Microsoft May Charge for Security Tools 642
rscrawford writes "CNN reports that Microsoft may charge extra for security software. So first they edge their competition out of the browser market, then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health, and now they want to CHARGE users to fix it?"
oblig... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:oblig... (Score:4, Funny)
Six months after it is discovered.
Good advertisement. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good advertisement. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good advertisement. (Score:3, Funny)
Guess you're not all that civilized after all...
Re:Good advertisement. (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I think it's quite a humorous little series of ads, at least it was when I stopped watching TV a year ago. From what I've seen on the web, ads are pretty consistent throughout the Euro-centric world. "Buy our stuff, it's better, faster, stronger, newe
Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, if starting the computer is human error. It takes what, five minutes or less, for an XP box to get riddled with viruses, Trojans, etc.? The error is Microsoft didn't ship an operating system that could remotely be considered secure. You can't connect to the network to download SP2 without risking the computer. Where's the sense in this? Where's the user error?
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Insightful)
risking the computer. Where's the sense in this? Where's the user error?
This is how people think after so much time with viruses. They are used to performing workarounds for Windows that lead to acceptance of viruses (just buy an antivirus) that lead to acceptance of spyware (just buy an antispyware) and that lead to acceptance of systems so bogged down by combinations of the above (just reinstall every 6 months).
It's a bit like living in a really bad neighbourhood and denying it's a problem. "Oh we're OK, we live in a safe area. As long as you put bars on all your windows, don't leave the house when it's dark, put up bullet proof windows, and don't make eye contact with the neighbours you're perfectly safe"
Apart from how it's broken, it works perfectly.
MS is fucked, but they don't mind. The consumer state of society today means MS can just tell people they need to buy something, and people will do what they're told to.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are small, efficient, safe, and free programs that perform these tasks without bogging the system down.
But your points do to some degree stand. Though even if the virus/worm/spyware problem weren't as bad today as it is, I probably would STILL run a software firewall and a good antivirus just as a matter of precaution. I also have all of my systems behind the network firewall but not everyone has that option.
The point is, that just because things are worse now on Windows than they have ever been, doesn't mean that good precautions wouldn't be paying off.
It's only a matter of time before MacOS X gains enough popularity that it's own security holes (though admittingly less serious than many of those in Windows) are mass exploited causing many Mac users some grief.
As it stands right now MOST Linux users can fend for themselves. How true do you think that would be if there was a huge wave of new Linux users converting from Windows? The clueless masses would show people that even a Linux box in the wrong hands can exploited, and I would dare say that an arm compromised *nix boxes is a far greater threat to the internet as a whole than the army of zombie Dialup AOL connected budget PCs running XP home that we currently have to dela with.
Security IS a problem right now, but Windows is only PART of the problem. The clueless human side of the equation isn't going to go away no matter how many people ditch Windows.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a matter of proper security design that those exploits will be limited in scope and number.
Windows doesn't get exploited just because it's popular. It gets exploited because it was designed wrong.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you sell a modern operating system and the install disks aren't safe to use (meaning no innocent third party suffers damage) then the product must be recalled. I've had enough of this crud that the next time I'm in the cross hairs, I'm going after whoever dropped the ball and I don't care if its MS, Apple or Sun. There is no excuse for not recalling a CD since its small and cost so little. In past court cases involving cars, that has made a huge difference in payouts. If sun is shipping hackable software with their cheapest v100 which cost $1000 and the fix of sending everyone a new CD which cost $3 or
The same goes for Apple. They have teamed up with an Antivirus software company with imac when they could have just included that feature in the OS. I have recently found a copy of an old check from an anti-virus company to a student which proves that the student was paid to write viruses to help improve the bottom line. Thats racketeering and the resulting class action suit could kill a company.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple of years ago, in response to a claim that Linux had 'as many' viruses as Windows does, I researched ALL the real and putative viruses posted on Symantec and other such sites. At that time I found a total of 47 viruses and worms, of which only three did actually infect some computers. The slapper worm was the most recent and the worst, it infected about 14,000 computers in Eastern Europe in a two week period before it died out. Since slapper required the use
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, OS X is the operating system that automatically extracts code and links it to protocol handlers when the user clicks an internet enabled DMG link. That sort of security is basically ActiveX level but without, you know, those annoying and unfriendly security certificate things.
