that the EU "protected" the security market, you'd end up with the vast majority of PC's purchased without security measures ("I can save 30EUR by ditching Macaffe!"). Windows would continue to be the target of malware, virii, and other unwanted code. Yeah, the security market is protected, at the expense of everyone else: Not just Microsoft, but resellers, developers, and especially end users.
This "protection" is short-sighted at best.
Yes, I imagine this is true... but this contradicts your next point
When/if the infrastructure becomes more vulnerable, the market will grow. Look at Firefox's growth due to the stagnation of IE.
This being slashdot, I'm sure someone will say "how about they stop writing such crappy code!". Fair enough, but wouldn't that have the same effect of shrinking the security market? Should the EU prevent Microsoft from developing software that is too robust!?
The point I really want to make though is that it's pretty much irrelevant how good or bad their security apps are. The simple fact is that any such features that they include will most likely be used by most people who use their operating system. Just look at how many people use internet explorer over other browsers, and then look at how many more security issues IE has. This is not necessarily because IE is less secure than other browsers but since most people use IE, people who produce malware don't have to worry about finding security flaws in other browsers - all they need is to find them in IE. Plenty of computers will be affected. If MS includes their own security apps the same will apply, whether or not they allow third party security apps. Since most people will be using theirs instead of third party replacements for convenience's sake, there will be a lot more grief caused because of it. Finding secuirity flaws in one system is far easier than finding flaws in a dozen systems, and when you know that 90% of home computer owners are using the one system, your malware goal just got that much easier.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Look at the facts.
MS want their own security production, they do not in any way want to let someone else in, why?
The next generation of DRM depends on this, depends very highly on MS being the only one who can authenticate drivers.
Provided MS can say "Only we can approve drivers", now MS can block out all those "third-party" applications such as Daemon Tools, that allows you to run a CD from your hard drive, or those applications that can record movies or DVDs.
This is the reality, if you like it or not, the implications go far beyond "other security companies".
By these companies not being able to tap into the API, it gives MS a way to lock out everything from the OS they don't want. What don't they want? Anything that can copy a DVD, CD, video, music, HD streams with the "do not save" flag. This allows them to lock down your computer to do as they see fit, all in the name of "security".
Lets get real here people - The security "API" that MS has is what keeps DRM firmly embeded in the operating system. Allowing a third part control over what drivers can and can not be installed allows users to write those applications they so much hate.
This isn't about "security", this is about "FairPlay".
I plan to when Apple releases a MacBook Pro with the Merom, Core 2 Duo.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yet another reason why anti-trust laws screw the consumer. Who gains from removing built in features from Windows (such as IE and Windows Media Player)? If they're free, who cares? And now security features are being removed because it's "not fair." Again, who gains from this? I also find it interesting that only microsoft is being forced to remove stuff from their operating systems. Why not remove Quicktime from Apple computers? That's just as unfair as it is to have Windows Media Player on Windows PC's.
On another note, this kinda kills the whole "It's Microsoft's fault for any virii that get on my computer" argument. This basically frees Microsoft from having to be responsible for any Windows malware.
WTF is up with the troll mod here? This just proves the mods are working for Microsoft. This guy wasn't even saying anything negative about MS, just pointing out that Linux has lots of software to download from the internet too, therefore it has a similar risk for trojans.
...this is way overdue. Gotta play Devil's Advocate with this one. The only reason the "security market" exists is because there was a need for one. I don't see a security market for Linux, or BSD, or Solaris, or any of those. And now that the holes are closing (or at least being filtered with in-house tools), the security companies are complaining that their market is fading. Tough shit, guys. That's what you get for banking on a one-trick pony.
On the other side of the coin, their software seems redundant. Why not just make the code more "secure" (for lack of a better term) in the first place, instead of writing MORE CPU-sucking code to cover it up?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Everybody on /. and their grandmother have always been complaining about how "broken" and "unsecure" Windows is. In fact MS is responsible for the security product market because it was so vulnerable.
Now, they are trying to "fix" the OS, make it more secure, and EU yells foul!
As a European I cannot stand this sillyness. I want my OS to have built-in security out of the box, as I want it to be able to play all my music & videos without having to install inconvenient (Quicktime) or downright evil (Real player) software.
it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Sure we do, it's called the LP, Libertarian Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd probably have to search slashdot's archives for an hour to find it though. Basicly what I understand it to say was: Microsoft's new security enhancements would either make it difficult or impossible for 3rd party security vendors to create software for Vista. Apparently it locks everyone else out of doing lower level things with the kernel.
I know what you mean by "an hour to find", I've found myself in the same situation. Now if MS is locking users of third parties products from installing them then yes I'd say that were bad.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Good God.
