On пт, 2004-01-30 at 23:37, Peter Wu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:55:36PM -0700, Collins Richey wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:43:58 -0500 > > Peter Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > > Today viruses stimulate ppl switch to linux, and > > > > therefore are BIG catalysator for linux growth. > > > > > > I really doubt switching to Linux can stop virii from spreading. > > > > > > > BS. > > Sorry to hear this acronym... > > > 1. No one has any objection to a software company making money. People have > > objection to M$ because of the crappy (but user friendly) virus-prone product and > > the monopolistic techniques they employ. > > As an etiquette on a public mailing list, can you please configure your > mailer to set width of your posts? Not every user, esp. UNIX user, can > read lines longer than 80 characters. > > Back to your remark, well, you have choice not to use it. It is your > right. Maybe you are a UNIX guru but most people that have money may not > know any much computer knowledge than you do. You may be smart enough to > detect a virus just by your experience but other people do not. They may > open an attached executable, which could be a worm virus, and the plague > starts from there. > Thats 100% true, finally all security depend on the people using it. > Well, Microsoft started as a software company that aims at desktop and at > home users. Most of those users know much less than you do. The > technologies Microsfot employ may not be the best but must be the most > popular ones, which has been proven for years. > > Few people never touch Windows but many people never see Linux. > > > 2. No one with a lick of sense (except maybe Lindows users) processes mail as > > root. Almost all viruses rely on the wide open nature of windows to inflict their > > harm. Converting to linux (or even to Apple OS X or xxxxBSD) will eliminate 99% > > of the problems. > > Forget about Windows 9x, which is simply obsolete and quite crappy. Let's > look at the Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 series. > > I do not know whether you have ever used this series. If you don't, then > I'd like to let you know that on those Windows products, you have an > Administrator account, which is equivalent to the root in UNIX, and, > surely, you can create your own account, say joe, on the machine with less > privileges. > Also true. > You do not have to log in as Administrator all the time but log in joe to > check your email. It's all the same as you do every day on Linux/UNIX. > > If a normal user, joe, on the Linux happens to run a script that can send > tons of junk mails to others by looking up joe's address book, that joe > would be a source of virus, too. I do not think the OS is the culprit in > this case. > > Sure, we must admit that Windows has a lot of security problems, some of > which were made use of before. However, AFAIK, some Linux distros had such > miserable experiences, too. Say, the holes in Debian some days ago that > brought many sites down or unavailable. > > People play a more important role to make computer systems secure. Overall this things are true, but there is one VERY important thing. Windows code is closed, while Linux is opensource. Not checked but think that there have been months to patch Win-holes, in the opensource world /Debian-case/ it took two-three days and everyone could see or help do it, MS even don't want such things to be announced while they take months to patch it if at all. Other important thing is that in Linux programs are done in order to solve a problem or add a feature mainly by professionals to meet their needs. In Windows the market and the need for more and more automation so the user could do it by just reading and clicking in an wizard-box is main driving-force. Just my opinion. -- Rumen Yotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
