Re: XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of users want fixed

In <KOedneLLgbjmf8PfRVn-vQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>, on 04/14/05
at 05:36 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@xxxxxxxxxxx> said: >Bill
Gates is just a human being. His big mistake was in becoming too
>successful. America (don't know about other cultures) applauds a little
>success but boos too much of it.

It was the illegal and unethical methods he used to become successful that
seem to strike the nerve in a lot of people. I don't begrudge people
success, but he broke the law in a major way, and by the time anyone moved
to stop him, the damage was done.

Kudos for being a smart criminal, but not for being a good man with a
quality product.


>And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that
>OS and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
>understand that the biggest kid is the target.

No. Linux cannot be "taken over" by a virus and used to propagate itself
across a network. It can be infected, but it will not give control to a
virus. Damn shame some folks just dont' understand that without the
ability to move the virus across the network, its pretty much dead in the
water.

>> target
>> other operating systems such as Linux, I'm confident that they would
>> successfully be able to find plenty of exploitable security holes in those
>> as well (especially since they have source code to look at). The reason
>> these problems don't seem so relevant with regards to Linux is because the
>> makers of these exploits don't design for Linux. Partly Linux is an
>> operating system that is fond to them personally, so many of them might
>> not
>> ever even conceive of something so malicious. Additionally there just
>> aren't enough users of Linux to be as juicy a target as MS products. And
>> then we go back to the "coolness" factor.

Wrong..... Windows is a prime target because its design does most of the
work of passing the virus along.

>Microsoft has "stepped up to the plate" when it comes to security. And
>Linux would/could do the same?

Microsoft only steps up, after a virus hits.

>Topple, bruise, embarrass the big guy ... it's just that Microsoft is an
>attractive target.

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

JB
.

Relevant Pages

  • OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?
    ... Religious evangelists on both sides of the Windows vs. Linux aisle would ... That doesn't mean that Linux can't be exposed to viruses. ... All of this virus havoc is being unleashed on Microsoft systems. ... the bigger and better the target they create. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of users want fixed
    ... >It was the illegal and unethical methods he used to become successful that ... >No. Linux cannot be "taken over" by a virus and used to propagate itself ... >ability to move the virus across the network, its pretty much dead in the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Antivirus
    ... if anyone has ever had a virus in Linux. ... years and can't say I've ever had a virus. ... I have never run across a virus whose target was Linux. ... anti-virus caught those and killed them. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: antivirus and anti spam
    ... I thought kmail had it, ... know linux has become the newest target for virus. ...
    (comp.os.linux.portable)
  • Re: "Bugbear" virus in Linux?
    ... >> Linux binaries if a system were accidentally booted with the floppy ... but that doesn't mean that the virus author has such ... a common means of propagation of DOS viruses ... BBSes, where they infect floppies, that get passed ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)