Kerry Brown wrote:

> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

> news:uESsVm%23vHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>> Um, if it comes with one, one doesn't need another one. No can you

>> stop being picky and just admit that Linux is MUCH safer than Windows?

>>

>> Alias

>

>

> It is safety by obscurity. I'll certainly admit that in it's default

> state Linux is more secure than any Windows desktop operating system in

> it's default state. This is more an accident of history and what users

> expect than anything else. In the server world I'd rate them about

> equal. In a non-default state Windows can easily be made as secure if

> not more secure than Linux. This is because there is a much bigger

> market for Windows products so niche products (like some security

> products) can be profitable. Even straight out of the box both Windows

> XP and Vista can be made as secure as Linux. With XP it takes some

> knowledge. With Vista it takes minimal knowledge. Running as a standard

> user with UAC on will do it.

>

 

Speculation based on a "what if". Sorry, chum, no cigar.

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>>>

>>> You used to comment all the time that linux doesn't need a firewall

>>> because of how secure it is.... It wasn't until I pointed out to you

>>> the fact that ubuntu comes with one that you changed that story...

>>>

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>> Um, if it comes with one, one doesn't need another one. No can you

>> stop being picky and just admit that Linux is MUCH safer than Windows?

>>

>> Alias

>

> I'm not being picky just stating a fact....

>

> I also don't see it as being "safer" just less likely to be attacked as

> there are far fewer linux boxes out there than winodws boxes...

>

> Jeff

 

That's the standard reason given but it's false.

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>>>

>>>

>>> Where do you think the term "root kit" came from? Is there a root

>>> user in Windows?

>>>

>>

>> Hence the need for a firewall which Ubuntu provides. Oops.

>>

>> Alias

>

> A firewall is not going to prevent the installation of rootkits.

>

> I believe sony was installing them just by playing their music cd's on

> your computer.

>

> So you buy some software (or download it for free) and it installs a

> rootkit that criples the security on your system or causes other

> problems. Since you said ok to installing it (even if you didn't know

> it was going to install a rootkit) how is linux or windows better in

> this case?

>

> Jeff

 

If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If you

stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of course,

it's possible!

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>>>

>>> I would think that the article by kaspersky labs would suffice as

>>> proof. If a virus was unable to infect a linux box how did it get out

>>> in the wild in the first place to be detected by these antivirus labs?

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> It's talking about a possibility, not a common occurrence. It's also

>> possible that someone will steal your computer at gun point but does

>> that mean you should go out and hire bodyguards?

>>

>> Alias

>

>

> It's also possible someone could come and steal my linux box except I

> don't have one... The reason it doesn't occur (but has occurred) is

> because not nearly as many people use linux as windows. If the roles

> were reversed then you would hear people complaining about their linux

> box needing "cleaned"...

>

> The only reason you don't hear much if at all is because most people

> don't even know someone using linux...

>

> Jeff

 

Jeff you're wasting your precious time dealing with that brain dead moron.

But of course you already know that.

I just hope the authorities catch up with his sorry ass real soon!

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>> news:eY9Rsj%23vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> Jeff wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>> news:unAk$QwvHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>>> Spirit wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Not exactly accurate :

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> It accurately reported NO Linux computer has been compromised.

>>>>> Possibilities are one thing reality another. It's possible that

>>>>> you will be struck by lightening today but unlikely.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> The article did not report there weren't any either just that there

>>>> are exploits and malware going around for Linux. But then if linux

>>>> was so impervious how would it go around to begin with???

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>>

>>> Via some compromised Windows box, of course!

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> For some reason I doubt you are going to see windows running linux

>> code...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> Face it, Linux is almost bullet proof and Windows is a sieve.

>

> Alias

 

Only in your dreams dick head!

Frank

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:eZlAQj$vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>>

>>>> I would think that the article by kaspersky labs would suffice as

>>>> proof. If a virus was unable to infect a linux box how did it get out

>>>> in the wild in the first place to be detected by these antivirus labs?

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>> It's talking about a possibility, not a common occurrence. It's also

>>> possible that someone will steal your computer at gun point but does

>>> that mean you should go out and hire bodyguards?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> It's also possible someone could come and steal my linux box except I

>> don't have one... The reason it doesn't occur (but has occurred) is

>> because not nearly as many people use linux as windows. If the roles

>> were reversed then you would hear people complaining about their linux

>> box needing "cleaned"...

>

> Unfounded speculation.

>

 

What percentage of desktops run windows compared to linux?

 

>>

>> The only reason you don't hear much if at all is because most people

>> don't even know someone using linux...

>>

>> Jeff

>

> The reason you don't hear about it is because it doesn't happen.

>

> Alias

 

Explain the support sites helping linux users remove these virus's, trojans,

mal-ware, etc... If it doesn't happen???

 

Jeff

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>

>>>

>>> And, so far, no one here has provided ONE CASE where a Linux box got

>>> infected. All you've provided are theories and insults.

