Switchback was not really noticed that much either. It only could infect 7 to 8 million OSX based Macs.
Umm, the exploit was released after it was patched, three years ago, if I recall. Given automatic update, not much of an issue. I don't think I've ever seen it and I have a signature running against a class A and then some.
Still it shows that AppleScript and Safari are weak links in the OSX armor
Of course the browser will always be a weak spot, it's going on to the Web and constantly downloading untrusted files and scripts from anonymous people. This is true of all Web browsers.
Mac Users are like the old Amiga users, thinking that their platform is so secure that no virus is written for it, so there is no need for antivirus programs.
And there is an even bigger security hole than anyone thought, as you can apparently read the minds of all Mac users, and thus rifle around in there until you get their passwords, SSNs, and even their deepest, darkest secrets they never told anyone.
Hackers should target Mac users, because chances are a Mac user has more money than a Windows user, and the Mac user is less likely to run an antivirus program.
Both of these are true, but the skillset of the average cracker is very Windows-centric and there are a lot less vulnerable services to exploit by default on a mac. Basically, while some things make it a better target, other things make it a lot worse. It is crackable, but really hard to make good worms.
Just read this article with all of the comments from Mac users saying how a real virus won't infect their system.
Right now Macs are better than Windows and a smaller target. Better yet, Apple has been staying on the ball and 10.5 promises to be better yet, even with the possibility of stopping trojans and viruses like this. In truth, mac users are somewhat justified in their warm fuzzy feelings.
I think that the vast majority of infections occur because people are simply naive and careless. Most of the fastest-spreading Windows worms in history have required significant user interaction to be successful.
I think you are factually incorrect. The studies I've seen all indicate while there are more malware programs that require user interaction than there are automated ones, there are more infections and they spread faster when they require no interaction. The majority of infections to date are the result of worms that require no interaction from the user.
Executables in ZIP files being run by stupid people are the norm, not the exception. They just have to look at that REALLY COOL SCREENSAVER or those NAKED PICTURES of Anna Kornikouva or whatever.
I agree that a significant number of people will run untrusted executables and that will result in infection. This is due in large part to the fact that Windows does a very poor job of informing the user what is data (and very low risk) and what is an executable (and very high risk).
But a lot of the "bad press" they get can be traced directly to a large portion of their 500 million users who simply shouldn't be allowed near a computer, regardless of the OS, because they are responsible for having their machines infested.
I disagree. The malware on Windows can be traced to the fact that Microsoft has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate a huge problem, simply because they have a monopoly and that problem does not significantly affect their bottom line. If Linux had 50% of the market, including most of those idiots, solutions would have been implemented to make it harder for trojans and the like to infect computers.
I suspect that when or if OS X gets 500 million users we'll see much of the same thing.
I suspect not, because Apple responds to their customers. They've already announced application signing and mandatory access controls for OS X 10.5, that could easily be used to mitigate the vast majority of these malware problems, and OS X doesn't even have a serious malware problem yet. Microsoft should have been the ones pioneering this effort and it should have been in Windows XP at the very, very latest.
The only way to stop that would be to lock the computer down so hard it becomes useless except for a few "authorized" tasks. You can see this today in large corporations that manage thousands of Windows desktops.
Large organizations lock them down hard, because there is no usable middle ground. An OS can be much, much more secure without being useless for all but a small number of tasks. The truth of the matter is, the vast majority of things malware does are things very few or no legitimate programs want to do. When was the last time the average user ever installed a program that needed legitimate access to their e-mail address book and did not ship with their computer? The problem of users installing malware is largely not that of the user, but of the system designer. Until the user knows what they are running, can run untrusted software easily and securely, and is informed of what the computer is doing and given good, granular choices with a good UI... the problem is one with the OS. Once someone does that, then you can start blaming the users as the weak link. For now, weak default services and poor security/UI are weaker.
So why not by default chroot installed applications and possibly setuid them to "nobody"? Possibly even drop a strong capability model in there so that the application has to request permission to do stuff like open network connections or listen on sockets. The regular end user might still just blindly accept everything but it'd make it a lot harder for an executable to do any damage in the default sandbox.
For Leopard, Apple has ported TrustedBSD's mandatory access controls, so even if Apple doesn't do this, you should be able to with a small script. Or, you can grab the unofficial port and install it yourself on Tiger today. I have a lot of hope for Apple bringing this tech to the unwashed masses in Leopard, but it is more likely that it will just be a cool security feature used by power users that are savvy enough to know it exists.
Trojans will still be trojans and users will still be able to tricked into doing Bad Things.
Hopefully, even that will be mitigated to some degree by 10.5's MAC and application signing technologies. I'm not counting on it, but at least for power users it will let us run untrusted code safely and if Apple pulls a rabbit out of their hat, it could conceivably do the same for even novice users making trojans a really hard social engineering challenge.
Those of us following malware in general and OS X malware in particular already heard about the new metasploit module for OS X exploit released recently that supposedly exploit an unpatched hole in the wireless drivers that shipped with some powerbooks an imacs. It has a lot more potential as a real security issue than this reported proof of concept, since this one has no automated mechanism to spread and no remote vulnerability or any vulnerability for that matter. It is simply code running as it is supposed to with the privileges it is supposed to have. It is no more the result of a flaw in the system than "rm" is.
As for this "virus" it is a demonstration of a problem, but one that is so widespread and common it will be dismissed by the majority of the security community out of hand. The problem is, this code (when run) has permission, by default, to do too much and the user is not notified by the OS of what it is doing. The same can be said of most any desktop OS these days. The granularity of permission is basically: none, everything the user can do, or anything. That is insufficient to deal with software that may or may not be trusted.
Interestingly enough, Apple has announced the inclusion of application signing and Mandatory Access Controls in OS X 10.5. Theoretically, unsigned applications like this could be placed in a very limited trust level by default and as such, would not have permission to edit random user files because the MAC ACL would stop it. Viruses and trojans would have a big roadblock. Imagine downloading some random program like this, double clicking it, and OS X informing you not only that it is a new application, but also pulling up a dialogue that says something like "The application 'macarena.sh' wants to modify 122 applications in your Applications folder. This behavior is characteristic of a virus. (stop it from changing them)(let it change them)(view advanced options/details)."
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Apple is the first to bring SELinux's granularity of security to grandmother's everywhere in a usable way.
How can a company like Microsoft possibly provide updates for every single program?
They don't have to provide updates for every single program, only those they are illegally trying to take over using bundling with their Windows monopoly. Alternately, they can just offer those products separately, without any illegal bundling and they don't have to update anything from anyone else.
IE and WMP are both part of the OS.
