I can usually live with or without John Dvorak's editorials, but I think his most recent column,
"The Microsoft Protection Racket," is fairly astute. He sums up Microsoft's "racket" in the first paragraph: "Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money
for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients
against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this
not constitute an incredible conflict of interest?" Out of one of Windows' biggest weaknesses—its bugs—Microsoft, says Dvorak, has created a brand new revenue stream. He gets a little snarky toward the end, but do you think he's on to something? Is Microsoft's entrance into the spyware- and virus-protection business tantamount to extortion?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Comments
4
Subscribe to commentsJimmy TsengOct 15th 2005 5:28AM
That's so wrong! Its not MS's fault for the stupid hackers making viruses etc... MS is just providing a new product... Do you think its cheap to make a new software that actually works? People should stop viewing MS as only a big evil monster, and starting thinking of it as a business!
WeaselOct 15th 2005 10:43AM
Jimmy, I think you misunderstand.
The problem here isn't the fact that Microsoft is making a new product. It isn't even whether or not they make a good anti-virus program.
What we are talking about here is an inherent conflict of interest. In slashdot terms:
1. Microsoft sells Windows.
2. Profit! $$$$
3. Virus writers exploit bugs and holes in Windows.
4. Microsoft sells anti-virus suite.
5. ....
6. More profit!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$
It would be Microsoft making money off of the flaws in Windows. If they are doing that, they have no reason to fix bugs in Windows, in fact, they have all the more reason not to.
Bottom line: It's not fair for a company to make money by selling a second product to defend holes in their first product. Instead, they should be fixing the first product (Windows).
paintistOct 15th 2005 3:50PM
There is just a completely flawed logic in the motives of virus writers and crackers/hackers. They say "I'm only making a bug/whole flaw more evident by exploiting it. Basically, I'm helping the company find it's flaws by shedding light on them through my hacking/cracking." But this is inherently flawed because the only people who are looking for these flaws in order to "break" a program are the same ones who say they are trying to "help fix" the program. It's a circular argument.
There. Are. No. Perfect. Programs. Everything has flaws and the only way to create a "safe" program is to have only be used by people who don't intend to widden these flaws through exploitation. For instance, the only reason Apple and Linux are relatively "safe" systems, is not necessarily due to the peer-reviewed source code which attempts to ensure un-hackable code, it is safe because a select few run the system and there is virtually no motive to exploit possible flaws. A hacker only exploits flaws in major systems because they feel they pose the biggest threat to the widest audience, not because they are the worst programmed.
AFDOct 15th 2005 8:45PM
Dvorak is my all-time favorite tech writer. I completely agree with his suggestion for Microsoft to just get rid of the 'registry' - and unless MS includes anti-virus/spyware software with their OS for free, selling such a product might 'appear' to be a conflict of interest. I do not believe that Microsoft would intentionally allow flaws in their OS in order to profit from protection software - but they could.