>>>

>>> Yawn.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> How many people here no many people that even use linux?

>>

>> Jeff

>

> I *know* quite a few.

>

> Alias

 

Same here! :)

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):

"They hacked the Microsoft website to make it think a linux box was a

windows box. Thats called hacking. People who do hacking are called

hackers."

 

"Good poets borrow great poets steal."

- T. S. Eliot

>

> Face it, Linux is almost bullet proof and Windows is a sieve.

>

> Alias

 

A lot of americans used to believe that before pearl harbor...

 

Jeff

>> I'm not being picky just stating a fact....

>>

>> I also don't see it as being "safer" just less likely to be attacked as

>> there are far fewer linux boxes out there than winodws boxes...

>>

>> Jeff

>

> That's the standard reason given but it's false.

>

> Alias

 

It is a FACT, there are far fewer linux boxes than windows boxes...

 

Jeff

>

> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If you

> stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of course,

> it's possible!

>

> Alias

 

Which would represent the majority of users out there...

 

Jeff

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>> news:eWZERrwvHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> Richard Urban wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias will refuse to believe "any" of this. He has placed his head

>>>> where the sun doesn't shine.

>>>>

>>>

>>> With what would one be safer from malware, Linux or Windows?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> I would think if they are both running protection (a/v, etc...) and

>> the user knows where he is getting his software from it would be about

>> equal...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> You're living in dreamland. Here's an example of a trojan for Windows

> that doesn't ask your permission to do *anything*:

>

> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026323&intsrc=hm_list

>

>

> Oops.

>

> Alias

 

hehehe..."Attackers armed with an exploit tool kit have launched massive

attacks in Europe from a network of at least 10,000 hacked Web sites,

with infections spreading worldwide, several security companies warned

today."

 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9025198

 

Ooooooooopppppppppsssss!

 

Frank

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:uK%23LJm$vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Kerry Brown wrote:

>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>> news:uESsVm%23vHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> Um, if it comes with one, one doesn't need another one. No can you stop

>>> being picky and just admit that Linux is MUCH safer than Windows?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> It is safety by obscurity. I'll certainly admit that in it's default

>> state Linux is more secure than any Windows desktop operating system in

>> it's default state. This is more an accident of history and what users

>> expect than anything else. In the server world I'd rate them about equal.

>> In a non-default state Windows can easily be made as secure if not more

>> secure than Linux. This is because there is a much bigger market for

>> Windows products so niche products (like some security products) can be

>> profitable. Even straight out of the box both Windows XP and Vista can be

>> made as secure as Linux. With XP it takes some knowledge. With Vista it

>> takes minimal knowledge. Running as a standard user with UAC on will do

>> it.

>>

>

> Speculation based on a "what if". Sorry, chum, no cigar.

>

> Alias

 

 

I wasn't speculating. I was telling you how it is :-)

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

http://www.vistahelp.ca

The Real reason....

 

The reason he had no viruses or malware is because he doesn't know how to

use Ubuntu. Powered up the PC twice, scratched his head, then decided to

use the XBOX instead!

 

 

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:Oe7zcl$vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>> news:ecnQpl%23vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Jeff wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> And, so far, no one here has provided ONE CASE where a Linux box got

>>>>> infected. All you've provided are theories and insults.

>>>>>

>>>>> Yawn.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> How many people here no many people that even use linux?

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>> I *know* quite a few.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Ok, one person....

>

> There are others on this very news group that use Linux.

>

>> Jeff

>

> I know a family who would call a friend of mine who does computer repair

> every three or four months because their son was downloading crap with

> eMule. The machine was always chock full of viruses and malware. My friend

> installed Ubuntu on a second hard drive and told the parents to make sure

> the kid only used Ubuntu, not Windows. A year later and no viruses or

> malware.

>

> Alias

We can go on like this forever since I feel you didn't understand the

context.

 

Final point: Technology makes things happened, and maybe even better, but

people don't buy technology. Do you know what technologies are embedded in

iPhone and how many tempted to buy one know or even care to find out?

 

If Linux community doesn't bother to understand how and why people buy

products, you are fighting a losing war.

 

Consider what I said is a free advice, take it or leave it. That's all.

 

 

 

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

news:uT9HEl$vHHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> xfile wrote:

>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>

>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>

>>

>> I can't help - so I apologize to all first :)

>>

>>

>> Jupiter Jones presented some logical and reasonable questions for Linux

>> community to think about though you may not wish to answer here but Linux

>> advocates cannot afford to ignore those questions, if Linux really wants

>> to be a valid "mainstream" alternative.

>>

>> I meant to write a longer post but decided to make a long story short:

>>

>> (1) If Linux is going to be a mainstream alternative, the community has

>> to address those issues such as usability (not with your standards),

>> application and driver availabilities, just to name a few. Note:

>> Customers and users won't care about the reasons for not having enough,

>> and all they care is what are given.

