"That said, we don't really have time for intellectual banter."
I don't even respond to such articles anymore.
The author has no idea what he is talking about.
I'd be curious to know his particular "field of expertise". The article lists him as a senior analyst.
"The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few"
his points are not entirely off base, but yes his overall premise was weak. folks that blame MS solely for Cyber-security have no understanding of the topic. yes Linux is more resistant to contagious exploits, but is far from fool proof.
I'd say that he had a deadline and needed a story to crank out. this was the best he could do.
The guy is a stubborn ***, too bad some people are so blind they can't see the thing even as they are staring at it.
Last edited by mikewhatever; December 10th, 2008 at 12:30 AM.
From the article :
1. Market share = malware :
First of all, this is as much an assumption as the opposite, that market share is completely irrelevant to malware and security problems. It's not a fact, it can't be proven at the moment. However, the fact is that practically 100% of today's malware was based on exploits of the windows platform. That can be an indication of overall security.
2. blaming is unproductive :
It caused the major security redesign on windows vista, regardless of whether that redesign was successful or not. I don't think that's unproductive at all.
3. Microsoft is working on it more than others :
That can also be true if there are more things to work on.
I can't really talk for anyone besides myself, but since I've used linux I've never had any malware (indicating overall security). Not one incident, ever, in a pc without a firewall, with no antivirus, no spyware tools, nothing. One should think that with almost 1% of linux users, and billions of viruses, spyware, attacks, etc, there should be some here too.
In other words, what if microsoft, or more specifically, some bad ideas in windows are really to blame?
I want to live in this alternate universe T___T
oedipuss. you analysis is spot on.
forgive me, but I feel compelled to ask you in a bad German accent, "How do you feel about your mother"? sorry, bad psychology joke.
Huh... <scratching head>if Linux, Macs, or UNIX systems dominated the Internet, they'd be under pervasive attack, too. Would we be better or worse off?
Countless persons in countries all over the globe - with full, unmitigated access to the source code who are also able to communicate instantaneously with one another - all pouring over every line OF that source code with an eye toward tightening up the security and implementing fixes who are operating in an environment free of corporate overhead and a stockholder-driven "bottom line".
Now, how could that scenario possibly benefit a typical end user? I mean, gosh... I wonder.
Last edited by Therion; December 10th, 2008 at 12:33 AM.
He clearly has no knowledge of the security models on the other operating systems he refrences. He just reused every worn out argument.