b54bab45   
   XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.os.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system   
   XPost: comp.sys.macintrash   
   From: jemmy@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 2006-06-28 19:18:10 -0700, Derek Currie  said:   
      
   > In article <449f036a$0$9880$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,   
   >  jemmy  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Sorry to post so late, but I just have to point out that your argument   
   >> is really stupid.   
   >   
   > Oh this I gotta read. Go for it:   
   >   
   >> The fact that there is no linear relation between market share and   
   >> malware per user demonstrates nothing since there is no reason to   
   >> suppose that the proportion of dick heads who write malware should   
   >> necessarily follow market share;   
   >   
   > Excuse me, but you just proved my point!!! You are quite right! The   
   > idiotic myth that I busted is insisting that there IS "reason to   
   > suppose that the proportion of dick heads who write malware should   
   > necessarily follow market share." DING! BINGO! Get it?!   
      
   No, I didn't prove your point, as you noticed below.  This is why you   
   should read the whole thing before imagining that you know what's   
   coming.  It's also why you should have edited out the above comment: it   
   only makes you look bad.   
      
   >   
   >> indeed, it makes far more sense to assume _all_ such dick heads would   
   >> write malware for the platform with the single largest marketshare.   
   >   
   > Really? Based on what data? 'Assume' makes an 'ass' out of 'you' and   
   > 'me'. Lame, I know. But you need to justify this. Please do. It would   
   > explain things.   
      
   If your object is to infect the maximum number of machines with the   
   minimum effort, you go after the platform with the largest market   
   share.  All malware writers can be expected to follow this same course.   
   I thought I was pretty clear about this the first time.  This is the   
   problem with your whole argument.   
      
   >   
   >> This is the same reason why all bra manufacturers aim their marketing   
   >> efforts at women:   
   >   
   > HAHAHAHAHAHA! I am afraid to read on!   
   >   
   >> despite the fact that there are some male cross dressers who wear bras,   
   >> you will not find that 1% of all bra advertisements are directed at men.   
   >   
   > OMG! You have to be f*cking kidding! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK   
   > stop or I'll wet my shorts.   
      
   I'm glad you enjoyed it--it was, after all, meant to be funny.   
      
   >   
   >> If Macs had a 90% marketshare, then all malware would be written for   
   >> Macs.  If marketshare numbers where close to 50/50, then your approach   
   >> would have some merit.   
   >   
   > Again, based on what facts? I can prove my point with data, as stated   
   > in the title (albeit a stupid title) of this thread.   
      
   Obviously I cannot provide "data" for that specific supposition because   
   Macs simply do not have 90% market share.  However, you have no "data"   
   that actually supports your conclusion.   You have a bunch of numbers,   
   but you don't know what to do with them.  Your "data" is neither here   
   nor there because your theoretical model is absurd.   
      
   It's rather like arguing that the sky is usually orange and green   
   because 2+2=4.  No one would deny your "data" (2+2=4), but your   
   conclusion is dubious. What's more, the connection between the   
   conclusion you want to make and your data is absurd.  There is   
   absolutely no reason to suppose that platform-specific malware should   
   be proportionate to platform market share, just as there is no reason   
   to suppose simple arithmetic facts should affect the color of the sky.   
      
   I would point out that there are no viruses for my CP/M Kaypro 2 or   
   Apple IIe.  Should I expect 0.0001% of all viruses and trojans to be   
   written for those computers?   
      
   >   
   > I think we can at least agree that, for some reason or other, dickhead   
   > malware writers have it in for Windows at an extremely disproportionate   
   > level compared to their malware writing for Mac.   
   >   
   > What I challenge folks to do is to explain why this exists.   
      
   I already did.  It comes down to economy of effort on the part of   
   malware authors--bang for the 'buck,' if you will.   
      
   Your argument amounts to a waste of your time.  If you want to argue   
   that a properly maintained Mac is more secure than a properly   
   maintained PC, then do so.  Don't rely on doubtful statistical   
   arguments with flawed null hypotheses.   
      
   For my part, I really couldn't give a damn.  I only commented here to   
   point out that your argument was stupid--not to take a contrary   
   position to the one you seem to want to take.   
      
   >   
   > The ultra-stupid myth that the 'obscurity' of Mac OS X is the reason   
   > why it has only 5 pieces of malware (55 malware in the entire history   
   > of the Mac) has been destroyed once and for all. It was never true. It   
   > has zero justification. Anyone making that argument is ignorant. A   
   > better explanation is required. Make it please.   
   >   
   > I have been busy this week, but forthcoming sometime soon will be a few   
   > possible explanations I have dug up on the net. They won't be   
   > definitive, but they will be worth consideration. The 'obscurity' myth   
   > is NOT worth consideration.   
   >   
   > :-D   
      
      
      
   --   
   Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)