If the rest of MacOS X is designed with that sort of mentality then I'd say actually OS X has a more insec
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the 20 minute figure that people like to bandy about has more to do with common user behaviors -- namely, the fact that most people don't even know what a service pack IS?
I imagine the average user's behavior to be something like this:
1. Turn on computer.
2. Install AOL.
3. Check email. Oh look, there's an email from Aunt Marge! And it has
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:2)
I've had an image of XP SP2 from the MSDN CD installed on a machine, browsed to a couple of pages to find a driver and *without doing anything* got a trojan on the machine.
In under 10 minutes.
Users have no chance, really.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:2)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Informative)
There was at least some RPC issue that worms used to spread completely automatically. The topic never was about a legitimate site spreading trojans.
Luck 10 minutes! (Score:3, Interesting)
You are lucky. I connected on *dial-up* with Windows to just DL one form from a gov't website and got infected in under 10 seconds. Before I could actually type the URL into Mozilla, the box was already infected.
I'd say your 10 minutes is pretty good :P
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Interesting)
The scenario you describe -- plugging into the internet without getting a worm -- is only the case because the chances are lower that you will get a worm. Basically, you are defending Microsoft on the grounds that the chances are not good that you will get a worm. But decrease the number of computers to that of a medium-sized college campus, and suddenly the chances become very good indeed. Your argument is not particularly good.
And this is not user error, unless you count not enabling a firewall before you plug into the network as a user error. But then, how do you enable a firewall on a built-in wireles card as you are installing Windows?
(Note that there are solutions around this problem -- and I use a few of them. I'm just pointing out that the argument, "I don't immediately get a worm on an unpatched Windows machine, so no one does," doesn't hold any water.)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've personally had an XP pro machine infected by a worm wirelessly over a GPRS connection. I wanted to test the claims.
It took about 4 hours of total online time, I didn't download any software or email.
For most of those 4 hours, the built in firewall was on. But I turned it off for about 10 minutes and the machine was infect
Re: That's Windows File Protection putting back cr (Score:3, Funny)
Which somehow means that virus-infested files are critical to Windows' operation?
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Charging Allows Tracing to Culprits: Chinese (Score:2)
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure you can.
No you can't - in SP1 and below, the firewall gets put in place after the network interface is brought up. In face, the firewall is almost the last thing to initialize during the XP boot process.
Depending on your boot time, there can be few minutes where your computer is vulnerable.
Enjoy!
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Informative)
There's a difficult concept to grasp here. You actually have to wait until the OS is booted and the firewall is enabled and _then_ plug the cable in.
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Seems that my DHCP request has to be sent using IP-over-Magic then...
If your interface is DHCP'd and you don't have the cable in, does the firewall still come up if the initial DHCP fails??
And, in any case, that's another workaround people get used to and learn to live with... it should not be like that. Microsoft claims that their operating system's
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your DHCP request will be triggered when the cable is plugged in.
If your interface is DHCP'd and you don't have the cable in, does the firewall still come up if the initial DHCP fails??
Yes.
And, in any case, that's another workaround people get used to and learn to live with... it should not be like that.
It certainly shouldn't, which is why it was fixed.
Microsoft claims that their operating system's usability is so good that y
Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. (Score:3)
The one that article notes has been patched to fix that vulnerability.
I'm not quite sure how you propose to access Windows Update without doing both of these.
Use IE _only_ for Windows Update. I figured that would have been clear. Don't browse the web in general with it.
You can't connect to the network to download SP2 without risking the computer.
Of course you can.
