Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Mac and Linux viruses?

__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 05 May 2006 00:08 \__

> Poor Microsoft, they don't have a new operating system to shovel into
> our computers yet, and even though they promised one for around 2003,
> it looks like it won't actually be released until 2008, which means it
> probably won't be stable until 2009, which means that we might actually
> see a working SP2 version around 2010.

I bet that Vista will be released *some* time in 2007, but it will be a
premature release which will not be most stable (BSoD in order) and will not
be more secure than Windows XP. They will still have that pending re-write
of the code, which involves 60% of the whole. Mind you, they *still* don't
use .NET in Vista development. They refuse to eat their own dogfood and they
can only ever come up with lame excuses and rely on spin doctors.

> By then, of course, Linux will be running circles around Windows XP,
> making it look like something from the stone age, and of course, anyone
> who wants a fully functional, well-supported 64 bit machine, will have
> to be running Linux.

It is the case already, but only few people are aware of the advantages.
Cattle effect is what will mark the tipping point. It's when everyone
announces how great Linux is that others will join in and express consent.

> This reminds me a bit of another time that a little nothing of a
> company called Microsoft managed to pull of a coup which took the
> market away from CP/M made by a company called Digital Research.
> Let's see now, Digital research was bought by Caldera, who purchased
> the service organization of SCO, then Ransom Love lost a proxybattle
> and ended up in the hands of Darryl McBride who decided to do Microsoft
> a favor and try to sue IBM for blessing Linux.  I'm not quite sure why
> Daryl wanted to help Microsoft blow away the markets for both Linux and
> SCO, since Caldera was doing so very well beating the snot out of
> Windows AND SCO, even WITHOUT the enhancements made by IBM
> (contribution of technology used in OS/360, MVS, and CICS since the
> 1960s).
> Maybe when Microsoft is selling at $3/share and Billy goes from
> autistic to Alzheimers, we'll see Red Hat buying what's left of
> Microsoft for a song, and selling portions of it off to Novell.
> It's the old "bait and switch".  We don't really have any good stuff to
> sell you at a reasonable price, so we'll tell you about something we
> don't have so that you'll come in and buy something you don't want or
> need at an inflated price.
> Microsoft has to stay just this side of the law, or the FTC might take
> issue.  They can't state that Windows is more secure than Linux -
> because millions of Windows machines have been successfully
> comprimized, while less than one in 1 million Linux machines get
> comprimized.  Instead, they pay bounties for imaginary scenarios which
> require incredibly bizarre system configurations to exploit, then
> publish them immediately, and measure the time from this first
> disclosure (unrestricted) to the next major release in which the
> production media version is fixed. They then compare this to the delay
> from the authorized disclosure to CERT, (tightly restricted by
> Microsoft), to the first patch release announcement to MSDN.

All good and valid points. Every aspect where FUD is non-existent is where
FUD has no basis to even be conceived. Security is one such example.

> It's not actually a lie, just a comparison of apples and oranges using
> criteria designed to make the orange the "Winner".

As in all the other FUD campaigns.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com  |  SuSE GNU/Linux   ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:00am  up 7 days 10:57,  14 users,  load average: 0.29, 0.27, 0.45
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index