EU Warns Microsoft Against Making Vista Too Secure

from the monopoly dept

Tue, Sep 12th 2006 9:51am — Joseph Weisenthal

There's no doubt that the European Union has taken a much harder line in its anti-trust actions against Microsoft than regulators have in the US. The company is still facing fines in Europe, and arguing about what features are legitimate, whereas Stateside the legal action is basically finished. A few months ago, we asked whether Microsoft's decision to beef up the security features in Vista might get them into legal hot water, in the same way as it has with Internet Explorer and the Windows Media Player. It doesn't seem like it's going to be an issue for US regulators, but again, the EU is concerned. A spokesman warned that Microsoft should not build security features into Vista, as it would shut out third party vendors and hurt consumers. Now, people can disagree about whether Microsoft's actions will make Vista more or less secure, but the idea that it shouldn't address security issues, so as to leave a market for other companies is odd. Shouldn't Vista users be allowed an inherently secure (in theory) operating system, without the need to spend extra on security software, and enjoy the same peace of mind held by Linux and Apple users all these years? Since added security is thought to be one of the main reasons to upgrade to Vista, limitations on what the company can offer could hurt Microsoft in the important European market.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous of Course, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:02am

Who profits from this?
These EU regulations won't do anything for
the consumer. Any pretenses that they
will are a deception. They are angling for a
bigger cut of of pie.

I hope microsoft builds two OS versions (again)
one that's as secure as is reasonable and one
that's crap to satisfy the EU's demands.
Then let the consumers decide on which they
prefer. Oh, wait... the EU probably won't allow
that either.

What I'd like to know is this...
Which palms are being greased and Who will profit
from these actions?

I'm nt buying the reasons given so far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grandfather Time, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:08am

my humble opinion
ahhhh, in my opinion....vista will not be as great or as fulfilling on the user end as people are hoping, so this is pretty irrelevant to me.......if i ever upgrade again, any time soon or whenever....im going the linux route.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dorothy Lechman, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:13am

internet taking into places I did not ask to go
I wll be in Sbc site and the internet will throw me into
some other place, which I did not click into or go
anyplace close to that site.

Thanks, Dorothy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:16am

i think its bull. microsoft should be allowed to include whatever it wants. its their product. just because somebody else wants to provide an added on feature for windows doesn't mean microsoft shouldn't be allowed to do it. capitalism is all about this. rules and laws shouldn't be made to protect a business model. if ms wants to make windows better, let them and then let third party suppliers have to step up their software in turn.

the EU is anti-capitalist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lar3ry, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:24am

Wrong take on this...
What the EU is trying to say is, "We don't care if you offer these services, but you cannot lock the other vendors out."

What's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Me, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:27am

Quite right. Microsoft should be able to provide its consumers with a secure Operating System, but not through releasing their own anti-virus software.

The problem here is that most computer users in the world today use Windows and as we all know, Windows was oringinally built as a stand-alone/Personal Computer (PC) operating system (i.e. Single User, not connected to other computers or the internet).

While Windows OS is, in my opinon, the most user friendly OS in the market today, it is not really built to be used the way how most of us use computers (i.e. connecting to other computers or the internet). Becuase of its design, MS Windows is not as secure as Linux, or Unix (which were built to be used by many users, connecting to other computers).

From what I understand, Microsoft is releasing its own anti-virus, and anti-spam software to protect its operating system. As dominant software maker, this might potentially take most Anti-Virus software companies out of the market. This is why the EU Commission thinks that the move by microsoft is not just for the interest of its consumers...but a move by microsoft to take on new markets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:32am

Let MS rlease a perfectly secure OS. It's needed, they have had a truly secure OS yet. This being said I can promice you that there will be a huge hole that will get exploited and then what, oh I know an oppuritunity to mkae money w/ anti-virus software. There is no way that third party programs for WinPC security will ever be out of business. Lets face it MSFT sucks at writing the OS the only reason they are the leader is because of a dew stratigic moves in the past.

Don't worry EU there will still be business for your 3rd party programs to make money from even with a "Secure OS"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:32am

I worked for Congress during MS' US troubles, and the stories I could tell would need their own site...

