EU And Microsoft Clash Over Vista Security 311
An anonymous reader wrote to mention coverage of further clashes between Microsoft and the EU, this time over security in Windows Vista. Microsoft is 'urging' the EU to allow all of the security elements of Vista to remain intact. The EU seems to be under the impression it's not asking for security to be lax; it just wants the software company to ensure a fair playing field for all businesses. From the Newsday article: "European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plans to launch its Windows Vista operating system with built-in protection from hackers and malicious programs. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters that the European Commission is "ready to give guidance to Microsoft" concerning Vista but added that it was up to the U.S. software maker 'to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance' with EU competition rules."
The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista does do that.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is the point of all of this?
The other security implementations would be like asking Unix to allow replacement of Sudo, root and user permissions and replace it with a third party app that would just give you want you
Re:Vista does do that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony here is delicious. sudo is, in fact, a third-party replacement for the su command. You may not think so because Linux distros have been including it for a long time, but of course Linux (or GNU/Linux, if you insist) != Unix(tm).
Re: (Score:2)
The other "security" implementations would be like asking Unix to allow admin userspace programs to access the Linux Kernel security interfaces, manipulating operating system controls on a real-time bases.
Which is exactly what the Linux Security Modules project did [64.233.167.104]
The Linux Security Modules (LSM) project provides a lightweight, general purpose framework for access control. Contemporary computing environments are increasingly hostile. Adding enhanced access control models to the kernel improves ho
Re:Vista does do that.. (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, sudo is just a normal application, that can be replaced. Second, there's PAM, which allows you to plug pretty much anything into the security system. You can replace the mechanism for password entry, authenticate with a fingerprint or an USB flash drive, etc, and have it all automatically integrate with existent software -- you don't even need to patch tools like su and sudo to accept different authentication methods, as it's handled through PAM.
Same goes for firewalling, nothing stops you from building whatever UI you want to talk to netfilter. You can ignore iptables completely, which is just an userspace tool.
Then the kernel has a whole system of security hooks which is used by things like SELinux. New security models can be integrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring SELinux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example this gem: These goals include controlling raw access to data, protecting the integrity of the kernel, system software, system configuration information and system logs, confining the potential damage that can be caused through the exploitation of a flaw in a process that requires privileges, protecting privileged processes from executing malicious code, protecting the administrator role and domain from being entered without user authentica
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The solution (Score:4, Informative)
It's not like the concept of an application firewall even exists on Linux.
Sure it does. It's not difficult to firewall at an application level in Linux, and there is at least one tool (fireflier) that provides a nice GUI for managing such firewall rules.
Few people bother, because there's simply not much need, but it's not at all accurate to say that it doesn't exist.
Linux application security consists of "run it as 'nobody'" or "just don't do that."
Or run it in a chroot jail, or run it with fine-grained mandatory access controls from SELinux, or ...
Unix/Linux application security provides lots of different options. That they're more commonly used for securing Internet-facing services than for locking down random local apps acquired from untrusted sources is because there's little need, not because the security tools don't exist. I used to keep a chroot jail configured just to run random little apps. These days I run such stuff in a virtual machine instead, but that's just because I find it more convenient.
Re:The solution (Score:4, Informative)
I would call the 15,000 packages or more on Debian repositories quite a massive catalog.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Security Through LSM: Linux Security Modules Interface
To achieve security (non-bypassability) mediation methods like AppArmor need to be inside the kernel. AppArmor originally was a kernel patch, but that imposes major problems
Re: (Score:2)
Saying:
"Linux application security consists of "run it as 'nobody'" or "just don't do that."'
is similar, if not even less informed, than saying, "Windows application security consists of maintaining proper backups and running everything in a virtual machine".
