Ok, now here's something ridiculous. There's a security-based debate going on between Microsoft and a few partners around some of the security features in Vista. Symantec, the larger of the two mentioned in the article, is complaining because it doesn't have low-level kernel access like it did in previous versions of Windows. Now, isn't that just too bad? I have nothing against Symantec, but it seems awfully stupid that a security company would complain about security features in the OS. As a fiscal company, sure it sucks; but they make money by helping users protect themselves. How dare Microsoft try to better the OS by protecting users from malware!? The fact that Symantec (and others) would complain about a security feature that protects users against malware speaks to their real agenda.
This topic is honestly nothing new. There are a few features that have been on the books to be included in Windows for quite some time, but have been pushed back time after time because people were worried that they'd break apps. Well, kudos to the Windows team for sucking it up and opting security over compatibility. That's what Trustworthy Computing (TwC) is all about!