On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:47 PM, mike <xha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Except windows isn't any more or less defective than OS X. Both of you > keep > bypassing that fact. If you don't believe the initial premise that both > OS's are defective, than there is no more reason to continue the rest of > the > discussion. I base my opinion on security experts, I'm also not in any way > saying that out in the world you are in danger of trojans or viruses if you > run OSX. OS X is never shown to be defective (except in all the security > updates released for it) because their footprint is so small there is no > reason for those after money to go after OSX. If the main reason for > trojans/viruses these days is to gain control of as many systems as > possible, no enterprising black hat would even look at OS X. But, you put > OS X on a level playing field with windows and linux, and tell your white > hat security experts, take down *any* of the three first and you get some > cool cash...and OS X is taken down first for several years with ease that > clearly shows defective issues in the OS. On top of that, the security > guys > go on to say they went after OS X because it was the easiest of three. > > So the real question is, if two companies release a defective product...but > only one is used so much that it SHOWS it's defective nature...are they > both > defective or just the one? > > My point all along has been EVERY company should take that responsibility. M$ is a bigger target and they can be made to look like bigger idiots. It shouldn't be too much of problem for them to fund the work.
-- John Duncan Yoyo -------------------------------o) ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
