Newsmaker: Symantec CEO says no Vista for me

(continued from previous page)

You've said that managing user identities is one of the most pressing challenges that face enterprises today. You've said that identity management is in an area where Symantec might acquire a company. Where are you at when it comes to that?
Thompson: Identity management has to be parsed based upon whose identity you are trying to protect. At the corporate level, there is no shortage of solutions that corporations have tried to deploy for years to solve this identity management problem, so I just don't think that's an area where Symantec should expend its resources.

However, on the consumer side, I think there is more that Symantec can do with its broad consumer client footprint that would allow us to deliver an identity management solution that would give consumers confidence in their online experience. So we'll concentrate there.

It seems that your position on identity management has changed.
Thompson: Yes, a year or so ago we were really studying the opportunity, and we looked long and hard at what our entry point would be. And we looked at a number of technologies that we had in our own portfolio or things that we could acquire, and when we kind of stepped away from it and did the customer validation side, what customers said was, look, we already have something, we haven't fully deployed it, we haven't deployed it because the management of the key infrastructure around identities is so complex, and so we don't need help there at all.

Yet when you go and you ask consumers: "What are you worried about?" They're worried about phishing, identity theft, online fraud, all things that are undermining their confidence in doing more and more online. So we think there's a place where we can make a difference.

Video: Symantec holding off on identity management
Security giant elaborates on new business strategy

At the Demo conference recently you showed off an early version of a product called Norton Identity Manager. What is the purpose of that product?
Thompson: The Norton Identity Client is focused on the idea of helping a consumer have, let's say, single-use credit card numbers where they can go to an online site, facilitate a transaction, but not have to worry about having their credentials visible to the world at large. It's a one-time use phenomenon. Or being able to validate a site as being a legitimate site, knowing that the bank or the e-tailer that I'm interacting with is who I thought I was interacting with.

When I read some of the description of Norton Identity Manager it also made me think of Microsoft Passport. You suggest people use their Norton accounts to pay for online shopping, for example. Passport failed. Is Norton Identity Manager different?
Thompson: Well, there may be some techniques and technologies that are similar, but I think there are two fundamental things that are different. One, it's a different moment in time. When Microsoft attempted Passport the market wasn't quite ready for that. People didn't perceive that there was a problem that needed to be solved by Microsoft. Two, and perhaps more important, they didn't trust the company that wanted to offer the solution. So technology without trust is going to flounder, and that's what essentially happened with Passport.

You just ended a disappointing quarter, yet your consumer business appears to be very strong. How come that's going gangbusters?
Thompson: We've always had a view that it's always difficult to compete with Microsoft's marketing. It's much easier to compete with their products, and I think that's reflected in the performance of Norton Internet Security in the marketplace right now. It's a terrific product and it's cleaning Microsoft's clock around the world as well as others in the industry as well.

You've mentioned Microsoft as one of the big guns and you've also said Oracle, IBM, EMC, Cisco have all awoken to the reality that security is an essential element of today's business. Do you have any fear that any of these big guys are going to take your business?
Thompson: Fear? We are fearless at Symantec! The notion that somebody who doesn't have the same experience that we have, that doesn't have the same human capital invested in the security world that we do, doesn't have the strength of its relationship with customers and partners around the world, or doesn't have the technology portfolio that we do, can come in and take this away from us--I don't think that's the case, and therefore there's no reason for us to be fearful of anyone. If anything, we need to sharpen our own execution to make sure that our missteps don't create openings or opportunities for competitors that we created as opposed to they created.  

More Newsmakers

[mrstwin2]

Failure of Symantic

Mr. Thompson's comment "Consumers should not be confused. Vista is not a security solution. Vista is an operating system, and Vista provides some very important advances from Microsoft's perspective and for the industry's point of view on building a more stable, more reliable, more secure operating platform, but people still need the efficacy that comes with the products that Symantec and others in the industry build, and so we should not be confused by the marketing rhetoric with what Vista is. It's a hopefully much better product than XP or any of it's predecessors, but it's not a security solution." shows the ignorance that Symantic has been showing the last few years. I find that Symantic products are bloated and require way too much overhead from the computer. By switching to MS One Care, I get the same protection but with 75% less overhead.