Linux application security consists of a variety of kernel level APIs that can be controlled by admin-level userspace programs. Unlike Windows Security Center (which, as far as I can tell, consists of an ugly GUI
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of Windows security is just as ignorant. If security stopped with the Security Center which is just a tool users can check to see if something got turned off by accident then Microsoft would be going backrupt tomorrow. That's just way off base and ignores even basic file permissions. If you want all of the security features in one place then you open up the Security policy by running the mmc and either apply a template or modify the policies that the system is governed by. These policies also
Windows security (Score:2)
Linux application security consists of "run it as 'nobody'" or "just don't do that." Clearly this is not a realistic option on Windows, where regular day to day usage of your computer includes exploring the massive catalog of software available on the Internet, and so an application firewall is a sensible precaution. Personally I see absolutely no reason why this should be a third party product.
Is it ironic or just Microsoft bashing when people complain there is not security in Windows but when MS finall
European beer party (Score:3, Funny)
All I want to know is when we get our 2*281 million euros?
If you divide that by the population of Europe you get about 3 euros each, that's enough for at least a beer each.
If it work like in the US (Score:2)
Could we get any more vague? (Score:4, Informative)
What lame articles. Neither one says what the hell the thing being bundled is, other than "security" as though security could possibly be a product or module.
Ok, one of the articles made a brief mention of a firewall. Is all this noise about something as mundane as a software firewall?
Security should be inherent in the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security should be inherent in the OS (Score:4, Insightful)
As said- Europe isn't demanding reduced security, but fair competition. But even when 'fair' competition is allowed and security keeps improving, the software houses that provide security solutions should seriously consider rethinking their strategy as they may become redundant and go out of business anyway.
So, seeing that the anti-virus business is in a lose-lose situation, I guess they concluded they might as well cry wolf. This isn't impressive- it's just money talking. So am I defending MS on this? No (of course not- this is slashdot). I think the AV business should be allowed to compete. I just don't think that it will make much of a difference, in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
The current anti-virus business is mainly built on loose ground: (the lack of) security in the main OS that they support... So, seeing that the anti-virus business is in a lose-lose situation, I guess they concluded they might as well cry wolf.
You're missing part of the picture. First, MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS. Second, they allowed a market for these security products to develop. As a result, it is illegal for MS to bundle a firewall or anti-virus program, or otherwise illegally tie it to thei
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not for every single user. However, it doesn't have to be the best product on the market - it just has to be good enough. If the large majority of users are successfully protected, then that'll do nicely from their standpoint. The "power" users who continuously surf free porn and pirate web sites will probably benefit from using the most secure protecti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without government intervention, Standard Oil would be the only oil company in the United States, asking 10 bucks a gallon. You would still be paying AT&T both for local and non-local calls. Cable would also be controlled by a singly company. There would be three banks, that would determine the prices of their products collaboratively. You would have many networks, all controlled by
Re: (Score:2)
True, but consider this:
When I buy a car, I expect it to have tires. However, when I drive a lot through the snow, I might want special tires which make driving through snow easier. As it is now, I can simply buy those better tires and put them on my car.
The point that the EU wants to make is that if you buy Windows and you are not content with one of its features, you should be able to replace that. And the feature which they ask that for specifically is one that has been replaced by many third-party v
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, your analog seems apt but I don't think you understand what you're applying it too. Microsoft hasn't locked out security companies and 3rd party tools can and do exist to extend the functionality of Vista. What deliberate move by MS are you referring to? Closing a lot of the gaping holes in the previous OS? Punishing someone for improving their product really doesn't seem like a bright idea even if they do have a near monopoly. I think if fines are to be dulled out they should at least choose a valid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is impossible to understand what exactly the GP means by I want my OS to be resistant to running arbitrary code, but if I had to guess he means that he does not want his/her computer to run some code covertly without authorization of some sort.
Regardless, of what the GP means, it looks like the parent is implying that DRM i
Modularization (Score:5, Insightful)
If they would simply modularize many of the components that come with Windows, they might wriggle out of a lot of legal troubles.
For example: I go to install Windows from scratch. On the installation screen, i get a list of components...
[x] Windows OS (base system, required)
[_] Internet Explorer
[_] Windows Security Center
[_] MS Firewall
[_] MS Antivirus
[_] MS Anti-Malware
etc.
I can check any of these things that i like, and they'll be included in the installation. For OEM installs, they could just include everything by default.
Most importantly, make them removable through Add/Remove Programs, so that if i decide at a later date that I no longer need a feature, i can uninstall it completely.
