Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Government Security Politics

Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU 273

Posted by Zonk from the can't-they-dominate-anything-anymore dept.
linumax writes "Symantec has made a complaint against Microsoft to EC anti-trust regulators over the software giant's entry into the security market. The "informal" complaint allows the Commission to consider whether or not an anti-trust case is merited. The Commission is the executive branch of the European Union (EU)." From the article: "The news comes on the day Microsoft announced plans to begin offering business users an integrated anti-virus and anti-spyware product called Microsoft Client Protection. A beta version of this product is expected to be released by year's end. The company is already offering some customers a beta version of its Windows OneCare consumer security software. At issue is Microsoft's plan to bundle its security software with Windows Vista, the next major version of the Windows operating system due next year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU More

Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU

Comments Filter:

  • Mafia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tobybuk ( 633332 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:42PM (#13747716)
    And I the only one that thinks that MS offering anti virus software is very similar to the mafia offering 'protection'?

    • the poop factor... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eggz Factor ( 455382 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:00PM (#13747793) Homepage
      Symantec is clearly crapping it's pants. They have recently been attempting to strike fear of impeding virus doom on the OSX platform, especially since their revenues from that part of the market have dried up significantly. If MS offers a product with hooks into it's OS and attractive bundles, it may very well be game over for Symantec.

      • Re:the poop factor... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @06:17PM (#13748121) Journal
        ...it may very well be game over for Symantec.

        I'm not so sure. While it's true that Norton/Symantec Anti-Virus is one of Symantec's big packages, it's not the only software they sell. Their recent acquisition of PowerQuest gave them all that software, including Partition Magic. They have a very active Ghost division, a division that while it might not be quite as profitable as AV, likely makes a fair bit. They've also got several other products like spam/virus filtering. The lists of their Home [symantec.com], Small Business [symantec.com], and Enterprise [symantec.com] products are pretty large. If Symantec did completely close down it's AV division, while it might hurt the company for a while and cause a number of jobs to be cut, they have plenty of other products available to keep on going, at least long enough to re-group and put their focus someplace else.

        On another topic, these issues are interesting. It's not so much that Microsoft is trying to bully Symantec out of business as it seems they are really trying to improve the view most people have on the security of Windows. XP SP2 gave users a "free" firewall which has drastically cut down the spread of worms and the like. It only seems logical that the next logical step in securing an OS is to control and protect the content already on the system, namely with an Anti-Virus agent.

        You could look at this as saying that the reason that Symantec and others were able to sell AV and firewalls in the first place was because Microsoft was deficient in OS security. Now that they're catching up with it, any specialized companies that took advantage of this niche are going to hurt unless they can focus on something else. "Diversified interests" applies to large companies just as it does to personal portfolios.

        Yes, it sucks for these companies, but it's not the same thing as if Microsoft started offering Office free with Windows.

        • Re:the poop factor... (Score:3, Informative)

          by kinkie ( 15482 )
          You're forgetting that Symantec recently bought Veritas, which makes filesystem, clustering solutions for Unix and Windows, and has a very healty backup business, and which in turn had not-so-long-ago acquired VMWare. Those are quite heavy-sellers in the enterprise market.
    • It's more like a construction company offering discount insurance for the buildings they sell.

  • Now THIS is +5 funny! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:43PM (#13747720) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft has had a looooong-standing relationship with Symantec, going back to the days of the Norton Utilities (Peter Norton was a big pusher of MS products back in 1985/86). What makes this so funny is that slashdotters could have predicted this. How?

    Because...Microsoft screws over EVERYBODY who has any business dealings with them.

    Everybody

    • Re:Now THIS is +5 funny! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:10PM (#13747833) Journal
      Yeah, agreed. In 100%.

      But me being pro-Linux put asside, I somehow agree with MS in this case. While Media Player, Browser and other functionalities that are bundled with OS can be argued with some facts, Antivirus and AntiSpyware software provide basic security.

      On one side you can watch people laughing and pointing on every security bug, but on the other people agree with the option that MS is not allowed to bundle software against security and malware problems. Well, it is not a nice time to be at MS position.
      • "While Media Player, Browser and other functionalities that are bundled with OS can be argued with some facts, Antivirus and AntiSpyware software provide basic security."
        This isn't "basic security", though. It's a workaround for crappy security in Windows in the first place.
        • Wouldn't argue if for example spyware and viruses would be security flaws only.

          Most (or at least a lot) of the infections come when people install software downloaded from some other source (for example as a bonus pack when installing one software you get some Gator or alikes on many occasions). How could MS protect against that? Pray? Wish? If they don't do something, they're screwed, if they try to do something, they're fucked (somehow it even makes me happy that it is so).

          Again I'm pointing that I'm usin

      • Nope, a good security model is "basic security". (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:31PM (#13747926)
        While Media Player, Browser and other functionalities that are bundled with OS can be argued with some facts, Antivirus and AntiSpyware software provide basic security.
        Nope. "Basic security" comes from a decent security model.

        Since Microsoft does not have a decent security model for their OS's, they get infected.

        Which is why you need to continuously update the virus signatures.
        On one side you can watch people laughing and pointing on every security bug, but on the other people agree with the option that MS is not allowed to bundle software against security and malware problems.
        Not many years ago there was a flood of "macro viruses" for Word and Excel. Then Microsoft made a very minor change and asked people if they wanted to run the enclosed macros ..... and the Word macro virus is now almost dead.

        The correct approach is to fix the real problem.

        The PROBLEM here is that when Microsoft starts shipping its own anti-virus/spyware app, the other companies will all die.

        Which means that within a couple years, the ONLY commercial option you will have for anti-virus on Windows will be ... Microsoft.

        Now, to see how much effort Microsoft will be putting into that ... look how long the problem has already existed and look how long it took Microsoft to improve IE.
        • Nope. "Basic security" comes from a decent security model.

          Agreed. Now think a little. Most of spy and virusware is users mistake or downloading software on the net. What does for example spyware differently than usual program. How could system detect spyware if user installed spyware along with some software? By guessing? By counting executables? Spyware has to be corrected by approach that they inteded to go.

          Their security sucks, true. Their patching speed is likespeed of hardcore snail race, true. Overexp
        • Since Microsoft does not have a decent security model for their OS's, they get infected.

          What's wrong with it ?

    • I find it hilarious personally. Symantec has done everything in their power to discredit the Apple Macintosh platform (even though it still releases products for it), banking on Microsoft's popularity, and now, Microsoft turns their back on Symantec and starts with their own internal virus protection (simply because their operating system is over-ran by viruses and they truely need it).

      Now that Symantec's business is challenged, NOW they come out whining and crying that Microsoft is playing bully, when r
      • What worries Symantec as well is the new market for mobil phones using Windows, and they want a big part of that. But if Microsoft is shipping their own anti-virus then Symantec sells nothing.

  • Boo Hoo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by arcadum ( 528303 )
    Why shouldn't the maker of the software secure their software?
    • Why shouldn't the maker of the software secure their software?

      Microsoft could make their software so secure that anti-virus programs are not a neccessity on Windows.

      • Microsoft could make their software so secure that anti-virus programs are not a neccessity on Windows.

        No, they couldn't. Nor could anyone else.

        You can't "secure" a device specifically designed to execute arbitrary instructions from arbitrary third parties - at least not for any meaningful definition of "secure".

    • Why shouldn't the maker of the software secure their software?

      Securing their software means making it impossible for viruses to infect Windows to begin with. This strategy accepts that viruses will happen, and tries to play clean-up, in a space where there is obviously already a great solution.

      • You accept viruses happen, and make them less likely.

        That means making it impossible for an email package to run executables.
        It means running as an unprivileged user by default.
        It means not having write access to anything but your own sandbox by default.
        It means all services being off by default and enabling what you need.

        AOL users can still run AOL, Word or whatever so they aren't affected. Except even if they do download $CRAPWARE then the probably won't know enough to give it the rights to screw up thei
    • Agreed, sueing MS for trying to secure their platform... that's gotta be a first...