I don't think that Mr. Thompson really cares about Vista, only selling his product and him coming out against upgrading to Vista shows that Symantic has a very narrow vision and cannot be trusted to secure computers in the future. This can be seen on their own website where they have a Vista upgrade. I think that Mr. Thompson is being dishonest in telling people not to upgrade but then selling the upgrade on his own website.

[Macsaresafer]

By switching to Mac OS X or Linux, you'd get

much better protection with 100% less overhead and 100% lower
cost! There is no need for Symantec's software or MS One Care if
the OS isn't Swiss cheese. Sure, no OS is 100% secure, but
nothing in the real world is 100% secure either. Just as in the
real world, an OS can be secure enough that you don't need to
hire extra security guards. That's the difference between other
OSes and Windows when it comes to security.

What it comes down to is that if you really cared about your
security, you wouldn't be running Windows.

[ragnaroker]

Even One Care's beta worked better than Symantec

When testing the beta version of One Care, I ran both Symantec and One Care on a computer I knew had viruses. Symantec found 3. One Care beta found 14. Problems much?

Another great virus protection program (at least, according to a tech geek friend of mine...) is Zone Alarm. He told me it worked better than the other two, but I've not tested it for myself.

[ragnaroker]

Even One Care's beta worked better than Symantec

When testing the beta version of One Care, I ran both Symantec and One Care on a computer I knew had viruses. Symantec found 3. One Care beta found 14. Problems much?

Another great virus protection program (at least, according to a tech geek friend of mine...) is Zone Alarm (or Zone Alert). He told me it worked better than the other two, but I've not tested it for myself.

[dondarko]

see

I gave up on Symantec years ago and I have been using Avast Home Edition, which is free by the way, for 4 years now. It catches stuff that Norton neglected while I still had it and it catches stuff like candy. Symantec, McAfee and other products are bloated and don't offer much protection. Luckily there are other choices such as Avast and Kaspersky.

[Silver_2000]

Have to remove Norton all the time - broken - bloated

I have had to remove Norton from 80+% percent of PCs it?s installed on. It slows them down tremendously; it has a tendency to block ports and access with NO notifications. And the uninstall is broken so you have to use the online tools to rip it out.

Its a bad sign when the software is written so poorly that it slows the PC by 50%, its broken on BRAND new PCs that its preinstalled on and the uninstall is so broken that they have dozens of support articles about how to remove their product.

And we haven't even covered the dozens of failures described in articles here on CNet - the times when Norton Antivirus executed the virus it was supposed to clean etc etc

http://news.com.com/Flaw+found+in+Symantec+business+antivirus+software/2100-1002_3-6077616.html?tag=nefd.top

"Versions of Symantec's antivirus business security software contain a flaw that could put millions of computers at risk of a crippling worm attack, Internet experts warned on Friday.

December 21 2005

From http://news.com.com/High+risk+in+Symantec+antivirus+software+flaw/2100-1002_3-6004097.html?tag=nefd.top

Symantec's antivirus software contains a vulnerability that could be exploited by a malicious hacker to take control of a system, the company said late Tuesday.

September 1 2005

From http://news.com.com/Symantec+probes+report+of+antivirus+product+flaw/2100-1002_3-5845873.html

Symantec is investigating a report of a weakness in the way its corporate antivirus software stores login credentials, the security vendor said on Wednesday.

August 15 2005

From http://news.com.com/Another+flaw+hits+Veritas+backup+tools/2100-7349_3-5833857.html

( Symantec owns Veritas )

A security vulnerability in Veritas backup products could put corporate networks at risk of cyberattack.

