backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 14 at 10:31 PM

The EU calls for Microsoft to remove security features from Vista

It looks as though Microsoft and European regulators are butting heads once again. The European Union is asking Microsoft to remove new security features, including its improved built-in firewall, that have been added to Vista. Microsoft is urging the European to back off and has threatened to delay Vista’s European launch as a result of the latest calls for feature reductions. The new features, which make Vista a more stable and secure platform that its Windows XP predecessor, are seen as a stifling competition. "Less diversity and innovation would ultimately harm consumers through reduced choice and higher security risks," said Jonathon Todd, an EU competition spokesman.

Microsoft's Associate General Counsel, Erich Andersen, is trying to help the software giant walk the line balancing security with abiding by the law. "We are concerned that [regulators] might require the removal of some of the security features we've demonstrated. We want to launch Windows Vista in a fully lawful manner and we want to avoid regulatory decisions that could increase security risks for European consumers. One of principal concerns is that European concerns have access to the same new security features in Windows Vista as everyone else."

Making Windows more secure was a pivotal design point for Windows Vista. The Windows XP operating system has been the target of numerous attacks in the past five years and Microsoft saw fit to make its consumer operating system less of a target. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the European Union wants the company to leave those duties to 3rd party software developers.

Microsoft was fined $634 million USD in 2004 by the European Union for monopolistic practices and was fined another $357 million USD this past July for not complying with antitrust rulings.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: an idea
By Webgod on 9/14/2006 10:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
>In what way was invading Iraq or Afganistan morally right?
Afganistan was home to Al-Qaida and it needed "cleaning house", especially to prevent further attacks. Besides, the Taliban sells opium non-stop. In Iraq you had a corrupt regime that was contributing to destabilizing the region, and a leader using its wealth to help to do so. Saddam needed to go. He was also taking all the wealth and holding the populace back. The populace was incapable of overthrowing the regime, so it had to be changed by force. Now there are a bunch of homocidal/suicidal crazies, and they aren't the coalition people that are there!

>the only country in the world to have ever actually *used* weapons of mass destruction is the US, and they were both on civilian targets!
That's really colored. That's hyperbole. You mean nukes? Nukes were used long ago, and it caused Japan to surrender, and they're a far superior nation now for it. But go back to your history class.

>And just so we're clear on this, by what right are *you* allowed nukes, but no one else is?
Sure, nukes for everyone. Nukes on the house. Just let me escape off into a fully colonized Mars base first. The US invented nuclear technology, it's the progress of science and technology. We also require nuclear weapons as a deterrent because aggressive nations like China and formerly the Soviet Union had them. India and Pakistan have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but they haven't been stupid enough to get mad enough to use them on each other. It's a lose-lose for India because fallout in Pakistan would drift westward and harm India anyway.

>Then you have Quantanamo Bay
Interrogating those prisoners has saved numerous lives in the civilized world. They were killers. They're not out killing causing problems while they're there.

>Two world wars made you into a super power, so you still see it as a more viable solution.
Go back and read your history. You don't have as much insight into the US government as you think.

>War is not the answer, violence solves nothing, it just causes further antagonises the situation, but that seems to be an alien concept on the other side of the pond.
Pacifism is an ideal we all dream of, but aggression comes out of our animalistic nature. You have to be a realist. You also have to thank the U.S. for having the bravery to end WWII. But what the hell kind of sense is there in a suicide bomber? Try, I dare ya to blame the U.S. for the whole 'murdering innocents makes me go to heaven' mentality.

Keep continuing your education on world affairs, but I would be more skeptical of anti-American biased propaganda. You might learn something from Bush's speeches which are all available at WhiteHouse.Gov.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles
EU Fines Microsoft $357 Million
July 12, 2006, 7:28 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki