On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 21:34 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 22:10 -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> > Funny how we're all dancing carefully around the point that the
> > only reason we have viruses is because management is tied to
> > Microsoft.
> ----
> wrong
> ----
Really? Your management would dump Microsoft tomorrow, even without
your help? Ask around. Management doesn't move quickly. They need
both proven products AND the idea they're doing the 'cool' or 'smart'
thing.
When's the last time you saw a Fedora ad? Microsoft ad? We are the
advertising team.
> > Sure, as Linux comes to even more desktops, there's a better chance
> > for them to come, too. But as it stands there are more Linux machines
> > than Macs, and Symantec reports 6 Linux viruses, only two found in the
> > wild, and Microsoft is a host to 60,000.
> >
> > I'm sure there will be viral threats in Linux's future. But unlike
> > the rampant (and lets not forget profitable) home for wayward viruses
> > called Microsoft, Linux developers will actually _fight_ them, not
> > release fixes that close some ports and opening more.
> >
> > We now have AOL and other services that are burning more than 'a few
> > cycles' tracing each document going in and out of AOL from millions of
> > users, while Microsoft, owning all the code (and perhaps
> > Symantec/McAffee stock) doesn't fix the problems pointed out.
> >
> > So go on and on about virus proliferation, but lets not ignore that
> > the best way to defeat their spread is to stop their host: Windows.
> NO - the reason we have viruses is because there are people who for
> reasons of power and/or ability either through understanding
> technology or copying others can impose their will. The fact that
> viruses are mostly focused at Windows is because it has such an
> incredible market share. Some may argue that Windows is inherently
> insecure - which may be true but they have been trying to close some
> of the holes.
Where can a person go to understand how to write a virus _better_
than open source? By your logic, it's all 'because they can'. Yet,
Microsoft's you-can't-see-the-code-without-a-$10K-NDA platform has as
many as will fit. The large numbers just mean more infected hosts.
And did you read closely about the SP1->SP2 release? Sure, it closed
some holes, but it opened more. If Fedora did this, this list would
empty like a boatful of holes.
> I pretty much disagree with your premise, your discussion and your
> conclusion above - but none of this has anything to do with Fedora.
Ya think?
Actually, Linux is borne from the general notion that we're sick of
Microsoft's antics. If Microsoft was a good steward of it's product,
why would we need Linux?
And every time the boss says "We need new servers" and you don't at
least _suggest_ Fedora, you're part of the problem, whether you intend
to be.
So...we discuss Microsoft's biggest problem on Microsoft's only
competitor's list. Doesn't it seem odd discussing how to better protect
Microsoft? And _that_ has everything to do with Fedora.
--
Those who entrust life and limb to Microsoft deserve neither. -Me, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ: 5119262 AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