By exploiting the flaw, an attacker could get remote access and download arbitrary files, the software maker said in an advisory released on Friday. Symantec last month closed its acquisition of Veritas.

June 30th 2005

From http://news.com.com/Attackers+target+Veritas+security+hole/2100-7349_3-5770428.html

( Symantec owns Veritas )

A security flaw in a Veritas Software backup tool is being exploited to attack corporate systems, the U.S. watchdog for Internet threats has warned.

March 30 2005

From http://news.com.com/Symantec+details+flaws+in+its+antivirus+software/2100-1002_3-5646871.html

Symantec has reported glitches in its antivirus software that could allow hackers to launch denial-of-service attacks on computers running the applications.

Feb 10 2005

From http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39180674,00.htm

Symantec has issued a patch for a flaw in its scanning software that could cause a virus to run, rather than catch it.

Jan 13 2004

http://news.com.com/Symantec+slams+the+door+on+LiveUpdate+flaw/2100-1029_3-5140165.html

Security company Symantec, developer of the popular Norton AntiVirus software, fixed a problem in its LiveUpdate feature last week--a vulnerability that could allow malicious users to gain unauthorized administrator access rights to an affected PC.

Not the kind of record I want to see from MY Security company

And finally the link to the a Symantec uninstall that lists the manual uninstall for nearly 30 of their products
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/ppfdocs/2004040815371048

Do any of the Norton Uninstalls work ??

[ordaj]

Agreed

Trying to be too many things to too many people. Bascially, feature creep to satisfy their revenue needs.

[rapier1]

Biased much?

Maybe he isn't in a rush to upgrade because symantec doesn't
have a Vista product yet. I am *sure* once he has a Vista product
he'll be shouting from the rooftops how everyone should switch.

As far as security goes. If you aren't an idiot you *won't* have
problems. The biggest problem are people installing
*everything* that comes at them. "Oh this web site I've never bee
to and is trying to sell me ***** enhancement pills wants me to
install something? OK! Lets do it!"

Fools.

[bettencourtt]

Remember, folks, they WANTED a weaker OS

Remember when they, along with McAfee, wanted MS to WEAKEN it's security features? They wanted the ability to turn off whatever security features they wanted programmatically. (Which would also allow a virus to, as well, thus, justifying their continued existence.)

Maybe he refuses to upgrade because he knows he can't just call the MS Firewall and Security Center "redundant" and turn it off WITHOUT your permission, all the while insisting that MS needs to give consumers a "choice." Boo hoo, hoo.

Maybe they ought to fix their own product before trashing someone else's.

I'm an IT pro, have been several years, and I love Vista. It's a bit bloated, admittedly, but I like User Account Control. I like that I am ASKED when something wants to install or run itself, or change my settings, etc, etc. Let me decide. Heck, this will eliminate a large contingent of viruses and spyware that are installed without permission. Oh, no, less justification for Symantec, right?

[Mister Winky]

Symantec: don't believe MS hype, believe OUR hype!

Really, Vista is not secure because Symantec isn't running it. And when Symantec does move to Vista (and they will), Vista will be secure...as long as you also buy the Norton 360 All-In-One Security Anti-Everything 2007 package for $199 plus a $79 annual fee.

And when Symantec announces their next security flaw which allows attackers to take direct control of their software, but not the entire OS this time around (because of the locked down Vista kernel Symnatec FOUGHT AGAINST out of self-interest), you will have to ask yourself:

Am I running version 11.5.7B Build 6905 or version 11.5.8C Build 6917? And why isn't the version I'm running mentioned ANYWHERE in Symantec's online documentation? And why don't their awful tech support people even recognize the build I'm running? And why do they always ask me to upgrade my product to the latest version (when the one I'm running is only 3 months old) before providing any technical assistance?

Sound familiar yet? Symantec, you've dug your own grave, now lie in it. Don't blame MS for your shoddy software, insufficient support and horrific licensing schemes.