So because Microsoft integrated these products into Windows all the existing companies that make the same type of products, regardless of whether or not they make a better product, should just go bankrupt? MS chose to bundle these products and integrate them knowing they were breaking the law. They should be punished for it.
Think of it this way. You're a baker. You make the best bread in town and charge less than almost anyone because your shop is more efficient. You're making money and doing well. Now the local electric company has a monopoly and everyone needs electricity. They see how well you're doing and decide to take over your market. They raise their rates by $20 a month and ship four loaves of bread to each electric company customer for "free." What happens? You go out of business. Your bread is better, but not enough that people can afford to pay $20 a month and throw away the bread they get from the electric company. Your bread is made more efficiently and costs less to make, but people need electricity. Consumers lose. They get worse bread at a higher price. And that new desert bread with the dried cherries in it you were working on, they're not going to bother. Why would they people wil buy whatever they tell them to? And that new way to use wheat flour that would save $.20 a loaf, who cares? So the industry grinds to a halt and stops innovating. Is that fair or good for anyone? The electric company then looks at the lucrative milk market.
Now suppose instead of a baker, you make a music jukebox program, or a Web browser and MS has decided to move into your market. How is that any different?
They come with the OS at no extra charge, and fill in important functionality.
Bullshit. The developers of both are paid. If you went to the electric company that has a monopoly in your area and paid $500 a month for service, but they also sent you four "free" loaves of bread and two "free" gallons of milk, would you consider that to be just? Just because the cost of IE and WMP are not itemized separate from the cost of your Windows license does not make them free.
If we do prevent them from being bundled, who suffers?
If you don't prevent them companies that make browsers and media players suffer, because they can no longer sell their products. Consumers suffer because they are no longer getting the best product as determined by competition, simply whatever MS makes. The industry suffers because if everyone is using MS's products and there is no way to make money even if you innovate a better product than they do, why would you innovate? Why waste you time if there is no profit?
Microsoft in profit margin, or the consumer being left with a massive inconvenience?
Microsoft does not suffer. They have a monopoly so they just raise the price to cover the cost and everyone has to pay anyway. Since they are not competing on price they charge the maximum the market will support now, not the minimum they can get by on as in a competitive market. Consumers don't suffer from stopping MS bundling because they don't buy from Microsoft. They buy from Dell or Gateway, who can add in a browser and a media player. The point is not stopping users from buying a bundle, but stopping MS from making that bundle include WMP, regardless of whether it is as good as iTunes or Realplayer or Mplayer.
And if we don't allow these programs, where does it stop? explorer.exe?
It stops at every single program MS publishes where there is an existing market for that type of software, separate from the OS market. If MS wants everyone to use their browser or media player let them create the best one at the lowest price, like everyone else. Otherwise consumers lose, the industry loses, and capitalism fails.
From the Sherman Act: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]" (see 15 U.S.C. 2)
This is the basis for the rule, but has since been amended by the Clayton act and interpreted by many years of court ruling from the supreme court. Bundling is a way to make one monopoly into two monopolies.
I agree that bundling a web browser isn't a good solution, but allowing OEMs to bundle will just lead to them bundling Internet Explorer - after all, they can give you Firefox now, but they don't. Most customers use IE so it's the easiest to support.
There is no legal justification to forbid OEMs from bundling. In any case, they will presumably act in their own best interests and bundle what they think customers want. The point is, they have to be given that choice on level ground, as in installing Firefox or IE is equally easy and not installing it is equally easy. From there the market will take care of it, and possibly choose IE. It doesn't matter because IE and Firefox and Opera and new companies will be motivated by the potential profit to compete for this.
I don't understand what the problem is with IE developers being paid from money that comes from Windows. Why does it matter?
Suppose I have a monopoly on something. If I bundle something else with that first product, how do you know if I've raised the total cost of the bundle and am actually forcing you to buy two products, or if I'm just making a charitable donation that reduces the company's revenue? Noting that part of the money for each Windows license goes to the IE dev team makes it perfectly clear for those people who believe in a free lunch that it isn't so. They're buying IE and they don't have a choice as to whether or not they do so if they want Windows.
If they were a separate company they would be no less reliant on people buying Windows for their money - they make a Windows application.
Except that is exactly what the antitrust law addresses. Just because a company makes a Windows application, they should not be reliant on Microsoft because Windows has been ruled a monopoly and everyone is reliant upon Microsoft for it.
Comparing Microsoft products and their distribution channels to cocaine is absurd!
True, but I didn't compare those two things. I merely presented an example that demonstrated the anonymous coward's previous assertion that all distribution through a supply chain one owns, is not criminal. He asserts factually incorrect information and obviously has no idea what our antitrust laws say, or why. Making factually incorrect assertions without doing any research is moronic.
You think that Microsoft is required to pay FF devs?
Do you know what a conditional statement is? I think Microsoft should be forced to bundle Firefox and pay the Firefox developers if and only if they continue to bundle IE with Windows in violation of the law.
Except that never happens because those agents never have the consumer's best interest at heart.
They don't have to. The best interest of the agent is to make money. They lose money if a different agent delivers a better product because eventually they lose customers to them. Thus, in the mid to long term it is in the agent's best interest to act in the consumer's best interest.
Worse yet, they don't even *know* that they don't know crap about these things. That's when you have problems.
Consumers assume a free market is operating. They assume if there are better options, those options will be presented to them. The problem is when the free market does not operate, thus only one option is presented. That is what is broken right now. If there is abetter option, why isn't it on some computer's sold instead of IE? The market can be inefficient at other times, but this is where we're seeing it break now, with monopoly influence that is theoretically illegal.
Guy only thing they monopolize (sp) is that its[sic] hard to switch OS for normal PC users because distributors such as Dell, Gateway, Alienware have Windows pre-installed in their system because they have a contract with Microsoft.
Your cause and effect is 100% backwards. Dell, Gateway, etc have Windows pre-installed because they have no other options that will keep them in business... because MS has a monopoly on that component.
MS is not breaking the law for not distributing other browsers in their OS, because it's >their product...
Irrelevant. The law says you can't bundle a product you have monopolized and one from another market. They do. It is very simple.
By your logic, Nike is monopolizing because they sell their sneakers with only 1 pair of shoe laces that are made by (lets say BH company.)
"Monopolizing" is not a crime. Leveraging a monopoly you have in one market to gain in another market is a crime.
If your definition of "monopoly" was accurate that would mean that Nike would have to distribute a more then 1 pair of shoe laces with their sneakers because if not then they screw out the other shoe laces companies.
No. It would be true if Nike had a monopoly on sneakers and the shoelaces they were shipping were also made by Nike. Since neither of those is true, Nike is in the clear.
Stop bitching about MS, switch to unix and get on with your life.
