Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Rather than mandating that fraud claims will only be underwritten if
>> slap-on security is applied to an insecure OS, wouldn't it be better to
>> mandate the use of a /secure/ OS, for both the user *and* the bank, such
>> as Linux?
>>
>> It amazes me that both government and corporations will gleefully throw
>> away money on proprietary Windows solutions, and risk loss due to fraud,
>> rather than make the most obvious; secure and inexpensive choice to use
>> Linux. Are they insane; corrupt; or both?
>
> Incredibly ignorant/stupid?
>
All of the above?
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