> Please expound on the "issues such as usability (not with your standards)"

> statement. What "standards" are you referring to? As to applications and

> driver availabilities, where do these need to emanate from, if not already

> available in open source? If a program is proprietary and not ported to

> linux, does the fault lie with linux? If a hardware manufacturer will not

> provide a linux driver or the source code to linux so that a driver might

> be coded, does the fault lie with linux?

>>

>> (2) Price is one factor but not the only one. People pay for car

>> insurance knowing (and hoping) they don't use it for most of the time,

>> but still, they're willing to pay for it. It's the same logic for many

>> are willing to buy products and sometime with support even they don't

>> really use it. Sense of security is one of those factors. We all know

>> search engines and communities are our friends, but I for one won't count

>> on search engines and communities as our supports. The point is - price

>> is not the only factor and refer to (1) for some other considerations.

> Please consider the following in terms of your above statement. "Free" in

> the open source community really isn't addressing the issue of cost. It

> addresses the issue of freedom, as in freedom of use. An argument becomes

> less so if one is arguing about the wrong concept.

> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for reading on the issue.

> "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the

> concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."

> Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,

> study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four

> kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your

> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

> (freedom 2).

> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to

> the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to

> the source code is a precondition for this.

>

>>

>> Let me try for the last time by using two examples to demonstrate

>> "technology" may not be relevant in some buying decisions, and one is in

>> IT industry and the other one is in automobile industry:

>>

>> (1) ERP: SAP is the market leader of enterprise resources planning

>> software (ERP is the common term) and when it and its partners engage a

>> prospect (usually enterprise-level customers), they always start with

>> senior business executives. Anyone has any experience on ERP would know

>> the complexity of the software, and yet, if senior executives cannot

>> comprehend the use of it in NON-TECHNICAL terms, none is going to spend

>> multimillions US dollars on the software. Technologies and software

>> specs won't even be discussed if the first evaluation won't pass.

> If the above is true, it would seem unlikely that there would ever be ANY

> technological improvements made if everything had to go through the senior

> business execs first. Why have the need for people who are trained and

> developed to evaluate what is available on the market and make

> recommendations/decisions on what the company needs? Why have the need for

> buyers that procure what is available based on recommendations they might

> receive?

>>

>> Moral of the example: We can spend all the time we have till the end of

>> the world on discussing and debating technologies but it won't matter

>> much for the non-tech users and customers who represent the majority of

>> the market. In particular, Linux community hasn't really spent too much

>> effort in this area, if any. Until Linux community is willing to face

>> and accept the fact, it won't change anything in the big picture.

>

> The majority of the market is indeed unaware of choices that are

> available. But the awareness of more choice is on the horizon.

>>

>> (2) Manual (stick-shift) vs. automatic transmission: How many people in

>> the US (and many parts of the world) are now driving a stick-shift even

>> it has a better fuel consumption and performance? Do car manufacturers

>> roll back to stick-shift when we are having such unbelievable high oil

>> prices or do they strive to come up other alternatives?

>>

>> Moral of the example: Most non-techies look for ease-of-use across all

>> product categories including but not limited to IT products. Again,

>> until Linux community is willing to face and accept it, it's not going to

>> be the mainstream.

>

> There have been vast strides made is ease of use concerning linux. Is it

> for everyone? No. But it does have far more potential for mass use than

> ever before.

>>

>> In summary, I am not saying or implying Linux is not a good OS or Vista

>> is a better choice. What I have been trying to tell Linux advocates (or

>> technical professionals for the same matter) is - technology by itself is

>> not enough for people to use a product.

>>

>> Your collective efforts will have a much better return if spending on

>> large OEM's (e.g. Dell, IBM, HP, Acer, etc.) and application and

>> peripheral providers. Microsoft understood this long long long...time

>> ago, and I still fail to understand for why Linux community doesn't

>> follow a success story but insisting on a not-so-good one (a.k.a -

>> Apple).

>>

>> As always, just my two cents thoughts, and my last post on OS alternative

>> subject.

>>

>> Sorry if I offended anyone but it was not my intension.

>>

>>

>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:OBgyXvyvHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Please clear the facts.

>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>

>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>>

>>> Give us these facts and end the speculation.

>>> Many Linux advocates seem to base much of what they say on the above

>>> being equal for both platforms.

>>> I suspect these differences explain what I NEVER hear Linux advocates

>>> say.

>>>

>>> Waiting for your facts...

>>>

>>> --

>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]

>>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

>>> http://www.dts-l.org

>>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>> news:e4vbqoyvHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> Larry Maturo wrote:

>>>>> Hi Alias,

>>>>>

>>>>> You wrote:

>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in the

>>>>> unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all one need

>>>>> do

>>>>> is nuke the user, create another one and restore the back up.

>>>>>

>>>>> Fact is, you are telling the unwashed masses to use Ubuntu. If they

>>>>> do, you

>>>>> can bet they won't have that backup. Also, if your campign succeeds,

>>>>> then

>>>>> virus, rootkit, and malware authors will start hitting Linux, so watch

>>>>> what you

>>>>> wish for.

