On Apr 19, 8:32 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "cc" <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1176981567.451695.283040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:01 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> US Navy malware infection risked submarine prang
>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | Richard F Sylvestre, from Massachusetts, installed malware on a
> >> | computer network at the Italian HQ of the US 6th Fleet, America's
> >> | standing taskforce in the Mediterranean.
> >> `----
>
> >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/18/sub_traffic_malware_aliens_li...
>
> > You can only do so much to protect against idiots who intentionally
> > install things.
>
> You only see the knock on Windows here and are not looking at the overall
> issue. Consider that the US Navy and other military commands have
> incredibly huge amounts of money to spend and they take years to study the
> issues and often even have prototype competitions to prove the concepts that
> they are developing. Now after all that intensive investigation by the top
> experts in the business, they choose Windows over Unix, Linux, and all other
> platforms. I think that proves that Windows is the best choice for anyone
> needing critical performance.
>
> You, on the other hand, can only say that all these experts are, to a man,
> stupid, foolish, etc., and in any case not as technically astute as the
> Linux mavens around here. Honestly, how likely is that to be true?
> Absolutely zero. When it comes to pulling the real wagons, Windows is the
> only choice.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying Richard F Sylvestre was an
idiot for installing malware. He did it intentionally and malaciously,
which is unpreventable by any OS. The article makes no mention of the
OS used.
|
|