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:44PM (#13747725)
    If Microsoft got their act together and made it impossible for viruses to spread on Windows, and secured the OS totally against external threats, would Symantic have a case against them? Doesnt Symantic depend on a business model that could concievably be made redundant at any point in Microsofts development cycle?

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
      Its not the external threats MS should be thinking of.

      Its the users clicking on "Britney spears naked sex pictures.mpeg.exe" and actually expecting to stay safe.
    • In other news, Symantec brings complaint against Linus Torvalds, Apple and Theo de Raadt over producing operating systems with less holes than a swiss cheese.
    • Security software is never going away. For example, ever hear of Tripwire?

      However, this really does seem like a clear-cut case of product tying to me, though IANAL. And given Microsoft's market power in the workstation OS market, I would argue that it very well might be illegal.
      • If its illegal, then Microsoft can never ever make their OS secure, because it will always be under threat of businesses relying on the insecurities to make money. Microsoft is simply carrying out a multipronged attack on the security issue, better coding for Vista and applications to bridge the gap.
        • If its illegal, then Microsoft can never ever make their OS secure, because it will always be under threat of businesses relying on the insecurities to make money. Microsoft is simply carrying out a multipronged attack on the security issue, better coding for Vista and applications to bridge the gap.

          They can fix their security model, but they cannot bundle software that competes with other firms with the OS. So your argument does not hold water.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:28PM (#13747911)

      The complaint isn't based on the idea that Symantec should have their business protected from all of Microsoft's actions. The complaint is based on the idea that Symantec should have their business protected from Microsoft abusing their unique position in the industry.

      If Microsoft made a competing product and sold it separately, then this complaint would be meritless. It's because Microsoft are tying their competing product to Windows to get it on people's desktops whether they've chosen it or not.

      This is Netscape all over again. If the DOJ had done their jobs and actually punished Microsoft for breaking the law, perhaps they'd stop doing it. But no, they gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist and let them do it all over again. Maybe the EU will do what the USA won't and actually protect people from the abusive, illegal actions of Microsoft.

      • Common, get of it. Viruses are mostly social engineering attacks (worms are the ones that attack engineering flaws). Microsoft providing a free anti-virus toolkit is simply common sense. Any OS-vendor should do this as this should be part of the service. When linux gets targeted due to being successfull on the desktop (any year now) you would expect it to come with basic virus-detection tools, right?

        Symantec is just going the way of Trumpet Winsock. Remember? Building a TCP/IP stack for windows didn't tur

      • Just not like you think.

        This is Netscape all over again. If the DOJ had done their jobs and actually punished Microsoft for breaking the law, perhaps they'd stop doing it. But no, they gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist and let them do it all over again. Maybe the EU will do what the USA won't and actually protect people from the abusive, illegal actions of Microsoft.

        Here is the problem. When you break up a company, you immediately get a lot of market turmoil and the customer loses. Many people complained
        • Here is the problem. When you break up a company, you immediately get a lot of market turmoil and the customer loses. Many people complained abour rising phone bills after the AT&T divestiture, for example even though in the long run prices have come down.

          This is way off topic.

          That isn't how I remember the AT&T breakup. And I don't think that should be a goal - this is about the market. The market will be fine. People will want stuff. Someone will provide it. Why do we need to still support tur

    • Removing the need for a product is different. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:42PM (#13747978)
      If Microsoft fixed the security flaws, then Symantic might go out of business because there is no longer a need for their product.

      The problem is that by competing with Symantic, the product is still needed, but Symantic will go out of business and Microsoft will end up being the single source for commercial anti-virus software for their desktop monopoly.

      Which means that Microsoft can start ratcheting up the pricing for this ...or... cut development because it isn't bringing in money.

      Either way, the customers lose. Unless they switch to Linux/Mac.
    • If Microsoft got their act together and made it impossible for viruses to spread on Windows Much as I hate to defend MS, this is like saying "Oh, they just needed to make the security perfect, that's all." Granted, Windows security sucks a hundred times more than it has to, but NOTHING is perfect.

