XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c   
   mp.sys.macintrash   
   XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash   
   From: dawgtail13@comcast.net   
      
   On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:00:08 -0700, GreyCloud    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >Dawg Tail wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>In article   
   >>>, Derek   
   >>>Currie wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My   
   >>>>point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have   
   >>>>to sling at mi2g.   
   >>>   
   >>>OK, let's try it this way.  Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G   
   >>>report, almost everyone switched to OS X.  So, we end up with 98% of the   
   >>>servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows.  Question:   
   >>>what would be the result?   
   >>>   
   >>>Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to   
   >>>Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.   
   >>>   
   >>>*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless.  Total number of breaches per OS,   
   >>>which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.   
   >>>What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of   
   >>>the servers that were running each OS were breached.   
   >>>   
   >>>How many major hosting companies run OS X?  How many run Linux?  If the two   
   >>>OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an   
   >>>order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more   
   >>>Linux servers out there.   
   >>>   
   >>>What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Go easy on them.   
   >   
   >Them who?   
      
   Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more   
   attractive target to malware writers. And those who ignore that the   
   Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.   
   Like....you.   
      
   >> They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical   
   >> concepts yet.   
   >   
   >Apparently this has flown over your head by miles.  When are you   
   >wintrolls going to figure it out yet?   
      
   Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position   
   instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But   
   since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone   
   a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual   
   rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in   
   the know" club.   
      
   >   
   >> Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple   
   >> concept will evade them for a while longer.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Them who?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)