Re:Mod parent asinine (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that Windows started out as a single user OS, and a lot of programs are built with that mindset. Windows as a multiple user OS still feels like a hack upon a single user OS. A few years ago, Microsoft could of said, "Sorry, many of your old Win9x programs aren't going to work in the NT line", and we wouldn't have this problem. They even could of provided us with a "classic mode" sandbox to run them in too. Bu
ack! (Score:5, Insightful)
And they don't see a conflict of interest here? Exactly what incentive would they have to fix security holes which are allowing malware into the machine in the first place if they are selling other products to "block" these kinds of attacks, or are they planning on charging for patches?
Re:ack! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: thpt! (Score:4, Funny)
Not at all. The word "help" is used in the sense of "Hi. We're from Microsoft and we're here to help... ourselves."
it's their business plan, not a "conflict" (Score:2, Insightful)
monopoly
+
user-idiocy
+
shitty software
=
self-re-enforcing money machine.
really a brilliantly simple plan if ya think about it from a monopoly business's p.o.v.
no surprise to anyone familiar with thier previously demonstrated propensity for... ahem... evil?
Re:ack! (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems unusually blatant (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one thing to say: (Score:5, Funny)
What a huge, big, heavy set of balls this company has.
Hey, let's kick them!
Re:Just one thing to say: (Score:4, Funny)
You ever kick the balls of an 800 pound gorilla?
That's the plan.... (Score:2)
Re:That's the plan.... (Score:2)
Microsoft has incentive to write insecure software in the first place, if they can sell people on their security package.
Make money money money! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes it is stupid. Users/companies pay for licenses of Windows which is somewhat costly when you compare what other solutions can do for a fraction of a price (Linux?!) and on top of that, they want to potentially sell you crap so their crap can be more secure using the previous crap. What a load of crap.
Yo! Iz mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! (Score:2)
Think of the invoice.
MS Windows 500 seats $100/seat $50,000
MS Office 500 seats $100/seat $50,000
MS anti-virus 500 seats $10/seat $5,000
MS anti-spyware 500 seats $10/seat $5,000
Secret leaked internal memo:
Re:
Software sales - marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem of releasing buggy software and charging for fixes is inherent in the software world.
That's not quite what they said. (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is whether or not the AV and/or AS tools are going to be free.
Think of it as a choice - you can put them in the OS (so they'll be "free") at the cost of adding more bloatware (important bloatware, but bloatware) to the OS.
Or they can fix the @#$@#$ security holes that the spyware vendors are using to install their software and sell anti-spyware software to the dumb users who are stupid enough to download kazaa.
It's not like giant's antispyware software wa
In Microsoft language... (Score:3, Insightful)
See? is end-user fault all those security problems, they must pay!
...and this is surprising because? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's no different to the toll road operator where I live that puts their tolls up by the maximum permitted year after year without any explanation at all - the same one who quite frequently refuses to explain their actions for unusual lane closures (usually during rush hour) with no readily apparent reason, who only pays refunds for their mistakes when the media gets hold of the story. Quite simply, if you want to get through my city quickly and easily, you have no choice.
(free "well done" to whomever identifies the city I live in and the toll operator I'm referring to)
Re:...and this is surprising because? (Score:2, Interesting)
It actually is not surprising that MS will seek a new revenue stream. What may be, well rather sad, is that so many people will pay for it.
Somebody at MS has to realize this will strengthen OSS alternatives even more.
Next week, we'll have a statement released that this fee won't really increase the TCO of MS based systems.
Re:...and this is surprising because? (Score:4, Funny)
Or.... (Score:2, Informative)
According to /. they will lose either way... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the first time they've had security software either. Anyone remember MSAV.exe?
Re:According to /. they will lose either way... (Score:3, Funny)
In this case I am thinking their solution will be a 2x4 labelled "Clue-by-four" with a little attached sheet that says, 'If you always run everything as admin and/or click YES on dialog boxes without thinking, hit yourself in the head with the Clue-by-four. Repeat as needed'. Cost: $380 plus shipping.
Re:According to /. they will lose either way... (Score:2)
User error, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Spyware usually gets on your computer through human error," said Marc Maiffret of eEye Digital Security Inc., which regularly discovers serious Windows flaws.
First.. a confession: My name is kRYPT, and I used to use Internet Explorer. I used to keep it patched, and updated. I browsed on High Security. I ran Spybot S&D and Adaware regularly, and TeaTimer always.
