Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The Microsoft Protection Racket

Filed under
Microsoft

Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell "protection"? Is Frank Nitti the new CEO?

So what is actually going on here? I think there were some bottom-line questions that must have been brought up internally. Obviously someone at Microsoft looked at the expense of "patch Tuesday" and asked, "Is there any way we can make some money with all these patches?" The answer was "Yeah, let's stop doing them and sell 'protection' instead." Bravo! And now the company has a new revenue stream.

Microsoft has stayed away from the antivirus, antispyware game for a long time because it knew that there was this inherent conflict of interest unless it gave away such software for free. After all, the exploits utilized by malware are possible because of flaws within the Microsoft code base. There is no incentive to fix the code base if it can make additional money selling "protection."

Microsoft talks about how when it releases Vista, there will be various versions such as Home, Small Business, Enterprise, and so on. Why doesn't the company just bite the bullet and bring out various exploitable versions? Here are some suggestions:
Vista - Won't Boot Edition… $29.95
Vista - Preloaded with Viruses and Spyware Edition… $39.95
Vista - Initially Clean but Use at Your Own Risk Edition… $49.95
Vista - Clean with Firewall and Weekly Protection Update Edition… $200

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

more of today's howtos

Leftovers: OSS and Sharing

Microsoft Begs, Bugs, and Bug Doors

  • Don't install our buggy Windows 10 Creators Update, begs Microsoft
    Microsoft has urged non-tech-savvy people – or anyone who just wants a stable computer – to not download and install this year's biggest revision to Windows by hand. And that's because it may well bork your machine. It's been two weeks since Microsoft made its Creators Update available, and we were previously warned it will be a trickle-out rather than a massive rollout. Now, Redmond has urged users to stop manually fetching and installing the code, and instead wait for it to be automatically offered to your computer when it's ready.
  • Microsoft Word flaw took so long to fix that hackers used it to send fraud software to millions of computers
    A flaw in Microsoft Word took the tech giant so long to fix that hackers were able to use it to send fraud software to millions of computers, it has been revealed. The security flaw, officially known as CVE-2017-0199, could allow a hacker to seize control of a personal computer with little trace, and was fixed on April 11 in Microsoft's regular monthly security update - nine months after it was discovered.

FOSS Licensing (and Lack Thereof)

  • Portugal to harmonise usability of govt portals
    All of the code, information and tools are made available for reuse.
  • JRC: ‘Releasing code without a licence hinders reuse’
    Projects that publish source code without a licence weaken the reusability of their code, warns Stefano Gentile, a copyright and trademark specialist working for the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Currently just 20 % of all projects published on GitHub, one of the most popular source code sharing platforms, have selected a licence for their work - down from about 60% in 2008, Gentile said, quoting numbers published in 2015 by GitHub.
  • React to React
    The Additional Grant of Patent Rights is a patent license grant that includes certain termination criteria. These termination criteria are not entirely unprecedented when you look at the history of patent license provisions in OSI-approved licenses, but they are certainly broader than the termination criteria [or the equivalent] in several familiar modern licenses (the Apache License 2.0, EPL, MPL 2.0, and GPLv3).
  • BetConstruct declares the source code for its front-end as open source
    The project is distributed under MIT license.