Money first, secure software next (or maybe never)

So, the security software makers such as F-Secure, McAfee, etc are unhappy about Microsoft Vista. In fact, they are so unhappy that they published a one full page ad in Financial Times (www.ft.com) stating that Microsoft Vista poses security risks. Their claim is that a single company like Microsoft cannot be trusted to protect 95% of the Desktop PCs which are out there in the world running Windows OS. Anti-virus software producers such as themselves should be given the opportunity to protect

Microsoft has apparently strengthened the Kernel in Vista. It is now harder (if not impossible) for anybody to fiddle with the Kernel. These changes (for the better in my opinion) hits the Anti-virus software market because Vista would probably not need Anti-virus software, at least not right from the start.

Strange world this. The "protectors" such as McAfee want Microsoft to write up flawed or weak Operating Systems so that there are viruses and worms out there that can exploit these flaws. These "protectors" would then sweep in, at a considerable cost of course, and protect us from these viruses, worms and what not. Its tempting to think that the "protectors" might be the ones creating these viruses in the first place.

One more reason for me to be happy with Mac OS X :) Although this one is a bit bizzare.