Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
Permalink for comment 358649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Another car analogy
by kaiwai on Wed 15th Apr 2009 12:47 UTC
Member since:

Lets say you own a car, there is a oil warning light that goes on - instead of doing something about it you ignore it till the point that it results in the engine seizing up. This oil light had be blinking for months, the manual in your car stated that if the light goes on you need to take it in to get serviced. When the engine seized up - whose fault is it?

The driver had all the warnings, all the knowledge and the window of opportunity to do something about it - but chose not to. Is it the car companies fault or the fault of the driver? If there is a fault with the car that results in the oil light going on - there is a recall of those cars but the driver chooses not to, is it the fault of the car company or the driver who refused to take it in to get fixed?

Before people start criticising Microsoft - the fix has been out since the 28 October 2008. End users have had over 5 months to install it; the 'warning light' has been on for a long time and yet they chose to ignore it. The media in New Zealand on both TV3 and TV1 had segments talking about how you can be safe - and yet we have end users ignore this.

So could someone please explain to me why Microsoft should be blamed after doing all the right things as so far as issuing a security alert, providing a patch, and the media explaining what you as an end user can do to protect yourself.

Edited 2009-04-15 12:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3