Apple, Linux and IBM can’t do it. But Microsoft sure can.
In fact, only Microsoft can write software that’s so leaky that a $4 billion industry was built to protect it, then… and here’s the really admirable part… turn around to become part of the crew that cashes in on cleaning up its own mess.
Microsoft is bundling all (or many) of its solutions for Windows weaknesses into Foreplay, with one version based on software thankfully Not-Invented-At-Microsoft (NIAM) for consumers, and an even better package of NIAM software for business.
Windows Foreplay has two critical functions:
- Increase Microsoft revenues through protecting its own products, and;
- Relieve the Windows team of the need to write better software.
After all, tight software costs a lot of money to write.
It’s much more profitable to slam Windows out with more leaky features than ever, then charge your new victims for protection. Heck, since Protection’s your secondary racket, you can even afford to undercut your old partners by 50% or more.
That has some protectors, like Sunbelt’s Alex Eckelberry, howling about predatory pricing.
But frankly, the security industry deserves what’s coming. After all, they enabled the addict.
If doting AVers hadn’t shielded Windows lo these many years, it couldn’t have survived. Microsoft would have been forced to fix it long ago.
Twisted, isn’t it?
So. If you really think the Windows team can (or will) maintain NIAM security software better than companies who’s sole focus is beating off bad guys… Ask for it by name: “Windows Foreplay, the shape of things to come.”
At least Microsoft finally got a name right.
Correction: Omigosh. My editors just informed me that it’s Forefront, not Foreplay; hence, Microsoft didn’t finally get a name right. My bad;>
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Alex Eckelberry
Actually, there’s a different perspective on this, and one which I make in my blog posting. It’s not all about profits: It’s about innovation.
I compete with free and inexpensive products all the time, and in fact, I have a free firewall myself that I give away. The point is not price — the point is predatory pricing — where a large manufacturer like Microsoft comes into a market and undercuts the incumbents. \
Perhaps some may think it’s nothing to be concerned about, and perhaps they are right. One might, however, propose that the security industry should be a vibrant, diverse one; and that the business should not be dominated by one vendor who can be taken down by attack; and to whom the majority of the community relies upon. If Microsoft wants to compete fairly, I have absolutely _no_ problem with that. But if they want to undercut the market, it makes things a bit different.
Remember 15 years ago, we had a variety of databases to choose from. Today we have primarily MS SQL and Access for the SMB market (and Oracle pretty much stays in the high end). The same goes for languages — we had Borland and other really innovative companies. Now we have primarily Microsoft as a commercial compiler company.
The majority of the market moved to IE. And after that, we had the massive wave of adware and spyware, directly targeted at IE. And on and on and on.
In the end, one has to ask themselves the question: Is a Microsoft-dominated security space healthy in the security market? Will new companies be able to get funding for their products? (Answer: not likely). Will businesses continue to invest in this space, given that Microsoft may dominate? (Answer: not likely) So will Microsofts actions make us, ultimately, less secure?
I’ve written some follow-up posts on why a Microsoft hegomony in the security space may not be that great of an idea. But it seems that many people actually like that idea, which is perhaps a misplaced sense of enthusiasm for Microsoft, but I respect those opinions.
Alex Eckelberry
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Anonymous
It’s just due to it’s larger userbase and longer existance in the mainstream that’s the reason for viruses. AV software isn’t really core to any OS. Despite Windows not being the greatest OS, the existence of viruses for the platform isn’t due to it being “leaky”.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Marc Holt
As a 25 year programmer veteran I am apalled by M$ software. It is NOT hard to write bug-free software, and it doesn’t take long to debug software if you are any good at all.
Bill Gates is my hero for bringing computing to the masses, but he’s also the man I can never respect because his rampant greed causes everyone so many problems. Viruses, spy-ware, crappy software….Bill, you should be ashamed!!!
June 24th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Roddy
Anonymous has obviously never used both Apple OS X and Windows in business, and trots out a nonsense line believed only by the ignorant. Time to catch up with the real world. my friend. All this virus and spyware carry on went the way of the dinosaurs when OS X came along. The bottom feeders producing all that anti virus software greatly over-play their role. They are in a dying trade, akin to buggy whip manufacturers. After trying to keep a Windows system clean, I have found its a refreshing breeze to work with Macs. And there are plenty of black hats, but they just havn’t found a way to get in without the user knowingly opening the door for them. Its the architecture, Dummy, not the market share! Redmond must have figured that out, and they must know they are dead in the water real soon if they don’t fix it.
June 24th, 2006 at 4:10 am
Anonymous
Isn’t foreplay the part right before you get boned?
June 24th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Chris
The Internet treats ‘monopoly’ like any other form of damage; it routes round it. If Bill’s successor gets dominantly into the business of commercial operating systems, commercial applications for those operating systems, and commercial anti-ware to stop other stuff running, then the computer is pretty much useless to me as a tool. And I’ll have to start again without him.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Chris
Computer is a tool for me (if I pay its bills). If Microsoft want to insist what OS I run, what apps I run, and what software I don’t run, then I can’t give him permission to run his software at all.
Any chance he will detect ‘Hello World’ as a virus, and decline to run that one ?
June 24th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Rico
As a 25 year programmer, how many 50 billion line programs did you have to write and debug? It’s impossible to compare anything you’ve done in the past with an actual operating system. I’ve been programming for 12+ years and I’ll never match Microsoft for the sheer number of lines of code they’ve had to write for an operating system.
Taken into account the complexity of an O/S and the fact that it is installed on virtually all home computers out there (yes, there are about 5% MAC users and perhaps 1% Linux users for HOME use), it is by far the preferable choice of targets for virus makers. COMBINE that with the AVERAGE person’s ability to do normal updates and such, yes there will be more vulnerabilities since they do not apply patches.
Let’s be honest, Linus SUCKS for home use. Let’s play a game on Linux… you go ahead and select which of the 9 games to play that are playable on linux. Same thing with MAC.
I think the Mac is a much better o/s experience for home use, problem is that it is so friggen expensive compared to Windows… thus fewer people will want to get it. Couple that with the limited number of popular applications will further decrease the users. Yes, there are alternative but note I said popular… ie.. the ones advertised.
Rico
June 25th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Steve
Rico,
50 billion line program - do us a favour, you know it is not that large. Is you argument so week you need to begin it with a lie?
June 25th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Rico
My bad, it was 40 million lines of new code: http://blogs.msdn.com/philipsu/archive/2006/06/14/631438.aspx
As far as I am concerned, the rest of my argument is correct.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Steve
Your bad? Any compentent programmer would know billions of lines is ridiculous.
Another this a compentent programmer would know is that there are part of the code that are critical - care you esitimate how many lines are code are critical for security and how many are just for pointless eyecandy - think clippy type stuff.
You also give away the lie that you are a serious programmer if you can only use games as the reason for windows.
Even if you have been programming for 12 years then that does not mean you are any good - still being a programmer after 12 years is quite indicative that you are probably at or above your cabability limit
June 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Marc Holt
As I said before, I have written applications more than 15 years ago for companies that are still working today without _ever_ breaking down. When I asked the companies if they would like to upgrade to a Windows-based application for less money than they paid for the MS DOS program, they asked me why they would want to. As they said, if it ain’t broke why fix it? Can Bill Gates say that about _any_ of his programs?
The point is, it doesn’t matter how many lines of code (and one of my programs had over 5 million lines by the time I had finished), it IS possible to write programs that don’t break down.
I moved over to Linux about 8 years ago and the only Windows I run is on my notebook to do a couple of small things I can’t do in Linux. My entire office runs on Linux and my staff love it. They are all productive and _never_ have to worry about viruses or spy ware.
Linux is evolving and developing so fast it is running rings around M$. Since I started on Mandrake Linux v8, I have upgraded twice and now work in v10. When is Bill going to release his next upgrade?