>>>>>

>>>>> -- Larry Maturo

>>>> Interesting speculation. Too bad it's only that: speculation.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>> news:eDCvIqwvHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You are way too smug regarding how safe you believe Linux/Unix to

>>>>>>> be..

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> One of the articles below explains how a Linux system can be a virus

>>>>>>> carrier without the user ever knowing.. this situation is every bit

>>>>>>> as bad as a Windows system that has been breached.. the others are

>>>>>>> from different years, but all alerting to the fact that Linux/Unix

>>>>>>> and MAC are not 100% virus immune..

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I have yet to come across a 'true' Linux professional who would put

>>>>>>> their name to the misleading claims made by you.. your anti-MS

>>>>>>> stance is blinding you to the realities of ANY OS.. that makes you

>>>>>>> dangerous..

>>>>>> Care to give me proof that a Linux box has been compromised? Can't?

>>>>>> Didn't think so. Shall we compare the number of Windows boxes that

>>>>>> are a part of a bot-herd to Linux? Didn't think so.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in the

>>>>>> unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all one need

>>>>>> do is nuke the user, create another one and restore the back up.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:eS2gVRwvHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Richard Urban wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Alias doesn't know about the history of his operating system of

>>>>>>>>> choice to know that rootkits were developed for Unix and are 100%

>>>>>>>>> effective in Linux/Ubuntu.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yet there are no reports of this possibility happening so go

>>>>>>>> figure.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>

>>

>

>

> --

> norm

xfile wrote:

> We can go on like this forever since I feel you didn't understand the

> context.

I was trying to understand the points you were trying to make, that is

why I asked the questions I did. I wasn't asking for advice, so I will

just leave it. Have a good one.

>

> Final point: Technology makes things happened, and maybe even better, but

> people don't buy technology. Do you know what technologies are embedded in

> iPhone and how many tempted to buy one know or even care to find out?

>

> If Linux community doesn't bother to understand how and why people buy

> products, you are fighting a losing war.

>

> Consider what I said is a free advice, take it or leave it. That's all.

>

>

>

> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

> news:uT9HEl$vHHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> xfile wrote:

>>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>>

>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>>

>>> I can't help - so I apologize to all first :)

>>>

>>>

>>> Jupiter Jones presented some logical and reasonable questions for Linux

>>> community to think about though you may not wish to answer here but Linux

>>> advocates cannot afford to ignore those questions, if Linux really wants

>>> to be a valid "mainstream" alternative.

>>>

>>> I meant to write a longer post but decided to make a long story short:

>>>

>>> (1) If Linux is going to be a mainstream alternative, the community has

>>> to address those issues such as usability (not with your standards),

>>> application and driver availabilities, just to name a few. Note:

>>> Customers and users won't care about the reasons for not having enough,

>>> and all they care is what are given.

>> Please expound on the "issues such as usability (not with your standards)"

>> statement. What "standards" are you referring to? As to applications and

>> driver availabilities, where do these need to emanate from, if not already

>> available in open source? If a program is proprietary and not ported to

>> linux, does the fault lie with linux? If a hardware manufacturer will not

>> provide a linux driver or the source code to linux so that a driver might

>> be coded, does the fault lie with linux?

>>> (2) Price is one factor but not the only one. People pay for car

>>> insurance knowing (and hoping) they don't use it for most of the time,

>>> but still, they're willing to pay for it. It's the same logic for many

>>> are willing to buy products and sometime with support even they don't

>>> really use it. Sense of security is one of those factors. We all know

>>> search engines and communities are our friends, but I for one won't count

>>> on search engines and communities as our supports. The point is - price

>>> is not the only factor and refer to (1) for some other considerations.

>> Please consider the following in terms of your above statement. "Free" in

>> the open source community really isn't addressing the issue of cost. It

>> addresses the issue of freedom, as in freedom of use. An argument becomes

>> less so if one is arguing about the wrong concept.

>> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for reading on the issue.

>> "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the

>> concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."

>> Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,

>> study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four

>> kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

>> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

>> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your

>> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

>> (freedom 2).

>> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to

>> the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to

>> the source code is a precondition for this.

>>

>>> Let me try for the last time by using two examples to demonstrate

>>> "technology" may not be relevant in some buying decisions, and one is in

>>> IT industry and the other one is in automobile industry:

>>>

>>> (1) ERP: SAP is the market leader of enterprise resources planning

>>> software (ERP is the common term) and when it and its partners engage a

>>> prospect (usually enterprise-level customers), they always start with

>>> senior business executives. Anyone has any experience on ERP would know

>>> the complexity of the software, and yet, if senior executives cannot

>>> comprehend the use of it in NON-TECHNICAL terms, none is going to spend

>>> multimillions US dollars on the software. Technologies and software

>>> specs won't even be discussed if the first evaluation won't pass.

