Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Software Makers Lobby EU Against Microsoft

Posted by Zonk on Thu Sep 21, 2006 01:28 PM
from the sandbox-diplomacy dept.
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Adobe and Symantec are lobbying EU regulators for action against Vista, the Wall Street Journal reports. Adobe is calling for Microsoft to be barred from building into the OS free software that competes with Acrobat. From the article: 'Adobe and Symantec have told EU regulators that Vista has put them squarely in Microsoft's cross hairs. Symantec is concerned that Vista will direct consumers toward a Microsoft-designed security console, or box that shows what level various security functions, such as an Internet firewall, are set on. The rival company wants to be able automatically to override the Microsoft template with its own design and features, as it has been allowed to do in the past.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Security Companies Tussle With MS Security Center 225 comments
hey0you0guy writes, "The large security firms such as Symantec and McAfee want Microsoft to allow them to replace Microsoft's Windows Security Center. Microsoft is refusing these requests. 'By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at security,' Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said in an interview. 'How do we trust that Microsoft knows what all the important things about security are to warn users about?' Given Microsoft's past, with vast piles of security flaws and patches, they should at least cooperate with these companies. A dispute still exists over PatchGuard, a security feature that Microsoft says is designed to guard core parts of the 64-bit version of Vista, but which critics say locks out helpful software from security rivals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by lukas84 (912874) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:32PM (#16154937) Homepage
    Actually, i'm with microsoft on this one.

    Symantecs OS invading suite of crappy tools just sucks.
    Integrating PDF generation into applications and office suites ist also a MUST.

    Microsoft is doing the right thing here. And i won't whine for symantec, they just made all the veritas products more sucky.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I couldn't agree more. And seriously
      1) Adobe made PDF an open standard, and now they are mad its being used?
      2) Adobe has been sitting on PDF as a money maker for years without much innovation. Time to shake up the industry!
      • Will someone in England please weigh in on whether it is ironic that MS is in trouble in the EU over free use of PDF, whereas MS engaged in pretty much the opposite behavior in MA over ODF?
      • by RexRhino (769423) on Thursday September 21 2006, @04:34PM (#16156616)
        Not only that, Adobe products create PDFs that don't 100% follow the PDF format, just to introduce slight incompatibilites with non-Adobe software. When you create a PDF in an Adobe product, then try to open it in Open Office (which follows the PDF format perfectly), and you find slight changes, most people will think it is Open Office's fault and not Adobe.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          -- You need a license to write to a PDF format.

          This is incorrect. Adobe says you can freely write software that will create PDF format documents as long as you don't break the spec and give them copyright credit on it.
    • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:43PM (#16155050)
      Whine for them or not, Microsoft has a long history of putting in poor-man's versions of commercial tools to undercut competitors in ways that are illegal for such a monopoly to do. Symantec and Adobe just got handed the same deal that Netscape did, and the authors of the commercial TCP stacks for Windows 3.x.produ

      Andn as far as PDF conversion goes, it's been free as part of PDFcreator for ages. Adobe's commercial versions are in fact more fragile, bulkier, produce less reliable PDF, and have a terrible tendency to stuff your system with "features" that you never asked for. The free PDFcreator, riding on top of Ghostscript's history of robustness and reliability rather than pursuing "business plans" that break features, has been outperforming it in automatic print services for years.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yeah well ... you know what ... screw Symantec and Adobe. They *chose* tie their wares to Windows, they can pay the price as a result. This is what MS does, they've done it in the past, they'll do it in the future. Now they can pay the piper just like Netscape, Real, Corel, Sybase, Citrix, etc ... all had to.
      • by jonbryce (703250) on Thursday September 21 2006, @02:51PM (#16155680) Homepage
        If you tried to sell an operating system today that required a third party TCP/IP stack at extra cost, nobody would buy it. The hassle of installing all sorts of extra bits to make your computer work is very much a thing of the past.

        People need to remember that competition law exists to protect competition, not to protect competitors. Thanks to Microsoft's desire to keep one step ahead of the competition in those areas which matter to their customers, customers have benefited from easier to use software, both from Microsoft, and from alternative os suppliers.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Thanks to Microsoft's desire to keep one step ahead of the competition in those areas which matter to their customers, customers have benefited from easier to use software


          Why you haven't been modded +1 'funny' for the comment is beyond me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Actually, i'm with microsoft on this one. Symantecs OS invading suite of crappy tools just sucks. Integrating PDF generation into applications and office suites ist also a MUST.

      Symantec wasnt only complaining about their own software, but _all_ security products. They are saying (true or not is a different story) that no other security software except microsoft's own will run well on vista.

      Integrating PDF into apps is a must? Seriously? It took me less than 10 secs on google to find three different

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        And you are free, as a consumer, to not use the bundled products.

        Microsoft programmers have said many times on various MSDN blogs that a lot of the undocumented APIs that Norton and others use will be closed in Vista to be replaced with documented APIs. I believe some of the posts even invited software developers to get in touch with them if they haven't found a suitable replacement for a private API that your software used in the past.