OSX is no different, everything is integrated (except AV) and the user isn't expected to go and hunt down any 3rd party firewall software.
Ah, but OSX allows you to install 3rd party firewalls. Currently I'm using a PC with Windows and I use ZoneAlarm for my firewall. However I plan on getting a MacBook pro and am looking for a firewall that offers me the same controls as ZoneAlarm does, for Macs. If Zone Labs offered one for Macs then I would get it. Apple doesn't lock me into using their firewall which I've heard is exactly what MS is trying to do with Vista. While I'm glad MS is finally paying attention to security I don't like their anticompetitive stances.
FalconShould there be a Law?
March 32nd 1910: Today the Whip and Spur Manufacturing Association announced a lawsuit against Mr. Ford's Horseless Auto-Mobile company, seeking an injuction against production of carraiges that do not respond to Whipping and Spurring, as if such machinery would reduce the number of horses needed to travel, and would lead to a decline in their income.
The Representative of the W.S.M.A was rebuked by the Judge, ridiculed by the spectators, and removed from the courthouse by Bailiffs; and ordered not to return unless they had actual legal business to conduct therein.
Mr. Ford stated that dispite their folly, his offer to purchase from them essential parts for his Auto-Mobiles, such as machine belts from the whip-makers, and gears from the spur-makers; should they convert their manufaturing to the same; still stands.
gaping security holes
Uh, make sure to identify your official and unofficial trademarks. It's well-known for years that Microsoft has the de facto trademark on Gaping Security Holes(tm) and Big Gaping Security Holes(tm) (note they're not registered). There are really very few things where MS innovates - let's give them credit where it's due.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
"Un-American and morally wrong": conservative and prowar magazine The Economist
I realize your tagline may be a joke but I don't see "The Economist" as either "Un-American" or prowar. They may not like some of the policies of businesses or government but they like others. As for being prowar I see the opposite, they are especially against resource wars as is happening in the Congo with the coltan found there, or in Angola and Botwana where the San or Bushmen are being forced off their land so diamonds can be mined.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Windows Security? Isn't that an oxymoron?
I don't understand what the big deal is about Vista security. Microsoft will attempt to provide a total solution to security and lock everyone out. First off, Microsoft can't lock out everyone for very long. The security software companies and hackers will find a way to design and use software for Windows Vista. This is only a matter of time.
Also, we all know how horrible Microsoft security will be. It's almost certain that Windows Vista users will need third party security software, and someone will be sure to provide it. Nothing will change with Windows Vista.
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Both applications allow programs to be able to do some things and not others.
/etc. You can make sure it does so. You can require that FF only use port 80. You can do so. *in the application*.
/etc/ntp.conf and write access to /var/log. You can also add that functionality in to a program. E.g. vi can only do the same thing unless root can do so.
E.g. firefox will NEVER need to write files in
There are also ACLs that allow you to give permission to goodUser write access to
I think the ultimate FU to the EU and security sotware manufacturers would be if they could make it secure by default.
The EU wouldn't mind that. What they do mind is Microsoft bundling other products with a product that has a monopoly position. Doesn't matter if it's software, cars or hamburgers.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
http://iptables-tutorial.frozentux.net/chunkyhtml/ c91.html
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Because they want what isn't possible. Look at Windows XP N. They said "You have to make a version of XP with no media player!" Now of course Media Player doesn't stop other media players from being installed (I have Quicktime, Realplayer, and VLC on my system, as well as MPC which is a new frontend for Mediaplayer), but the EU decided this was a major problem, that consumers wanted a no-media player XP. Well MS's initial proposed version removed the actual media player front end,b ut left the video playback component in Windows (DirectShow). The EU pitched a fit over that and said it ALL had to go. Ok, fine they removed it and that was released as XP N.
Well then they got pissed because things didn't work. Games wouldn't play their video back, you couldn't look at many kinds of streaming video in web browsers, etc. Why? Well because they relied on the video playback capabilities to play back their video, they didn't include their own (why would you?). Also the "competing" products like Realplayer aren't full media players, they only play their own stuff, so they couldn't help. This was, of course, why MS was leaving it in in the first place.
So that's the problem: People want MS to remove their software, but still provide the services. Can't do it. To remove the media playback engine is to remove media playback. You've no choice but to reinstall it, or to install an alternate. Since there is no alternate, you are screwed.
Shouldent the firewall be built into the network stack by default but with a publicised API for managing it. That way Microsoft could bundle a frewall with an on/off switch and just allow software developers to create a user interface to it. This is the only security product that is being bundled that should be,. If Microsoft is forced to leave the firewall out of vista they should drop networking as it would be a hack to implement the firewall anywhere else.