-Mister Winky

[unknown unknown]

Symmantec's products are terrible

Norton Internet Security is bloated, intrusive, and cause more problems than it fixes. In an effort to justify it's existance it continually annoys you with alerts. With the exception of 2003 copy of Norton Ghost I've given up on their products.
Despite his claims of experience and investment there are much better and cheaper products out there that don't slow your system down and bother you with trivial junk every 10 seconds. Since they aquired the Norton suite, it's gone down hill with every release.

Microsoft's One Care despite a few bugs is immensely superior to Symmantec's product. Right now I am using NOD32, which is better than both IMO.

[alegr]

Ghost

Ghost is not even Norton's/Symantec's product - they bought it.

[alegr]

Ghost

Ghost is not even Norton's/Symantec's product - they bought it.

[qwerty75]

If MS wasn' dog crap

Then companies like Symantec wouldn't exist in the first place.

That an OS in 2007 still needs anti-virus and anti-spyware is shameful.

[Lindy01]

That you

need a car or house alarm, a lock on your doors.......is shamful in 2007.

[mxrss]

The Problem with the OS

its not the OS its the user, oh great unix nerd how many people do you have running on root on your system. I would bet none, how many people would be running as root if they had thier own system at home, probably almost everyone. Security, is not only a problem of the vendor but it is also the problem of the user. Inform the user that running at a lower level, greatly decreases the chance for infection, I am not saying its bullet proof. But it is naieve to say to change the OS, its not 1998 and we are not talking about windows 98. We are talking about windows NT, XP and Vista all come from the NT family, have the same NT like features and are alot more secure when protected.

Oh yeah, last i check there is a update for almost every major version OS of linux a day. MS has really gone a long way to make this version secure, but people have to choose, do you want a computer that works or do you want a computer that is secure. You can not have both. You have to choose, do you want it to ask you to allow it or do you just want it to seamlessly allow it?

-Mike

[Christopher Hall]

If you recall...

If you think back to the late 90s and pre-OSX years, you'll recall that Mac OS was riddled with viruses and trojan horses. I had my PowerBook scan nightly with Norton and found more viruses on that machine than I have ever found on my Windows boxes. In the years of the fledgling internet, it seemed that no one was truly safe, but all I know is that my Mac was constantly under threat.

Apple did a wonderful thing by scrapping the old code and migrating to OSX. But it's important to keep in perspective how many people they inconvenienced. Apple's customers, for the most part, don't particularly mind being jerked around by Apple (funny thing, that). Microsoft doesn't really have the luxury to scrap the code and start fresh, though. Look at how bent out of shape people get when 3DMark scores are off by 3% for an OS migration. Now imagine the outcry of over a billion computer users that now have to emulate every program they've accumulated over the last 15 years.

[Razzl]

Revealing where the flaws lie

It's acceptable for a home user to say that they aren't using Vista because XP works fine for them, but totally unacceptable for the CEO of a company whose sole purpose is to provide software security products which will run as accessories to the OS. If I were in his position I would want to know intimately how Vista behaves and get to know it very well down to the last detail; I would have my desktop running XP and Vista on the same machine so I can compare their behavior on demand. Lack of intellectual curiousity is a form of blindness that cripples every enterprise infected with it.

Lack of intellectual curiousity may explain why he seems not to be able to accurately describe just what the nature of the security issues are for his market and how to address them. People are not having difficulties with online verification of their own identities, which is done by the host software and doesn't involve their client software; what they are having trouble with is judging the validity of the sites they have accessed. Since Microsoft has built antiphishing evaluation into the browser, virus detection and firewalling should remain Norton's core concern. Neither Norton nor Microsoft is ever going to achieve the holy grail of big subscription dollars for services people believe should come built into their initial investment, no matter how worried they profess to be about security...