I don't have a choice of "switching to UNIX" because I have to deal with the market. I have to deal with other people's broken machines and I have to deal with the broken Web standards. I have to deal with the other markets MS is destroying with their illegal actions. Those actions and their chilling effect upon the market have slowed innovation to a crawl. OS's are probably a decade behind where they would be if MS did not have a monopoly and the Web is easily 5 years behind. Those of us who work in the industry and have to deal with it every day care about this a lot. Does actually enforcing the same laws for everyone, regardless how much money they donate to political parties, seem an unreasonable request?
You need to wise up and gain a basic understanding of monopolies and antitrust. Just read the wikipedia pages or the appropriate chapter of an economics text.
This scenario is exactly the opposite of what you just described. They're giving something away for free, not requiring you to purchase it to run your machine.
in practical, economic, and legal terms they are not. If you buy a bundle of software that includes both Windows and IE, you've purchased both of them.
OEMs like Dell and HP are free to install other web browsers before shipping computers. Some, in fact, do just that.
Are they free to remove IE? It actually doesn't matter. By law they must not only be capable of adding another browser but must be required to choose to add a browser and have no influence on which browser(s) to include that is the result of MS's Windows monopoly.
If you wanted to be fair, you'd also have to go after Apple for shipping Safari with OSX, KDE e.V. for shipping Konqueuer with KDE, and GNU for shipping Epiphany* with Gnome.
Not at all, because they aren't bundling their browser with something they have monopolized. To be fair you might have to consider going after Apple for bundling iTunes and the iTunes store service with iPods, and the courts are investigating that right now. The laws bans leveraging a monopoly. Neither OS X nor KDE nor Gnome constitutes a monopoly. iPods are borderline and questionable.
Yes, the latter two aren't OSes, but they are graphical user environments...
It doesn't matter if they are cheese spreads or automobiles, so long as they do not wield monopoly influence in a market. The law bans bundling a product from a monopolized market with one from another market, not bundling an OS and a browser.
I know there is a Mac version of office. But it doesn't have the VBA components that drive many corporations.
That's okay. All the companies still paying Office licensing fees and relying on VBA for internal apps will be crushed by the competition in a few years anyway:)
Let's see...the cost of a handful of IE developers spread out over millions of windows copies sold....hrm.
If the number is greater than 0, they are breaking the law.
The browser comes with Windows. They aren't forced to buy it.
You're one of those people who goes to the grocery store and sees a "two for one" sale and takes it at face value rather than assuming the doubled the price of the first one aren't you? If you're buying a bundle of Windows+IE, and some of that money goes to pay for IE's development, then you just bought IE, even if you are never going to use it.
And, by the way, my HP laptop came with Firefox installed, so I don't know where you are getting off saying companies can't because you're wrong.
Did it come with IE installed? Was that because HP decided to include IE, or because it was chosen for them by Microsoft? Yeah, that's what I thought. It is not enough that OEMs can include something else as well because IE is so bad. They have to have a choice to include each and be required to specifically choose which one(s) to include. Anything else is removing part of the advantage of competition. Because MS forces all OEMs to have Windows (or makes it very hard otherwise) developers target it and the Web is broken.
Well, there are many text editors and solitaire games out there. Is there a market for them? Well, that depends on what you mean. Is there a market for web browsers? Last I heard, all of the popular ones are free.
A market is simply people distributing a product for profit, whether or not they profit from a direct sale, from advertisements, or in some other indirect way.
What I do have an issue with is the idea that the only way for them to comply with the law is to offer to download and install Adobe Photoshop via Windows Update.
Did I say that was the only way to comply? I did not. I pointed out ways in which they are leveraging their monopoly. They can comply by leveraging that monopoly on behalf of all competitors or stopping the action in the first place.
If you think that constitutes astroturfing I would recommend you report immediately to your local veterinarian for a rabies shot.
There are either a lot of astroturfers here, or so many people lacking a basic understanding of the law that my opinion of Slashdot posters in general has just gone down several notches. I'd prefer to believe the former, though I'm by no means certain.
Firefox's update service can update Firefox installations just as easily as MS's can update IE.
The fact that Firefox's update service is not pre-installed makes MS doing it an illegal act, because they are leveraging their Windows monopoly. This isn't rocket science already. How can so many people be so ignorant of even the basics of monopolies and antitrust law. Are there really this many astroturfers here?
Great, but what improvement does this provide over all firefox users being prompted to update when they run firefox ?
Firefox would be installed on the vast majority of Windows boxes, just like IE7 is.
Ok, it updates firefox users who don't actually run the program... but what real benefit is that ?
A whole lot. It would undermine MS's ability to keep the Web nonstandard. Imagine if every company that spends an extra 50% effort fixing all the IE bugs could rely upon everyone having Firefox installed. They could tell people to just use Firefox for their site and save that cost by coding to standards. It would save companies billions. Suddenly IE would have to conform to standards or be ignored by a huge chunk of Web developers. People who still used it would notice it was broken, look in Firefox and actually see how bad IE was. It would move the Web forward again instead of stuck at the glacially slow pace with 8 year old standards.
Its[sic] a microsoft product, they are allowed to pre-install what they like.
No, they're not.
Don't like it? Get a different OS or go to a Mac.
The law says when a company has a monopoly, they can't make the purchase of a second product (from a separate market) contingent on the purchase of their monopolized product. Were that not the case, MS would not exist because IBM would have killed them. Just because you're ignorant of the law and the reason for the law does not make a difference.
Still dont[ic] like it? Don't post here.
No. I'll post here all I like. Don't like it, graduate from high school, move out of your parents house, pull your thumb out of your ass, and stop me.
Should the same be done about solitaire and notepad as well?
Is there an existing market for really basic text editors or solitaire games? If so, then yes. If not, MS is in the clear.
Clearly, you are an idiot if you cannot understand that microsoft includes standard features with its operating system to give users the best experience out of the box.
When was the last time you bought a computer from Microsoft? What they don't sell computers in general? Well who are their customers? OEMs and corporations are their customers and they are legally entitled to have a choice of buying both Windows and other products without being coerced into buying a browser or anything else just because they ahve to buy Windows to stay in business.
Anyone can download and run firefox--there's nothing stopping them.
And this means I don't have to pay for the development of IE when I buy a Windows box? Oh, no it doesn't. Here's an idea. So long as you pay me for my crappy burgers, you can buy burgers from anywhere you want later on. Sound fair? That is not a free market.
In your infinite wisdom, why should microsoft include every competitor's software with the operating system?
Because it is closer to complying with the law than what they are doing now. Of course MS picked the more profitable route, which is bribe our corrupt government to not enforce the law against them.