The problem for Window$ is that it is based on the wrong architecture. Bill knows this, but he still insists that the next upgrade must be backward compatible. Wrong thinking IMHO. But what do I know? I am only a humble programmer who completes dozens of projects a year.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am
BJ
@Alex.
re: Predatory pricing
I think your predatory pricing argument’s a tough sell, for both consumers and regulators. But I’m dumbfounded that anybody would trust a company with such a laughable security record with… of all things… their security. I don’t get it.
re: “Today we have primarily MS SQL and Access…”
I use SQLite for desktop stuff, MySQL for servers. (I still crank up good ole FoxPro for one-on-one data processing.)
re: “Is a Microsoft-dominated security space healthy?”
Nope. This, too, shall pass.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Roughneck
Poor Steve. In flaming the other guy, reveals how little he really knows.
“Another this a compentent programmer would know is that there are part of the code that are critical - care you esitimate how many lines are code are critical for security and how many are just for pointless eyecandy - think clippy type stuff.”
You can introduce a double free attack vector in any area of code. There’s plenty of room for improvement in 45+ million lines of code and when it comes to security vectors, it’s all critical.
“You also give away the lie that you are a serious programmer if you can only use games as the reason for windows.”
I’m no apologist for Windows, but if 90+% of the market is using a particular platform, that’s where I’m going to write code for my little pgm. Trying to sell to 90% of the market is a whole lot more likely to produce $’s in my hand that selling to 10% of the market.
“Even if you have been programming for 12 years then that does not mean you are any good - still being a programmer after 12 years is quite indicative that you are probably at or above your cabability limit”
Dave Cutler has been writing code for how long now (30+ years) and ya’ know, I don’t see anyone calling into question his capability limit. Some people don’t see moving up the corporate ladder as advancement and would rather remain individual contributors. If you’re really, really good at something, why muck up your life doing something that you’re only medicore at? Be the best at what you do.
What happens when you have as many people as MS does working on a project the size of WinOS is same thing as the old cliche’ of too many cooks spoil the broth. www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/invitedtalks/lucovsky.ppt ,start w/ slide 9. If you don’t think this same sort of thing can’t happen in any other OS, you’re living in fantasyland.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:01 am
BJ
*Teaching Moment:* “David Neil Cutler, Sr. is a noted software engineer, designer and developer of several operating systems including the RSX-11, VMS and VAXELN systems of Digital Equipment Corporation and Windows NT from Microsoft.”
(http://www.answers.com/topic/dave-cutler)
Hi Roughneck.
re: “Some people don’t see moving up the corporate ladder as advancement and would rather remain individual contributors. If you’re really, really good at something, why muck up your life doing something that you’re only medicore at?”
Sometimes folks climb to keep their jobs. As Mark Zbikowski’s instant departure from Microsoft demonstrates, Time Doing Quality Work On The Job means nothing to some companies.
(http://www.trimmail.com/news/elsewhere/data/1151350089.25/)
re: “What happens when you have as many people as MS does working on a project the size of WinOS is same thing as the old cliche’ of too many cooks spoil the broth.”
Absolutely. And every “super cool” new feature brings with it new possibilities for more Windows security trouble.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
je.saist
um… Rico. You are aware that Michael Robertson’s Linspire and the purchasers of CorelLinux, Xandros, have each moved more retail Linux products than Apple Alone in 2003, 2004, and 2005. That’s just to the home market and ignores the other distrobutions like Red Hat (not fedora core), Mandrake, Mepis, and Ubuntu that move massive more amounts of boxed Linux products to Home users.
By your logic, if Apple has 5% integrated market share in the home market, given the boxed numbers shipped from those 6 distrobution manufacturers, Linux has at least a 20% home marketshare. That dovetails nicely with the estimated current market share of 75% for Windows..
oh wait, you didn’t realize that Microsoft ONLY has 75% AT MOST in the home market? Care to guess how many are Win9x systems AND NOT WinNT systems?
Shush Rico. All you do is prove you don’t know what you are talking about.