        So basically, Symantec sounds like they are being lazy. "I have to chang
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          And you are free, as a consumer, to not use the bundled products.

          And apparently I'm also free to pay for these bundled apps as well. Now tell me why I should pay for Windows Vista + MS Defender and then just not use Defender and but and install Norton? I've already paid for MS Defender why would I buy Norton too?

          This is Netscape all over again. What Symantec is complaining about is that Windows Defender will be installed automatically. If someone installs Norton, Norton will have to disable Windows De

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            There are always undocumented "feature".
            As for any API, Win32 is the external layer of an onion. The internal layers are also organised sometimes in smaller private "APIs". Most of the time you don't see them and you cannot access them (eg: statically linked) but with in specific area you can call undocumented private function by selecting an entry in a dll or by updating some undocumented memory structure.
            Needless to say that those function are highly susceptible to change from one security fix/patch to an
    • by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:44PM (#16155062) Homepage

      So Symantec's tools suck. Fine. But if Microsoft is allowed to integrate an equally sucky version into its OS, it'll win by default, and we'll be stuck with suckiness forever.

      Let Microsoft bring out their own software, very welcome! But as a seperate product, sold in a box. If there's special hooks for it in Windows, they should be openly documented.

      Then, both Symantec and Microsoft will have an actual reason to make a _good_ product!

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        So Symantec's tools suck. Fine. But if Microsoft is allowed to integrate an equally sucky version into its OS, it'll win by default, and we'll be stuck with suckiness forever.

        That was exactly my thought. I don't like Symantec's software so much anymore, but at least I still have the choice to go with someone else. If security companies are saying that they've been locked out of Vista, that means I'm stuck with whatever Microsoft puts out, and they haven't been known for their success in security. I'm no

        • Break what law?

          The Sherman Antitrust act in the US. I'm not sure what the antitrust law in the EU is called.

          PDF is an open format.

          Yes, it is. What is your point and what does that have to do with MS bundling a competing format?

          LOL!!! Edumacate urself!!!

          Umm, did you miss your meds today? Take a deep breath and sit down for a while. Maybe later you'll be able to handle reality.

  • by MuNansen (833037) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:36PM (#16154984)
    The things Apple continually receives praise for and advertises about, included applications and higher security, Microsoft gets sued over. Yeah, that's fair.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's not an incoherent position. I would claim very strongly that OEMs should be free to bundle whatever software they like. If Dell wants to offer a security suite and PDF generation program bundle, pre-installed on delivery, I don't think anyone would complain. In fact, Dell does exactly that. The only difference is that Apple makes the software that they bundle with their systems.

      Make no mistake-- iLife is commercial software. Last I checked, it was $80. Apple has also had a history of bundling no

  • silly, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:37PM (#16154987) Journal
    They must know the words "anti-trust" by now. I just hope that the fine which they are given if they actually go ahead with this actually constitutes more than they made on this. There is no excuse for attempting to keeping rival companies at a disadvantage - they already have all the OS market.
  • by zymano (581466) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:39PM (#16155011)
    Operating systems should be secure and should come with a firewall.

    I can understand adobe's reasoning.

  • See: Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrianRoach (614397) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:40PM (#16155021)
    "Security" software companies only exist becuase ... windows didn't have or provide adequate security. Or due to bugs in the OS which were exploited. They're basically parasitic entities.

    Now MS is trying to fix this with Vista.

    So basically, the logic being put forth is: Our business model is based on your inability to put out a secure product. Your attempt at putting out a secure product is going to break our business model, and thus our business.

    - Roach

  • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:52PM (#16155135) Homepage Journal

    It's only going to get worse for companies like Symantec and Adobe. Building software on the Windows platform brings the advantages of a large market. The disadvantage is that Microsoft is not in the business of creating a platform for developers, they're in the business of selling software licenses. The licenses get sold because people are addicted to the platform, not because people can protect it with Symantec products.

    And Adobe's complaints really surprise me. OS X has been able to export anything to PDF - a relatively open format - for years, and I can do the same thing on KDE.

    Windows is a shaky foundation to build a business on - albeit a potentially profitable one until Microsoft decides to assimilate your functionality.

  • Not fair (Score:3, Interesting)

    by radu.stanca (857153) <radu.stanca@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:58PM (#16155192) Homepage
    PDF is a public format(anyone may create applications that read and write PDF files ), OO.org can export to pdf, why M$ should not be allowed to use it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Microsoft is going to have to learn that it needs to try to work with the companies that make software for their systems.

      No. This is a basic fallacy, the "Windows ecosystem", of various ISPs making money off of stuff that runs on Windows. This is not how things actually work.

      What actually goes on, is that Microsoft treats the ISPs as unpaid employees working on 'market-testing' projects. Adobe make money off of PDF stuff? Then Microsoft will add PDF tools to their OS next time around. Somebody has a b