Should windows ship with 50+ browsers, 100's of versions of solitaire, the infinite amount of text-editors, etc?
Nope. Windows should ship with just Windows. Dell and HP and Gateway should be free to choose whatever other products they want to include or omit, without any coercion. That is what the law requires, were it being enforced.
My last computer came with something other than IE pre-installed.
Irrelevant. MS is forbidden from using their monopoly in the desktop OS space to gain market share in the browser space. MS sells to Dell and HP, etc. Apple refuses to sell their OS to those manufacturers and instead sells only into the same market as Dell or HP. Being a they are not in the same market, Apple computers have no bearing on MS's antitrust actions.
Mandatory access control is an absolute requirement for trusted binaries (and DRM).
Umm, OS X already has encrypted binaries in 10.4 that work for DRM purposes, so MAC is not a requirement for that feature. I fail to see how MAC will make it any more restrictive for them.
There are plenty of security papers on the web documenting this. Educate yourself...
I have a reasonable handle on both OS X's current DRM and the MAC in TrustedBSD that Apple copied. I think you're talking out of your ass. If there are plenty of papers on Apple's MAC integration with DRM, or even using a MAC to implement DRM, I'd like to see them. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate Apple's implementation has anything to do with DRM. My suspicion is that you don't either. Put up or shut up.
Can you show me where the act says anything about Microsoft having to pay Firefox developers?
Hahahaha! I'm sure you can find a hundred years of court precedent showing bundling to be illegal unless extreme measures are taken. And I'm sure you can find in the DOJ case where they labeled MS's bundling of IE illegal. Paying Firefox developers would be part of a bizarre attempt to legally bundle, if they were trying to find a way to do that and not violate the terms of the law.
It seems to me that customers would be adversely affected by not having any web browser provided with Windows...
You've made a false assumption. Consumers benefit from not having a browser bundled with Windows. They might suffer if they did not have a browser bundles with the computer they purchased. MS bundling Windows and a browser is criminal. Dell bundling Windows and a browser and a computer system is perfectly legal.
So what I would suggest is that the Windows disc should contain all browsers with over, say, 5% market share when each version goes to the presses.
That is insufficient. It is better than what we have now, but still not good enough. IE developers are still being paid every time you buy Windows, even if you despise IE. That is not acceptable to restore competition.
Equal access is ridiculous...
...but required by law with regard to MS, not OEMs.
The problem is not just IE though. MS has shown that they habitually break the law with regard to their monopoly and the courts take years to do anything, when they do anything. They are making too much money breaking the law to stop and it is time the US courts actually did their bloody job. MS should be broken up. At least two companies should be given full rights to the Windows code base and the development teams should be split between them. They should be forbidden from collusion and that provision strictly enforced. With two companies competing the the desktop OS space and with full backwards compatibility competition will be restored and simple greed will keep the market functioning. Then either company will be able to bundle anything they want and all these lawsuits can go away. That is the only practical solution I can see to stop a repeat offender with as much power as MS.
Giving the money to the IE developers is the same thing as paying their employees, giving money to the firefox team would be the same thing as charity. It takes only a shred of common sense to see how illogical that is.
Not at all. By bundling, MS forces all purchasers of Windows to pay for IE. To be in compliance with antitrust law they must provide equal opportunity to competitors with regard to Windows. Thus, they have to force the purchase of their competitors products as well. Alternately (and more realistically) they could stop bundling in the first place.
This makes no sense to me, if I make a product I have to act as if another company created that product?
Not products, markets. Any market you monopolize falls under antitrust laws. You can't use your monopoly in that market to give yourself an advantage in another market. So if I have a monopoly on electricity distribution somewhere, I can't bundle two pounds of cheese a month into that service, and force my customers to pay for it unless I also bundle cheese from every other cheese seller out there and collect money on their behalf. (Or I can not bundle it in the first place.)
Why is it illegal for Microsoft to package a web browser with the OS?
Windows has been ruled a monopoly by various courts. As such, it is illegal to do anything with Windows that increases sales in another, existing market. Anything they do with Windows that effects that market has to treat IE and Firefox and everyone else equally so that they have to compete, rather than IE taking over even if it is inferior.
Do they also have a monopoly on explorer.exe? Where do you draw the line at what is considered an operating system component? The MSHTML engine is used throughout windows and could very well be considered part of the OS.
You don't consider products, only markets. MS intentionally tried to blur the line in their product to try to claim that they were not entering the browser market. The courts were not fooled, they were just castrated before they could do anything about it when Bush was elected using MS's campaign contributions.
Higher prices ? Both are free.
Not so. The developers of both are paid. You pay for IE every time you buy a computer that has Windows bundled with it. It is not itemized so that you know how much of your money goes to that, but you've paid nonetheless. Worse, even if you plan to only use Firefox, you already paid for IE and there is no way out of it if you're trapped on the Windows monopoly. You pay for Firefox every time you click a link in Google from it and when you buy a myriad of other products whose companies fund the development. There's no such thing as a free lunch, especially in terms of economics and the law.
Inferior quality? probably, but that is arguable depending on the customer needs...
You don't understand. We don't have a capitalist economy because it is somehow more ethical than socialism. We have it because it works to drive innovation. The way it drives innovation is through competition. In socialism, only one product is made for a market, and there is no duplication of resources. Theoretically, this is much more efficient, but it ignores human nature. In socialism, people are not motivated to innovate. In capitalism, innovation is rewarded with cash. In practice, this means capitalism works better. With a monopoly being leveraged, IE is not competing on level ground with Firefox and the others. Work is being duplicated, but the inferior product is getting the money. Thus the motivation to innovate is crushed. Neither IE nor Firefox nor Opera is as good as it would be if it were operating in a competitive market because innovation is not motivated by rewarding it with cash.
Stagnating industry? The web is moving blazing fast and things change daily.
Have you done Web development? Billions are spent every year working around MS's failure to properly implement standards. People are codi
The true free market is up there with the ideal gas, frictionless surface, undamped oscillator, the unbiased random sample, and bigfoot. Something always gets in the way. In this case, it's the fact that the average consumer is an idiot.
Nope. Consumers can be idiots and the system will still work, because agents acting on their behalf can be informed and make decisions for them. In this case, those agents would be the computer companies like Dell and HP. Unfortunately, those agents are prevented from acting on behalf of the consumer by MS's illegal monopoly abuse. Regulated capitalism is more robust than you give it credit for. It evolved out of human nature and works very well unless a monopoly has enough power and the government is corrupt enough to keep the laws from being enforced against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Switchback was not really noticed that much either. It only could infect 7 to 8 million OSX based Macs.
Umm, the exploit was released after it was patched, three years ago, if I recall. Given automatic update, not much of an issue. I don't think I've ever seen it and I have a signature running against a class A and then some.
