Hey, what slow news day would be complete without a little gratuitous Microsoft-bashing? Well, around here, the answer is no slow news day, and we'll tell you why: not a day goes by in this dimension of existence that word of some bonehead blunder, security flaw, illegal behavior, or other drama-laden episode or circumstance doesn't issue forth from Redmond, Washington: Tree City USA and Endless Fount of Microsoftian Comic Relief. It's a given. It's like the Old Faithful of raw material for melodramatic snarky tech commentary, and for that we face west, get down on our knees, and give thanks every day at sunset. Or, at least, we think about it when people do that stupid thing at Thanksgiving and go around the table making people say what they're thankful for. Same thing, really.

So, many thanks to faithful viewer fibait for pointing out a lovely Tech Update UK article which reveals that Microsoft is indeed still working on that whole "trustworthy computing" thing as mandated by Bill Gates himself back in January. (You remember that whole spiel, right? Gates issued a company-wide memo insisting that, in the wake of all those crippling Windows/Outlook/Explorer viruses, all Windows development would stop in February and Microsoft's 7000 systems programmers would be sent to "special security training.") Well, here's the latest on that red herring: reportedly any actual security that might make its way into Microsoft's products could cost customers extra.

Yup, according to the company's chief technical officer, Microsoft "may offer new security abilities on a paid basis"-- which we interpret to mean, "kick us a hundred bucks per seat or Bugbear will cripple your company quicker than you can say 'Sherman Antitrust Act.'" (Kinda makes you wonder who actually writes those viruses, doesn't it?) It's a concept just in the kicking-around phase right now, but clearly Microsoft sees security as "a potential source of revenue."

You don't think that Microsoft would do something as blatant as charge extra for more secure versions of its software? Well, frankly, even we think such a move would be just a little too Microsoftian even for Microsoft. But consider that when the aforementioned chief technical officer was asked why it took his company twenty-five years to put an emphasis on security and so-called "trustworthy computing," his response was, "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently." Was it just a flippant reply, as he later claimed, or did he maybe accidentally grab the truth serum when he went in for his mid-morning dose of heroin?

Whatever. To us, the real gem in this whole mess really doesn't have anything to do with security at all: Microsoft is quoted as saying that its operating system "is designed to run on machines that are not designed yet." Wow, that's quite a handicap! Suddenly all the pieces fall into place; no wonder the Windows user experience sucks.