On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:16:16PM -0100, Jurian wrote:
> What you're saying is that a few emails from a virus scanner take up more
> bandwidth and HD space than the flood of sircam emails? Hrm, funny.
No. I didn't do any comparision between to useless virus traffic
and the also useless antivirus traffic. Both are useless, evil
and i don't want to receive them.
But the existance of one bad thing is no excuse for any other.
> As you pointed out, you pay for bandwidth, so do I. I get a LOT more pissed
> off by the load of sircam virus attachments than the few reports from the
> virus scanner that it has blocked yet another MB of useless traffic!
Are you saying "because you get 1 MB of SirCam it's okay for you
to receive another 100K of warnings"? Nice guy.
> >
> > Aha. That's your excuse for using something 100% away from perfection.
> > I see.
>
> 100% away from it? No, not quite. I know it is far from perfect, and is just
Outlook is, by design, 100% away from perfection. No, i'm not talking
about user interfaces.
> The users are our responsibility, microsoft isn't. As for sueing them for
I fail to subscribe to this point of view.
> selling junk, go right ahead, look at how good the US govt. is doing at that!
i can't, i will not by their stuff.
> Get real, they won't hurt poor microsoft, they're too scared it might impact
> their stupid economy!
Oh, right. If the people used working software instead of microsoft
products they might need only 75 percent of the time they need now.
That means 25% more unemployment.
I said "sue the makers of bad software", right? Where did i tell you
"let your government sue them for playing monopoly (a game quite
popular around here) with their bad software"?
Indeed, i wouldn't trust the 'merkin government in that case, but
that may be because i wouldn't trust it at all. man kyoto, man UN.
But i fail to see why the makers of bad medicine (lipobay) may
be sued for a problem, and the makers of bad software may not ...
> Again, antivirus is not an excuse, nor should it make you feel secure, but it
so what is it good for? "Oh, if i click on an attachment there's now just a
1% chance that it does hurt?" "Hey, my car now only has a one percent
chance of exploding per kilometer".
> IS usefull, IF properly set up. Also, antivirus software should never reply
> to mail from mailing lists, as far as that is possible, cause that IS a waste
> of bandwidth.
Oh well. Welcome to the real world. "Should never" is obviously rarely
followed.
Regards, Uwe (not opposed to antivirus software - unless it hurts me)
