Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google To Microsoft — Give Users Choices In Vista

Posted by Zonk on Tue Oct 31, 2006 08:39 AM
from the give-choice-a-chance dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Government Microsoft Security Politics
An anonymous reader writes "A Google spokesman has asked Microsoft to 'preserve user choice for search and other applications' with its future products, such as Vista. The spokesman made this comment after meeting with European Union antitrust regulators, though he added that at this point, the company has no plans to make antitrust allegations against Redmond. Notably, McAfee and Symantec have accused Microsoft of not being forthcoming with the code they need to ensure their security wares run smoothly on Vista, and the EU has already expressed concern about Microsoft's potentially anticompetitive plans."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

Google To Microsoft — Give Users Choices In Vista 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Potentially anti-competitive practices? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2006, @08:44AM (#16656551)
    From Microsoft?

    Madness, I say! utter madness! And FUD!

  • No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2006, @08:45AM (#16656577)
    Why should Microsoft have to maintain broken code just to preserve McAfee and Symantec revenue streams? That's like saying that, say, Ford shouldn't redesign defective brakes on their cars because it would hurt the sales of aftermarket brake parts.
    • I agree, the aftermarket security products came about due to crappy insecure code in previous MS products. Now I am by far not a fan of MS, I use *bsd products on all my systems. But if MS is going to go the extra mile to secure there product (and it actually is secure), thats a good thing..... Right?? I mean letting the security venders install there code on top of MS's supposedly secure code could in theory introduce holes, I will use Symantec as an example, they have a vulnerability in there code that

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        their there they're - Learn them. Use them. You sound like an eight year old.
      • "crappy insecure code in previous MS products"

        Heh. Previous, current, future. I've heard the 'most secure OS ever' schtick before. Hype does not a good product make, and MS has pretty much proven itself the be more capable of the former than the latter.

        It could be a prettied up XP with incomplete security packages and feature rot (which is what I've been hearing from beta testers who haven't been paid to say otherwise). It could be the One True OS that blows the rest of 'em out of the water. History poi

    • Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chosen Reject (842143) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @09:05AM (#16656803)
      I don't think you understand. McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection. This isn't Ford continuing to make defective brakes so that third-party brake manufacturers can still be in business, this is Ford some how magically making the brake design unknown to anyone else in the world so that only Ford can make brake replacements. Though in a physical world I don't know how they would do that. This is only possible in software.
      • There should be no easy way for any company to have access to low level kernal functions. I think Microsoft's gripe is just that. They have made it so no virus should be able to get to that low of a level thereby erasing the need for an antivirus application to be that low. Any virii should be in user-space which is where antivirus should be looking..
        • They have made it so no virus should be able to get to that low of a level thereby erasing the need for an antivirus application to be that low. Any virii should be in user-space which is where antivirus should be looking..

          A) Microsoft and its security track record thus far have in no way demonstrated that they have comprehensively eliminated the ability of a virus to infect the kernel. Why should we trust them when they say "trust us?" Additionally, why does Microsoft's own antivirus offering use the low
      • McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.

        I have to wonder why, of the half a dozen or more companies that produce Windows AV software, they are the only two to be complaining...
      • You are right, but it is not even possible in software...given enough time and powerful tools, one can reverse-engineer an operating system and get access to the required knowledge; and since hackers can do it in 0 days from the software release, so can companies...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PsychicX (866028)

        while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection

        Is there any evidence that this is actually true? The things I know are:

        • The new Microsoft guideline thingies say, no using undocumented or non-public APIs.
        • The kernel and low level system guys gets pretty angry when software uses undocumented functionality. That stuff is undocumented precisely because it's not intended to be used.
        • Windows Defender, like any other program, is easy to analyze. Determining a complete

        • There's no magic about it. It's more like Coca-Cola not publishing their secret recipe, so that other people can't make their own Coke on the cheap. Which is fair enough, really.

          As long as your market share isn't 95%, sure.

            • Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:5, Informative)

              by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @10:51AM (#16658475)

              Actually, even IF your market share is 95%. Heck, even if it's somehow 100% you still aren't required by Anti-Trust laws to hand over your core company secrets.

              Secrets, no. Means of interoperation, in many cases, yes. ATT was forced to let other companies use their actual networks, so there's some serious precedent. In this case, we have MS using hidden APIs to let their AV products be better - or actually functional - compared to their competitors. That's pretty much textbook anticompetitive behavior.

              To extend the analogy, if Coca-Cola somehow managed to totally out-market every other cola maker in the entire world and completely "OWNED" the Cola market, they still wouldn't be required to hand out the secret formula.

              But that's not what we're talking about here. Imagine Coke had 100% market share, and now they enter the cup business. And let's say that put a chemical in coke that rots through competitors' cups, so that you can only use Coke's cups. Would that pass Sherman scrutiny? Not likely.

              Just because MS is choosing to (Finally) secure thier OS doesn't mean that Symantec et al can't still offer thier products., They will simply have to rewrite them to work within the new Vista framework.