Still it shows that AppleScript and Safari are weak links in the OSX armor
Of course the browser will always be a weak spot, it's going on to the Web and constantly downloading untrusted files and scripts from anonymous people. This is true of all Web browsers.
Mac Users are like the old Amiga users, thinking that their platform is so secure that no virus is written for it, so there is no need for antivirus programs.
And there is an even bigger security hole than anyone thought, as you can apparently read the minds of all Mac users, and thus rifle around in there until you get their passwords, SSNs, and even their deepest, darkest secrets they never told anyone.
Hackers should target Mac users, because chances are a Mac user has more money than a Windows user, and the Mac user is less likely to run an antivirus program.
Both of these are true, but the skillset of the average cracker is very Windows-centric and there are a lot less vulnerable services to exploit by default on a mac. Basically, while some things make it a better target, other things make it a lot worse. It is crackable, but really hard to make good worms.
Just read this article with all of the comments from Mac users saying how a real virus won't infect their system.
Right now Macs are better than Windows and a smaller target. Better yet, Apple has been staying on the ball and 10.5 promises to be better yet, even with the possibility of stopping trojans and viruses like this. In truth, mac users are somewhat justified in their warm fuzzy feelings.
I think that the vast majority of infections occur because people are simply naive and careless. Most of the fastest-spreading Windows worms in history have required significant user interaction to be successful.
I think you are factually incorrect. The studies I've seen all indicate while there are more malware programs that require user interaction than there are automated ones, there are more infections and they spread faster when they require no interaction. The majority of infections to date are the result of worms that require no interaction from the user.
Executables in ZIP files being run by stupid people are the norm, not the exception. They just have to look at that REALLY COOL SCREENSAVER or those NAKED PICTURES of Anna Kornikouva or whatever.
I agree that a significant number of people will run untrusted executables and that will result in infection. This is due in large part to the fact that Windows does a very poor job of informing the user what is data (and very low risk) and what is an executable (and very high risk).
But a lot of the "bad press" they get can be traced directly to a large portion of their 500 million users who simply shouldn't be allowed near a computer, regardless of the OS, because they are responsible for having their machines infested.
I disagree. The malware on Windows can be traced to the fact that Microsoft has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate a huge problem, simply because they have a monopoly and that problem does not significantly affect their bottom line. If Linux had 50% of the market, including most of those idiots, solutions would have been implemented to make it harder for trojans and the like to infect computers.
I suspect that when or if OS X gets 500 million users we'll see much of the same thing.
I suspect not, because Apple responds to their customers. They've already announced application signing and mandatory access controls for OS X 10.5, that could easily be used to mitigate the vast majority of these malware problems, and OS X doesn't even have a serious malware problem yet. Microsoft should have been the ones pioneering this effort and it should have been in Windows XP at the very, very latest.
The only way to stop that would be to lock the computer down so hard it becomes useless except for a few "authorized" tasks. You can see this today in large corporations that manage thousands of Windows desktops.
Large organizations lock them down hard, because there is no usable middle ground. An OS can be much, much more secure without being useless for all but a small number of tasks. The truth of the matter is, the vast majority of things malware does are things very few or no legitimate programs want to do. When was the last time the average user ever installed a program that needed legitimate access to their e-mail address book and did not ship with their computer? The problem of users installing malware is largely not that of the user, but of the system designer. Until the user knows what they are running, can run untrusted software easily and securely, and is informed of what the computer is doing and given good, granular choices with a good UI... the problem is one with the OS. Once someone does that, then you can start blaming the users as the weak link. For now, weak default services and poor security/UI are weaker.
So why not by default chroot installed applications and possibly setuid them to "nobody"? Possibly even drop a strong capability model in there so that the application has to request permission to do stuff like open network connections or listen on sockets. The regular end user might still just blindly accept everything but it'd make it a lot harder for an executable to do any damage in the default sandbox.
For Leopard, Apple has ported TrustedBSD's mandatory access controls, so even if Apple doesn't do this, you should be able to with a small script. Or, you can grab the unofficial port and install it yourself on Tiger today. I have a lot of hope for Apple bringing this tech to the unwashed masses in Leopard, but it is more likely that it will just be a cool security feature used by power users that are savvy enough to know it exists.
Trojans will still be trojans and users will still be able to tricked into doing Bad Things.
Hopefully, even that will be mitigated to some degree by 10.5's MAC and application signing technologies. I'm not counting on it, but at least for power users it will let us run untrusted code safely and if Apple pulls a rabbit out of their hat, it could conceivably do the same for even novice users making trojans a really hard social engineering challenge.
Those of us following malware in general and OS X malware in particular already heard about the new metasploit module for OS X exploit released recently that supposedly exploit an unpatched hole in the wireless drivers that shipped with some powerbooks an imacs. It has a lot more potential as a real security issue than this reported proof of concept, since this one has no automated mechanism to spread and no remote vulnerability or any vulnerability for that matter. It is simply code running as it is supposed to with the privileges it is supposed to have. It is no more the result of a flaw in the system than "rm" is.
As for this "virus" it is a demonstration of a problem, but one that is so widespread and common it will be dismissed by the majority of the security community out of hand. The problem is, this code (when run) has permission, by default, to do too much and the user is not notified by the OS of what it is doing. The same can be said of most any desktop OS these days. The granularity of permission is basically: none, everything the user can do, or anything. That is insufficient to deal with software that may or may not be trusted.
Interestingly enough, Apple has announced the inclusion of application signing and Mandatory Access Controls in OS X 10.5. Theoretically, unsigned applications like this could be placed in a very limited trust level by default and as such, would not have permission to edit random user files because the MAC ACL would stop it. Viruses and trojans would have a big roadblock. Imagine downloading some random program like this, double clicking it, and OS X informing you not only that it is a new application, but also pulling up a dialogue that says something like "The application 'macarena.sh' wants to modify 122 applications in your Applications folder. This behavior is characteristic of a virus. (stop it from changing them)(let it change them)(view advanced options/details)."
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Apple is the first to bring SELinux's granularity of security to grandmother's everywhere in a usable way.
How can a company like Microsoft possibly provide updates for every single program?
They don't have to provide updates for every single program, only those they are illegally trying to take over using bundling with their Windows monopoly. Alternately, they can just offer those products separately, without any illegal bundling and they don't have to update anything from anyone else.
IE and WMP are both part of the OS.
So because Microsoft integrated these products into Windows all the existing companies that make the same type of products, regardless of whether or not they make a better product, should just go bankrupt? MS chose to bundle these products and integrate them knowing they were breaking the law. They should be punished for it.
