XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c   
   mp.sys.macintrash   
   XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash   
   From: mist@cumulus.com   
      
   Dawg Tail wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I'll said it once and I'll say it again.  Market share has nothing to do   
   with the ease of writing malware for Windows.  How come a high school   
   student can write malware for Windows then?  I'll tell you how... it is   
   the inherent poor design of windows that makes it easy to do.   
      
   > And those who ignore that the   
   > Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.   
   > Like....you.   
   >   
      
   Guffaw!!  Clueless wintroll as ever.  Nice excuse but no cigar.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>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.   
      
   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA!!!  When have you ever cited any facts?   
   So far, all you've been able to do is parrot the M$ FUD line.  You've   
   made no rebuttals or provided any proofs.  That makes you a bonafide   
   wintroll.   
      
   --   
   ---------------------------------   
   Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)