I couldn't have said it better myself =) David Lane wrote:
>Sorry, all, my initial empassioned entry into the Linux vs. Windows email >debate had a few typos... Here's an edited version. > >Hi Jeremy, > >I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I must say >that Linux isn't like Windows for a number of very important reasons. >Very few of the reasons are technical - nearly all are philosophical, >and they're the same reasons that I don't use Windows, and haven't >since 1994. Linux is not ever likely to have email viruses like >Windows/Outlook - regardless of its marketshare - for 4 fundamental reasons: > >1. Design: a proper multiuser architecture like that employed by UNIX >and Linux creates a "sandbox" for each user. As long as a user doesn't >read/execute a hypothetical email virus as root, it's unlikely to affect >more than their individual account at the very worst. If they do read mail >as root, then they're sadly naive and probably should to get virus to teach >them a lesson in prudence. > >Windows is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. There is *no* >security by default, no proper permissions, no nothin'. > >2. Diversity: there is no email client monoculture on Linux like there >is on Windows. There are many very capable email clients, none of which >has unfair advantage over another (as Outlook does by virtue of being >preinstalled and set as default mail client on EVERY Windows desktop). >Therefore there's no clear vector for transferring an email virus. > >All Windows machines of any given flavour (Win95/98/NT/2000/XP/CE) are >identical, with all the same files in the same places by default. A >Windows virus doesn't have to be very smart because it doesn't have to >look very hard to find the vulnerable parts of the system. That's the >definition of a monoculture. In nature, they don't last long for good >reason: they're weak. > >3. Default settings: Linux, is configured with everything potentially >dangerous turned off by default (or specifically asks you if it should >turn things on). > >Windows, on the other hand, is designed to maximise MS's income. > >That means pleasing the majority, which has always meant pleasing >the lowest common denominator - the naive and minimally skilled. > >It also means keeping the anti-virus manufactures in business - ever >wonder to what degree MS is invested in Symantec or Norton? Isn't it >ironic that some of the foremost companies in computing are blindingly >successful simply because the fix something in another company's >software that shouldn't have been broken? > ><rant>There has never (perhaps until now with the ascent of Linux) been >ANY financial incentive for MS to create a secure or stable Windows. >They (with "upgrades") and their "partners", OEMs, and legions of >support technicians the world over employed, earn $billions for >fixing the same, known problems time and time again. To me, it makes obvious >business sense that they drop those crumbs to keep the scavengers in their >IT "ecosystem" well fed and eager to shout their praises. Sort of like how >a great white shark tolerates a remora that eats its unwanted parasites - unless, >of course, the shark feels like a light snack...</rant> > >4. Goodwill: when a clever (or even not-so-clever) programmer wants to >make his/her mark in the Linux world, there are many creative, positive >ways in which s/he can make a splash creatively. Most contribute to an open >source project - everyone knows that, given a choice, it feels much better to >build something than it does to destroy something. Linux promotes an ethos of >goodwill due to its openness and inclusiveness. It would be uncool in >just about anybody's book do something destructive to anything that is >the result of so many people's generosity. > >With Windows, no such good will exists, and the only real way to have an >impact is by being destructive. In my opinion, the mercenary ethos projected >by MS brings out frustration and destructiveness in people. > >Dave > >On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 11:51, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote: > >>Okay, so maybe I should've said... wow! are there new advancements in other >operating systems that make them impervious to viruses? >> >>Granted Outlook opens up a whole bunch of issues, but _My_ point was that theres no >point knocking micro$oft when you can be in the same boat no matter what OS you're >using, it's the popularity that makes it more likely to be hit. >> >>jeremyb >> >>http://www.jeremyb.net >> >>>From: Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Date: 2002/03/11 Mon AM 09:21:57 GMT+12:00 >>>To: Jeremy Bertenshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>> Johnno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: Re: Mail Virus Scanners >>> >>>On Monday 11 March 2002 09:41 am, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote: >>> >>>>Wow! Is there some new advancement in linux that makes it impervious to >>>>viruses? >>>> >>>No. As distrubuted by the major vendors Linux is not particularly secure, >>>but getting rid of Microsoft will get rid of all the Outlook problems and >>>other viruses which depend on there being no effective permission structure >>>in the file system. It's just that in any mono-culture the whole population >>>is prone to infection. >>> >>>Next time, read my posts carefully and note that I never mentioned Linux, and >>>remember that that there are several operating systems which are "not >>>Microsoft" and are perfectly capable of doing all the things that most people >>>need to do. >>> >>>>>From: Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>Date: 2002/03/10 Sun PM 10:23:21 GMT+12:00 >>>>>To: Johnno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>Subject: Re: Mail Virus Scanners >>>>> >>>>>Belt & braces is a good idea, but tell them that if they really want to >>>>>get rid of viruses they need to get rid of Microsoft. >>>>> >>