Suddenly a lot of the monopolistic legal troubles get much less worrisome for Redmond. EU worried about MS including Anti-Virus or Firewall? No problem, make them un-checked in the default install. Leave them on the disc, and make them freely available for download at the MS website to make it abundantly clear that they're a free service.
Not that I expect them to do any of this of course, but it would certainly help reduce the amount of resentment that many people feel towards them, even from their own users.
Re: (Score:2)
When I install SuSE Linux, it installs SuSE Firewall. When I want to uninstall it, a whole list of other items that "depend on" this SuSE Firewall pop up, hindering its removal.
The best thing I can do is "disable firewall", but it still remains installed (mostly a set of scripts to manipulate a very complex set of iptables rules that never gets loaded because it is disabled).
Also, are you sure "security" and "optional components" would
Re: (Score:2)
I think the important point here is that in many ways SuSE is closer to an OEM than it is to Microsoft. They don't exclusively build
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is possible to remove it, but the same is true for Internet Explorer. You only need to know how, and you must have a real intention to go forward with it. It is not like you have a free choice to select the firewall you want (or decide to work without one, e.g. b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is (Score:2, Informative)
Same is true of IE. To actually remove IE, and not just the executable (which you can delete if you want) you have to remove the HTML rendering engine. That me
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gentoo solves this problem with virtual packages that fill generic slots. For example, I have to have a system logger installed, but there are a variety of loggers to choose from.
It's really not all that hard to make an application display an informative error message. I've done it lots of times. :-) But let's suppo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
MS help files are HTML, and if there's not an engine to render them, then they can't work.
There are at least two possible solutions to this:
- First: Allow help to be rendened in any "browser";
- Second: Don't use html for help. I prefer the above option.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
This already exists in the unattended install (SIF) files in the [Components] section, you just have to know which components to turn off. You can find a list of all the components in the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur r entVersion\Setup\Oc Manager\Subcomponents. We use this to not install games, MSN, and a few other odds and ends. It probably wouldn't be hard at all t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[_] Windows Media Player
to the installer and add/remove screen. But what did they do? They they got all snotty and created "Windows Reduced Media Edition", a "special" version of Windows completely without WMP (not an option - just none).
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is making up the rules as they go along, so why should Microsoft make changes before the EU dictates exactly how they want Vista to look if they're going to get fined anyway?
Bah. The EU is not making up the rules as they go along -- the EU commission has clearly enunciated the principles. Microsoft insists on pretending not to understand the principles and on pushing the limits of whatever specific rules they force the EU to define. If Microsoft were to honestly try to facilitate interoperabili
One Microsoft Way (Score:3, Interesting)
But its "security" features are MS only. Of course that must be to protect the MS "near monopoly", always its #1 priority. Since the security market is neither very profitable nor already dominated by MS, I expect that their "security" also protects revealing other serious defects of the OS. Whether more monopoly protection, unnecessary security problems, or just bad coding. Therefore I don't see Microsoft opening those facilities for the EU before Vista is released, if ever.
Vista security and consumer protection. (Score:5, Insightful)
The logical conclusion of the European Commission is that Microsoft should not incorporate these security features in Vista.
To make sense of this decision, you have to remember that the European Union was based, as far as the economy is concerned, on the idea of "fair competition" meaning that monopolies should be banned, and major companies (or states) cannot squeeze smaller competitors out of a market. Whether the squeeze is due to state protectionism, unfair tariffs or a dominant position -- which is the case here -- is irrelevant.
So, yes, it sounds ridiculous and bureaucratic at first sight, but it makes economic sense. And it may even provide better products in the end (I don't trust Microsoft products anyway).
AV is not integrated in Vista (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if one were to conclude that this is fair, the problem is that European Commission won't be explicit about what can or cannot be included. If the commission wants to get into the requirements business they should at least accept the responsiblity that goes with it rather than effectively saying to MS "Go ahead and implement it and we'll sue you if we don't like it".
