Re: MS to charge for security?
- From: <Vanguard>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:10:01 -0500
"Måç" <H@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
Don't see this being popular.
Quote from linked article:
"is unbelievable that Microsoft is attempting to launch a service to charge customers for protection from flaws in its own products."
Uh, so firewalls are only needed for Windows? Firewalls aren't used for any other operating system, like Linux? So what is the point of firewall "appliances" that operate independently of whatever platforms the hosts use in the protected network? So anti-virus software is only needed for Windows? Hmm, wonder why those AV vendors have *NIX versions of their products. And, of course, rootkits are only effective in the domain of Windows (i.e., you're expected to forget on which platform where rootkits evolved). Malware only attacks Windows? Gee, I wonder why they would target the largest number of instances rather than going after the smaller number of Linux installs because we all know malcontents always attempt to afflict the least harm. Of course, a user-installed program on Linux by an admin so the program has root privileges can't possibly do more harm than a admin user-installed program on Windows.
Geez, give it to them for free (although crippled or limited) for awhile and they get so used to it that they think it is no longer a privilege but a right, and that it is their right to have the full or unrestricted version. You do realize that the defrag.exe you get in Windows is a crippled version of Diskeeper, yet only idiots scream that Microsoft should be providing the full version of Diskeeper (but, of course, also for free). Since WordPad is provided for free then surely Microsoft should also be providing Word for free. Uh huh.
And, of course, we all know that every software developer is always eager to lower their bottom line by incurring additional expense for technical support. OneCare includes "get a live support person on the phone without paying extra", and you don't think they'll charge for that extra support in the way of subscription costs?
I suppose they could just bundle their current inbound-only protection firewall, old Giant coded AntiSpyware (with no enterprise version), degrade RAV so it provides 85% to 90% coverage that is typical of freebie anti-virus products, and completely remove the support option to give you what you already have now which you get for free. But obviously they wouldn't have to bundle anything since you already have those free but limited security products. Every time Microsoft adds more fluff to their OS, a bunch of folks scream "monopolistic marketing" (despite that the products are crippled or severely limited compared to 3rd party products). So if Microsoft were to offer a decent firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware bundle for free - and also toss in technical support - and provide it all for free, you think all the other software vendors wouldn't be suing Microsoft for unfair and monopolistic business practices?
Greedy cheapskates always rant they should be getting something for free yet they bitch about Gates getting rich. Yeah, greed, it's only evil when you're talking about someone else's greed, uh huh.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MS to charge for security?
- From: NoStop
- Re: MS to charge for security?
- References:
- MS to charge for security?
- From: Måç
- MS to charge for security?
- Prev by Date: Re: 2 PC's, 1 Modem?
- Next by Date: Re: 2 PC's, 1 Modem?
- Previous by thread: Re: MS to charge for security?
- Next by thread: Re: MS to charge for security?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
