I've been meaning to create a thread about this for a while.
Recently, Google and numerous antivirus companies have filed lawsuits against Microsoft for including features that are included in third party products. The rationale is that, by including new features in Vista, the markets for their particular products will no longer exist and it is an unfair and monopolistic tactic. The neckbeards on Slashdot largely concur because they are all very stupid people.
Here's the deal:
In the antivirus vendors' case, they lobbied in Europe because the "closed API" made it difficult or impossible for an AV product to work. See, Norton is basically a virus, right? In order to do its typical halfassed job at scanning for viruses it modifies the kernel. Super. The problem is, Vista added features to prevent all kinds of malware (including norton) from doing that: Kernel Patch Protection randomizes the ABI and all kernel code must be signed.
So the antivirus companies lobbied in Europe to get Microsoft to change it, because the EU is run by really dumb people who don't quite understand technology. So Microsoft settled, and removed those key security features from the x86 (but not x86-64) versions of Vista. It's not like Vista prevents antivirus software from running - just poorly written AV software like Norton and PCillin and other consumer-level worthless garbage, and Norton is a bad, cheap, incompetent company that would rather litigate than fix their broken code.
Google's case is even more retarded than that. They're suing Microsoft for including search in the OS. What the hell? Hey, if Google's desktop search actually offered anything over Microsoft's built-in search (it doesn't) maybe people would use it anyway? This is like those sobbing infants at Netscape and Real who used to whine and cry and sniffle about IE and Windows Media Player being bundled with Windows. Well golly gee, I don't know about anybody else but I'd never buy an OS that came with no media player or web browser (that at the very least you need in order to download Firefox). And RealPlayer? Spyware and telephone-quality sound. Amazing.
The reason I'm posting this thread is mainly because of one astoundingly stupid comment on Slashdot. It talked about how Microsoft has "always" crushed the little guy, and then brought up how Microsoft destroyed this third party drive compression software by adding DriveSpace to MS-DOS.
How ****ing stupid do people have to be? Are we really criticizing a company for making their software better?
Hey, I have a great idea! Let's expand this idea to cover all markets!
Car manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to install antitheft devices because the police will have less business! The new antiscratch coating on HD-DVDs should be illegal because it's stealing business from disc resurfacing companies! Economics should be banned because it's stealing precious collection money from the churches!
Let's all agree to protect stupid, niche markets formed around the flaws in other products by never ever improving anything ever again!
Recently, Google and numerous antivirus companies have filed lawsuits against Microsoft for including features that are included in third party products. The rationale is that, by including new features in Vista, the markets for their particular products will no longer exist and it is an unfair and monopolistic tactic. The neckbeards on Slashdot largely concur because they are all very stupid people.
Here's the deal:
In the antivirus vendors' case, they lobbied in Europe because the "closed API" made it difficult or impossible for an AV product to work. See, Norton is basically a virus, right? In order to do its typical halfassed job at scanning for viruses it modifies the kernel. Super. The problem is, Vista added features to prevent all kinds of malware (including norton) from doing that: Kernel Patch Protection randomizes the ABI and all kernel code must be signed.
So the antivirus companies lobbied in Europe to get Microsoft to change it, because the EU is run by really dumb people who don't quite understand technology. So Microsoft settled, and removed those key security features from the x86 (but not x86-64) versions of Vista. It's not like Vista prevents antivirus software from running - just poorly written AV software like Norton and PCillin and other consumer-level worthless garbage, and Norton is a bad, cheap, incompetent company that would rather litigate than fix their broken code.
Google's case is even more retarded than that. They're suing Microsoft for including search in the OS. What the hell? Hey, if Google's desktop search actually offered anything over Microsoft's built-in search (it doesn't) maybe people would use it anyway? This is like those sobbing infants at Netscape and Real who used to whine and cry and sniffle about IE and Windows Media Player being bundled with Windows. Well golly gee, I don't know about anybody else but I'd never buy an OS that came with no media player or web browser (that at the very least you need in order to download Firefox). And RealPlayer? Spyware and telephone-quality sound. Amazing.
The reason I'm posting this thread is mainly because of one astoundingly stupid comment on Slashdot. It talked about how Microsoft has "always" crushed the little guy, and then brought up how Microsoft destroyed this third party drive compression software by adding DriveSpace to MS-DOS.
How ****ing stupid do people have to be? Are we really criticizing a company for making their software better?
Hey, I have a great idea! Let's expand this idea to cover all markets!
Car manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to install antitheft devices because the police will have less business! The new antiscratch coating on HD-DVDs should be illegal because it's stealing business from disc resurfacing companies! Economics should be banned because it's stealing precious collection money from the churches!
Let's all agree to protect stupid, niche markets formed around the flaws in other products by never ever improving anything ever again!