>> If the above is true, it would seem unlikely that there would ever be ANY

>> technological improvements made if everything had to go through the senior

>> business execs first. Why have the need for people who are trained and

>> developed to evaluate what is available on the market and make

>> recommendations/decisions on what the company needs? Why have the need for

>> buyers that procure what is available based on recommendations they might

>> receive?

>>> Moral of the example: We can spend all the time we have till the end of

>>> the world on discussing and debating technologies but it won't matter

>>> much for the non-tech users and customers who represent the majority of

>>> the market. In particular, Linux community hasn't really spent too much

>>> effort in this area, if any. Until Linux community is willing to face

>>> and accept the fact, it won't change anything in the big picture.

>> The majority of the market is indeed unaware of choices that are

>> available. But the awareness of more choice is on the horizon.

>>> (2) Manual (stick-shift) vs. automatic transmission: How many people in

>>> the US (and many parts of the world) are now driving a stick-shift even

>>> it has a better fuel consumption and performance? Do car manufacturers

>>> roll back to stick-shift when we are having such unbelievable high oil

>>> prices or do they strive to come up other alternatives?

>>>

>>> Moral of the example: Most non-techies look for ease-of-use across all

>>> product categories including but not limited to IT products. Again,

>>> until Linux community is willing to face and accept it, it's not going to

>>> be the mainstream.

>> There have been vast strides made is ease of use concerning linux. Is it

>> for everyone? No. But it does have far more potential for mass use than

>> ever before.

>>> In summary, I am not saying or implying Linux is not a good OS or Vista

>>> is a better choice. What I have been trying to tell Linux advocates (or

>>> technical professionals for the same matter) is - technology by itself is

>>> not enough for people to use a product.

>>>

>>> Your collective efforts will have a much better return if spending on

>>> large OEM's (e.g. Dell, IBM, HP, Acer, etc.) and application and

>>> peripheral providers. Microsoft understood this long long long...time

>>> ago, and I still fail to understand for why Linux community doesn't

>>> follow a success story but insisting on a not-so-good one (a.k.a -

>>> Apple).

>>>

>>> As always, just my two cents thoughts, and my last post on OS alternative

>>> subject.

>>>

>>> Sorry if I offended anyone but it was not my intension.

>>>

>>>

>>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OBgyXvyvHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> Please clear the facts.

>>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>>

>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>>>

>>>> Give us these facts and end the speculation.

>>>> Many Linux advocates seem to base much of what they say on the above

>>>> being equal for both platforms.

>>>> I suspect these differences explain what I NEVER hear Linux advocates

>>>> say.

>>>>

>>>> Waiting for your facts...

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]

>>>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

>>>> http://www.dts-l.org

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>> news:e4vbqoyvHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Larry Maturo wrote:

>>>>>> Hi Alias,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You wrote:

>>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in the

>>>>>> unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all one need

>>>>>> do

>>>>>> is nuke the user, create another one and restore the back up.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Fact is, you are telling the unwashed masses to use Ubuntu. If they

>>>>>> do, you

>>>>>> can bet they won't have that backup. Also, if your campign succeeds,

>>>>>> then

>>>>>> virus, rootkit, and malware authors will start hitting Linux, so watch

>>>>>> what you

>>>>>> wish for.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> -- Larry Maturo

>>>>> Interesting speculation. Too bad it's only that: speculation.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:eDCvIqwvHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You are way too smug regarding how safe you believe Linux/Unix to

>>>>>>>> be..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> One of the articles below explains how a Linux system can be a virus

>>>>>>>> carrier without the user ever knowing.. this situation is every bit

>>>>>>>> as bad as a Windows system that has been breached.. the others are

>>>>>>>> from different years, but all alerting to the fact that Linux/Unix

>>>>>>>> and MAC are not 100% virus immune..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I have yet to come across a 'true' Linux professional who would put

>>>>>>>> their name to the misleading claims made by you.. your anti-MS

>>>>>>>> stance is blinding you to the realities of ANY OS.. that makes you

>>>>>>>> dangerous..

>>>>>>> Care to give me proof that a Linux box has been compromised? Can't?

>>>>>>> Didn't think so. Shall we compare the number of Windows boxes that

>>>>>>> are a part of a bot-herd to Linux? Didn't think so.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in the

>>>>>>> unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all one need

>>>>>>> do is nuke the user, create another one and restore the back up.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:eS2gVRwvHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Richard Urban wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Alias doesn't know about the history of his operating system of

>>>>>>>>>> choice to know that rootkits were developed for Unix and are 100%

>>>>>>>>>> effective in Linux/Ubuntu.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yet there are no reports of this possibility happening so go

>>>>>>>>> figure.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>

>>

>> --

>> norm

>

>

 

 

--

norm

>I wasn't asking for advice,[...]

 

I meant to say that my original post was meant to be a advise for the Linux

community.

 

As for ERP and SAP, that is exactly true and it's the buying decision

process and has nothing to do with technical improvements on the products.