[alegr]

He's a salesman

You want too much of a marketroid. He's not an engineer or programmer, or an expert whatsoever. Lack of intellectual curiosity, that tells it. He would not just "want to know intimately how Vista behaves and get to know it very well down to the last detail", he just might not be able to do that.

[Shutter01]

Symantec, uh, no more

These comments from Symantec managent/leadership are totally consistent with the awful customer and product performance service I've had from Symantec. Oh, and by the way, Kaspersky works so much better than NAV.

[Andrew Sutherland]

Let me think about this for 1.2 seconds

Hmm. CEO of Symantec, says (and I quote):

"but people still need the efficacy that comes with the products that Symantec and others in the industry build"

Of COURSE he's against promoting Vista. If Vista is 1% more secure than XP, that means he could lose business from people not buying the bloated crap they call an A/V.

Common - look at the context here. If Vista meant it was less secure and you'd HAVE to buy an A/V, then I'm sure he'd be very supportive of it.




SIGH

[extinctone]

That would be true IF...

Vista security wasn't just a load of hot air. In reality, Vista users are going to have to make the same choice that XP users did: run under reduced permissions, and run into endless problems because of it, or run under elevated permissions and open the system to attack. Vista users are going to need 3rd party security every bit as much as XP users.

[graupma]

misguided security

Microsoft and Symantec should take a look in the mirror and start addressing the problem where it starts.
On the internet itself.
ANY intrusion from outside the U.S. should have to go through rigorous tests before being allowed in to travel to any website; business or personal computer, etc.

I recognise that to be profitable, companies in the security field feel that its important to develop personal and business software to protect them. What this is duplicates itself millions of times, when ONE EFFORT by these companies and our government could solve the problem.

I use NORTON software, only because it has caught numerous attacks on my computers. It is also the quickest and most reliable system I use to stop spam, and e-mail attacks.

Price is no object when my security is at stake.
All you need is to have your computer system invaded by terrorists or spammers or identity thieves, and it is so devastating, that you never let it happen again.
Thank my lucky stars that I have backup software, as this has happened to me in the past.


alg
los angeles

[Andrew Sutherland]

USA?

"ANY intrusion from outside the U.S. should have to go through rigorous tests before being allowed in to travel to any website; business or personal computer, etc."

Because intrusions or virii are not from the USA? Give me a break!!! That's the most prejudice nationalism comment I've read in a long time.

[mxrss]

What??

Maybe while that is happening we should allow the goverment to inspect every piece of email and have exclusive access to our email. Because god knows that the terrorist have not heard of encyrption.

Maybe we can also allow the president to read our email, or how bout the US Goverment takes care of all our computing needs even can restrict which websites we visit. Get off the net! your embarasing people who understand the term of "Goverment, Hands OFF!"

Oh maybe we can have it like china that if we look up the word think, or democracy or "the executive branch sucks" we can imprisioned for a undetermined amount of time.


Sounds like a neophyte. I seriously hope you do not run the computing stations of any lan, wan or man.

Norton != a good a/v product

long live Nod32!

[Heebee Jeebies]

How come they...

Never ask the people at Symantec why Norton's products suck. Why Norton Anti-Virus is so slow to scan hard drives, why it sucks the life and resources out of our PC's. Why each upgrade is nothing more than a new year date, new interface and so little else. Why Norton didn't catch 10 viruses on my system but PC-Cillin, Kaspersky and ohters did. Why one of those viruses was able to de-activate Norton so that it wouldn't even work and their tech support people couldn't fix it so I could re-activate it and remove the virus.

Why don't these news people actually ask the hard questions instead of playing footsies with them. Why?

Robert

[bobby_brady]

Symantec = Bloatware

I haven't used Symantec products in a while. XP SP2 and esp Vista are secure enough without having to add Symantec bloatware. These programs slow my computer down to a crawl. They're a joke. Of course the Symantec idiots want you to believe you still need their bloated programs.

[OneWithTech]

How Funny Is This?

A top official at Symantec not upgrading to Vista! Yet the very company He works for creates security software for Microsoft OS's extensively for many years now.