              I think you need to look more carefully at what's going on here. It's not that MS is offering an AV product (fine), it's that it will use kernel hooks that are simply not available to other competitors. I think Symantec et al are clever enough to rewrite for Vista, assuming they're not literally locked out. That's what MS is apparantly doing, and that's a problem.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by ThinkFr33ly (902481)

                I think you need to look more carefully at what's going on here. It's not that MS is offering an AV product (fine), it's that it will use kernel hooks that are simply not available to other competitors. I think Symantec et al are clever enough to rewrite for Vista, assuming they're not literally locked out. That's what MS is apparantly doing, and that's a problem.

                Actually, that's not what's happening at all. Microsoft OneCare NOT using any kernel hooks. It is using the EXACT same APIs available to all of Mi

        • It's, ah, nothing like that. Stop smoking crack.

          I'm not going to say what it's like. It *is* locking out competition; these companies rely on being a security blanket for their customers. The system upon which it works changes out from under them, and then refuses to document the changes. Then, coincidentally, they come out with their own product, that, in fair competition (ie: the documentation was forthcoming), would probably fall by the wayside as an inferior product.
    • As soon as Ford holds 90% of the car market we'll discuss it, ok?

      Monopolies (or almost-monopolies) deserve different treatment than actually contested markets.
    • Why should Microsoft have to maintain broken code
      • Punishment (but, then, the US seems to have lost its nerve for holding anyone accountable)
      • Staying in character
      • Maintaining the status quo. Since the US lacks the courage to minimize anti-competitive practices by requiring companies to operate in a single layer of the OSI model. (Such an idea may indeed suck, but it is at least enforceable).
      • 'requiring companies to operate in a single layer of the OSI model'

        That's a shockingly good idea.

        Thing is, it would DESTROY Apple.

  • I'd care more if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rainman_bc (735332) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @08:46AM (#16656581)
    If McAfee and Norton didn't make products that suck resources real bad. If ever there was a product that could be called bloatware, those two are it. Give me Trend AV any day thanks.

    Then again I'm on my Linux laptop running no AV software.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by orielbean (936271)
      Here is a question for the knowledgeable - which of the AV products (free and otherwise) are the BEST for resources and still competent at catching problems?

      Is Trend the smallest footprint? I would love some answers from the people here.
      • Why is that? I have a gaming desktop. It does nothing but installs and plays games. I don't browse the web on it. I don't open email attachments on it. The only way I'm going to get a virus on it is if one of the games has a vulnerability that gets exploited somehow.

        Same with my Linux desktop. I don't open email attachments that I'm not expecting. I don't run things as root when not needed. The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES. Linux viruses are so rare that I don't think it's
        • I actually had my gaming rig infected this way. Playing CS:Source, it is not uncommon for the MOTD to point to a web site. My default browser is FireFox, but it turns out Counter Strike is using the IE engine anyhow, and I got nailed by one of those drive by HTML exploits when I selected a random game server.
        • The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES.

          Heh - that's almost the only part of my hard drive that I do care about. The OS and apps are all backed up on nice, shiny install media, but I'm lazy, so my user area isn't backed up anywhere near as regularly as it should be.

      • That's a great mentality. Go ahead and don't care that Microsoft is going to such lengths to crowd out competition. Then once McAfee and Symantec are dead and AVG and Trend AV go away with them, the world will be a much better place with so much less bloatware.

        OS Security is a function the OS should handle, not an external third party app. This is one place where Microsoft DOES belong, more so than windows media player or maybe even internet explorer. Although ultimately you shouldn't need adware and spyw

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shadow99_1 (86250)
        *cough* Anti-MS Zealot *cough*

        Other AV's work just fine without these tools Symantec and McAfee demand. This is not an issue of MS crowding out a critical component from potential competitors to take market share. This is MS making an attempt to do what they promised (ie secure windows more than they have in the past). Whether I agree with the method MS is taking or not, this has more to do with Symantec and McAfee being whiny brats that refuse to give up 'control' of 'security' to the ones who should have

  • Microsoft to Google (Score:3, Funny)

    by phorest (877315) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @08:46AM (#16656591) Journal
    [start reply] Get a life.

  • sure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by illuminatedwax (537131) <stdrange@alumRED ... edu minus distro> on Tuesday October 31 2006, @08:58AM (#16656721) Journal
    Sure, they'll do it just as soon as Firefox stops choosing Google by default.
    • They can make MS the default search system, Google is just asking MS to allow the user to select other search engines.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ksalter (1009029)
        When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed. So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.

        • When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed. So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.

          This is entirely correct, which I why I was scratc

        • Mod parent up.

          Not only are you asked what search engine you want to use when you install IE7, but with Vista OEMs can make deals with whatever search engine they want (Google, Yahoo, Alexa, whatever) and set that as the default.

          Google has too much money on their hands if they are paying lawyers to secure an order for Microsoft to do what they're already doing.
      • Last week someone showed me something really cool. They said, "Check this out, go to www.google.com". So I did it. You won't believe what I saw. It actually let me use Google as my search engine! ON INTERNET EXPLORER IT WORKED!!