Spyware STILL got in. Every Spybot scan would regularly reveal something nasty (normally DSO or other IE Exploits).
Perhaps it's true that most Spyware is the result of user action (such as installing shady "free" smiley-enhancing software), but _lots_ of the Spyware out there is simply a direct result of using IE.
PS: I see the spyware people are trying to attack Firefox too.. see cracks.am for an example. However, in Firefox, a nice dialog pops up, makes it perfectly clear the code that's being requested to run is unsigned and unvalidated, and makes you wait for 2 seconds before you have the chance to accept or deny installing it.
Re:User error, eh? (Score:2)
Re:User error, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Moral of the story: pick your porn sites wisely.
Re:User error, eh? (Score:2)
It *always* says there are DSO exploits found and deletes them. Just ignore them.
Drive by installs occur on many non-porn web sites (Score:5, Interesting)
I was researching information on the Roman Empire and was directed by Google to a great web site. About five minutes in I notice a small pop up window that when maximized displayed a blank window. The router, modem and network lights start to blink and the hard drive begins to churn. Ugh, I realize I am the victim of drive by spyware installation on of all things a web site on Ancient Rome. If I can't protect myself given all the above safeguards, how the hell is the average person going to?
It took an hour or two of work with Ad Aware, Spybot and Hijackthis to remove the five or six pieces of spyware shit that installed from an innocuous web site. I am well and truly tired of this bullshit, Firefox here I come...
Wonder what the effects will be (Score:3, Interesting)
There are already good anti-spyware solutions available for home-users (ie Ad-aware, etc.), and I can't imagine home users shelling out a lot of money when they can get a personal version of Ad-aware for free. I suppose Microsoft is going to be targetting corporate users, but if their solutions aren't much better than companies like Ad-Aware (hopefully) corporations will go with competitors. But then again, they might just choose Microsoft because it seems like the "right thing to do" (that is, MS makes the OS, so OBVIOUSLY they should go with MS because it'll "work better" together).
Then again, if the MS anti-spyware is moderately priced and a lot of home-users do buy it, it may serve to drive the gap between richer vs poorer computer users (home users who shell out big bucks for a loaded Windows box vs users who pay a couple hundred for one of those Linux PCs that Walmart and others are selling).
The Push to Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
More than anyone or anything else, Microsoft will become the major force pushing users to Linux.
Re:The Push to Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Short answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations (Score:2)
Careful, you might get what you wished for!
Purge (Score:2)
Microsoft's message is clear -- buy our software, and we'll hold you hostage with it. Thank god for Gnu, Linux, and BSD.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a separate product. They're not bundling. So what's the problem?
And there's another way this is good: TCO studies. The more extra charges you have to have from Microsoft to have a working product, the better TCO Linux has by comparison. (That is, if it's an honest comparison. But instead, what we'll probably see is bogus TCO "studies" where Microsoft looks good, but it omits the security stuff. Then when you go to actually buy it, there's these extra costs, like the auto dealers do with "dealer prep".)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
In other words, Microsoft abused their monopoly position and freely gave away their browser, and this somehow competed unfairly with Netscape's plan to freely give away its browser?
It's enough to piss a guy off (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been an advocate for MS software and OS's for some time now, but the prospect of charging to fix something that is a result of many of the flaws in their software just pisses me off!
It's really unfortunate that Linux isn't viable on the desktop yet because this would likely be the straw that breaks this camel's back.
Unfortunately, Linux is not ready for the desktop yet, and please, save your fingers from typing because I have been evaluating distros for the
Terminology is the root of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
These terminology differences really point to a philosophical difference at Microsoft, which is the root of all their problems. They really don't understand. Why should we think they ever will, at any price?
So let's see (Score:5, Insightful)
MS charges a fee for a necessary tool: "Charging for this? What a ripoff!" (even though their major competitors charge a fee for similar tools)
Yes, that money may have been better spent in actually fixing the items that need these security tools, but it seems like they can't win either way.
