OSNews

Actually, it is a symbiotic relationship. I don't think Microsoft wants 3rd-party ISV's to go away. It is the strength of the Windows platform (from a marketing standpoint) that there is so much software out there that runs on Windows. They want to always encourage ISV's, and they have provided great development tools for them to create Windows-only software. That is why Microsoft walks a fine line. They often want to make products in new software channels (e.g., security software), and yet for the sake of Windows platform dominance, they must not crush all competitors. It's a tricky business.

I think the point he was trying to make was that, in a perfect world, no company would try to bilk users by installing spyware/malware on their machines, and thus there would be neither an exploitation industry nor a security industry.

You're right about that - like I said to a mate a few days ago, if an alternative platform like Solaris had equal hardware support and availability of software of Windows, no one would be running Windows. People are wedded to Windows by virtue of the applications they need and hardware they use.

You're right about that fine line; they can make their operating system as secure as possible, but security software will be needed; if they fail to provide it they're slammed, if they provide it they're slammed for trying to kill off competition (whilst these detractors completely ignore the fact that the end user must actually choose to purchase the software - but never let facts get in the way of a good anti-Microsoft rant).

Microsoft has to walk the fine line of implementing security and maintaining backwards compatibility; if they implement it and break compatibility they're slammed, if they maintain backwards compatibility they have to make compromises.

I think people here need to realise that its a whole lot more complex - what I do hope is that with virtualisation, the ability to have a more secure desktop will be possible.