Think of it this way. You're a baker. You make the best bread in town and charge less than almost anyone because your shop is more efficient. You're making money and doing well. Now the local electric company has a monopoly and everyone needs electricity. They see how well you're doing and decide to take over your market. They raise their rates by $20 a month and ship four loaves of bread to each electric company customer for "free." What happens? You go out of business. Your bread is better, but not enough that people can afford to pay $20 a month and throw away the bread they get from the electric company. Your bread is made more efficiently and costs less to make, but people need electricity. Consumers lose. They get worse bread at a higher price. And that new desert bread with the dried cherries in it you were working on, they're not going to bother. Why would they people wil buy whatever they tell them to? And that new way to use wheat flour that would save $.20 a loaf, who cares? So the industry grinds to a halt and stops innovating. Is that fair or good for anyone? The electric company then looks at the lucrative milk market.
Now suppose instead of a baker, you make a music jukebox program, or a Web browser and MS has decided to move into your market. How is that any different?
They come with the OS at no extra charge, and fill in important functionality.
Bullshit. The developers of both are paid. If you went to the electric company that has a monopoly in your area and paid $500 a month for service, but they also sent you four "free" loaves of bread and two "free" gallons of milk, would you consider that to be just? Just because the cost of IE and WMP are not itemized separate from the cost of your Windows license does not make them free.
If we do prevent them from being bundled, who suffers?
If you don't prevent them companies that make browsers and media players suffer, because they can no longer sell their products. Consumers suffer because they are no longer getting the best product as determined by competition, simply whatever MS makes. The industry suffers because if everyone is using MS's products and there is no way to make money even if you innovate a better product than they do, why would you innovate? Why waste you time if there is no profit?
Microsoft in profit margin, or the consumer being left with a massive inconvenience?
Microsoft does not suffer. They have a monopoly so they just raise the price to cover the cost and everyone has to pay anyway. Since they are not competing on price they charge the maximum the market will support now, not the minimum they can get by on as in a competitive market. Consumers don't suffer from stopping MS bundling because they don't buy from Microsoft. They buy from Dell or Gateway, who can add in a browser and a media player. The point is not stopping users from buying a bundle, but stopping MS from making that bundle include WMP, regardless of whether it is as good as iTunes or Realplayer or Mplayer.
And if we don't allow these programs, where does it stop? explorer.exe?
It stops at every single program MS publishes where there is an existing market for that type of software, separate from the OS market. If MS wants everyone to use their browser or media player let them create the best one at the lowest price, like everyone else. Otherwise consumers lose, the industry loses, and capitalism fails.
From the Sherman Act: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]" (see 15 U.S.C. 2)
This is the basis for the rule, but has since been amended by the Clayton act and interpreted by many years of court ruling from the supreme court. Bundling is a way to make one monopoly into two monopolies.
I agree that bundling a web browser isn't a good solution, but allowing OEMs to bundle will just lead to them bundling Internet Explorer - after all, they can give you Firefox now, but they don't. Most customers use IE so it's the easiest to support.
There is no legal justification to forbid OEMs from bundling. In any case, they will presumably act in their own best interests and bundle what they think customers want. The point is, they have to be given that choice on level ground, as in installing Firefox or IE is equally easy and not installing it is equally easy. From there the market will take care of it, and possibly choose IE. It doesn't matter because IE and Firefox and Opera and new companies will be motivated by the potential profit to compete for this.
I don't understand what the problem is with IE developers being paid from money that comes from Windows. Why does it matter?
Suppose I have a monopoly on something. If I bundle something else with that first product, how do you know if I've raised the total cost of the bundle and am actually forcing you to buy two products, or if I'm just making a charitable donation that reduces the company's revenue? Noting that part of the money for each Windows license goes to the IE dev team makes it perfectly clear for those people who believe in a free lunch that it isn't so. They're buying IE and they don't have a choice as to whether or not they do so if they want Windows.
If they were a separate company they would be no less reliant on people buying Windows for their money - they make a Windows application.
Except that is exactly what the antitrust law addresses. Just because a company makes a Windows application, they should not be reliant on Microsoft because Windows has been ruled a monopoly and everyone is reliant upon Microsoft for it.
Comparing Microsoft products and their distribution channels to cocaine is absurd!
True, but I didn't compare those two things. I merely presented an example that demonstrated the anonymous coward's previous assertion that all distribution through a supply chain one owns, is not criminal. He asserts factually incorrect information and obviously has no idea what our antitrust laws say, or why. Making factually incorrect assertions without doing any research is moronic.
Providing your own product through your own distribution channel is not, and never will be illegal.
Yeah, go try to sell some cocaine at the nearest elementary school and put that to the test why don't you? Moron.
You think that Microsoft is required to pay FF devs?
Do you know what a conditional statement is? I think Microsoft should be forced to bundle Firefox and pay the Firefox developers if and only if they continue to bundle IE with Windows in violation of the law.
Except that never happens because those agents never have the consumer's best interest at heart.
They don't have to. The best interest of the agent is to make money. They lose money if a different agent delivers a better product because eventually they lose customers to them. Thus, in the mid to long term it is in the agent's best interest to act in the consumer's best interest.
Worse yet, they don't even *know* that they don't know crap about these things. That's when you have problems.
Consumers assume a free market is operating. They assume if there are better options, those options will be presented to them. The problem is when the free market does not operate, thus only one option is presented. That is what is broken right now. If there is abetter option, why isn't it on some computer's sold instead of IE? The market can be inefficient at other times, but this is where we're seeing it break now, with monopoly influence that is theoretically illegal.
Guy only thing they monopolize (sp) is that its[sic] hard to switch OS for normal PC users because distributors such as Dell, Gateway, Alienware have Windows pre-installed in their system because they have a contract with Microsoft.
Your cause and effect is 100% backwards. Dell, Gateway, etc have Windows pre-installed because they have no other options that will keep them in business... because MS has a monopoly on that component.
MS is not breaking the law for not distributing other browsers in their OS, because it's >their product...
Irrelevant. The law says you can't bundle a product you have monopolized and one from another market. They do. It is very simple.
By your logic, Nike is monopolizing because they sell their sneakers with only 1 pair of shoe laces that are made by (lets say BH company.)
"Monopolizing" is not a crime. Leveraging a monopoly you have in one market to gain in another market is a crime.
If your definition of "monopoly" was accurate that would mean that Nike would have to distribute a more then 1 pair of shoe laces with their sneakers because if not then they screw out the other shoe laces companies.
No. It would be true if Nike had a monopoly on sneakers and the shoelaces they were shipping were also made by Nike. Since neither of those is true, Nike is in the clear.
Stop bitching about MS, switch to unix and get on with your life.
