From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
jdow wrote:
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A better idea - hold the company that produced the defective
software that allows this to happen. After all, they spent how much
convincing people that all you need to do is "point and click" to
administer a Windows box... (OK - with what they can spend on
lawyers and their political clout, you couldn't win in the U.S.)
Oh really? Linux boxes get hacked, too. Who gets sued?
Well, if a Linux distribution ignored standard standard security
practices the way MS has, the distributor should get sued. If you
have someone running a system with a version of the software that
has known and patched bugs, the person running the system. In ether
case, the person that cracked the system should get sued as well.
Think of it this way, if a doctor loses a patient because he did
sloppy work, you sure the doctor.
If an engineer designs a bridge wrong, and it collapses, he gets
sued. (Or worse.) But if the contractor used substandard material
and that caused the bridge to collapse, you sue the contractor. If a
plane crashes into the bridge, you have an interesting time
assigning the blame.
If you overdose or die from the medicine you took because of bad
quality control, as opposed to you not following the prescribed
dosage, who is at fault?
FreeBSD is supposed to be more secure than Linux. (And based on security
bug reports that "seems" to be the case.) Apple's OS-X is built on
FreeBSD, an old one to be sure, though. They just released 17 patches....
Microsoft has the bankroll to survive the suits. Red Hat doesn't. Be
careful what you wish for.
{^_-}
