Bob,
If your only reply to the very seriuous securityh issue facing most of the worlds (Windows) computers is to point to maket share numbers, then I am afraid you are further removed from reality than I had thought. Market share and security are not the same thing. A car analogy for you. Volvo are a lot more secure than say Ford. But ford have a greater market share.
Antonio
On 6 Jul 2004, at 19:53, Bob Blakely wrote:
Jostein, it's no use yacking back to him. Antonio has no sense of what's
really happening, and he never will. Due to his own blind spots, he is
incapable of understanding the following:
1. Windows (client) has a 93.8% share of the market 2. Mac & Linux are each about 3% of the market.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=15202215
Now if someone is a cracker ass out to bring folks computers to their knees
shouting uncle so that you can claim credit (via pseudonym, of course),
which operating system is he going to target? Hint: Everyone on this list
knows this, save the fool.
Only an fool would claim that a Mac or Linux system is inherently more safe
than a Windows system. The number of attempted attacks on them is paltry at
best. It's easy to say you have the fastest hotrod in town when you've never
really raced.
Do you want to be more secure? Well then, buy that MAC or Linux operating
system and be glad that everyone else isn't using it. That's what keeps you
safe. But remember, the same thing that keeps you safe is what's responsible
for the difference in software shelf space devoted to Windows vs. MAC and
Linux together. So don't whine about lack of software diversity, my Mac &
Linux friends, it's the visible sign of the very thing that keeps you
relatively virus free - lack of market share.
Remember: "It is impossible to make anything fool- proof because fools are
so ingenious.." - unknown.
Regards,
Bob...
------------------------
"The heart of a fool is in his mouth, but the mouth of a wise man is in his
heart." - Benjamin Franklin
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please, antonio,
Quote my arrogant statements. And since you say "again", please quote my
previous arrogant statements too, if you can. I'd like to learn from my
mistakes.
Quoting Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jostein,
I think the arrogance and abuse (yet again) is all yours. Not to mention the flames. All I did was pass on the information.
Cmon Jostein, any other product would be pulled from the market on
safety grounds by now, not to mention trade descriptions/not fit for
the purpose for which it was sold! - and yet with Windows we have
1,000s of viruses, trojans, etc. etc., all of which apparently the
responsibility of the user acording to your argument. If anyone falls
foul then it is their fault for not not downloading the latest fix from
Microsoft .... nice thinkiing. I guess that is how you build and
maintain a monopoly.
Antonio
On 6 Jul 2004, at 14:36, Jostein wrote:
Please, mr. Aparicio.
What an arrogant way to present "helpful information".
By the time such information reaches your sources (whatever "The
Syracuse
Post-Standard" may be), most sensible windows users have updated their
systems
a long time ago. Please don't act like a smartass on operating systems
you're
not fully familiar with. It's only stuff to fuel flame wars with.
Jostein
PS. FYI, the Scob Trojan was first observed in the wild 25. June (which is *two* weeks ago), and the Microsoft update available about 20 hours later. Which means that all *legal* copies of Microsoft Windows operating systems could be patched within a week after that, depending on the update frequency. Companies not updating their platforms can of course be caught pants down any day.
Quoting Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For those on the list who beleive windows is safe:
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