This mess is going to far. Imagine a company wants to offer a competing Explorer.exe... What then? MS can no longer budle it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:34am

The difference
There is a BIG difference between making a secure OS that is more-or-less immune to viruses and spyware (like Linux or OSX) and making an insecure OS bundled with anti-virus and anti-spyware software (that will likely require yearly subscription fees like the third-party Symantic, McAfee, etc.). Where is the incentive to make an inherently secure OS if you're making money off patching the holes in an insecure OS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lunk johnson, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:35am

well shit...guess i'm stuck with xp until i get off my bum and learn linux, hm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:40am

This is also another example of legislating business models, except this time it's in the EU.

A company releases a flawed product, and you create a business patching the holes. Now the company comes up with a new version, not quite so flawed, which now threatens you. Tough...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:41am

Re: internet taking into places I did not ask to g
Well Fuck Dorothy!! Did you mistake this for the TechDirt help desk?!?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:42am

Re: Wrong take on this...
why should the government make legislation to keep certain companines in whereas other companies (not necessarily pc-related) have to rely on actually making a superior product to stay in business.

i highly doubt you'll be forced to use their anti-virus software. even if they did, the market dictates what the market is. the anti-virus market was created because people started making them. MS isn't moving into that market, its redefining the market which i don't think is a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:44am

This is the same story again
We go through this every few years. Whenever a type of software becomes so common that users wouldn't think of running their operating system without it, Microsoft will release a version of that software that is bundled with the operating system.
This is a natural progression as the computer industry and what users do with computers changes. every time this happens, all of the software companies that were filling the hole complain about anticompetitive practices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrBill, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:51am

Vista Security....
Let me state up front that I work for a major internet security company that makes AV, IPS/IDS, firewall software, etc.

My understanding that the "problem" my company and others in the same market face is that with Vista we are locked out of the kernel due to security features that MS has implemented. As a result some of the security solutions out there or that my company and others are trying to come up with are not usable on Vista.

Given this situation and knowing that Vista will have many security holes and exploits that will be exposed in due course, that leaves consumers and businesses with only a single "security" vendor able to protect Vista effectively. That vendor would be Microsoft. Somehow I don't think this is a good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 10:57am

That's like saying an automaker can't put an anti-theft device on their car. Stupid...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:01am

"A spokesman warned that Microsoft should not build security features into Vista, as it would shut out third party vendors and hurt consumers."

This has got to be the most dumbest thing I've ever read.

"Do *not* build security features" and "it would ... hurt consumers" in the same sentence... I am in awe right now.

Either this spokesman is very dumb, or is being paid under the tables by 3rd party security companys. I dare this person to rationalise their sentence.

It is no wonder the EU is still ongoing with their pointless lawsuits against MS when people with misguided minds like that are within.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrBill, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:04am

Re:
Not really. A more accurate statement would be "That's like saying an automaker can't prevent anyone else from putting an anti-theft device on their car". This should be especially true when the automaker in question also makes anti-theft devices and makes most of the autos people use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:13am

Not really. A better compairson would be "That's like saying an automaker can't add measures to make their own car safe to drive as it would shut out other 3rd partys who make car saftey devices, and hurt consumers."

Again, that is asking to not include saftey or you will hurt consumers. Which does not make any logical sense at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
marc, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:15am

Security yes! WMP... No...
I seriously don't think Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player should be compared to added security in Vista!

The IE and the WMP are added on extras, while more (or should I say enough?) security seems to be the bare basics of any operation system. The third party security providers are at the moment just trying to fix the mistakes MS makes, why should MS not be allowed to fix the errors themselves? It seems ridiculous that MS should ship a broken and vulnerable product just so that those security companies should survive! On the other side, they do have an extremely strong monopoly position and including WMP and IE does not fix errors but uses the monopoly to leverage other products! I could easily imagine a situation in a few years where MS adds a "SkypeOut" function to the Messenger everyone will be using MS Voice services (Or whatever they will call it) This would be a good thing, if there was a serious competition in the market and this would give MS a competitive edge, but then Microsoft has an unfair monopoly and should take the responsibilities that come with this!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hates GeekSquad, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:18am

Fuck Europe
Fuck Europe and every other company complaining about security in vista. its a Microsoft product, there WILL be virii written for it soon after its grand release and norton will still have a job....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TroubleMaker, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:21am

News Release
>>FLASH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TroubleMaker, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:23am

Try this again.....
--FLASH-- Microsoft announces that VISTA will not be marketed to the EU. In what has been a surprise announcement a more simplistic OS will be offered to the EU consortium code named SCEWEM. SCREWEM is more recognizable to long term computer users as DOS 7.0 and is expected to allow EU based Software Developers the fair market share of OS integration software and Utilities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:38am

Well, then the geniouses in the EU should code their own OS. No one's stopping them. I guess Microsoft doesn't fit into their 'total control' agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Smith, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:39am

Re: automobile anti-theft
Quite so.

To be consistent, the EU should tell Mercedes they can no longer install door locks in their cars as built in features as it unfairly excludes the padlock manufacturers from competing for the car security business.

Oh wait ... the EU bureaucracy is dominated by the French and their followers . .. they are incapable of logical consistency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:41am

Good Idea Troublemaker...

Release "Windows EU" - strip ALL the security out of it, don't patch it either - as patches are frequenty 'security based'. Then third parties can make all kinda of cash! Because their greed is more important than Microsoft's greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:42am

I think there are two different issues being discussed which is confusing the matter. First, there's the issue of MS bundling software that may be able to take the place of third-party products. Second, there's the issue that Mr.Bill speaks of. I don't think the article is written well. I don't think the EU really means that MS should leave holes in the OS for the sake of AV vendors' business models. I think they mean that MS shouldn't be able to lock the OS down (in the name of security) to the point that third parties can't write compatible software. Shutting third parties out because their software isn't needed is ok. Shutting them out because MS won't let their software communicate with the OS isn't ok.

It's fine for MS to take away the need or introduce a competing product, but they shouldn't be able to force consumers into using their product because their's is the only one that will work. That's my take anyway. I can't believe that anyone would tell MS to make the OS less secure in the way that most people are thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Linus, 12 Sep 2006 @ 11:47am

Linux and Mac security
Seems to be a misconception out here that Linux or Apples are more secure than Windows. Bullshit. It's funny how everyone wants to be your biggest rival when you are in first place. When you are the pimple on my ass, no one gives a shit or writes virii targeting you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TroubleMaker, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:02pm

One last thought
One last thought on this then I will get back to work…Why doesn’t the EU contract MS to produce exactly what it wants?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:02pm

Lockdown?
If MS locks Vista down to where only their own anti-viral measures work won't that mean that the hackers, crackers, and viral coders won't have as many protective measures to counter act?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:06pm

Microsoft and EU
anyone with any working experence with MS products knows that it is a pain to stay on top of security.I for one would love to see a MS product that is totaly locked down and then you have to open it up.

I would not won't to see the MS lock all software out that someone would like to run in place of a MS product. i.e. Internet explorer.

I see no resaon the EU can't ask for this and the US should as well if MS is planing on locking out other vendor add ons that would help protect some computer from damage or just having to rebuild the thing cause someone downloaded spyware to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:09pm

Re:
No one's forcing the EU to use Microsoft's built-in security features--even if they're preinstalled, unremovable, and block third party vendors. Bottom line, customers *choose* to use Windows and if Windows does something they don't like, they will either deal with it, or *choose* a different OS.

Building in as much security as possible is good for most users and thus good for networks of "most users" like say, the Internet. Third party companies that live on developing software for Windows have already chosen to be at the mercy of Windows in their business model and should be prepared to change with the times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:13pm

BOOOO
If I understand this correctly, EU is pissed because m$ wants to lock out 3rd party software from their os. I have 2 issues with this. 1st issue.. it is their software, and if you don't like it, don't buy it. 2nd Is this is totally a good thing, if the software sucks (history says it will) people will start looking for an os besides windows and we can stop having these silly arguments about a broke ass product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VPR, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:30pm

How is the EU anti-capitalist when they're demanding compatibility with other sources of security?

Perhaps you're confused?

This isn't about Microsoft making Vista completely safe (fat chance with that), this is about Microsoft being the only source able to make it safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:30pm

Re: internet taking into places I did not ask to g
Dorothy, I didn't know you were Senator Ted Stevens internet policy advisor. Congrats!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keybored, 12 Sep 2006 @ 12:50pm

How about telling automakers to stop putting seatbests in cars. For get about bumpers and winbshields too, I want to purchase them seperately in the free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil_Bastard, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:02pm

EU blows
Compete or die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Darrow, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:05pm

Re: Vista Security....
This is bull, The first AV to support Vista is not Microsoft but McAffee. So how is it that the non MS AV companies are locked out when the first product out to support Vista is a non MS company?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:24pm

Re: my humble opinion
For the most part I would agree with you.

But, alas, Linux is getting to be as bad as windows.

Oversized by trying to support everything under the sun right out of the box, dependency hell (which I've been through a LOT, even with installing everything under the sun) and general sluggish performance of the GUI...'Shrug'.

I'll stick with Windows for everyday use, and GUIless linux for a firewall (I'll NEVER EVER EVER EVER TO INFINITY, connect a windows box directly to the internet) which (barring any stupidity on my part for such actions I deserve what I get) covers my ass nicely.

So all in all, unless Linux GUI's improve and more applications are native (Not ported) for linux, not really worth the time and effort. Nice for somethings, but not everyday.

Just thought I would share, not bashing anyone or anything, just how I feel.

BTW, I think all this bullshit with the EU is a double edged sword.

Who determins what is "secure enough"? Personally, I had to turn off the "show updates" on my add/'remove programs window because of the 120 hotfixes/critical updates I've had to install since 11/05.

Anwyay, ta
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someonespecial, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:25pm

Re: Who profits from this?
Well, I'd like to know what the kinda pie you're talking about? They have absolutely nothing to gain from this other than that they are thinking about the consumer. Unlike the United States, the EU does not think every man/woman for themselves and lets capitalize on everything as much as possible. Do you think that it really could be the government looking out for the little guy?! Wow what a concept.

One can still create a secure operating system and allow third party software to run on it. Half the time it's the consumers own ignorance of software that causes things like viruses/worms/spam/etc to get passed around anyways. Why should Microshaft compensate for the consumers ignorance?!

Always the stupid PEBKAC errors... Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
somoenespecial, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:33pm

Re: BOOOO
Heh... according to your comment you're apparently not aware that Microshaft has restricted just about 95% of the world's software market to the Windows Operating System. i'm sure if you'd like the get the next best 97 version of Office to run on your linux box... be my guest. Hope your documents are ok when you try to open up a 2003 version document that someone sent from a Windows XP box. Unless of course you don't care about formatting and are willing to put the time in to fix the it.

Oh and by the way... I'm not trying to defend MS in any way... I personally can't stand the fact that DirectX9 Games will not be truly hardware supported in Vista. Apparently you can run in DX9 "compatibility" mode... but yeah... we all saw how well that worked with XP and a majority of software that was meant to run on 9x/ME. Compatibility my arse!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo Mamma, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re: internet taking into places I did not ask
Yeah, I think one of your Internet tubes was crossed into another Internet tube.

I'd advise an enema.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haha, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:38pm

Stupid European Law maker/enforcer. It makes no sense and is just plain stupid. I don't normally like Microsoft, but I'm standing by Microsoft this time. EU should do something to protect their consumers not just protect their businesses!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someonespecial, 12 Sep 2006 @ 1:39pm

Re: Blank
This is in reference to Matt's comment:

Wow... I think you're one of the only people on here that understood that article... Well Golly Jee Willikers!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 2:27pm

I love this.

Windows is not secure enough, so 3rd party devs do their best to make it so.

People whine that Windows is so insecure they have to buy 3rd party products to protect the OS.

Microsoft attempts to stave off such complaints by locking down the kernel so that it cannot be comprimised.

3rd party vendors bitch that they can't get in.

Governments hear and cry "Monopoly!"

Microsoft is forced to unlock it's kernel, thus allowing 3rd party developers (and malware) to interact with it.

Consumers *still* get shit upon, but this time, it's the Gov's fault, and not Microsoft's.

Fuck the EU. Fuck Symantec an their ilk. They created a business based on flaws in another product. What the Fucking Hell did they expect would happen when the company making that product decided to do something about those flaws?

Ya know what's really scary? That they and the gov might actually get their way and *BLOCK* Microsoft from releasing a more stable and secure OS.

UnFuckingBelievable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Linville79, 12 Sep 2006 @ 2:33pm

Close-Minded and Uneducated.
Matt Said: "I think they mean that MS shouldn't be able to lock the OS down (in the name of security) to the point that third parties can't write compatible software. Shutting third parties out because their software isn't needed is ok. Shutting them out because MS won't let their software communicate with the OS isn't ok."

My Reply: Yes, it IS ok, because it's their software, and you and everyone else on the planet can choose another operating system if they would rather. The best way to secure an operating system, is to lock "other people" out of the important system areas...that's how security is obtained in the world of UNIX/Linux and it has worked superbly for years. That does NOT mean that the software will not communicate, it means that it will not allow you to write software that injects a bunch of crap into it's core processing space.

someonespecial said: "Heh... according to your comment you're apparently not aware that Microshaft has restricted just about 95% of the world's software market to the Windows Operating System. i'm sure if you'd like the get the next best 97 version of Office to run on your linux box... be my guest. Hope your documents are ok when you try to open up a 2003 version document that someone sent from a Windows XP box. Unless of course you don't care about formatting and are willing to put the time in to fix the it."

My Reply: You should really spend more time learning what you speak of before you decide to flame about it, because I use the one single Linux based laptop in my company of over 1000 other machines that run in an almost purely MS environment. I browse network shares, read/write/modify/create office documents in MS Office file formats and have no issues with formatting, even when going back and forth from Office 2K3. On top of that, you can install and run nearly all MS Office products with commercially supported emulation software on a Linux machine if you want to purchase the software(I prefer OpenOffice instead).

I have a vast working knowledge of both Windows machines and Linux machines and prefer Linux for almost every thing, but that doesn't mean that I can support an argument against MS that is so full of BS.

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Diesel, 12 Sep 2006 @ 2:48pm

what a brilliant idea, making software less secure on purpose!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 4:40pm

Re:
My car came with a first aid kit. Can Band-Aid sue Toyota?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2006 @ 9:06pm

Re: Close-Minded and Uneducated.
I think the EU is simply trying to prevent the monopoly.
What you want is:
1. an unhackable kernel.
2, you want the customer to be able to permit installation of other s/w.

Given that autos can have 3rd party equipment - I bet that MS could provide 3rd party to run with their s/w.

But, since the monoply is best for MS, they will not do so
unless they are forced, which is what the EU us doing.

Compare hardware ansd s/w: the existance of AMD
has driven AMD and Intel to provide the consumer with amazing value and technoligy improvements.

It is a pity there is no software MS competitor to
provide the same incentive to MS.

Perhaps the unintended effect of the s/w patent and copyright system is to prevent that growth of such a company. It would be good for the industry and consumer to have this.

Imagine if a modern laptop, which has the power of a old Cray, cost $1 million instead of $1000. There would not be too many sales. This is truly the miracle of the amazing engineers and competition!

How ro make this work in software! ?
That is the quesstion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pro, 13 Sep 2006 @ 9:53am

Re:
>How is the EU anti-capitalist when they're >demanding compatibility with other sources of ?>security?

You answered your own question. In a free market economy, no one makes demands about anything - the success and direction of a product depends on whether or not people pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pro, 13 Sep 2006 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: Who profits from this?
You are a fool if you don't think that they have something to gain from taking business away from microsoft and distributing it to companies within the EU from which they collect their taxes.

Government entities are one giant shakedown and they don't give a crap about the people. In a sense, they are non-free market entities within a free market that use mobster tactics to fill their pockets.

I know someone who opened a pool hall years ago in Massachusetts... Nice place - yet the local paper used to run a smear campaign against it everyday, until of course he hired a police detail every night to sit in a chair and collect $45/hr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymosu of Course, 13 Sep 2006 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Who profits from this?
I'm not naive enough to believe that the EU is some
altruistic governing body with the best interest of the
common man at heart.

On and off over the last thirty years I've been responsible
for international regulatory agency compliance for a
couple of companies.

Protectionism often the result of subtle tweaks to
standards. It's quite real. Sometimes adding a bit
more European content to a product makes problems
disapear.

I have no doubt that protectionism motivated this
attack against Microsoft whom I have little love for.

I just don't know who in the EU will profit from selling
this security software for Vista.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pro, 13 Sep 2006 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: Re: Who profits from this?
I believe that there are lots of different ways that EU benefits from bringing action against Microsoft and most of them aren't even directly apparent.

Any time a government agency can use nonsensical rhetoric to bring about litigation against some entity (especially one that it doesn't tax), it seems to be advantageous. It allows that agency to grow, and to acquire more public funds in order to support itself. Funding and justification are the name of the game in the public sector - it 'creates jobs' and creates 'paybacks' and loopholes for all those involved. It is a cancer to the free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 13 Sep 2006 @ 12:40pm

short memory
It sounds as the people realy have a short memory.

Not so far in past, M$ destroy the market of word processor and worksheets, at least, by selling it as a bundle on Windows. Many other software suffering with this procedure.

Helloooooooo!!! Windows is to be a Operation System that's it!

If a car came with first aid, do probably with products made it from other players. I never ever read about GM Ford or other car maker doing band-aid, tylenol, etc.

If they will do (and put it in WIN) all kind of software... Let's close corel, IBM, Oracle, Adobe, etc, etc.

And... If this came true... We laa are in a big trouble hehehehehe!!!

~
Ed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 13 Sep 2006 @ 12:40pm

short memory
It sounds as the people realy have a short memory.

Not so far in past, M$ destroy the market of word processor and worksheets, at least, by selling it as a bundle on Windows. Many other software suffering with this procedure.

Helloooooooo!!! Windows is to be a Operation System that's it!

If a car came with first aid, do probably with products made it from other players. I never ever read about GM Ford or other car maker doing band-aid, tylenol, etc.

If they will do (and put it in WIN) all kind of software... Let's close corel, IBM, Oracle, Adobe, etc, etc.

And... If this came true... We all are in a big trouble hehehehehe!!!

~
Ed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 13 Sep 2006 @ 12:42pm

sorry for the doubled post
Ops - Sorry!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel, 14 Sep 2006 @ 12:53am

No Windows on EUrope ? FINALLY!!!!
>My Reply: Yes, it IS ok, because it's their software, and you and everyone >else on the planet can choose another operating system if they would rather.

I already did THANK YOU!

>The best way to secure an operating system, is to lock "other people" out >of the important system areas...that's how security is obtained in the >world of UNIX/Linux and it has worked superbly for years.

Since when you're locked out of the kernel ?!?

>That does NOT mean that the software will not communicate, it means >that it will not allow you to write software that injects a bunch of crap into >it's core processing space.

You never compiled a driver in linux did you ?

>Oversized by trying to support everything under the sun right out of the >box, dependency hell (which I've been through a LOT, even with >installing everything under the sun) and general sluggish performance of >the GUI...'Shrug'.

I thought that was the problem with Windows, backwards compability, not Linux problem!
That's funny, considering i can use Linux ( even with GNOME ) in a Pentium 200MMX without a hitch and i cant even get Vista to be usable in my Pentium M 2.0Ghz laptop...

>--FLASH-- Microsoft announces that VISTA will not be marketed to the >EU. In what has been a surprise announcement a more simplistic OS >will be offered to the EU consortium code named SCEWEM. SCREWEM >is more recognizable to long term computer users as DOS 7.0 and is >expected to allow EU based Software Developers the fair market share of >OS integration software and Utilities.

I for one would LOVE to see that, Europe finally rid of a piece of software crap! THANK GOD! Most European countries already have far more linux penetration than the US, many EU countries already traded their Windows boxes for Linux-based ones in their governmental/institutional and financial organizations, my local university has unix classes as mandatory in IT courses and most of the workstatios are Mac/*nix based.

So what if Microsoft doesn't ship Vista in the EU ? Most companies already own Windows 2000 and XP, and they last enough to support a Windows -> Linux transition, hell, most companies wont be upgrading to Vista anytime soon. The cost of deploying linux and teach the employees to use it is far cheaper than upgrading to Vista.

Get your fat ass out of the sofa, stop eating fusking fat food and stop bashing EU for doing what you should do in the US but are too lazy to do. You lack the cojones to do something about it, so you start bitching about the others that do have them. You badmouth the French, but YOU'RE the pussy ones, at least the french girls are sexy and not some big ass fat chick like your's.

GOOOOOOOOOOD
Stupid Americans ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter Andersen, 16 Sep 2006 @ 9:11pm

Re: Who profits from this?
I don't find it as moving as you, that micro$oft all of a sudden is concerned about security issues. It's fine that they do though, but 10 years ago would have been just as good a time to do it.
The question at hand is monopoly.
Who benefits from a monopoly? Is it a capitalist ideal? (lest for shareholders)
Does it promote ingenuity or provide better solutions for the general public? No it does not, quite to the contrary. And it is far too vital an area these years not to be contested.
It may be hard for the US of A to contradict anything that shows that kind of profits, especially since it's an american company.
But if a european (or lets say a 3rd world country) company held that kind of near monopoly against the american society, few sanctions would surprize me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Eriksson, 3 Oct 2006 @ 9:18am

competition driven by the least capable.
The arguments driven by the MS opposition are only slightly less baffling than the fact that they actually manage to drive their case further than the whine and cry section of the local pub.

In no other industry can we see this incredible demand for a manufacturer to break their product apart to become a piecemeal construction of third party vendors.

Someone made the comparison “If windows was a car”… well what if it was..
Security: It would be illegal for the manufacturer to install door locks, seat belts, air bags, without offering the customer the option to remove them completely.

They would not be able to install a proprietary stereo. But would be forced to make their design based on third party formatting so that they could pry another stereo in there.
And if the new stereo shorted out the ignition system, it would somehow be the manufacturer of the car that did something wrong.

I am all for MS having the right and responsibility to provide their customers with the best possible solution they can muster. Its not just good sense to let a company own their own product, it is their responsibility to make sure that their product is every bit as good as they can make it, this is how they fulfill their sole responsibility to the share holders. Nothing makes a stock drop faster than a product problem. Especially when the product is by all measures the face of the company.

Microsoft is the biggest, most powerful company in the computer operating system arena, by far – no doubt about it. But they are there not because they are run by some kind of mafia. They are there because they provided the functionality of a GUI to a platform that was much more versatile and flexible than the Apple. They are the world leaders because they found a need and filled it to the best of their ability.

I feel for the Linux and apple users out there, it is basically sad because they are both good systems, but incapable of filling the need that Microsoft has created. And it doesn’t matter where the need comes from, its just a matter of filling it.

Lets look at that from the Car standpoint again. Is it really important to know why the Freeways have popped up all over the world, or is it important to realize that building a car that can only travel at 30mph / 50kmh is not going to have a large market outside of city regions, and a limited one inside those as well.

I wish that the limitations on MS would end. They have the ball, we should let them run with it. Not change the rules of the game as we go along to prevent them from scoring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xx, 22 Sep 2007 @ 12:04am

Flip4Mac DO NOT DOWNLOAD!!!!!
Fuck proprietary bullshit. Be advised do not download the Flip4Mac WMV.mpkg which Yahoo preports is necessary to watch their CNN clips (as of friggen yesterday) yet the commercials play just fine..

If you try to uninstall Flip4Mac, you when trying to delete file off my computer I get the following message: The operation cannot be completed because you do not have sufficient privileges for "Flip4Mac WMV.mpkg". Fuck that! I don't have permission to delete a wmv file off my own computer. Microsoft IS a virus.

Microsoft or Apple, I don't care but proprietary software and systems which do not allow the user/owner to easily delete is trespassing on your computer. Europeans, Americans and All: Call this violation into question.

Yahoo is no friggen better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xx, 22 Sep 2007 @ 12:16am

Re: No Windows on EUrope ? FINALLY!!!!
I agree with your operating system comments, but you don't have to attack all americans. Wake up. This isn't about Americans vs. Europeans or anyone. It's about Monopolistic corporations against any people's rights. The US government is a corporation and it spends huge amount of effort shutting up alternate view points to make Americans dumb. So don't blame all Americans or worse slag off our women. I've seen fat men all over Europe, so why don't you let go of your ignorance and stick to the issues at hand? Otherwise your point is lost in a battle of brainwashed nationalism. Maybe you can get above that. Many Europeans and Americans are over that type of ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xx, 22 Sep 2007 @ 12:21am

Re:
Granted. But Microsoft is more concerned with locking up individual OS then perfecting there own. Microsoft needs to be schooled, tho' the ruling is pretty ridiculous and won't exactly help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xx, 22 Sep 2007 @ 12:25am

Re:
Corrupt nations have long done this with their "Free elections" why would a 'sovereign' (heh!) corporation do things any differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]