I don't have a choice of "switching to UNIX" because I have to deal with the market. I have to deal with other people's broken machines and I have to deal with the broken Web standards. I have to deal with the other markets MS is destroying with their illegal actions. Those actions and their chilling effect upon the market have slowed innovation to a crawl. OS's are probably a decade behind where they would be if MS did not have a monopoly and the Web is easily 5 years behind. Those of us who work in the industry and have to deal with it every day care about this a lot. Does actually enforcing the same laws for everyone, regardless how much money they donate to political parties, seem an unreasonable request?
You need to wise up and gain a basic understanding of monopolies and antitrust. Just read the wikipedia pages or the appropriate chapter of an economics text.
This scenario is exactly the opposite of what you just described. They're giving something away for free, not requiring you to purchase it to run your machine.
in practical, economic, and legal terms they are not. If you buy a bundle of software that includes both Windows and IE, you've purchased both of them.
OEMs like Dell and HP are free to install other web browsers before shipping computers. Some, in fact, do just that.
Are they free to remove IE? It actually doesn't matter. By law they must not only be capable of adding another browser but must be required to choose to add a browser and have no influence on which browser(s) to include that is the result of MS's Windows monopoly.
If you wanted to be fair, you'd also have to go after Apple for shipping Safari with OSX, KDE e.V. for shipping Konqueuer with KDE, and GNU for shipping Epiphany* with Gnome.
Not at all, because they aren't bundling their browser with something they have monopolized. To be fair you might have to consider going after Apple for bundling iTunes and the iTunes store service with iPods, and the courts are investigating that right now. The laws bans leveraging a monopoly. Neither OS X nor KDE nor Gnome constitutes a monopoly. iPods are borderline and questionable.
Yes, the latter two aren't OSes, but they are graphical user environments...
It doesn't matter if they are cheese spreads or automobiles, so long as they do not wield monopoly influence in a market. The law bans bundling a product from a monopolized market with one from another market, not bundling an OS and a browser.
I know there is a Mac version of office. But it doesn't have the VBA components that drive many corporations.
That's okay. All the companies still paying Office licensing fees and relying on VBA for internal apps will be crushed by the competition in a few years anyway :)
Let's see...the cost of a handful of IE developers spread out over millions of windows copies sold....hrm.
If the number is greater than 0, they are breaking the law.
The browser comes with Windows. They aren't forced to buy it.
You're one of those people who goes to the grocery store and sees a "two for one" sale and takes it at face value rather than assuming the doubled the price of the first one aren't you? If you're buying a bundle of Windows+IE, and some of that money goes to pay for IE's development, then you just bought IE, even if you are never going to use it.
And, by the way, my HP laptop came with Firefox installed, so I don't know where you are getting off saying companies can't because you're wrong.
Did it come with IE installed? Was that because HP decided to include IE, or because it was chosen for them by Microsoft? Yeah, that's what I thought. It is not enough that OEMs can include something else as well because IE is so bad. They have to have a choice to include each and be required to specifically choose which one(s) to include. Anything else is removing part of the advantage of competition. Because MS forces all OEMs to have Windows (or makes it very hard otherwise) developers target it and the Web is broken.
Well, there are many text editors and solitaire games out there. Is there a market for them? Well, that depends on what you mean. Is there a market for web browsers? Last I heard, all of the popular ones are free.
A market is simply people distributing a product for profit, whether or not they profit from a direct sale, from advertisements, or in some other indirect way.
What I do have an issue with is the idea that the only way for them to comply with the law is to offer to download and install Adobe Photoshop via Windows Update.
Did I say that was the only way to comply? I did not. I pointed out ways in which they are leveraging their monopoly. They can comply by leveraging that monopoly on behalf of all competitors or stopping the action in the first place.
If you think that constitutes astroturfing I would recommend you report immediately to your local veterinarian for a rabies shot.
There are either a lot of astroturfers here, or so many people lacking a basic understanding of the law that my opinion of Slashdot posters in general has just gone down several notches. I'd prefer to believe the former, though I'm by no means certain.
Firefox's update service can update Firefox installations just as easily as MS's can update IE.
The fact that Firefox's update service is not pre-installed makes MS doing it an illegal act, because they are leveraging their Windows monopoly. This isn't rocket science already. How can so many people be so ignorant of even the basics of monopolies and antitrust law. Are there really this many astroturfers here?
Great, but what improvement does this provide over all firefox users being prompted to update when they run firefox ?
Firefox would be installed on the vast majority of Windows boxes, just like IE7 is.
Ok, it updates firefox users who don't actually run the program... but what real benefit is that ?
A whole lot. It would undermine MS's ability to keep the Web nonstandard. Imagine if every company that spends an extra 50% effort fixing all the IE bugs could rely upon everyone having Firefox installed. They could tell people to just use Firefox for their site and save that cost by coding to standards. It would save companies billions. Suddenly IE would have to conform to standards or be ignored by a huge chunk of Web developers. People who still used it would notice it was broken, look in Firefox and actually see how bad IE was. It would move the Web forward again instead of stuck at the glacially slow pace with 8 year old standards.
Its[sic] a microsoft product, they are allowed to pre-install what they like.
No, they're not.
Don't like it? Get a different OS or go to a Mac.
The law says when a company has a monopoly, they can't make the purchase of a second product (from a separate market) contingent on the purchase of their monopolized product. Were that not the case, MS would not exist because IBM would have killed them. Just because you're ignorant of the law and the reason for the law does not make a difference.
Still dont[ic] like it? Don't post here.
No. I'll post here all I like. Don't like it, graduate from high school, move out of your parents house, pull your thumb out of your ass, and stop me.
Should the same be done about solitaire and notepad as well?
Is there an existing market for really basic text editors or solitaire games? If so, then yes. If not, MS is in the clear.
Clearly, you are an idiot if you cannot understand that microsoft includes standard features with its operating system to give users the best experience out of the box.
When was the last time you bought a computer from Microsoft? What they don't sell computers in general? Well who are their customers? OEMs and corporations are their customers and they are legally entitled to have a choice of buying both Windows and other products without being coerced into buying a browser or anything else just because they ahve to buy Windows to stay in business.
Anyone can download and run firefox--there's nothing stopping them.
And this means I don't have to pay for the development of IE when I buy a Windows box? Oh, no it doesn't. Here's an idea. So long as you pay me for my crappy burgers, you can buy burgers from anywhere you want later on. Sound fair? That is not a free market.
In your infinite wisdom, why should microsoft include every competitor's software with the operating system?
Because it is closer to complying with the law than what they are doing now. Of course MS picked the more profitable route, which is bribe our corrupt government to not enforce the law against them.
