Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Offer Free Anti-Virus Software
Dynamoo writes "The good news is that Microsoft have announced free anti-virus software for consumers, dubbed Morro, available late next year. The bad news is ... well, exactly the same. Although Microsoft's anti-malware products are pretty good, this move could drive many competitors out of business and create a dangerous security monoculture; major rivals will be lawyering up already. On the other hand, many malware infections could be prevented even by basic software. So is this going to be a good or bad thing overall?"
2. It will be a basic virus scanner and will probably not replace NOD32 or another fully featured scanner.
3. Webroot seems to be doing just fine even though Windows Defender has been around for a few years now. Same for Spybot, Ad-Aware, and any number of other apps.
4. Compounded with #3, Microsoft Antivirus will be entering a well established field with plenty of household name competitors. Norton and McAffee are well known names that most consumers know and will probably opt for (quality of software notwithstanding).
5. Many smaller firms (Kaspersky comes to mind) have consumers as their small-fry and make their big bucks off volume licenses. It appears that Morro isn't competing here.
6. Whether accurate or not, perception or reality, many people consider Microsoft Security Solutions to be an oxymoron. So long as it can be uninstalled, people will be free to add their own antivirus software (see point #4).
Joey
Well a virus is an irritating program that eats up resources, making your computer unstable, interfering with hardware, replicates and repairs itself when you attempt to delete it, and drives you insane.
The sad thing is, a lot of system-tray startup software that insists on self-installing does the same things too. No acrobat, i don't need to be running all the time. You listening, Apple? Heck, a lot of AVG software bogs down the system so much I'm wondering if the cure is worse than the disease.
In the pre-Vista age perhaps, but with UAC and the paranoid level of dialogues in browsers needed to get anything done, Joe Sixpack is going to just click allow, even if that means he has to pay $300 to get his box repaired by the Geek Squad. The problem is, by increasing the amount of warnings, the less likely anyone is going to care about them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
> Why does everyone seem to think Windows somehow allows malware due to 'holes' in the OS? Malware isn't any different to normal software from the OS' perspective. If you can write legitimate software than can send an email, or download an image and display it to the user, then you can write 'malware' that can send spam or display advertisements.
Windows think. Installing software can indeed be made totally different to normal software from the OS perspective.
Windows will just blindly and happily execute anything it thinks it has been requested to execute.
On Linux or BSD, files aren't executable by default. The OS just won't run them. Any attempt to make a file executable requires a local user to manually enter a password. Hence, if a user is asked for a password ... especially the administrator password ... they are immediately alerted ... "hang on a minute, I wasn't trying to install anything just then, or make a change to the system". Having to enter a password is like waving a great big red warning flag. "Whoop, whoop, install happening!! Attention, attention ... did you mean this?"
Amongst Windows users (being used to the complete lack of concepts such as these), Windows' complete lack of adequate security is often confused for security being impossible to achieve.
Windows think. Its everywhere.
On many fronts, the malware situation on Windows is the OS's fault.
First, OS files should not be writable by random executables on the system. Period. The idea that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe, installed on a user account, runs as a superuser and can modify important system files is completely idiotic. The inability of Microsoft to implement a basic separation between privilege levels is the root of the problem (pun intended)--and they don't get to weasel out of it by saying "you COULD run/install software as a local user" because their FUBAR'd implementation meant that wasn't a realistic option.
Secondly, a lot of malware installation has historically been the result of stupid things that Microsoft did to be "helpful"--like automatically executing scripts in Outlook's preview pane. Or the idea that installation of software should be "silent"--where a program can be downloaded and installed without any user interaction. Brilliant.
Microsoft has made (some small) improvements in these areas. But they're not off the hook by any means.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
What monopoly? Last time I checked Mac and Linux existed.
You obviously don't understand what MS's market for desktop OS's is. They sell very few of them as boxed copies to individuals. They have a small market selling site licenses to corporations, but by far their largest market is computer OEMs like Dell. So if you were running Dell, would you license OS X to run on the computers you sell? Nope, because Apple isn't selling them. Hence, OS X and Macs are not a valid competitor. Would you pre-install Linux? Well maybe, but it is not a valid competitor in most cases because of software lock-ins. It has basically no market share and certainly not enough to affect whether or not MS has enough market share to unduly influence other markets (70% is the amount regulators start looking hard at). Generally, if the closest thing you can find to a competitor is a product developed by hobbyists disgusted with having no choices and given away for free... well that's a bloody good sign there is a monopoly at work.
MS has a virtual monopoly by merit of being the most used but that's not the same as an actual monopoly. As long as other choices exist any monopoly argument falls apart.
Legally and economically, you don't have to be the only option to wield undue influence in markets and undermine the benefits of capitalism. You're not going to find any reputable economists not being paid by MS who claim MS does not wield monopoly influence in the desktop OS market and MS has, in fact, been found to have such influence by the US courts, the EU courts, and several other nations. Sorry, but at this point the argument that MS doesn't have a monopoly can only be the result of burying your head in the sand. What, do you think it's all some sort of global conspiracy of lawyers, judges, and economists?
More akin to there being 3 power companies and one following the practices you describe while the others don't, and people just being too lazy, stupid, or in the dark to switch to another company.
Not at all. The analogy holds up very well. MS is the power distribution monopoly in your geographic location. Apple is the guy who sells solar cells and windmills and fuel cell generators which cost a bundle but are economic for some uses in some locations over the very long term and prevent you from having to deal with the power distribution company (but do not distribute power themselves). Linux is the guy who drives a big truck full of car batteries to the nearest power plant, pays to charge them all up, then drives back home and hooks them up to run his house for another couple of days. They are alternatives that allow one to avoid MS, but not much in the way of actual competitors in the same market.