I'm interested in the Vista security flap going on right now in which Vista is a) taking a new design tack (reminiscent of Linux's and the BSDs' separation of kernel and user space); and b) muscling aside McAfee, Symantec and other 3rd-party security vendors.
What intrigues me is that, security-wise, XP + anit-virus protection (more or less) = Vista with Microsoft's own security features. There is no energy loss to the system and, even more important, no energy gain. Just a lot of excuses to upgrade for no reason. The disruption of change alone should rightly keep adoption of Vista at bay. And what, are we to trust Microsoft as the new high-water mark in security? Microsoft over McAfee or Symantec?
What's more, if Microsoft does security right this time, there should be no money in the Windows (in)security industry left for anybody...least of all Microsoft.
Someone needs to tell me just what is the business proposition of Vista? What, please? To have something approximating OS X -- but not -- on all the desktops in the Global 2000?
It's a $50 Billion jerk-off.
CIOs adopting Vista better have a better excuse than their CEO's admiration for the Philanthropist of the Year.
Comments