 

Why technical professionals and CIO are not playing the primary role until

at a later stage? That's exactly why Linux community needs to think about

it and why I brought it up in the first place.

 

You have a good one too.

 

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

news:OEbFmUCwHHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> xfile wrote:

>> We can go on like this forever since I feel you didn't understand the

>> context.

> I was trying to understand the points you were trying to make, that is why

> I asked the questions I did. I wasn't asking for advice, so I will just

> leave it. Have a good one.

>>

>> Final point: Technology makes things happened, and maybe even better, but

>> people don't buy technology. Do you know what technologies are embedded

>> in iPhone and how many tempted to buy one know or even care to find out?

>>

>> If Linux community doesn't bother to understand how and why people buy

>> products, you are fighting a losing war.

>>

>> Consider what I said is a free advice, take it or leave it. That's all.

>>

>>

>>

>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>> news:uT9HEl$vHHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> xfile wrote:

>>>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>>>

>>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>>>

>>>> I can't help - so I apologize to all first :)

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Jupiter Jones presented some logical and reasonable questions for Linux

>>>> community to think about though you may not wish to answer here but

>>>> Linux advocates cannot afford to ignore those questions, if Linux

>>>> really wants to be a valid "mainstream" alternative.

>>>>

>>>> I meant to write a longer post but decided to make a long story short:

>>>>

>>>> (1) If Linux is going to be a mainstream alternative, the community has

>>>> to address those issues such as usability (not with your standards),

>>>> application and driver availabilities, just to name a few. Note:

>>>> Customers and users won't care about the reasons for not having enough,

>>>> and all they care is what are given.

>>> Please expound on the "issues such as usability (not with your

>>> standards)" statement. What "standards" are you referring to? As to

>>> applications and driver availabilities, where do these need to emanate

>>> from, if not already available in open source? If a program is

>>> proprietary and not ported to linux, does the fault lie with linux? If a

>>> hardware manufacturer will not provide a linux driver or the source code

>>> to linux so that a driver might be coded, does the fault lie with linux?

>>>> (2) Price is one factor but not the only one. People pay for car

>>>> insurance knowing (and hoping) they don't use it for most of the time,

>>>> but still, they're willing to pay for it. It's the same logic for many

>>>> are willing to buy products and sometime with support even they don't

>>>> really use it. Sense of security is one of those factors. We all know

>>>> search engines and communities are our friends, but I for one won't

>>>> count on search engines and communities as our supports. The point

>>>> is - price is not the only factor and refer to (1) for some other

>>>> considerations.

>>> Please consider the following in terms of your above statement. "Free"

>>> in the open source community really isn't addressing the issue of cost.

>>> It addresses the issue of freedom, as in freedom of use. An argument

>>> becomes less so if one is arguing about the wrong concept.

>>> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for reading on the issue.

>>> "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the

>>> concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free

>>> beer."

>>> Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,

>>> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it

>>> refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

>>> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

>>> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your

>>> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

>>> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

>>> (freedom 2).

>>> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements

>>> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access

>>> to the source code is a precondition for this.

>>>

>>>> Let me try for the last time by using two examples to demonstrate

>>>> "technology" may not be relevant in some buying decisions, and one is

>>>> in IT industry and the other one is in automobile industry:

>>>>

>>>> (1) ERP: SAP is the market leader of enterprise resources planning

>>>> software (ERP is the common term) and when it and its partners engage a

>>>> prospect (usually enterprise-level customers), they always start with

>>>> senior business executives. Anyone has any experience on ERP would

>>>> know the complexity of the software, and yet, if senior executives

>>>> cannot comprehend the use of it in NON-TECHNICAL terms, none is going

>>>> to spend multimillions US dollars on the software. Technologies and

>>>> software specs won't even be discussed if the first evaluation won't

>>>> pass.

>>> If the above is true, it would seem unlikely that there would ever be

>>> ANY technological improvements made if everything had to go through the

>>> senior business execs first. Why have the need for people who are

>>> trained and developed to evaluate what is available on the market and

>>> make recommendations/decisions on what the company needs? Why have the

>>> need for buyers that procure what is available based on recommendations

>>> they might receive?

>>>> Moral of the example: We can spend all the time we have till the end of

>>>> the world on discussing and debating technologies but it won't matter

>>>> much for the non-tech users and customers who represent the majority of

>>>> the market. In particular, Linux community hasn't really spent too much

>>>> effort in this area, if any. Until Linux community is willing to face

>>>> and accept the fact, it won't change anything in the big picture.

>>> The majority of the market is indeed unaware of choices that are

>>> available. But the awareness of more choice is on the horizon.

>>>> (2) Manual (stick-shift) vs. automatic transmission: How many people in

>>>> the US (and many parts of the world) are now driving a stick-shift even

>>>> it has a better fuel consumption and performance? Do car manufacturers

>>>> roll back to stick-shift when we are having such unbelievable high oil

>>>> prices or do they strive to come up other alternatives?

