Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2 472
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Re:The problem is internal (Score:4, Informative)
Diversified more??
Come on, MS is already in:
- Gaming
- TV
- Internet
- Computer
- Telephones
- Handhelds
And several others I do not know... they only need to have their own cereal!
If Microsoft concentrated in doing ONE thing (ok, two or three things) right, THEN he would not have all these problems.
Microsoft SHOULD specificaly work on Microsoft Windows AND Microsoft Office. Make them lot a hell better (For example, at least allowing to quickly change the pointer type when I am making a presentation, instead of showing the right-click menu); that way they will be seen better.
Re:Microsoft v. Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Red-Herring: No-one, I repeat, No-one has ever successfully sued MS for damages after something went hugely wrong due to a bug in Windows. According to the Windows Terms of Use, damages are limited to what was paid for Windows.
Re:Double-edged sword (Score:2, Informative)
Q: I have heard that NGSCB will force people to run only Microsoft-approved software.
A: This is simply not true. The nexus-aware security chip (the SSC) and other NGSCB features are not involved in the boot process of the operating system or in its decision to load an application that does not use the nexus. Because the nexus is not involved in the boot process, it cannot block an operating system or drivers or any nexus-unaware PC application from running. Only the user decides what nexus-aware applications get to run. Anyone can write an application to take advantage of new APIs that call to the nexus and related components without notifying Microsoft or getting Microsoft's approval.
It will be possible, of course, to write applications that require access to nexus-aware services in order to run. Such an application could implement access policies that would require some type of cryptographically signed license or certificate before running. However, the application itself would enforce that policy and this would not impact other nexus-aware applications. The nexus and NCAs isolate applications from each other, so it is not possible for an individual nexus-aware application to prevent another one from running.
Q: Will I still be able to play MP3s on my PC with NGSCB?
A: You will. NGSCB will not interfere with the operation of any program that runs on current PCs. The nexus and nexus computing agents are designed never to impose themselves on processes that do not request their services; nexus-related features must be explicitly requested by a program. So the MP3 player a user has today should by design still work on a next-generation PC tomorrow.
-----------
Some more food for thought:
Q: How can anyone be sure that the nexus and related components do exactly what you claim they do?
A: Microsoft will make widely available for review the source code of the trusted computing base so it can be evaluated widely and validated.
-----------
(source) [microsoft.com]
Re:That battle the article missed... (Score:4, Informative)
I once worked at Microsoft, so I will answer/reply to these as best as was my personal experience:
I found it to be muddled and lacking in direction. I gave Microsoft high grades for being rather horizontal, so you were never too far removed from important decision makers, but I found a certain neurosis in management because it always felt like there was a certain "fear factor".... i.e., fear of making a wrong move pissing off the wrong people... with whatever consequences... (for the record I wouldn't know what and if those consequences were)
The internal culture is/was as geeky as it gets. I found all around me to be highly intelligent but quite socially disconnected. The morale was generally high, but I wouldn't describe it as high because of realistic views but more from a certain hubris... e.g. (and borrowing from Lilly Tomlin) "We're Microsoft, We don't have to care!" This was right around the beginning of the big DOJ investigation, and the attitude was pretty much "let them come!.... we've done nothing wrong, we're Microsoft!"... I attribute much of this attitude as ripple effect from execs such as Ballmer.
Again I worked there long ago, but I didn't sense much strategic culture, just a "We'll do what it takes to conquer" attitude. I sat in some discussions which eventually led me to leave Microsoft because I didn't feel they played fair. I've posted and commented on this before.
I found Microsoft one of the most dynamic, challenging, and fun places I've ever worked. I enjoyed the high value placed on intellectual sparring. But I finally left because, in my opinion, their intellect wasn't tempered with any humility.
As to how and whether or not they've got what it takes to "win the battle", I'd say if they started out on a level playing field they have nothing over anyone and if they didn't or wouldn't drop the hubris, they would collapse and self-destruct from their own attitude.
ttm? (Score:3, Informative)
What, exactly, is impressive in your book?
MSFT is the GM of the computer world. It will NEVER go away (unless America, somehow, goes away).
Re:The cure is worse than the disease... (Score:3, Informative)