All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Microsoft: Users may have to pay for security
jtpenrod:
" RSA 2002: Microsoft is considering charging for additional security options, and admits it didn't move on security until customers were ready to pay for it"
In fact, the folks who use Winderz have been paying for security all along. There are third party apps such as Norton Internet Security, Norton AV, ZoneAlarm, etc. ad infinitum. M$ is just late to the party here. They've already got folks out there who are conditioned to do this very thing. Does that really surprise anyone? If it hadn't been for Winderz and all its manifest shortcomings, an entire industry would have never existed in the first place!
_________________________________________
Computers are like air conditioners: they can't do their jobs if you open windows.
beltorak0:
Zone Alarm does sell their product, but they at least provide a decent free version. Selling a network without some sort of basic internet security is like selling a house or a car without locks. True, you can buy bigger locks; but my guess is that future service packs and os upgrades will accidentally break third party security measures, and M$ will charge through the nose for its own versions of the same products. Or integrate them into the OS and try to squeeze the above companies out of the game. But that's just a guess.
BTW; do the major Linux distro's set up a basic firewall? why not? Personally I think this is a serious shortcoming, especially since there are several decent gui front ends to iptables, and setting one up can take as few as ten lines in a script.
--- Code: ---
--- End code ---
This will at least provide some protection from port scans and turn off outside access to services while allowing the user to surf the net or do email. Setting up a service should require knowledge about how to configure the firewall for that service. but anyway.
-t.
ps: although i just pulled that one out of my arse, i'm gonna test it.... later. -t.
----
works for ftp (receiving), email, web browsing, and local Apache access.
The quick scan from http://scan.sygatetech.com/ showed everything as blocked. I am currently editing this message with that hack of a firewall in place.
-t.
[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: beltorak0 ]
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by beltorak0:
BTW; do the major Linux distro's set up a basic firewall? why not? Personally I think this is a serious shortcoming, especially since there are several decent gui front ends to iptables, and setting one up can take as few as ten lines in a script.
--- End quote ---
Uh, RedHat and Mandrake prompt you for firewall setup during the install. Where have you been? And yes, they have graphical configuration tools. In fact RedHat's is right off the menu "System Settings->Security Settings".
BJS:
SUSE 8.0 allows you to set up a firewall during install or from YAST2 afterwards.
Love KDE's Windows Emulator. It's called B.S.O.D. Brings up a bsod with a fatal exception error in case you are stupid drunk and wondering why you switched to Linux. Thats all it does. Best Windows emulation I've seen yet!
As far as MS wanting users to pay more for security... I already pay less purchasing boxed sets of Linux. Why pay more and get less? Security comes standard with Linux. It's not an after thought.
Nor have I found a Linux distro that comes with spyware.That is VERY important to me.
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by Ice9:
What I think is wrong with that approach is that Windows is a bloated and insecure OS because of design flaws and programming incompetence (I might be wrong but that's what I think).
When you deliver a product full of bugs/security holes/design flaws you don't make people pay for the patches.
I can see a near future when M$ will upload security fixes to people's computers using "automatic update", without the people knowing it and then at the end of the month they will receive a bill for xx patches that were uploaded to their pc.
If they refuse to pay for the bloat, their pc will simply stop working.
Too pessimistic? I don't think so, but hey, everyone's entitled to his own opnion, right? ;)
--- End quote ---
morally, i agree with you, that's why i now use linux and if i ever have the money, will consider getting an OSX workstation and a FreeBSD server.
HOWEVER i advocate choice. I have no problem whatsoever with people using windows HOWEVER they should accept the consequences. If Microsoft wants to do this, then the only thing to stop them is that they will become unpopular and lose business. If this does not happen, then obviously people using windows are happy with the changes. If they are happy with the changes then anybody who still uses windows is NOT in any way entitled to complain about it.
Shape up or ship out, can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, put your money where your mouth is, like it or lump it and other tired old cliches, that's what i say to any windows users that complain about windows.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version