>>>>

>>>> Moral of the example: Most non-techies look for ease-of-use across all

>>>> product categories including but not limited to IT products. Again,

>>>> until Linux community is willing to face and accept it, it's not going

>>>> to be the mainstream.

>>> There have been vast strides made is ease of use concerning linux. Is it

>>> for everyone? No. But it does have far more potential for mass use than

>>> ever before.

>>>> In summary, I am not saying or implying Linux is not a good OS or Vista

>>>> is a better choice. What I have been trying to tell Linux advocates

>>>> (or technical professionals for the same matter) is - technology by

>>>> itself is not enough for people to use a product.

>>>>

>>>> Your collective efforts will have a much better return if spending on

>>>> large OEM's (e.g. Dell, IBM, HP, Acer, etc.) and application and

>>>> peripheral providers. Microsoft understood this long long long...time

>>>> ago, and I still fail to understand for why Linux community doesn't

>>>> follow a success story but insisting on a not-so-good one (a.k.a -

>>>> Apple).

>>>>

>>>> As always, just my two cents thoughts, and my last post on OS

>>>> alternative subject.

>>>>

>>>> Sorry if I offended anyone but it was not my intension.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:OBgyXvyvHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Please clear the facts.

>>>>> What % of new Linux users have never owned a computer?

>>>>> What % of new Windows users have never owned a computer?

>>>>>

>>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Windows user?

>>>>> What is the average computer experience of a new Linux user?

>>>>>

>>>>> Give us these facts and end the speculation.

>>>>> Many Linux advocates seem to base much of what they say on the above

>>>>> being equal for both platforms.

>>>>> I suspect these differences explain what I NEVER hear Linux advocates

>>>>> say.

>>>>>

>>>>> Waiting for your facts...

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]

>>>>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

>>>>> http://www.dts-l.org

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>> news:e4vbqoyvHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Larry Maturo wrote:

>>>>>>> Hi Alias,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You wrote:

>>>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all one

>>>>>>> need do

>>>>>>> is nuke the user, create another one and restore the back up.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Fact is, you are telling the unwashed masses to use Ubuntu. If they

>>>>>>> do, you

>>>>>>> can bet they won't have that backup. Also, if your campign

>>>>>>> succeeds, then

>>>>>>> virus, rootkit, and malware authors will start hitting Linux, so

>>>>>>> watch what you

>>>>>>> wish for.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> -- Larry Maturo

>>>>>> Interesting speculation. Too bad it's only that: speculation.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:eDCvIqwvHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You are way too smug regarding how safe you believe Linux/Unix to

>>>>>>>>> be..

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> One of the articles below explains how a Linux system can be a

>>>>>>>>> virus carrier without the user ever knowing.. this situation is

>>>>>>>>> every bit as bad as a Windows system that has been breached.. the

>>>>>>>>> others are from different years, but all alerting to the fact that

>>>>>>>>> Linux/Unix and MAC are not 100% virus immune..

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I have yet to come across a 'true' Linux professional who would

>>>>>>>>> put their name to the misleading claims made by you.. your anti-MS

>>>>>>>>> stance is blinding you to the realities of ANY OS.. that makes you

>>>>>>>>> dangerous..

>>>>>>>> Care to give me proof that a Linux box has been compromised? Can't?

>>>>>>>> Didn't think so. Shall we compare the number of Windows boxes that

>>>>>>>> are a part of a bot-herd to Linux? Didn't think so.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Fact is that Windows is MUCH more susceptible than Ubuntu and, in

>>>>>>>> the unlikely case that one's Ubuntu box has become infected, all

>>>>>>>> one need do is nuke the user, create another one and restore the

>>>>>>>> back up.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:eS2gVRwvHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> Richard Urban wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias doesn't know about the history of his operating system of

>>>>>>>>>>> choice to know that rootkits were developed for Unix and are

>>>>>>>>>>> 100% effective in Linux/Ubuntu.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yet there are no reports of this possibility happening so go

>>>>>>>>>> figure.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>

>>> --

>>> norm

>>

>>

>

>

> --

> norm

Jeff wrote:

>

> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

> news:eZlAQj$vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Jeff wrote:

>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I would think that the article by kaspersky labs would suffice as

>>>>> proof. If a virus was unable to infect a linux box how did it get

>>>>> out in the wild in the first place to be detected by these

>>>>> antivirus labs?

>>>>>

>>>>> Jeff

>>>>

>>>> It's talking about a possibility, not a common occurrence. It's also

>>>> possible that someone will steal your computer at gun point but does

>>>> that mean you should go out and hire bodyguards?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> It's also possible someone could come and steal my linux box except I

>>> don't have one... The reason it doesn't occur (but has occurred) is

>>> because not nearly as many people use linux as windows. If the roles

>>> were reversed then you would hear people complaining about their

>>> linux box needing "cleaned"...

>>

>> Unfounded speculation.

>>

>

> What percentage of desktops run windows compared to linux?

