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 Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:29:35 -0700, GreyCloud    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Restating a strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman.   
      
   >Market share has nothing to do with the ease of writing malware for Windows.   
      
   And had I made such a claim you might have a point. As I haven't   
   you've only succeeded in tearing down your own stawman.   
      
   >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.   
      
   So when can I expect the part where you tell me how?   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   So you're denying that a small market share makes a platform less   
   desirable to develop software for?   
      
   >>>>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?   
      
   Yeah...I've never provided a single fact. Geez, while you may not   
   agree with what I say a claim that I've not provided any facts just   
   makes you look desperate.   
      
   >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.   
      
   All you've been able to do is parrot how I'm a wintroll. Few facts to   
   be found from you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)