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hvatum ( 592775 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:44PM (#13747726) Homepage
    I hate Microsoft just as much as the next guy but this doesn't make any sense. It's as if Firestone were to sue Ford for shipping cars with pre-installed wheels. Afterall you won't get very far in Windows without security.

    Why should the consumer be forced to buy a product from a second supplier when the original supplier is willing to add that feature on for free?

  • Cry me a river.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 6Yankee ( 597075 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:45PM (#13747729)
    I'd feel a whole lot more sympathy towards Symantec if Norton Internet Security 2005 didn't depend on Internet Explorer.

  • The price they pay for being monolitic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:45PM (#13747730) Homepage
    I'm all for anti-trust laws, but I think this situation is a bit ridiculous -- the complaint is utterly without merit. Symantec and McAfee built their buisness models on Windows being a shoddy, insecure POS. Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner, and they are crying foul because it's going to put them out of buisness? I'm sorry, but that's the price they pay for being monolithic, for failing to diversify. Structural unemployment [wikipedia.org] is a bitch.
    • I think the point is that they are tightening it down by way of moving into yet another market which was created and based around their shoddy software and people's ease in exploiting it. This is the main thing that has Symantec frothing at the mouth. If MS were simply fixing their software instead of putting the band-aid manufatcurers on the back foot, there wouldn't be a problem. As it is, they are giving you some keys to an MS car, telling you to drive wherever you want, and when you do bang it up, offer
    • If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.

      Which will leave the anti-virus customers with two options:
      #1. Use Microsoft's anti-virus software and hope that Microsoft doesn't start increasing the price/actually maintains it.

      #2. Move to Linux/Macs.

      You're mistaken in the believe that Microsoft is "tightening down" anything. Their products will still be as vulnerable, but now their customers won't have any other vendors for competing anti-virus apps.
      • If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.

        Just like all the third party firewall vendors went out of business.

      • If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.

        Nonsense. No more than eg: Avast's free (and good!) virus checker is going to impoverish Symantec or McAfee.

        Virus checkers are an example of a product where there is zero (or even negative) network effect. Unlike most other markets where M$ has basically taken over by giving freebies, there is no disadvantage to running a different brand of checker if it actually does a better job. The job itself is important, an

    • Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner

      Funny to mention these two in one sentence.

      Microsoft has been tightening down since the first DOS virus came around.
      And a whole industry sprung up based on their technology model of leaving holes.
      I think it is a dangerous thing when they are alowed to build their own anti-virus software.
      They should instead concentrate on fixing the holes.

      Microsoft would have an advantage that is unfair by definition.

    • The issue isn't MS tightening the source code so viruses etc are less of a problem, it is MS bundling tacked-on security products into the OS distribution, effectively blocking other businesses that offer these protections already.

      To put it another way, it is MS using a monopoly position in one market (OS) to leverage a monopoly in another market (security). They have already been tried and convicted twice because of this behaviour.

      If they were making Vista secure by design, this wouldn't be an issue. As it

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:47PM (#13747742)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Well, the day has finally arrived (Score:5, Funny)

    by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:47PM (#13747743) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft has released a program called MCP. Where did I put my frisbee...

  • Just bad business model (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:48PM (#13747744)
    Maybe they should also file a complaint against Apple for not making Mac OS more susceptible to viruses.

  • Both are crooks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:49PM (#13747751)
    Symantec thrives off the existence of viruses (and some people have said symantec has in the past written viruses). A permanent fix to viruses and self replicating programs would be bad for their biz.

    M$FT, well they will have no ensure their products are vulnerable if they expect to sell AV and anti keylogger/spyware software.

    Bottom line, reminds me of "Alien versus Predator" trailer tagline: "Whoever wins, we lose"!

    • Exactly, all that Symantec has to do is write a few viruses that MS Antiwhatever cannot fix. That is called survival of the sleeziest...

    • RTFA (Score:2)

      by Nailer ( 69468 )
      M$FT, well they will have no ensure their products are vulnerable if they expect to sell AV and anti keylogger/spyware software.

      RTFA. They're including the software in Windows.