Re: (Score:2)
Idiotic on the part of the EU. (Score:4, Insightful)
A) MS doesn't include as complete and inclusive security as possible. This leaves the doors open for third party security developers, it also leaves the door open to the OS for malevolent people who will take advantage of the fact that many people won't think to add a product later for security.
B) MS includes all the security they can, possibly making it so that people don't need third party software for security. BAM new anti-trust action because they aren't being fair to people who made a living covering bad MS security architecture in a previous version and aren't being given an equally bad architecture to help "protect" for a profit this go around.
People complain that MS releases insecure OS products, then complain when they want to include more security features?!? bah
I won't even get into how Apple is bundling everything they can under the sun into OS X when the same actions by MS would be tantamount to kicking the interwebs dog.
Re:Idiotic on the part of the EU. (Score:4, Informative)
Antivirus does not make OS secure. It only tries to patch insecure OS. If Microsoft makes OS secure, EU commission and antivirus companies can't argue about it. If own antivirus solution is bundled instead of securing OS, it looks like monopoly abuse. It is possible that Microsoft is trying to help users, but company is known to use its market position against competitors. Any bundling will look suspicious.
Symantec is still selling NAV for Mac. I think Apple does not bundle antivirus.
Fair Play (Score:4, Insightful)
I Agree that i microsoft is integrating security products into its vista operating system that would enable it to enter markets where it has not got a large hold (i.e. Anti virus - where it is the main driver but not the main supplier...) and by virtue of its desktop OS monopoly becoming dominant in that market, then thats wrong. Especially if these integrated products are add ons masquerading as core operating system components.
It would be fine if Microsoft ensured that their Operating system was sufficiently secure not to require any additional software, but not to include a load of features in the operating system that ensures its system security sotware becomes dominant.
If it wants to sell these bits seperatley (reduce the cost of the OS and sell the security bits as additional extras) thats all fine too then those of us who use the OS can choose - but lets make it clear that selling a vista version with them in and one without at the same price is the same as integrating them in the first place....
This becomes an even bigger issue if the Microsoft Security products / components are written to take advantage of elements of the OS that other providers cannot gain access to (either due to lack of documentation or through some other means). That would give rise to the same interoperability issues as we have seen previous law suits attempt to resolve.
In short if MS want to secure their OS thats great, if they want to simply wipe out any external security providers to gain an extra revenue stream in the future (by say later charging for the components initially included for free), or become dominant in that area so as to play down securty vulnerabilities in their products thats not. After all would you buy your antivirus from the same guys who seem incapable of preventing their OS being succeptable in the first place?
Last point - If microsoft are in the business of supplying both the OS and the security software (and additional services such as one care) doesnt that leave a rather nasty potential conflict of interest?
Microsoft Monopolism : making Buggy Bloatware pay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like most things that Microsoft touts as benefiting the user (think Windows Genuine (Dis)Advantage, DRM, and the "recommended" options on various configuration pages), whatever so-called security Microsoft puts into Vista will undoubtedly profit Microsoft first and the user as a mere afterthought, assuming that Microsoft can think up a good marketing gimmick to scare users into paying for it.
I'm still planning on not wasting money on yet another overpriced, under performing piece of Microsoft Buggy Bloatware, namely Vista. Ubuntu Linux is working well for me and doesn't seem to suffer from the gaping security holes most major Microsoft products (Windows, Office, and IE) are infamous for.
I must admit that Microsoft has a lot of nerve, trying to exclude competitors from cleaning up the security disaster that Vista is expected to be, so that it can make users dumb enough to buy Vista also pay through the nose to fix flaws that wouldn't be there if Microsoft sold quality programs in the first place.
Ask and you shall recieve (Score:2)
Spin on definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind that the EU isn't saying that Microsoft can't include security software in Windows Vista. What they're saying is that MS can't include it in such a way as to exclude competitors. For example, take a firewall. If MS integrates their firewall into the network stacks at the physical-code level so that no other firewall can take over, that's not allowed. However, if MS adds hooks to their network stacks to allow other modules/drivers to tap in and filter packet traffic, and then implements their firewall completely using those hooks and makes it so you can replace the loading of MS's firewall modules with a third-party firewall's modules, that's perfectly fine. And for anyone who says this can't be done, I'd point out that Linux and *BSD implement their firewalls in exactly that manner so obviously it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That's what the EU is saying.
