Maybe you should actually check the facts, instead of just making a witty remark? The EC has regulated Microsoft into product decisions to make third-parties as unrestricted as Microsoft itself. See here:

> (11) Microsoft shall make available to interested undertakings Interoperability Information that enables non-Microsoft server Software Products to interoperate with the Windows Client PC Operating System on an equal footing with Microsoft Server Software Products. Microsoft shall provide a warranty with respect to this Interoperability Information (including any updates), as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010 for Windows Vista and Windows 7, and effective 15 March 2010 for Windows XP.

https://news.microsoft.com/2009/12/16/microsoft-statement-on...

Microsoft Interoperability Undertaking (Dec. 16, 2009, .doc file)

It's unfortunate you're believing the bullshit MS is peddling.

There is literally nothing in that stopping them from figuring out better approaches then rolling them out to the entire industry. With appropriate planning and discussion, so the approach doesn't favour just them.

That they haven't ever wanted to go through that effort is entirely on MS.

"It's the EU's fault for stopping us!".

Yeah, right.

There is literally a ton of existing software out there that is keeping MS from doing exactly that. When it comes to avoiding breaking legacy applications MS scores far higher than any other operating systems out there.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with them coming up with better approaches then discussing them with industry for potential roll out, adoption, etc.

But instead, now they're in trouble they're trying to blame the EU for stopping their monopoly.

Do you honestly believe MS being unhindered by competition restraints would lead to better results?

Are you forgetting MS has already demonstrated how that goes, and been literally convicted for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

(there are plenty of other examples)

Let me try to make it extremely simple so that maybe you might understand something.

Say I am running a shop, the EU tells me that under no circumstance can I not allow a product to be sold in my shop, even if that product is a ticking time bomb that can blow up the shop. And so hearing this, I create a document “Good approaches to sell time bombs”, and I mention helpful stuff like ensure the timer in your bomb is switched off when it is in shop. I also create an industry wide forum with all time bomb manufacturers and discuss best practices and time bomb methods with them to best sell it in the shop etc.

In spite of all this, there exists an idiot timebomb manufacturer who ignores all best practices, does not consider industry and builds a shitty time bomb that blows up the shop.

Now please educate me, apart from doing the only surefire thing and banning shitty time bomb manufacturers from selling in their shop, what should MS do?

> the EU tells me that under no circumstance can I not allow a product to be sold in my shop

That doesn't seem to be a good faith representation of what the EU was requiring.

> ... so that maybe you might understand something.

It looks like there's literally no getting through to you nor other MS apologists. :( :( :(

sigh

Here's an actual compliant at MS to the EU from an anti-malware vendor: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/450420491/Mic...

This is and has been a thing for quite some time. Windows is a highly regulated OS.

Seems like a complaint that MS was using underhanded tactics, so Kaspersky complained to an organisation that might do something about it.

It doesn't really seem like an example of MS coming up with a better solution then discussing it with industry, unless I'm misunderstanding it?

Instead it seems a lot like MS figuring out a solution that advantages themselves then just rolling it out, at the expense of others. (?)

As someone that worked at MS, on a team that worked directly on this issue (among other things) some years ago, MS did figure out better solutions and did discuss it with industry.

MS has an entire forum for discussing these things with industry (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/virus-initiat...) and has had variants of said forum for some time (I think the first effort was in 2010).

Kaspersky was running an SSL/TLS Proxy in the kernel IIRC and didn't want to have to move it elsewhere due to the fact it would require them to rework their product quite a bit.

The solutions MS (we) proposed were agnostic and overall better, the anti-malware industry simply doesn't want to make the changes as these things do impose technical work on existing products.

No worries. That wasn't at all evident from the above complaint.

Was the drive for this industry forum coming from dealing with the EU, or was it more from MS trying to make things better without needing the prodding?

Industry forum was external, MS did not start that.

I do not know enough to properly answer on the concrete reasons why, only that it was external. Sorry.

As opposed to Apple, who's gone and just done that for their operating system?

Apple isn't (yet) a convicted monopolist, though it seems like there's a strong case to be made about just that. ;)

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

(Your comment would be fine without that first bit.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There are ways around this that I've discussed elsewhere so I won't repeat them here.

However, think of it this way: Windows restarts, tries to load with new patch and crashes.

Question: why can't Windows be designed so that on crash it automatically restarts and loads the previous state sans patch?

Answer: Windows could be designed that way but it would require Microsoft to do many things it doesn't want to do. Some of which would require Microsoft to go back to the beginning and reengineer quarter-century or more old code from scratch, that means redesigning API and the underlying architecture from first principles.

Why doesn't Microsoft want to do this? It's obvious so I won't bother to spell it out.

Nevertheless, when the dust fully settles and someone outlines these alternative designs in great detail then it'll be obvious to everyone what a fragile stack of cards Windows has been constructed on.

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, such as you did here and downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41096774). It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.