As for anti virus / sypware microsoft should build a kernel feature that allows 'trusted' code to scan disk writes (and possibly all access to the kernel from userspace) and block it. I think this is how linux virus scanners work with a kernel module that I have fogotten the name of.
They should also have a special user that owns all system userspace programs and libs which needs a password to access (only done when installing programe avalible to all users / system updates). This would help prevent a lot of the viruses (unless the user enters a password bliendly)
I'd be sympathetic to all those folks who want a piece of the 'make windows secure' industry- but having windows be vulnerable out of the box is not in anybody's interests except those who want to profit from that. Arguing against having MS fix windows is sort of like arguing against tax reform because without excessively complex tax code, what would all those tax accountants do every april?
They'd move on to something productive, that's what.
Let Microsoft fix Windows. If vendors want to make their living lying in bed with Microsoft, they should expect to be jostled when it moves around. Remember too, it's these vendors who keep Windows dominant by writing software to the platform.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Microsoft should just revoke every single license they have ever sold in the EU, and then sue all of the governments that use the software for copyright infringement. Apple's OSX has and will continue to include these types of features. When I the European Union takes the same action against Apple, then it will be a fair playing field. In fact, doesn't OSX include Quicktime as well? Scrap it, fair's fair... Right EU?
Can we really judge software on the same basis as that of other things?
Companies should be free to control their IP; You don't have to use Windows, heck you don't even have to use PCs.
Popularity shouldn't be an excuse to bully your way around.
If you could change the keys, no problem. You could add keys for software vendors you trust. Perhaps you could even delete keys of software vendors you don't trust!
Obviously this couldn't just be a NtAddDriverSigningKeyEx() or NtAddDriverSigningKeyA() call that any old spyware app could make. (About the names: if this were UNIX it'd be called sgnky() of course!) The user might do Alt-Ctrl-Del, click a "Driver Keys" button, and so on. It'd need protection against compromised accessibility software and remote desktop software.
Of course, this probably still destroys the market created by bugs. It reminds me of the leaky water supply tunnel to New York City which is illegal to fix because it leaked enough to get the land above the leaks classified as protected wetlands.
At least that's what former BeLux manager Bruno Segers says. Looks like Segers might have been fired for revealing that too.
"Can someone tell me why nobody is going after Apple?"
Because companies with 3% of the European desktop market aren't monopolies, and therefore don't attract the attention of those who regulate the behaviour of monopolies.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
MS should be spending $$$ on fixing the OS so that trojans, viruses and worms are no longer a problem. NOT by leaving the OS as it is and patching over the top.
Here's what could happen:
OS remains cruddy but has AV/FW/etc (security system)
Security system requires SPx
SPx includes stuff that isn't needed for your use
SPx is now mandatory because your cruddy OS needs their Security and that needs SPx
Remember that there is a new EULA to agree to when a SP is installed, and the agreement must be made to install. If you cannot agree to the EULA, you're hosed by nasty people. If you agree, you may still be hosed by them, but you are also definitely being hosed by MS.
Secondly, what if the new security system no longer runs on your version of the OS? You now need to upgrade.
So if MS had vixed the OS, there wouldn't be a need to install their security over the top. If they allowed others to sell security fixes independently, they wouldn't have to change OS.
1. RTFA. It's such a cliche that it's almost funny. That doesn't mean it's not important.
2. RTF Discussion. How many people saw the submission, jumped in and clicked "Reply" without even stopping for 20 seconds to scan the existing posts and realise that the little gem they were about to defecate into cyberspace was
a) completely fucking redundant a thousand times over and
b) already comprehensively shown to portray a lack of understanding of the facts
Okay, so both of those requests are massively redundant in the grand arena of /., but either of the above would have stopped 90% of the above "WTF M$ finally dun some gud, EU sux WTF!!1one" from infecting /. with their particularly redundant form of idiocy.
Just to sum up (although if you've read this far, I don't need to tell you - I'm just getting it off my chest):
M$ are NOT being told by the EU to remove their security gadgets from Vista. They are being told to make it possible for existing security companies to implement their own solutions to a comparable standard by making the APIs and hooks available publicly. The only reason not to do so would be to deliberately lock-out competition. If they do not do so, they are forcing the third-party vendors to write inefficient and possibly ineffective software. This violates not only anti-trust laws, but makes it more likely than ever before that security issues will be harder to defend against and take longer to solve - hardly ideal for the user.
The EU is, in this regard, doing an admirable job of championing the cause of smaller companies AND the average Joe on the street, as well as EVERY business that ends up using Vista. They are not asking M$ to make any significant changes to their software - only to give other companies the information they require to write good software that benefits the user, which is precisely what any OS should do in the first place.