However, where is it documented that Microsoft is actually building it this way? I've seen many, many other remarks on this, and no source for something that says MS is actually making it hard/impossible to use 3rd party tools.
I'm NOT defending them, would just like a source for thi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if MS were building things in a modular way, there would be zero problem complying with the EU request. The only reason I can think of for MS to have any problems is if they're continuing to design Vista to exclude competitors in those areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that your premise is false. Firstly, the hooks aren't there to allow built-in measures to be disabled. They're there to allow non-built-in measures to be added. MS's firewall then becomes one of possibly several that can be added. Modules can be added, but no module can remove another (other than by configuring the system to not load the other module, which no module should ever have permission to do). Secondly, security and open/proprietary aren't connected. If they were, and your premise was right,
Proprietary implies monoculture (Score:2)
The downside is that if 95% of the desktops in the world are running the same security software, then as soon as the security software has a vulnerability we'll get something like the Witty worm [wikipedia.org] but far more devastatin
installing security on Mac OS X and Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX is no different, everything is integrated (except AV) and the user isn't expected to go and hunt down any 3rd party firewall software.
Ah, but OSX allows you to install 3rd party firewalls. Currently I'm using a PC with Windows and I use ZoneAlarm for my firewall. However I plan on getting a MacBook pro and am looking for a firewall that offers me the same controls as ZoneAlarm does, for Macs. If Zone Labs offered one for Macs then I would get it. Apple doesn't lock me into using their firewall wh
I noticed the world despises Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
Sometimes I think the world is just full of dumb-asses. (sounds like a Jack Handy quote)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They make decent mice. Shitty keyboards though.. DAMN YOU F LOCK!!!
I don't understand why all the dissention. (Score:3, Interesting)
As it always has been, you can choose to use or disable any part of any feature in Windows. As it sits now with RC1, you can enable / disable features at will. Wireless networking configuration is built into Windows XP, but as everybody here knows who has a wireless network device of some sort, upon driver / software installation, that application takes over the duties of the Windows feature, usually by default. I don't know why anybody would have a reason to think that this would be any different from having a firewall in the OS, which, at the request of the user (by way of installation) gets replaced by some other product. We'll leave the discussion about inferiority for another time.
People really should stop talking about a feature of Vista as if its sure to be some set in stone incumberance, and it most likely will not be.
Oh, but it's built into TCP/IP! Anybody here ever installed the Novell client in Windows? Ever see what it does to your network protocols? Microsoft has said time and time again that it is keeping with backwards compatibility, are we naive enough to think that this won't include clients, protocols, craptastic software firewalls and anti-virus-viruses? Not so much. For those of you that need to experience a Novell client install for yourselves, go ahead. It's uninstallable. http://download.novell.com/SummaryFree.jsp?buildi
EU And Microsoft Clash Over Vista Security (Score:2)
MS:
placate the EU with completely optional software (Score:2)
I agree that MS should ha
You don't see the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
(antivirus, intrusion detection, ), the market will shrink
dramatically. No one of the competitioners would have a chance
to sell it's products to private ans small buisness customers.
And i think we all know what happens when there is no more
competition at the free market. The quality goes down the drain.
BTW. This would end in a monoculture of security-products
by MS, and monoculture makes the whole infrastructure
extremely vulnerable for real big or well organized attacks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the "whole infrastructure [is] extremely vulnerable," third-party applications will be created to shore it up.
What's the problem again?
Re:You don't see the problem. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You don't see the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
MS is stopping *any* 3rd party security code from running, signed or un-signed, within the kernel.
The anti-virus vendors are essentially having to hack Vista to get their code to work.
Re: (Score:2)
'd like to see a user way to add new things to the lock down / in list
Have you investigated the "Software Restrictions Policies" policy in the "Local Security Settings" management console?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at other areas where MS has a similar product included with the OS such as firewall, MS paint, window
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right!
We need to have the EU sue apple and linux producers too for destroying the anti-spyware market in their areas too!