      And M$? Are you twelve?

      They're still crooks (legally - they're a monopoly) but it's best you actually use illegal things they've done to point that out rather than making shit up.

  • Why now? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crottsma ( 859162 )
    Windows XP comes with an integrated firewall, which Norton SystemWorks replaces upon installation. Does an integrated virus scan propose some type of insurmountable difficulty for Symantec?

  • If it were integrated ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @04:56PM (#13747776) Homepage Journal

    Any OS maker has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to secure their system. Integrating security mechanisms into Vista would be fine, not unlike adding iptables to the Linux kernel or requiring an admin password for all security-related operations in Mac OS X. So if Microsoft were to give this away as part of Vista, they could virtually kill Symantec and I would have no problem with it. After all, Symantec has made a killing on compensating for problems in Windows, and fixing those problems is far from bad business.

    But if Microsoft intends to charge for their security products, it's a scam. They'd have a vested interest in building only basic security into their OS, because enterprises will otherwise have no reason to buy the security add-ons. I hope Symantec wins this not because Microsoft's entry into this market is wrong, but because they've done it entirely the wrong and corrupt way.

    • Well, Citrix sued MS when Terminal Services came out, partially because MS at that point quickly reneged on or didn't advance past NT 4.0 Citrix' almost unique source code license it had at the time. Eventually they sued, and default Terminal Services is limited to 2 connections to the server. If you want more, you need to buy Citrix.

      MS has done this before. Remember all the people who were making pretty big money on selling various DOS defragmentation tools, etc., who bitched when MS essentially licensed o
  • What a clever way for Microsoft to cover their vulnerabilities!

    Welcome to Microsoft Virus Agent: What you experienced was not a virus, but rather a test we ran to make sure your system was still secure. Please disregard the files with 0xDEADBEEF strewn about them.

    Would you also like to enable Microsoft Firewall?
    (with Microsoft Firewall you can further help us to hide the holes)

    This is such a good idea! At least for this one, I hope Symantec wins.

  • M$ could argue that an operating system always has mechanisms to protect itself, and thus an anti-virus defense system must be included. Though I find the argument reasonable, if Syamantec succeeds in stemming Microsoft's efforts here, I believe the browsing bundling issue will be re-visited.

  • Why anti-virus is part of the OS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:02PM (#13747802)
    As much as I dislike MS, I can see three arguments that antivirus is an OS function.

    1. A key function of an OS is to regulate, allocate, and manage the hardware and software resources of the machine. Controlling which chunks of code/processes/threads have access to which other chunks of RAM/filesystem/IO seems core to both an OS and to controlling malware.

    2. Anti-malware software needs to operate at a level higher than the malware to avoid malware countermeasures. If the anti-virus is just another application, even if its at the admin level, its going to be vulnerable to being turned off by malware that explicitly tries to avoid detection and removal. Anti-virus needs to run at a level above most user and admin processes.

    3. Malware often exploits holes in the OS. All jokes aside, the OS vendor is one of the most likely organizations to understand these vulnerabilities and make a semi-competent decisions on whether to patch the OS to close the vulnerability or use anti-malware to expunge or repel the malware.
  • well. if just symantec could create bug-free software. the antivirus and stuff like that just is like VERY abusive to any system withou 9999Ghz with 999GB ram. I welcome any antivirus from ANY vendor that actually work like it should, even if it's from Microsoft.
    • I use Avast! Antivirus and Zonealarm on my Win2000 computer, and Avast! Antivirus and Windows Firewall on my XP. It is a free download (you have to do a free registration every 15 months) and it works wonders. I was having major problems with Norton, so I searched online and found it, and installed it and liked it better. I dropped Norton even though I had 6 months of updates left on my account.

      http://www.avast.com/ [avast.com]

      Look for Home Edition.

      They also sell Professional solutions and server solutions (including L

  • I just don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by charlie763 ( 529636 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:05PM (#13747817)
    This makes no sense to me on several levels. Who would trust MS to make anti-virus software when they're the ones who wrote the software that allowed the viruses in the first place? If MS knows about a virus that exploits a programming error, why don't they just fix the error? Who would trust a company that has a financial motive to write virus-prone code?