So with his mindset of the insecurities of Microsoft frome Symantecs top guy; combined with his own companies insecurities; maybe an Apple Network is in need for my clients companies?

Something every great IT manager should be thinking of.....how much will it cost me to convert my Network to Apple based products. You know, products that are secure with a company known for it's analistic approach to security and technology.

Imaging knowing that your company is being protected every day and every night and not securing it's spotlight on how INSECURE it [Microsoft OS's as well as Symantec] is on CNET NEWS.

www.Apple.com

See what Steve can do for YOU!

Justin
Tech01.net

[csturdivant]

Reread the quote

Reread the quote genius, he is talking about the PC that he uses at work. The PC that he uses is different from machines used in their labs for development and testing, and some of those machines will have Vista as well as other operating systems on it that they are developing software for. So quick to bash, but nowhere near being able to quite grasp the topic on hand.

[Lindy01]

Nice

time to wake up now oh GREAT IT MANAGER and go back to work on your MS systems.

If your sys admins are doing the job you are paying them to do, MS products are just as safe as any other.

[mxrss]

WHat???

so when it breaks, will steve fix it?

spoken like a true zealot, unfortunatly if you have to run real bussiness apps then i doubt you will be able to get them to work i am talking ERP, how many ERP suite's will run on a apple, i know webclients will but what about rich clients. Give me a break.

Your right, at 1000$ a piece or more for an apple when a 300$ thin client will do i will be giving my staff all the necessary power, to do spreadsheets. I think people need to go back to the terminal/terminal server days, because they type of CPU power for a spread sheet is just rediculous only true computing pro's, engineers and anyone that needs alot of cpu power really needs a thick book.

- Mike

[Sir Limey]

What change to Apple???

Let me see, I'm running 15 servers 15T of storage
MS2000 and 2003 Enterprise servers run antivirus and firewalls, take online payments and data transfers from major banks and haven't had a virus or DOS yet! But just in case I should switch to Apple who have little or no enterprise hardware, software or support, few 3 rd party vendors who handle large scale data mining or imaging projects
and pay the Premium price for hardware to boot!!
What a wonderfull way to blow my budget for the next 5 years!

[J_Satch]

Funny...

...how the Mac faithful think everyone should switch to Mac, on one hand, but don't want Mac to be anything but a niche company on the other. Apple is simply to small to be a major player in the industry. And if they grew to the size necessary to do so, there is no doubt their customer service would suffer, just like all the other players have.

[Stating]

MS Pushing Vista Down People's Throats

Regardless of what you think about Symantec, there isn't really much freedom from MS now that they are pushing their bloated Vista OS on consumers. A lot of folks like myself would prefer to buy new computers with XP rather than Vista given it's smaller memory/disk footprint, but have little choice now. I use 3rd party security tools on XP and it is plenty secure. Heck, even Widnows 2000 is still a decent, useable product, and it runs even faster, with a smaller footprint than XP does.

[mxrss]

A company that wants you to buy its product hum?

People do understand two things,

one there are a company and when you make a product you want to make money off it.

You have a choice, linux, unix, mac and older versions of windows will run. Windows 2000 and XP will both run the new office suite and no one will really force you to upgrade, But MS does not want to keep maintaining old products, and why should they. If they maintained every os, then hell we could still all run off of 3.1 and have the features of xp. j/k

the point is you have a choice, as long as you have old media you can install the OS of your choice. No one is forcing anything on you.

- Mike

[DrakeLoneStar]

MS isn't forcing anyone to do anything

I am so sick of hearing people say "MS is forcing me to buy Vista!!! - waahhhhhH!!!!"

Cmon - MS released a new product, and the PC mfgrs WANT to sell Vista because it's a new shiny product and that's what people want to buy!

Note that MS *still* sells XP (both oem and retail), and PC mfgrs can choose whatever they want to offer. Please remember that it was the PC manufacturers that got all upset with MS because they missed the holiday season with Vista.

