Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Oct 2006 18:52 UTC, submitted by chimby
Privacy, Security, Encryption It's not just Symantec that wants to call foul on Microsoft; McAfee got in on the action today with a full-page ad in the print edition of the Financial Times. The ad accuses Microsoft of engaging in dangerous practices that are creating 'inherent weaknesses' in Windows Vista. And by 'inherent weaknesses', McAfee means limitations on what their own products can do.
Thread beginning with comment 167552
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: McAfee should drop it
by EmmEff on Mon 2nd Oct 2006 19:46 UTC in reply to "McAfee should drop it"
EmmEff
Member since:
2005-09-16

It's a tough call. Do you let MS harden the OS and prevent 3rd party companies from working at a low level (and thereby, re-enforcing MS monopoly) or do you let 3rd party ISVs make a mess of what could be a stable kernel?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: McAfee should drop it
by diegocg on Mon 2nd Oct 2006 19:55 in reply to "RE: McAfee should drop it"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Nobody cares. What matters here is that Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop market, so they're "special". Because they're the only major desktop OS vendor, they can bring a company down depending on what they do, even if what they do is a good thing.

If microsoft just owned 60% of the market, I wouldn't care about what they do with their kernel.

Edited 2006-10-02 19:59

Reply Parent Score: 5

Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

That's true. But one has to ask himself; do you care more about those companies than making your life a little easier and cheaper?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: McAfee should drop it
by kaiwai on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 03:58 in reply to "RE[2]: McAfee should drop it"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Nobody cares. What matters here is that Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop market, so they're "special". Because they're the only major desktop OS vendor, they can bring a company down depending on what they do, even if what they do is a good thing.

And babe, 95% of the market uses Microsoft because the alternatives are so shit.

This is how the market works, gather around kids, its going to be the first time its been explained.

The market is full of buyers and sellers, and going by this model we assume that the purchaser is a rational purchaser, that is, they aren't persuaded by mind alternating substances like drugs or alcohol, and that the product they're purchasing isn't feeding that habit.

Ok, the market so fcr says that 95% of computers purchased are running Windows - going by the logic above, one assumes that 95% of computer owners are quite happy with Windows, and if they're happy with Windows, quite frankly, who gives a shit what the 5% think!

Why not Linux? easy, there are no applications; who gives a toss about the opensource stuff; end users want off the shelf applications that they purchase from their local computer software that comes in a box, from computer software companies they know.

They've used those applications, they like their Corel Photoshop, their like their MYOB which they use for tracking their business transactions, they like being able to download the ATO application at the end of each financial year - allow them to continue on, without changing their computer habits, and you'll win them over and a good marketshare with in atleast 5 years.

The solution is a well integrated distribution, a feature complete wine, and focus on end user needs rather than geek intellectual masturbation pre-occupations.

Reply Parent Score: 1