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."
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
It's not like the concept of an application firewall even exists on Linux. If you download random binaries you find on the internet and run them using root, or your regular user account, it is considered your own damn fault if said program contains a trojan which DDOSs someone or deletes everything in your home directory. 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. The operating system should enable the user to mediate and control what programs do for them.. that's one of the reasons we have operating systems (the other major one being to abstract and share the hardware). Just because Microsoft has been ignoring the need for this level of control for years doesn't mean that it should remain provided by third parties for ever. If they can do it better than Microsoft, and surely they can, then Microsoft should certainly be prohibited from interfering with them providing this software, and the third party security software developers really have nothing to worry about, do they?
How we know is more important than what we know.
What the EU wants is irrelavent. Microsoft added security features to the OS in response to customer feedback. I think users should have a greater say in what goes into the OS not governments.