  • Damned if you do, Damned if you dont. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:05PM (#13747818) Homepage Journal
    Not saying microsoft is the least bit innocent, but this is one of those cases that no matter what they do they are screwed.

    A - Do nothing and get blamed for being insecure.
    B - Do something, and get accused of illegal practices.

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:09PM (#13747831)
    So Symantec/Norton make a name for themselves peddling products designed to keep people safe from security problems in Windows. Between the Customer and Microsoft, Symantec is a third party offering protection. After all these years, Microsoft decides it has the capability/desire to protect customers themselves. I can see why Symantec would be pissed, but it was they who built their house on sand. They based their business model on the combination of unwitting users and Windows flaws, so it's only natural for their business to decrease as users become more informed and Windows becomes more secure. As has been said many times in the People vs. RIAA/MPAA threads around here, The Right To Profit is not guaranteed. Symantec gambled on a product line, and thus far has done very well. The odds are changing though, if Microsoft wants to start protecting people from themselves.

    Heck, I remember running Microsoft AV in Windows 3.1/Dos 6.2 days, cleaning the Form virus off various floppy disks. (Don't Copy That Floppy anyone?)

    * I don't mean Windows becoming more secure in the traditional sense of locking down, though XP SP2 is a big step up, I mean the manufacturer of the product (Microsoft) providing alternate means of protection without the need for 3rd party products.
  • Oh, competition is fine so long as their competition is not Microsoft.

  • No sympathy for symantic, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtrouble77 ( 715075 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:17PM (#13747867)
    Microsoft should be dedicating their resources in finding a cure, not a treatment. This presents a big conflict of interest for them, kinda like a coach betting against his own team.
  • If it was almost any company other than Symantec one might feel some sympathy. But Symantec's software is awful in my experience, slowing WinXP to a crawl, hectoring the user with FUD and paranoia about "threats" and popping up unnecessary and self-congratulatory windows telling you what it's doing. It's not cheap to purcahse, either. It may be ironic if Symantec gets its comeuppance at the hands of Microsoft but it will be richly deserved, imho.

    But ... oh but ... security left in the sole hands of Micro
  • Ok, so symantec is going after MS for an anti-trust suit? um...WTF? MS used to be notorious for security flaws. They clean up their act, try to pull together a new OS, and try to include decent security.

    I'm sorry Symantec, but i don't think they're trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and get away with a monopoly. I'd say they are trying to get their act together and get past their notoriety for sucking at security.

    Why pay for Norton when it can't find viruses that i need it to find? I'm sorry bu

  • Windows OneCare? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke ( 850482 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @05:35PM (#13747942)
    Somewhat off-topic here, but perhaps, before Microsoft decide on a name they ought to check just what that sounds like in some of the major English-speaking markets.

    (wonder what Symantec means in other languages?)
  • That the case should be bought to the EU. Do US companies now see Microsoft and the US state to be so closely tied that the US courts aren't worth bothering with?

  • ..in other news. (Score:4, Funny)

    by LarsG ( 31008 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @06:44PM (#13748232) Journal
    In other news, Trumpet is unhappy about Microsoft's recent announcement that they will include a TCP/IP stack by default in the next version of Windows.

  • If I was the CEO of symantec.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @07:43PM (#13748423)
    There is a much, much quicker fix for this. If I was the CEO of Symantec I would have my secretary get Bill on the phone. The conversation would go something like this.

    Symantec CEO: Hi Bill how are you today!

    Bill: Very good what can I help you with.

    Symantec CEO: Bill I will cut to the chase I want you to stay out of the security market.

    Bill: Nope we are going to kill Symantec.

    Symantec CEO: Ok if you want to be like that we are going to release a immediate update to our suite on monday. With this update we are going to bundle a copy of the new version of Open Office.

    Bill: Ok we will take it off the list, have a very fine day, how about a all
    expenses paid trip to bermuda.

    These CEO's just don't know how to fight fire with fire.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close