We have to make sure that every OS is insecure so that other companies can profit!
--- End Sarcasm ---
Look, I'm no fan of Microsoft, (I figure I'll be wholly on linux by the time Vista comes out) but you can't force the company to make an (more?) insecure operating system so that security companies can make their dime.
No, the problem *is* the market. (Score:2)
The problem isn't that Microsoft will own the "Windows Security" market. The problem is that such a market exists in the first place. What about all of the other markets that are formed around the windows platform, or that use the windows platform. Supposing that th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
protocols (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, Apple doesn't have any viruses, but MS Windows has over 100,000! Let's file suit against Apple, we want a level playing field here!" from the EU anti-trust folks...
Because MS is the big kid on the block (Score:2, Interesting)
It's just how it goes, when you are the one making all the news, you are the one that takes all the shit. The US is another
Re: (Score:2)
Then again as a European I'm all for milking foreign companies; but I know I won't see a dime of the many billions the gov't is stealing from MS, so meh.
My main complaint is that everyone's bitching and whining about competition, yet most markets are over-regulated and some draconian prote
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't include this kind of stuff in the OS.
Wait - so OS X doesn't even come with a firewall? What's all this then [apple.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the other companies have apparently found ways to bypass these features to enable their software to work - but these bypasses can also be found and used by malicious hackers and so fort
Re:Message to EU: STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To the parent: You obviously are on the Anti-MS side of the issue. I'm not really too enthralled by the idea of responding to your post, but here goes anyway.
In case you didn't even read the
"European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plan
Re: (Score:2)
MS can't be achieving their goal of security at all here. Remember, they make additional money from people using their security software - software that attempts to cover security holes that they put there in the first place (hopefully non-intentionally, but I would not
Re: (Score:2)
Oh phleeeeze ... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
Oh, well, then that settles it! Courts are never ever wrong, especially on technology-related issues.
Re:I think i know what the EU means... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, it seems like most of the features MS is trying to put in, while long overdue, aren't features that are meant to cut out security companies. They're meant to secure the OS like it should have been from the beginning. Cutting out the security companies is more of a byproduct IMO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely (Score:2)
Why the hell do people get pissed off when MS includes basic, handy tools such as the windows firewall? For the average user that is just fine for them. For other people who want more custimization and features there is ZoneAlarm, Kerio Personal Firewall, etc. I think it would be great to have more basic tools included with the OS so I can get simple tasks done but if those simple tools eventually just aren't enough I can still go buy a better featured product from another company. That is how it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the cost of doing business in a particular market is abiding by the laws of that market. If the EU passed a law banning use of the colour green in operating systems, MS would have to obey or face the consequences, no matter how ridiculous the law may seem.
Re:Sounds like the EU wants it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft have consistently broken this law an many fields, and the EU justice system has been amazingly lenient with the company for many years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In previous discussions there have been speculations of that the EU could decide to dissolve MS in EU territory if they refused to cooperate, and people argued that the outcome would be a huge mess. But now they have a less drastic alternative that'd be still very painful for MS: Forbid releasing Vista until they're happy with it.
It's perfect, Vista's release is nowhere near critical for the EU, but MS would really feel the hit.
Mods smoking crack again... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tey lov to point their fingers whe Linux people are being biased but just put their hands over their ears ad go 'LALALALALALALALAL' when you start talking about Microsoft security
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is more like car manufacturers forcing you to buy their replacement parts (at the price they set) whenever something in your car breaks down, and locking out competitors from repairing or tuning your vehicle. And yes, this happens. See this [slashdot.org] for an example.
This is about MS allowing alternatives, not about MS being blocked from providing their own. Don't be fooled by the spin.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to have a secure OS, myself, and the EU doesn't for some reason.
I want a secure OS myself, but I don't want anyone else to dictate to me how to make it secure. If the built in security doesn't meet what I am looking for I want to be able to install software that will give me the control I want. Right now I use ZoneAlarm on my PC, which is old, but I plan on getting as a replacement a MacBook Pro. Mac OS X has a built in firewall but it doesn't allow the level of control ZoneAlarm does on my P