On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:52:18AM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
> Yes, but that's from *bad*, or misconfigured, antivirus systems.
Yeah. Obviously.
Now, where did you misunderstand "bad antivirus systems"? Or
where in "not absolutely invisible" did i fail to be clear?
> By the same analogy, if a number of people misconfigured their
>Linux/BSD/Sun/whatever you wouldnt say it was the systems themselves that are bad,
>would you?
Of course i do. I'd flame even bernstein for the behaviour of
qmail-smtpd in case someone deleted rcpthosts, if i wasn't too busy
to write flames.
If it's _easy_ to misconfigure a system then either the system is
bad or the admin has choosen the wrong software, although warned
otherwise.
I refuse repeat my opinion about the systems you named above in
this forum today. See the mailing list archives.
> No, because it was the *admins* that screwed up, not the systems.
Excuse me, i'm lost. We are still talking about Outlook and other
pieces of shit which need a lot of hand-holding to even work
correctly, right? Since when in an out-of-the-box outlook not
a security nightmare? Since when do you need to move a finger
to screw up such an installation?
Am i so hard to understand?
> People are idiots, haven't you noticed?
Of course. Every single message from an antivirus system proved
that.
But tell me: why do i have to suffer from bad antivirus systems?
I mean, i suffer in place of idiots, right?
> As nice an idea that is, it is not practical. You want to tell your computer
>illiterate boss to use text-mode mutt? Congrats, have a nice day.
I did that. Much to my surprise even my own brother, Windows-User
since being able to recognize a mouse, was able to handle mutt
without any help. Which kind of surprised my.
>
> Perfection is unattainable.
May be. But tell me, what's your excuse for using something with is
exactly perfectly imperfect?
Regards, Uwe