So please stop this nonsense about MS forcing you to buy Vista.

You can use a Mac. You can use Linux.

If you want a smaller OS, get a TI calculator. It has a REALLY small OS.

A small OS though, may not be the only thing you want.

Please stick to your old OSes, I'd like the new stuff. And don't speak out like everybody wants the same thing you do. Finally, stop your whining about MS forcing stuff down 'our' throats.

You can buy whatever YOU want to buy.

[Christopher Hall]

Pushing? Really, now?

The day a Microsoft employee shows up at my door, holds me up at gunpoint, hog-ties my family and demands I install Windows Vista or [b]we all die[/b] is the day I'll gladly switch to Mac (or be dead, more specifically).

Footprint is such a moot point. What, are you using a 30 MiB hard drive? Stop being cheap and blow $80 on 300 GiB. It's such a shame that Windows doesn't boot off five-and-a-quarters, but guess what? Technology moves. Stop standing still.

[J_Satch]

Ignorant Comment

You can't install any other x86 compatible OS on your computer? Ballmer/Gates post armed guards by your PC? How, exactly, is anything being pushed on you?

[Sir Limey]

Querty

Would be nice if some people could conduct a discussion without resorting to vulgarity (for Querty that means swearing!)
PS I just finished downloading the latest security patches for my Powerbook did you??
If you can learn to cut the abuse and respond with some logic people may listen. Instead you come across as another MAC/LINUX fanatic that makes it impossible for others to state a valid point.

[qwerty75]

Who is swearing?

Not me, unless you think crap is a swear word.

Crap just happened to be the nicest description of MS products. If you want to to stop sugar coating it, let me know.

[mxrss]

God this is the problem with the net

you have linux nerds, spreading fud i use linux i like linux for servers, and PBX's. thats it. Linux has a few locks and doors built into the system SELinux anyone, or how about user control that has been installed into unix for years, anyone or anything can trash a system so long as you give it the permissions to do it. What zealot nerds have to realize that not everyone has the time to use, to figure out how to use some of the programs for linux. While admitedly it has gotten easier it is far from being seamless.

- mike

[Penguinisto]

Bad News: The majority of the "net" ain't Windows.

Never was, never will be: The majority of servers and routers out there are some flavor of *nix or Linux, and was once entirely comprised of *nix.

This is our domain. The Internet was never meant to be user-friendly, it was meant to be decentralized and survivable. It has since held up quite nicely, in spite of the worst that AOL, WebTV, and Windows has thrown at it.

...and what on Earth are you talking about? Most GUI-based *nix proggies for use online (browser, email, chat, et al) are ungodly in how much they are user-friendly these days. OSX (currently based on BSD *nix) is even more user-friendly than Windows fercryinoutloud...

/P

/P

[Renegade Knight]

Impressive Corporate Speak

Reading that interview reminds me of what most companies say before they trip up and have major problem.

While I'm not a fan of MS in general they actually make products that work. Where I've bough them they earned my business.

Symantec on the other hand, lost me as a customer for a few key reasons. First, I've paid money for software that they won't authorize. Thus I have nothing for my money. That was just the last straw. That same software (Utilities and Internet Security) has less and less features with each generation. It's harder to use with each generation. It's more bloated and less stable with each generation. I have to re-boot my laptop due to Symantec crashes more than XP issues.

Over the three years that I was becoming disenchanged with Symantec (a company that I used to love) I sent several emails detailing my concerns. They did hear from me. They just chose not to respond.

I'll buy vista before I buy Symantec. Simple as that.

[Sniche]

Your've running around in the dark Mate

Get your head out of your ass and visit a few Apple Web Sites, there
may-be a light at the end of the tunnel , Cheers

[Sumatra-Bosch]

VISTAPOCALYPSE !

TO be followed shortly by the Symantepocalypse.



Roberto