Re:So let's see (Score:3, Insightful)
MS charges a fee for a necessary tool: "Charging for this? What a ripoff!"
How about:
MS includes a necessary tool free, using the profits from their OS monopoly to destroy a competitor: ``Unfair bundling!''
MS charges a fee for a tool which is only necessary because of their mal- or non-feasance: ``Charging for this? What a ripoff!''
No inconsistancy here.
Re:So let's see (Score:3, Interesting)
Since they haven't fixed those items, they don't deserve to "win" either way.
I keep seeing the analogy with people's complaints about IE. Not the same. With IE, MS undercut the competition with a tool for using the computer, not for fixing problems of its own making. The WWW isn't a Microsoft bug.
MS is caught in a Catch-22 of its own making. My heart bleeds.
Company charges money for product... (Score:4, Funny)
We're serious about security! (Score:3, Interesting)
And for only $59.99 we'll show you how serious we are.
Apple did this a lot in the '80s (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe Microsoft doesn't want to tick off the commercial anti-spyware tool vendors.
Maybe, just maybe, they want to leave the door open for zero-cost or donation-supported anti-spyware vendors like Spybot Search & Destroy [spybot.info]. Nahh, Balmer & Co. aren't that altruistic.
Ignorant remarks (Score:2, Informative)
Yawn something called protected memory and considering IE runs in seperate process called IExplorer.exe, how is IE going to crash windows? I just love ignorant remarks.
Re:Ignorant remarks (Score:3, Informative)
I'll refer you to my other post for good resources on how to fix t
Re:Ignorant remarks (Score:3, Interesting)
Much ado about nothing (Score:2)
Hold on a minute (Score:2)
Many of the vunerabilities are MS's fault, but there are plenty of user errors too.
"That looks
See what I'm sayin'? (Score:2)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133058&c
Sue MSFT for racketeering? (Score:3, Insightful)
now a days, it IS user error (Score:2)
While there have been a few viruses in the past that legitimately exploited vulnerabilities (like buffer overflows and such), all of the spyware in the post SP2 world requires (a) user intervention (pressing yes at a prompt) and (b) running as admin.
Make your grandma a li
Oh and by the way (Score:2)
I wonder, if that boneheaded PM hadn't mentioned their considering a pricing model for the software, would the headline on slashdot have read 'Microsoft will provide free spyware remover, how nice of them!!'. Hmm... maybe not.
I don't see anything wrong with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft charge for software. Charge. Money. Whether you pay it, or you pay it when you buy your box, or your suppliers pay it and pass the cost on, or your customers pay it and have less money left over to pay it for you, or your government taxes you then uses that to pay it the basic equation is still there. Micosoft charges money for software. Get over it.
They also charge money for shit software, in case you hadn't noticed. Then they charge more money for shit-software-server, then more again for a CAL onto shit-software-server, then some more for shit-CMS and so on and so forth. So, on the rare occasion that Microsoft buys someone that makes good software and badge engineers it, why is everyone suddenly up in arms?
It's not like this is the first time that Microsoft has used a flaw in one product to sell another.
Dave
HA-HA! (Score:2)
how to become rich (Score:3, Funny)
2. Charge for bugfixes
3. Profit!!!
How long until they charge for Service Packs? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, the worst part of the idea is that Open Source vendors are opening the door for Microsoft and blazing a trail toward exactly that. Open Source vendors such as Red Hat and Novell/SuSE are selling "cheap" software, built by the Open Source community, and charging a premium for patches. It is a "new business model".
The base software is sold cheap or given away and they make their real money from "support services". However, close inspection of the "support services" show that they offer very little in the way of technical support. They do however offer password protected access to the sites used to download the patches and security fixes for the free/cheap software.
All this isn't going un-noticed by Microsoft, who has toyed with the idea of charging for Service Packs before. In the past however, customers told them in no uncertain terms that they would not pay for bug fixes to software that those customers had already paid a premium for.
Microsoft then developed the "Software Assurance" subscription model, where customers pay a subscription fee that entitles them to future version upgrades. But, Microsoft is still spending money and effort to provide free patches and they don't like doing it as they perceive it as lost revenue.
But, with the "new business model" that Open Source vendors are acclimating their customers to is likely to open up that revenue stream for Microsoft. Just as all the other software vendors were able to leverage the subscription model after Microsoft had acclimatized the customers, it is entirley likely that customers who are accustomed to the the Open Source method of paying for patches will not balk at paying Microsoft for their patches too.
It's a dark and pessimistic vision of the future, I know. But, can you imagine Microsoft actually passing up a new revenue stream from the same old product? That doesn't seem likely to me.
It's a Sad Day when personal computing... (Score:3, Interesting)
The personal computer (Apple/Commadore/Tandy/IBM/Atari/Amiga) was supposed to release the creative gene in all of us. At first it did (1978 - 1995), Viri at most were limited boot sector infestations and nothing more.
Leave it to Microsoft to add BSOD and AdWare, and Windows Virus to the english language (Whats it called in other languages)? Instead of removing IE from the core of the O/S they chose to patch the system by purchasing a supposed solution. Now they are going to charge money for a problem that they induced. I also see that Win98/ME is excluded from the list. If I sold buggy software and didn't update 40 percent of my clients, I would be sacked as a vendor.
I'm sorry. Maybe I'm becoming too old, but Virus/Adware are/should not be the norm. When did it become mainstream to run all these utilities just to use your computer?
Enjoy,
Did anyone RTFA? No, of course not. (Score:3, Informative)
So, Microsoft has announced FREE software - rant about that. Later, IF they start charging for it, you can rant again about them charging for it.
Two-rants-for-one special!
What's New (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course Microsoft is blaming users (Score:3, Informative)
This is heartening and disheartening (Score:3, Insightful)
However MS has continually disappointed. Security ended up being very very bad, and becoming in fact worse with every new release (Microsoft still hasn't been able to break the old conflict between ease-of-use and security, unlike Apple).
Since then we've had Linux and the BSDs maturing (including Darwin). MS security is in fact worse with XP than it ever was with NT4 and this is affecting mere users in a huge way. Spyware removal has moved from a little cottage industry to big multinational business. Running a simple PC with Windows is fast becoming harder and more labour intensive than simply installing Linux on it.
My family members and friends are constantly asking me for advice. I'm always happy to help them with their Windows troubles (after all this keeps my skills up to date to a degree). I never mention the fact that they should try Linux or buy and Apple but when they ask me why I don't run Windows I simply say: "no spyware, no virus" and they start thinking about it. A few more years of Linux and OpenOffice maturing, and we'll see a shift of the order of the Firefox one.
Unless Microsoft get their act together, fast. But they are not, witness the current decision.
Microsoft is unable to make long term decisions that will affect their users positively. This is because they are driven by short-term profits. Even thought they have the resources 10 times over to make the right decisions, they are being trounced, little by little, by a band of volunteers.
This is both heartening and disheartening.
BTW I find all the replies to remarks along the line "but you can't even plug a windows machine in default mode to the Internet more than 10 minutes before becoming infected" absolutely hilarious.
1- first find a secure machine
2- download all the patches by hand
3- burn to CD
4- go to insecure machine.
5- unplug from network
6- install OS
7- install patches
8- boot
9- make sure firewall is on
10- plug network cable in. Browse to you heart's content!
11- Oh, and make sure you don't run IE, and keep your machine up-to-date! and don't run as the admin! What? games don't run except as admin? don't play games!
Easy! speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Re:duh! (Score:2)
Profit? From where? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit.
Re:Windows isn't the problem (Score:3, Funny)
You meant....
In Soviet Redmond, the problem is You!
-b
Re:MS doing the right thing - cause they have to (Score:2)
First, you assume Microsoft has any fear whatsoever that the government will be willing and able to effectively bring anti-trust law to bear to restrain its practices. I have yet to see any evidence that Microsoft has pro-actively adjusted its business practices to avoid anti-trust actions. History has shown it's more profitable for them to settle things in the courts.
Second, they would have a monetary motivation to make windows only as secure as it abso