Re: Virus?

[russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <Vd9ea.144439$F1.4673@sccrnsc04>,
Rob <roberta@no-spam.inreach.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>2h2cnZIT0KTtRuWjXTWcpw@speakeasy.net">news:2h2cnZIT0KTtRuWjXTWcpw@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <b595fr$1eom$1@merope.saaf.se>,
>> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
>> >
>> >It's also a reason why you wouldn't want the Mac to become as
>> >popular as the PC currently is: if it did, the Mac would become
>> >subjected to the same flood of viruses and worms....
>>
>> No, it wouldn't.  Microsoft products are inherently less secure.

>ummm, yes it would.  And if you really believe the Mac is really more secure
>then that only shows how naive you are on the subject.  The Mac's
>un-popularity is probable the only valid reason it's not constantly targeted
>by hackers and viruses.

This is an idea that has been going around for slightly over a year
now.  I suspect it was started as a "memetic marketing" campaign by
Microsoft itself.  It doesn't matter how many times it is repeated, it
is still not true.  Microsoft has made the same mistake over and over
-- allowing what should be untrusted data to gain control of the
machine.  Add to that their IIS server, which has been historically
full of holes, and you have 80% of the virus problem right there.  Get
another 10% for their penchant for having various services turned ON
by default.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.