Pender's Blog

Blog archive

McAfee: Yeah, We're Angry, Too!

Symantec isn’t the only security vendor making noise about Microsoft participating in unfair business practices.

In other completely unsurprising but related news, Microsoft is appealing its raft of fines from the European Union.

Incidentally, a couple of good e-mails came in over the issue of Microsoft closing the Vista kernel and possibly making development harder for third parties like its security rivals.

Rocky, possibly out of breath from running up the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, says: "I've used Norton security for years and it runs like a dog. I think protecting the kernel is a good idea as with most 'real' operating systems."

Rees isn’t too happy, either:

"Symantec has been so focused on acquiring new companies that it has forgotten about its customers. Symantec Mail Security for Exchange (SMSME) version 5 is hideous. Version 4.5 and 4.6 were better. I have always assumed that it wants me to give up on SMSME and switch to Bright Mail, which costs more. The flagship product, Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition Version 10, kills performance when installed and no amount of excluding programs and tweaking seems to fix it. We have lived through numerous problems and updates to version 10. Each update requires a manual uninstall of the previous copy and a complete reinstall of the product. I have done both eTrust and Trend Micro installs lately and found that they are easier to use and don’t greatly impact performance. Don’t get me started on the equally hideous Backup Exec and its 'cosmetic errors' that seem to persist version to version. After years and years of Symantec loyalty, I am bailing out. The cost of researching new products and developing best practices for installation is a bitch, but I can’t install Symantec products and keep my customers happy."

Mark, on the other hand, has what sounds like a useful suggestion:

"IBM developed a way to do this at least two decades ago. The MVS OS used to be open. IBM eventually closed it by going to OCO (object code only). However, users still legitimately require a process to handle exceptions, modify responses, etc. What IBM did was publish 'exit' points, locations in the code where you could insert your modification and then return control to the OS. Of course different exit points related to different OS functions, so there were limits to what each exit could accomplish. Thus IBM kept control of the OS, prevented indiscriminate hacking and still allowed users to enhance or customize the OS. Perhaps some similar process would satisfy both sides to the open/closed debate on any OS."

Perhaps, Mark. Perhaps.

Thanks to all for your contribution. Keep those thoughts pouring in at lpender@rcpmag.com.

Posted by Lee Pender on 10/03/2006 at 1:19 PM


Featured

  • Gears

    Top 10 Microsoft Tips and Analyses of 2018

    Here are the year's most popular explainers and how-to columns -- along with some plain, old "Why did Microsoft do that?" musings thrown in.

  • Sign

    2018 Microsoft Predictions Revisited

    From guessing the fate of Windows 10 S to predicting Microsoft's next big move with Linux, Brien's predictions from a year ago were on the mark more than they weren't.

  • Microsoft Recaps Delivery Optimization Bandwidth Controls for Organizations

    Microsoft expects organizations using its Delivery Optimization peer-to-peer update scheme will optimally see 60 percent to 70 percent improvements in terms of network bandwidth use.

  • Getting a Handle on Hyper-V Virtual NICs

    Hyper-V usually makes it easy to configure virtual network adapters within VMs. That is, until you need to create a VM containing multiple virtual NICs.

comments powered by Disqus
Most   Popular

Office 365 Watch

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.