The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ignoramus25047
> <ignoramus25047@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008
> 10:54:12 -0500 <z4GdnQDojci5MW7anZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> This is old news, though true.
>>
>> Relying on Windows for real security (like if you have something
>> very serious to hide) is just insane.
>>
>> i
>
> Then don't. NAT firewalls, malware checkers, and procedural
> implementations such as "don't open suspicious email" will reduce
> one's exposure, though not totally eliminate it.
That's like saying; if you're not going to use a properly constructed
band-saw that has a guard, then at least make sure you have a first-aid
kit with plenty of bandages. Personally I'd rather do it the /right/ way
from the start, than risk bleeding to death from a severed artery.
Windows security is little more than a poorly implemented afterthought.
> Thus does the infrastructure compensate for Window's deficiencies.
But it does so incompletely; inconsistently and ineffectively. It's
little more than a token gesture for PR purposes only ... a spurious
sales-pitch.
> I would admittedly wish otherwise.
Your wish was already granted 17 years ago. It's called Linux.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
09:42:46 up 111 days, 6:18, 2 users, load average: 0.48, 0.87, 0.61
|
|