 

Not relevant, being as your premise is incorrect.

>>>

>>> The only reason you don't hear much if at all is because most people

>>> don't even know someone using linux...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>> The reason you don't hear about it is because it doesn't happen.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Explain the support sites helping linux users remove these virus's,

> trojans, mal-ware, etc... If it doesn't happen???

>

> Jeff

 

LOL! To make money, of course, off of idiots like you who believe them.

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> Face it, Linux is almost bullet proof and Windows is a sieve.

>>

>> Alias

>

> A lot of americans used to believe that before pearl harbor...

>

> Jeff

 

Huh?

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>

>>> I'm not being picky just stating a fact....

>>>

>>> I also don't see it as being "safer" just less likely to be attacked

>>> as there are far fewer linux boxes out there than winodws boxes...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>> That's the standard reason given but it's false.

>>

>> Alias

>

> It is a FACT, there are far fewer linux boxes than windows boxes...

>

> Jeff

 

I wasn't disputing that. Course, how long this will last is up to MS'

"anti piracy" and "arrogance" departments which have gone a long way in

helping to promote Linux. I know I would have never switched if it

weren't for that and the built-in DRM.

 

What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are

for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not

the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

 

Alias

Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If

>> you stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of

>> course, it's possible!

>>

>> Alias

>

> Which would represent the majority of users out there...

>

> Jeff

 

Did you learn this supercilious attitude at Redmond? Users are becoming

more computer savvy. It's not 1998 anymore.

 

Alias

Mr. Happy wrote:

> Spirit wrote:

>

>> This is where you are DEAD WRONG? Windows, because of its

>> popularity, is attacked more often. It is NOT because it in inherently

>> more susceptible. Seems folks that write the malware really like to

>> see it do as much damage as possible.

>>

>> Saying that Linux has less to worry about presently is true. Saying its

>> because its a fundamentally more sound OS is not even close.

>>

> Spirit, really there's no argument. Linux is indeed more secure than

> Windows. Why do you think that Microsoft developed UAC, if it isn't an

> effort to try and lock down the kernel space from the user space which is

> what Linux has had all along? Hopefully, Microsoft will succeed with making

> Windows more secure than its been by implementing UAC. It's unfortunate

> that it annoys end-users so they can simply turn it off, essentially

> defeating Microsoft's intentions.

>

> Shake Hands With,

> Mr. Happy

>

 

Hello,

 

Windows has "seperated kernel space from user space" in the NT line

since 93.

 

UAC does, however, force people to use standard user accounts, or if

they use an admin account, to use a sudo-model instead of an "always run

as root" model, which unix has supported for a long time.

 

--

-JB

Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Windows Vista Support FAQ - http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>>> I'm not being picky just stating a fact....

>>>>

>>>> I also don't see it as being "safer" just less likely to be attacked

>>>> as there are far fewer linux boxes out there than winodws boxes...

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>>

>>> That's the standard reason given but it's false.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> It is a FACT, there are far fewer linux boxes than windows boxes...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> I wasn't disputing that. Course, how long this will last is up to MS'

> "anti piracy" and "arrogance" departments which have gone a long way in

> helping to promote Linux. I know I would have never switched if it

> weren't for that and the built-in DRM.

>

> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are

> for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not

> the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>

> Alias

 

More lies from our resident linux lying troll.

Since Vista came out (6-7) months ago, linux desktop % of market share

has had a rather dramatic downturn (that's means they've lost market

share!).

Whatever DRM did or is doing it sure as hell ain't helping to promote linux.

No more lying from you're stupid village a*s!

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>>>

>>> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If

>>> you stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of

>>> course, it's possible!

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Which would represent the majority of users out there...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> Did you learn this supercilious attitude at Redmond? Users are becoming

> more computer savvy. It's not 1998 anymore.

>

> Alias

 

Yep, you got that one right!

Linux is losing market share.

Frank

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:eZ4XOn$vHHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Where do you think the term "root kit" came from? Is there a root user

>>>> in Windows?

>>>>

>>>

>>> Hence the need for a firewall which Ubuntu provides. Oops.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> A firewall is not going to prevent the installation of rootkits.

>>

>> I believe sony was installing them just by playing their music cd's on

>> your computer.

>>

>> So you buy some software (or download it for free) and it installs a

>> rootkit that criples the security on your system or causes other

>> problems. Since you said ok to installing it (even if you didn't know it

>> was going to install a rootkit) how is linux or windows better in this

>> case?

>>

>> Jeff

>

> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If you

> stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of course,

> it's possible!

>

> Alias

 

No matter what is said. No matter how convincing. These pissing contests do

nothing for anyone. Just stop answering these comments.

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:eNaPUrCwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Face it, Linux is almost bullet proof and Windows is a sieve.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> A lot of americans used to believe that before pearl harbor...

>>

>> Jeff

>

> Huh?

>

> Alias

 

Americans thought no one would ever attack them and then japan attacked

pearl harbor...

 

Jeff