Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Sep 2006 21:38 UTC
Permalink for comment 164840
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-01
The Ubuntu team wouldn't ship the products unless they were open source or free, I think.
I agree with you though. Windows is not as dominate as it once was. If people aren't happy with them then they can buy an Apple or learn Linux.
The thing that would get MS in trouble is if the features aren't removable. As it stands I doubt MS will lock Norton or McAfee out of the OS since that would be anti-competitive. As such they are just providing basic functionality with XPS and the Security Center.
If security center is what I think it is then Symantec is just being a big baby; I'm assuming it's an update of the XP-SP2 security center that monitors various aspects of the os security.
I thought Symantec's big thing was that they wanted permission to modify the Kernel which I think is a horrible idea. I'd just rather let MS be the only ones who can touch the kernel, and I've felt that MS needs to lock applications out of the System Directory all together.
This is really a non-issue, and I hope the EU realizes this before they do something dumb like force MS to ship a stripped version.
Now that I think about it, why doesn't the EU start a state funded competitor to MS like they did with Boeing, they start Airbus, if they're so sick of it.