On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 00:03 -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote: > 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. ---- You have an anti-Microsoft bent I don't wish to get into any such discussion with you or anyone else. You are COMPLETELY WRONG when you say that 'Actually Linux is borne from the notion that we're sick of Microsoft's antics' Linux was borne by a computer student in Finland who was trying to build a minix type kernel that would run on the 80386 processor - check your facts. Or if facts aren't what you are after, then check your premises - Linux kernel was developed before Windows had anything useful to offer. I continue to find problems with your premises, your analysis and conclusions. Computers are a tool - not a mission. If it is your mission to use Linux to replace Microsoft, then that is your mission, NOT Linux's mission. There are likely to be other people that share your absurd notion that Linux is the anti-Microsoft but it is an alternative to proprietary software, nothing more. Proprietary software is a tool. Microsoft is not the only vendor selling proprietary software, only the most successful by far. F/OSS is an alternative software choice but it too is a tool. Every time the 'boss' says, "We need new servers" I DON'T suggest Fedora. Fedora's life cycle is way too short to seriously consider it for server use. I would choose RHEL, RHEL clones, Gentoo, or Debian long before I would suggest Fedora for server usage. And lastly - you would do well to lose your fixation on Microsoft. They are a successful corporation doing what every successful corporation would do if they could - dominate and monopolize. There are some who believe that Red Hat would do the same thing if they could. There are some who resent the notion that some people think Red Hat IS Linux - which is most certainly is not. Craig