        Seriously, fuck all these search bars. I'm sick of them wasting space. Whats wrong with just going to the website you want and searching for what you want? Anyone that cares about Google as the default search for their toolbar would know enough to get firefox and use their toolbar an
      • I don't really know what Google is ranting about. Google is 2 clicks away as the default search engine in IE7.

        I perfectly understand why Microsoft doesn't want to show a stupid "Pick your default search engine" dialog box at startup - that would be stupid.

        Really, this is one issue I don't agree with Google on.

        Now, if there comes to light something in Vista that, for example, prevents Google Desktop from being installed, then I would be very upset.

        • I was actually surprised that when I upgraded to IE7 on XP, Google WAS the default search engine on it, and there wasn't even an option for Live search in the dropdown box (I had to go to MS's site and add it). On Vista, it was the opposite.
  • Is there anyone else who thinks it's a little unfair for Microsoft to criticized for cutting out Symantec, etc. They've been railed for years on their complete lack of security focus, probably nowhere more than here. They're finally attempting to fill that need (admittedly in microsoft fashion), and now it's unfair to AV software makers? C'mon Symantec and others built their business around securing an insecure OS, it's not the OS's fault for finally working to secure itself. Sure MS could open up more of t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by orasio (188021)
      Te issue is that they are a monopoly right now.
      Monopolists don't have the same rights than other people.
      So they can't do what others can.
      One thing is this: using their OS monopoly to impose their AV solution.
      That is anti-competitive. You might say that it's not fair, but when you are talking about monopolies, the meaning of fairness changes, because they don't compete under the same conditions.
    • Is there anyone who thinks it's a little unfair for a big monopoly to hide the programming interface, locking out a whole bunch of software providers? Yes, I think that's unfair. I should think the EU have an opinion too. Cutting out the AV providers doesn't count as a security measure.
    • Linux and BSD don't seem to have a problem working on security without locking other people out from making security tools. Why is MS any different? Why is their "security" locking other people out? I realize the technical implementations are fairly different, but that doesn't affect the reasons for being critical of the MS lockout attempt in the name of security. That being said, I really have no sympathy for the AV makers since the arguement is absolutely correct about securing an insecure OS, and pay
    • It's only unfair if MS is using the guise of security to cut out competitors. MS is trying to secure their OS by eliminating low level kernel APIs. AV makers have used these APIs for years. However, is MS using these same APIs themselves in their own security products? MS says that it is not. Whether you believe them is how distrustful you are of MS.
  • Why, is Microsoft actually considering blocking browser users from going to Google.com ??
    • IE 7 asks you which search provider you wish to use when you install it. NO big deal if you ask me, not like google doesn't have brand recognition.
  • Could it possibly be that Google, with their rapidly accelerating growth into a myriad of markets attempting to leverage search success there, might just be afraid of setting a precedent which could leave teeth marks on their respective posteriors later?
    • Could it possibly be that Google, with their rapidly accelerating growth into a myriad of markets attempting to leverage search success there, might just be afraid of setting a precedent which could leave teeth marks on their respective posteriors later?

      You mean, like Yahoo eventually demanding that Google give Google's users the "choice" to have all searches entered at Google redirect to a Yahoo search results page? I mean, that would be a choice, after all, and it would be Evil(tm) of Google to deny th
  • Google says to Microsoft "give people choices", and to Apple "please keep giving them no choices".

    To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX from Google to something else, you need a hex editor to hack some binary files.

    "But but but MS is monopoly"

    But but but principle is principle, you shouldn't be forced by anti-monopoly laws to care for your users, Apple and Google show they are no different than Microsoft: corporations that change their philosophy according to how it affects their pocket.

    • To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX from Google to something else, you need a hex editor to hack some binary files.

      How do you figure this? If I'm searching for anything "throughout Mac OSX" on my iBook, I use Spotlight.

      If you are talking searching the INTERNET, it just took me three seconds to change the default search engine from Google to Yahoo in Firefox. Maybe you are talking about Safari, which I don't use so I can't comment on that.

      Still, I don't see the basis for your comment. Pl

  • IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safari? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by I'm Don Giovanni (598558) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:06AM (#16658773)
    I don't know what happens when upgrading to Vista, but upgrading to IE7 does preserve the search settings. When I upgraded to IE7, Yahoo was set as the default search engine (because I had installed Yahoo toolbar in the past), not Live.

    Secondly, Google has some nerve demanding that Microsoft give users a choice regarding search engines when they have a deal with Apple that makes Google not only the default, but the exclusive search engine for Safari, which is Mac OSX's default browser, and one that holds a monopoly-like share wrt browser usage in Mac OS X. Not only can the user not change the default search engine in Safari, but the user can't even add any secondary search engines.
    • Gee do you think? One obvious sign of this is that when you upgrade from XP to Vista under RC2 you need to uninstall all antivirus programmes to have the vista upgrade to work

      like it makes sense not to uninstall Norton before upgrading-in-place to a new OS.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.