Meta will eat itself
Well when us Europeans say someting we mean it. Not like Bush allowing Redmond to carry on as normal after been found guilty of the same thinig Europe found them guilty of.
MS has no friends over here and its for the better good of us all.
Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuK
But the issue is that MS a monopolist with anticompetitive practices, which is hardly a technology issue.
Look, if MS wa releasing a tool that could be easily replaceable, becuas it was modular, I think there would be very few complaints.
The problem is that what MS does is to artificially embed a new feature in the OS in a way that nothing would work if you removed all the dependencies.
This is done not for technical reasons but for commercial ones (i.e. in order to abuse a monopolic position).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS has a track record of including the kitchen sink in the OS and then putting unnecessary locks, so if you remove the kitchen sink (lets say, because you want a new one) the full kitchen stops working. And the bathroom, and the TV in the living rooms explodes....
If MS had an history of beating the competition by innovating with better products (that are not unnecessarily tied to the OS) then nobody would be complaining and we would be blessing our near monopolists.
But the matter of fact is that they are convicted abusers of their monopolic position, are constantly testing the boundaries of what is legal in many countries, and frankly I don't see why we should give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If somebody has been beating you for a couple of hours with a baseball bat, you would be forgiven if you cover your head, by reflex, as soon as you see tht hooligan reaching for the implement again.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The OS is crippled at birth. Otherwise it would not need the myriad of security products to secure it.
What the public could expect is to have an OS designed with sensible assumptions about security and with enough open hooks to allow anybody to improve upon that.
The MS way is to embed everything in a convoluted way to later claim "it is all part of the OS you know" in order to generate new revenue streams (suscriptions to antivirus services like virus signatures updates...) while being creative about abusing their monopolic position.
The insane thing would be to let them get away with it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You stoll all the wonders of Windows, but you are a vulgar pirate.
What a hypocrate.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Uh, make sure to identify your official and unofficial trademarks. It's well-known for years that Microsoft has the de facto trademark on Gaping Security Holes(tm) and Big Gaping Security Holes(tm) (note they're not registered). There are really very few things where MS innovates - let's give them credit where it's due.
:-)
:-)
Microsoft is clearly an innovator in creative use, maintenance, and enforcement of monopoly power in the marketplace. It seems to have "borrowed" a few tricks from other companies as far as dodging legal consequences for its misbehavior in the U.S. go, although the usually lame EU seems to be less intimidated (I wonder why?
In the States, we have a situation that might well be described as "he who has the most lawyers wins". Microsoft can afford to pay for lawyers by the garbage barge load, and does so. Few other companies I can think of would be so bold as to use Gaping Security Holes(tm) as a means of forcing people to use their lame Internet Explorer Web browser with its notoriously exploitable ActiveX support to install patches which often introduce new bugs or even malware (Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage) when those people would otherwise use a quality browser such as Firefox or Opera.
I have no problem with companies that become successful because they provide new or technically superior goods and services. I have a problem when they are allowed to dominate the marketplace by stifling the competition, especially when the competition has better goods or services that can and do benefit the consumer. One solution to the Microsoft monopoly would be to force it to truly unbundle its browser, Internet Explorer, from all of its other products.
IE should have to be downloaded and installed, just the way competing browsers are, unless Microsoft wants to include them on a list of browsers a user can choose from and install along with Windows when a system is being set up. Microsoft should be ordered to make all of its support services that are associated with Windows and/or Microsoft Update available to users who chose other browsers that have reasonable support for industry standard scripting. People should not be forced to expand upon existing security flaws built into Windows by having to use IE to get security patches and other software updates from Microsoft. There is absolutely no technical reason why one should have to use MS Buggy Bloatware such as IE when better, more secure browsers exist.
Your main point, that Microsoft is rarely the source of innovation in the software industries it dominates by monopolistic muscle, is absolutely correct IMNSHO. I'd love to have the choice of walking into a store and buying a machine with no OS, or some non-Microsoft OS pre-installed on it. Why should consumers be forced to pay for crap like MS Windows Home or Media Center Edition when they buy a computer off the shelf? Microsoft enforces its monopoly powers by making it very difficult for people to get systems with other or no OS installed on systems they buy at retail. Just go into any major office supply or consumer electronics store and see for yourself what operating system will come bundled with the machines sold there, even if you would rather buy the machine bare so you can install your own favorite operating system. I suspect many people would choose to take a discount equivalent to the amount the manufacturer pays Microsoft for the version of Windows it pre-installs and then install an alternative OS.
Making that choice (either no OS or any of several popular OSes including Windows as an option) available to all consumers would be a great way to force Microsoft to compete fairly. It would also promote real competition in the OS market and undoubtedly inspire more innovation therein, maybe even from Microsoft!
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie