Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service 359

Posted by samzenpus
from the protection-money dept.
user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks. Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.' From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service

Comments Filter:
  • by Drinking Bleach (975757) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @10:49PM (#15441754)
    Try fixing your operating system first.
    • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:26PM (#15441967)
      Try fixing your operating system first.

      Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:38PM (#15442009)
        Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

        There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
        Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
        so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?

      • Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

        Sure they can - I slap a Mac on 'em. Then they can't click on anything stupid because there is nothing to click on yet that causes harm.

        Yes there could be - but it's hard to ignore the plain fact that there isn't.

        Like all patches, it may not last forever but it does fix the immediate problem.
        • by 0racle (667029)
          nothing to click on yet that causes harm

          Make it sufficiently profitable and that will change in a heartbeat. There have been exploitable problems in OS X, its not like it's impossible to do. Moving to OS X and staying an idiot user fixes nothing, it delays the inevitable for a bit.
      • Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

        Windows is a clusterfuck because of Microsoft's poor coding and design choices, not because of users.
      • Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

        Actually Windows Live OneCare comes withe a trained MS Goon that whacks you on the top of the head whenever you do something stupid. That's the "live" part.

        I didn't quite get the "allowing you to have fun" bit though.
      • by this great guy (922511) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @02:42AM (#15442778)
        <<
        Unfortunately, users can't be patched.
        >>

        In my country, we patch them regularly.
        - Vladimir

      • by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @04:18AM (#15443041) Journal

        [sarcasm] Oh, yeah, right it's ALL the user's fault. And *nix allows remote users to make changes to your system without your knowledge or permission whenever you're online too. And let's not forget that ton of Unix viruses that have made the internet nearly impossible to use because all the servers keep failing. And of course, *nix also requires a whole bunch of third-party software to secure it as well. Oh, and all OSes have browsers with Active X![/sarcasm]

        Yes, a lot of users are stupid. But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems. If Windows was as secure as OS X -- and sorry, Apple fans, it's not as secure as some other *nix distros -- a virus would be a rare thing simply because it wouldn't have anything to work with. So, yeah, if they fixed it that would eliminate most viruses right there. Despite the stereotypes many would have you believe, there are a lot of Mac users who are just as clueless as the Windows user you're describing, but their systems haven't been compromised because the OS they're using isn't horribly insecure to begin with.

        How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet):
        1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.
        2. Anti-virus. I recommend Avast! for 2k and XP, AVG for 9x. If you want to pay for anti-virus, I've heard NOD32 is the best, with Kaspersky's coming in a close second.
        3. Win Patrol [winpatrol.com] prevents many changes fromt aking place without your permission; just scroll down the page for the link to download the free version.
        4. If you're using Xp, get xpy [softpedia.com] which can disable a whole lot of Windows problems, such as the remote regsitry severice which allows remote users to change your registry whenever you're online -- yes, MS made it that on purpose and isn't going to fix it -- and Active X, Windows' most infamous security hole. You need to know what you're doing with this program though; if you don't, get someone who does to help you.
        5. Be careful. Research *everything* you'd like to install. Check the program's ratings at download sites and do a search on the program's name with a good search engine.

        Personally, though, I tend to think Winsdows is hopeless. Patches aren't enough, the system needs to be built from the ground up with much higher security. That means a lot of programs wouldn't even work after that. And would MS provide this as a free fix to all of their customers? Ha!

        But speculation is useless. Microsoft is never going to try to really fix Windows; as successful as they've been already, why should they? Especially not when they can make money selling services to protect Windows! Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.

        • How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet): 1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.

          Forget firewalls, at least for home networks. The only thing I rely on to make a Windows PC safe from incoming attacks is NAT. Put the box behind a NAT router and only forward ports when necessary. Bang, zero chance of anything getting in and it's relatively cheap, as well. It also makes firewalls (which sometimes tend to cause more harm than good) obsolete.
        • A router and a NAT/PAT device are not necessarily the same. A simple "hardware router" does nothing for security.
    • But you see if Microsoft fixed everything, they would be sued for unfair buisness practices by putting companies like Symantec out of buisness in the Windows world.
  • Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrNonchalant (767683) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @10:49PM (#15441760)
    They've found the second step!

    1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
    2. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
    3. Profit!
    • by Duncan3 (10537) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:31PM (#15441984) Homepage
      Hrm...

      1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
      2. Charge 50 dollars for documentation/support
      3. Profit!

      Oh wait, that's Redhat ;)
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)

      by deadgoon42 (309575) *
      ah.. Just when my mod points went away. I hope Dapper hurries up and comes out today.
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cyanyde (976442)
      I think, this isn't the move you all think it seems to be. It appears what this move is designed to do is move into the software as service industry. You lay the ground work with an old beat up OS, release vista to the masses after it's initial 2-3 year pay-for software. Then you just throw it out there, and start charging people for upkeep and all those other things that happen. Microsoft is trying to remove liability from the actual software, to the maintence of something akin to free ware. Thats where t
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)

      by strider44 (650833)
      "So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks and alarm systems."

      What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".

      Perhaps that's too much to ask.
    • Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)

      by femtoguy (751223)
      Actually, it's worse than that. What Microsoft has managed to do is to convince people that crappy software is the only kind. I am amazed at people's low expectation of computers. I mentioned the other day that I hadn't rebooted my PowerBook for 3 or 4 months, and the person I was talking to didn't believe me. I mean he considered it completely impossible that a computer could function for that long without a major crash. Worse Microsoft has conviced people that the computer, and the internet are the p
      • I haven't restarted Windows XP in 3-4 months. It looks like you're friend just has low expectations. Was he using Linux? Because if he was a XP user (or apparently a Powerbook user) he'd know that the whole system rarely crashes.
    • On the other, Apple does:

      1. Build hardware which is not always as great as everyone says
      2. Charge 200$ for replacing a stupid button
      3. Profit!
  • by Admiral Justin (628358) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @10:51PM (#15441766) Homepage Journal
    I gotta commend Microsoft, planning to make money of things that should be integrated into the system so that the threats never happen in the first place.

    Prevention is less profitable than response, thus, they'll never try making a secure system now.
    • Can you say "double standard." If MSFT integrated this stuff into Windows and gave it away for free many people (but not you I'm sure!) would pull their hair out and complain that they're using their monopoly power to edge out competitors. In this case they're doing the right thing - offering a service that many people need and want and charging what (to this one person) seems a petty reasonable price. What's to bitch about?
      • by Gorshkov (932507) <admgorshkov.yahoo@com> on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:49PM (#15442055)
        No double standard at all. Symantec et. al. exist only because of Microsoft's design/implimentation errors - they should not exist at all - there should be no market for microsoft to push them OUT of.

        If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.

        In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.

        When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.

        I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.
        • by xazos79 (931382) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:59AM (#15442622)
          Riiiight, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the OSes you spouted. I'd hate to bring you back to the real world champ... but its more likely that it *is* your app stuffing up rather than windows crashing. I've been writing apps for 6 years for all platforms and not once has my app crashed as a result of windows. If its crashed, its a bug that's escaped testing. Next time, get off your high horse because those of us down here can't hear you.
  • Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abscissa (136568) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @10:51PM (#15441769)
    Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.
    • Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hackstraw (262471) * on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:20PM (#15441927)
      Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.

      Batteries not included.

    • Fod sells car repair services, doesn't it? Maytag washers and dryers? Air conditioners?

      I know it seems like nitpicking, but this is a real point. Plenty of people complain about computer software companies, especially Microsoft, selling "maintenance" products -- they act like they're snake oil.

      The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.
      • Wrong analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:36PM (#15442001)
        Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners). It is much more analogous to selling a car with a faulty brake system. Then you buy a separate braking system from another company. The problem with that is that this secondary braking system is not built into the fabric of the car. Thus, it leads to handling problems, will sometimes conflict with the original faulty braking system, and will occasionally even fail to stop the car when needed. The solution is to produce a car that has a properly designed braking system in the first place.
        • Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners).

          Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.

          • Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.

            User error is a very important source of security problems, but your statement goes way too far. I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet. If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything. With Windows

            • Re:Wrong analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

              by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @12:53AM (#15442325)
              User error is a very important source of security problems, but your statement goes way too far.

              No, it doesn't.

              I repeat: anti-spyware and anti-virus software aren't there to protect you against "inadequate security". They *may* do this as a side effect, but it is not their purpose.

              I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet.

              No. Nor would I ever consider doing it.

              If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything.

              Undoubtedly. But this would be due to software bugs (and, arguably, bad UI), not "inadequate security" - not to mention the foolishness of browsing the web with a high-privilege account.

              With Windows XP (original release, no SP 1) just connecting to the Internet from a user with administrator rights, without a firewall, is enough to be infected by worms within a short time.

              As is installing many Linux distros and commercial unixes from the same time period. Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security". I will agree that the firewall should have been enabled by default from the first release of XP and that services shouldn't be binding to external network interfaces by default - but even without that, all those remote exploits are coming from *coding errors*.

              OS-level security - which Windows NT has in spades - can protect you against some aspects of malicious code. However, it cannot protect you against all, or even the most common, aspects of malicious code. That is what anti-spyware and anti-virus software is for.

              • Re:Wrong analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Tom (822)
                Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security".

                You make a differentiation without merit, except for pure academic theory maybe.

                Most security problems are software bugs. The fact that it is very hard to write bug-free software with current tools, technology and methods is one of the main headaches of the security people. I am one. Buggy software and users are what I am most worried about, in this order. False policies, configurations and errors in concepts and m
            • You miss the point.
              Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update.
              Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).
            • I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer

              Using IE can be attributed to user error as well :P
            • Actually I do all the time and in all the years I've been using Windows, I've never caught any spyware, malware, or virii. Why? Well, for one I don't do anything stupid. Send me an attachment I didn't ask for and poof! I kill it in the mailbox on my servers in Dallas before it hits my network and for good reason. Even *nix can be infected via that vector, let alone the Windows machines. Even attachments I ask for get saved, not opened on arrival, and then scanned, examined, folded, spindled, and if ne
        • It is much more analogous to selling a car with a faulty brake system. Then you buy a separate braking system from another company.

          Mostly I agree with your sentiment here, but on this particular comment, I wanted to note that there's a material difference between buying it from another company and from the same company. In the case of two companies, the first company can claim the things the second company is fixing are not things they knew about or thought of, and in so doing they might have some so

      • Re:Incredible (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Gorshkov (932507) <admgorshkov.yahoo@com> on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:43PM (#15442031)
        There is a very major difference between a 10 year old washing machine needing repairs and parts replacements after good, solid service and use over a period of time, and having to have the Maytag Man show up on your doorstep once a week if you want to be able to do more than one load a month without having your clothes get caught in the gears.
      • The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.

        For the same reason I can copy a file till my hard drive crashes or the universe ends. In fact, even when the hard drive crashes, I can load a backup onto a similar hard drive and copy the same file, using the same copy program, until *that* hard drive crashes. My point is, computer software shouldn't "wear out" over

  • ....A little late? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kahless2k (799262) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @10:52PM (#15441777) Homepage
    I used the OneCare beta for quite a while (actually a good product IMHO).. But the subscription service started at the beginning of the month... Slashdot is a little late in reporting it.. On a side note; I did stop using OneCare when I tried to pay for the subscription (reduced rate for beta users) only to see (for the first time) U.S. Only, with international support at some point in the future (a year?). Anyways.. my $0.02
  • Its funny, Microsoft advertises a free 1 year subscription to eTrust antivirus [my-etrust.com] from CA on their own site [microsoft.com]

    You think they'll keep doing that now? (eTrust bets OneCare by miles, imho)
  • How MS can sell you a product that they admit is broken, then sell you a subscription service to fix it? Those guys are marketing wizards.

    If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.

    • It's a little like Apple trapping you in their shiny new glass elevator and then trying to sell you an iPod so they will let you leave the store in under two hours. Wait...that would never happen.
    • I've got a feeling they're not going to get away with this quite as easily as you think they will. Most companies are not stupid enough to not see what's going on here.
  • In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides seatbelts, a windshield, and doors.
  • by mincognito (839071) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:09PM (#15441875)

    As you can see from the site http://www.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] they are offering antivirus, antispyware, firewall, performance tune-ups, and data backup and restore. At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

    It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.


    • Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.

      Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected.

      Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you
      • "Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.

        Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected."


        It doesn't mean that at all. Vista is the "fix" in that the default account will be non-admin. Hell, IE w
    • At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

      Which three ?

  • by FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:09PM (#15441878)
    When auto companies sell defective cars that will injure or kill or even just break down, they are REQUIRED to do a recall and fix them for FREE. When Microsoft sells a completely defective operating system that allows data theft, invasion of privacy, extortion and wholesale hijacking of the internet, at a cost of billions of dollars, they get to charge more money for the fix. The arrogance and irresponsible behavior toward the customer is breathtaking. Why are lawyers not lining up for the class action suits?
  • It can't be April 1 already! Where did 2006 go?

  • So let me get this straight. Microsoft Windows, already running (by default) background processes that hackers contantly exploit, comes up with an idea to add another automatic process to "increase" security?

    And to top it off, Windows users have to PAY for that?

    Isn't that like having a bank having to pay to have their security system installed by the mafia?
  • by Marko DeBeeste (761376) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @11:12PM (#15441896)
    Dat's some awful pretty data youse got dere. Me an' Lefty would be heartbroken if sumthin wuz to happpen to it, huh Lefty? Maybe youse is need some prtection insurance?
  • This is insane! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rindeee (530084)
    Everyone has pointed out WHY this is insane, so I really feel that the best use of my time and talent is simply to reiterate the insanity of this whole thing. Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class, I would have if I had thought this up, if only to frustrate the professor with my very, very stupid and unmarketable idea (that Microsoft is now making money with). It's like they've found a way to profit from hypocrisy.
    • Re:This is insane! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356)
      Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class...

      If you had taken the class, the instuctor would have pointed you towards the maintaince and service contracts that have been part of the consumer marketplace for over one hundred years. He would have reminded you that Windows has ninety-five percent of the home market and self-service Linux less than three.

  • This is actually good news, and I thank Microsoft for driving yet more people to Linux and BSD and other excellent alternatives.
  • Don't really know why anybody care about this or is complaining about this. They can sell whatever they want, and as others have pointed out, they're not including it as part of the OS. This might mean they can purposely introduce bugs into Windows to continue the sales of such a service, but hey, that's up to them. It's a business decision - they have to balance how good Windows is vs. potential sales of maintenance services to maximize profit. And maximizing profit at the expense of product quality is
  • You don't pay the wolves to guard the sheep!

    The amusing thing is that this tells you something about the average intelligence of MS users--they know that Windows products (created by Microsoft) are buggy and prone to spyware, viruses, and other threats, yet somehow believe the the same Microsoft who couldn't write a secure OS can somehow write software to "fix" the holes they couldn't be bothered to close when the OS shipped. Sheesh.

  • I figured out what OneCare is (aside from a really bad name). Take Spybot Imunize function combied with Microsoft Updates packages, add Rebranded Antispyware and Antivirus, and clone in .Mac [mac.com].

    If you look at the features most of those come standard with OneCare and the windows equal.
    • "Two Way" Firewall == Windows Firewall
    • Deframent == Disk Deframenter
    • Frees up hard disk space == Disk Cleanup
    • Tracks updates for Windows XP and other Microsoft programs == Microsoft Update

    50$ a year for a Fancy All-In-One

    • Infused with .Mac? Have you ever used .Mac? This is a completely different kettle of fish.

      .Mac is an Internet services package that once upon-a-time included Antivirus, but now it doesn't. However, it does offer remote backup (1GB), one-click homepages from iPhoto/iWeb, one-click Podcasting (GarageBand) as well as acting as a IMAP mail server and sync server so that bookmarks, system preferences, application preferences, calendars, contacts and bookmarks remain sync'd across multiple Macs.

      In short, It is

  • If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.

    That's a classic move by MSFT. Writte buggy, insecure software. Charge money for it. Sell band-aids that need maintenance. Sell maintenance. Thanks, but no, thanks.
  • Two Quotes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dracos (107777) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @12:01AM (#15442106)

    "There's a sucker born every minute." Widely and falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum.

    "A fool and his money are soon parted." Thomas Tusser.

    MS is apparently hoping that lightning will strike twice in millions of places.

    They've said repeatedly that Vista will be the most secure Windows ever, so why would Vista need any additional security software, from the creator of the OS or a third party? Obviously, the answer is that Vista isn't secure, and MS already knows it. They've even thought of a way to turn Vista's lackluster security into a secondary revenue stream.

    To which the suckers and fools will gladly contribute.

  • What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?

    • What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?

      What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?

      BTW, Microsoft will continue to patch OS flaws for free with Windows Update. Anti-malware software is meant to stop malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws.
  • Are You Fucking Nuts??? They can't get it right for US$300.00 a copy for XP Pro and gods above and below know what for Vista; and they want me to pay another US$50.00 a year for fucking "security" ? Jesus Wept!
  • It's all wel and good that there is a Microsoft service to protect Windows, but what is protecting ONE Care?

    Seems funny that security issues that Microsoft should have fixed created a new market, and now that this market exists, Microsoft cannot monopolize it by actually fixing the said issues with built-in software.

    RIDICULOUS!
  • alright.. alright.. simmer down..
    no rushing.. no rushing
    place your bets here.. place your bets here..

    Today's bet: When will MS bring out another paid service to make sure their Windoze Live OneCare service works as expected?

    * lon3st4r *

  • This is excellent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @12:55AM (#15442342) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft just gave Linux, MacOS X, and the BSDs a nice, juicy marketing point. There's no need for the DOJ on this one. Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by coming out and saying that their product simply isn't usable out of the box. If I were RedHat or Novell, I'd jump all over this. I can picture the ads now: "So I need to pay another $50 EVERY YEAR just to keep my computer from getting trashed by viruses? Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft!"

    • I love this.

      Everytime MS does something some twit on slashdot comes along and says something like "This will help Linux" or some other crap.

      Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

      • Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

        It's a lot closer than you imagine. My friend uses Linux (Mepis, specifically) and I don't think she even knows what the command line is. And no, I didn't spend hours configuring it for her, she installed it herself and didn't need to do any configuring because it automatically recognized her hardware and came with mp3, DVD, etc support. My mom used my Linux box and is jealous because all the silly
  • While it's good that MS is trying to improve the poor security and reliability record of Windows, they shouldn't be allowed to charge for something that should have been fixed more than ten years ago at the system level.

    As a Mac OS X user, I am not troubled by things like that, and I cannot be bothered with Windows, but I would be equally upset if Apple one day decided to CHARGE for security features! But they again, that would not be Apple's style, would it?

    Same with Linux companies. They would never cha

    • Things that can be fixed "at the system level" will continue to be with free updates, just as your Apple does. But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc). These are the kinds of things that anti-virus/anti-spyware is meant to address.
      • But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc).

        The fact that just clicking on an attachment or a link... not even downloading and opening it... can execute malicious code locally is a fundamental design flaw in one of Microsoft's flagship operating system components... the HTML control. Remember, Microsoft went to the wall with the Department of Justice to avoid having this removed from
  • by Vo0k (760020) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:35AM (#15442509) Journal
    Pay us and we will protect you from ourselves?

    Most (all?) antivirus companies have extremely harsh policy against employees writing viruses or other malicious code the software is to protect from.

    What is there to stop Microsoft from putting a bug here, a hole there, purposedly, and "discover" it half a year later just to prove how essential the subscription service is to security of a company?

panic: can't find /

Working...