Should windows ship with 50+ browsers, 100's of versions of solitaire, the infinite amount of text-editors, etc?
Nope. Windows should ship with just Windows. Dell and HP and Gateway should be free to choose whatever other products they want to include or omit, without any coercion. That is what the law requires, were it being enforced.
My last computer came with something other than IE pre-installed.
Irrelevant. MS is forbidden from using their monopoly in the desktop OS space to gain market share in the browser space. MS sells to Dell and HP, etc. Apple refuses to sell their OS to those manufacturers and instead sells only into the same market as Dell or HP. Being a they are not in the same market, Apple computers have no bearing on MS's antitrust actions.
Mandatory access control is an absolute requirement for trusted binaries (and DRM).
Umm, OS X already has encrypted binaries in 10.4 that work for DRM purposes, so MAC is not a requirement for that feature. I fail to see how MAC will make it any more restrictive for them.
There are plenty of security papers on the web documenting this. Educate yourself...
I have a reasonable handle on both OS X's current DRM and the MAC in TrustedBSD that Apple copied. I think you're talking out of your ass. If there are plenty of papers on Apple's MAC integration with DRM, or even using a MAC to implement DRM, I'd like to see them. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate Apple's implementation has anything to do with DRM. My suspicion is that you don't either. Put up or shut up.
Can you show me where the act says anything about Microsoft having to pay Firefox developers?
Hahahaha! I'm sure you can find a hundred years of court precedent showing bundling to be illegal unless extreme measures are taken. And I'm sure you can find in the DOJ case where they labeled MS's bundling of IE illegal. Paying Firefox developers would be part of a bizarre attempt to legally bundle, if they were trying to find a way to do that and not violate the terms of the law.
It seems to me that customers would be adversely affected by not having any web browser provided with Windows...
You've made a false assumption. Consumers benefit from not having a browser bundled with Windows. They might suffer if they did not have a browser bundles with the computer they purchased. MS bundling Windows and a browser is criminal. Dell bundling Windows and a browser and a computer system is perfectly legal.
So what I would suggest is that the Windows disc should contain all browsers with over, say, 5% market share when each version goes to the presses.
That is insufficient. It is better than what we have now, but still not good enough. IE developers are still being paid every time you buy Windows, even if you despise IE. That is not acceptable to restore competition.
Equal access is ridiculous...
...but required by law with regard to MS, not OEMs.
The problem is not just IE though. MS has shown that they habitually break the law with regard to their monopoly and the courts take years to do anything, when they do anything. They are making too much money breaking the law to stop and it is time the US courts actually did their bloody job. MS should be broken up. At least two companies should be given full rights to the Windows code base and the development teams should be split between them. They should be forbidden from collusion and that provision strictly enforced. With two companies competing the the desktop OS space and with full backwards compatibility competition will be restored and simple greed will keep the market functioning. Then either company will be able to bundle anything they want and all these lawsuits can go away. That is the only practical solution I can see to stop a repeat offender with as much power as MS.
I don't recall reading in any of the anti-trust judgements against Microsoft a requirement ...
Did you read the Sherman Anti-trust act?
P.S. how much to you get paid to astroturf for MS? I might be interested in the job.
Giving the money to the IE developers is the same thing as paying their employees, giving money to the firefox team would be the same thing as charity. It takes only a shred of common sense to see how illogical that is.
Not at all. By bundling, MS forces all purchasers of Windows to pay for IE. To be in compliance with antitrust law they must provide equal opportunity to competitors with regard to Windows. Thus, they have to force the purchase of their competitors products as well. Alternately (and more realistically) they could stop bundling in the first place.
This makes no sense to me, if I make a product I have to act as if another company created that product?
Not products, markets. Any market you monopolize falls under antitrust laws. You can't use your monopoly in that market to give yourself an advantage in another market. So if I have a monopoly on electricity distribution somewhere, I can't bundle two pounds of cheese a month into that service, and force my customers to pay for it unless I also bundle cheese from every other cheese seller out there and collect money on their behalf. (Or I can not bundle it in the first place.)
Why is it illegal for Microsoft to package a web browser with the OS?
Windows has been ruled a monopoly by various courts. As such, it is illegal to do anything with Windows that increases sales in another, existing market. Anything they do with Windows that effects that market has to treat IE and Firefox and everyone else equally so that they have to compete, rather than IE taking over even if it is inferior.
Do they also have a monopoly on explorer.exe? Where do you draw the line at what is considered an operating system component? The MSHTML engine is used throughout windows and could very well be considered part of the OS.
You don't consider products, only markets. MS intentionally tried to blur the line in their product to try to claim that they were not entering the browser market. The courts were not fooled, they were just castrated before they could do anything about it when Bush was elected using MS's campaign contributions.
Higher prices ? Both are free.
Not so. The developers of both are paid. You pay for IE every time you buy a computer that has Windows bundled with it. It is not itemized so that you know how much of your money goes to that, but you've paid nonetheless. Worse, even if you plan to only use Firefox, you already paid for IE and there is no way out of it if you're trapped on the Windows monopoly. You pay for Firefox every time you click a link in Google from it and when you buy a myriad of other products whose companies fund the development. There's no such thing as a free lunch, especially in terms of economics and the law.
Inferior quality? probably, but that is arguable depending on the customer needs...
You don't understand. We don't have a capitalist economy because it is somehow more ethical than socialism. We have it because it works to drive innovation. The way it drives innovation is through competition. In socialism, only one product is made for a market, and there is no duplication of resources. Theoretically, this is much more efficient, but it ignores human nature. In socialism, people are not motivated to innovate. In capitalism, innovation is rewarded with cash. In practice, this means capitalism works better. With a monopoly being leveraged, IE is not competing on level ground with Firefox and the others. Work is being duplicated, but the inferior product is getting the money. Thus the motivation to innovate is crushed. Neither IE nor Firefox nor Opera is as good as it would be if it were operating in a competitive market because innovation is not motivated by rewarding it with cash.
Stagnating industry? The web is moving blazing fast and things change daily.
Have you done Web development? Billions are spent every year working around MS's failure to properly implement standards. People are codi
The true free market is up there with the ideal gas, frictionless surface, undamped oscillator, the unbiased random sample, and bigfoot. Something always gets in the way. In this case, it's the fact that the average consumer is an idiot.
Nope. Consumers can be idiots and the system will still work, because agents acting on their behalf can be informed and make decisions for them. In this case, those agents would be the computer companies like Dell and HP. Unfortunately, those agents are prevented from acting on behalf of the consumer by MS's illegal monopoly abuse. Regulated capitalism is more robust than you give it credit for. It evolved out of human nature and works very well unless a monopoly has enough power and the government is corrupt enough to keep the laws from being enforced against it.