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?
Thread beginning with comment 358709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
shevegen
Member since:
2008-04-04

"So a criminal obtains a gun illegally, then robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk. Obviously we need to blame the gun manufacturer, right? NO!!!"

Why not? He advertized for his guns heavily. Are guns to be used - yes or no? Is it the state or the gun manufacturer who wants people to own guns? Would anyone with an UZI be able to kill 20 people alone, as opposed to a single guy with a knife?

Of course having access to guns leads to an easier way to kill people. I dont know how it is in the USA because the people there always defend that everyone can use a gun to shoot the next enemy on the street (even if it is your neighbour) but here in Europe there were several recent events where people who use guns for their sport did kill other people (most of the time family members, but in one instance a school shooting).

The guy who fired got the weapon from his father. Both were in a school for guns training for sport, so he was trained to shoot at targets. In this situation he chose to shoot at other people.

Now you come and say the gun manufacturer has no responsibility? Bullshit. They heavily advertize, so they do share responsibility. Of course they dont control human beings, and it is not their main fault if people kill other people, but guns are meant to be used against targets - animals, practise targets, or other human beings. You can not excuse this at all.

"The criminal shot the clerk. We need more gun laws, right? NO!!!"

Yes, you do. You need to restrict it heavily. You need a society where these things do not happen. Of course this does not work in the USA because you guys are controlled heavily by a corporate agenda of making profit wherever you go. So gun laws will forever remain a joke. This is an observation. The US people are bloodthirsty and want it this way. That is why they voted for Bush jr.

I am still surprised they voted for Obama not long ago. They cant make up their f--king mind.

"As I stated, the criminal obtained the gun illegally."
And what difference does this make to someone who obtains a gun legally? The bullet coming out of the gun doesnt care whether it is legal or not. Someone produced the gun, someone produced the bullet. You try to protect these.

"If he already broke the law, what good is another law?"

What kind of reasoning is this? This way you can use nukes against enemies when they do not comply to your way - because they already "broke" some agreement, or law. It is the agenda of ultimate conflict.

"Suppose the criminal instead busted the clerks head with a Craftsman claw hammer? Do we then blame Sears?"

How many people are killed with a hammer?
How many people are killed with a gun?

If you f--king compare things, then get a clue first before making such stupid remarks.

"Now, instead lets say the criminal wrote a worm to steal the clerk's identity and credit card info on his Windows based computer. Do we blame Microsoft? NO!!!"

We do. They are a de-facto Monopoly.

Are you a MS troll?

"But a responsible convenience store owner will train the clerk how to handle robbers"

Up to the point where he is f--king shot.

Your comparisons stink.


"A responsible Windows user will install patches, and a firewall, purchase antivirus and antispyware, and refrain from visiting questionable web sites."

Do you know elderly people who use Windows? I know them for years. They will forever stay noobs.

Now, is it their fault if the underlying software sucks?

"A responsible Linux user will do much the same."
Linux users are usually more competent, because Linux as a whole is a shit OS and you need to have a few brain cells to work with it. Unlike Windows. You can be an idiot and remain that way, and windows just works. Of course windows will forever suck, but as long as you are happy, and can use it, it does not really matter.

"But for goodness sake, don't waste your time trying to lay blame here and there for malware! Blame the criminal who wrote it."

Lets compare something.

We have a wall. It's height is 200cm.
Then we have another wall. It's height is 200000cm.

Which will is easier to climb over?

And this is exactly the difference between good software, and bad software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

k1773r37f Member since:
2009-04-17

"So a criminal obtains a gun illegally, then robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk. Obviously we need to blame the gun manufacturer, right? NO!!!"

Why not? He advertized for his guns heavily.


Yeah, I was totally flabbergasted by the number of Gun ads showing during the Super B o w l e, Oh wait. There weren't any.

Well, I am completely astonished by the proliferation of Gun Ads during prime time tele.....vision. Oh wait, There aren't any.

Well, those radio guns adds have got to go. What? None there either?

Well, still the proliferation of Gun adds in Home and Garden magazine....... wait, none there either.

Well those one or two gun related Magazines that we all know that everyone in the US is forced to read, beginning in kindergarten should limit their adds to feminine hygiene products only. Yeah That's the ticket.

"If he already broke the law, what good is another law?"

What kind of reasoning is this? ==>This way you can use nukes against enemies when they do not comply to your way - because they already "broke" some agreement, or law. It is the agenda of ultimate conflict.


I would say, "This" is pretty flawed reasoning. Your argument is totally nonsequitor to the stated, "If he already broke the law, what good is another law?"

GP is saying that since the criminal is already of the mindset of breaking the law, how is creating another law going to hinder him?

Yours is saying, "Well, I don't like him and he broke the law. So now I am justified in breaking the law also."

In both cases, the gunman in illegal possession of a gun and the nuke flinging thug, the hypothetical criminal has decided to break the law anyways. How is yet another law going to change the fact that they have already decided to break the law?

"Suppose the criminal instead busted the clerks head with a Craftsman claw hammer? Do we then blame Sears?"

How many people are killed with a hammer?
How many people are killed with a gun?

If you f--king compare things, then get a clue first before making such stupid remarks.


Pot, meet kettle. See previous argument.

But to answer the question. I would blame the Beatles for suggesting this in "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". Laugh, it's funny.

Now, in the spirit of keeping this post and thread from going totally off topic:

Where Microsoft can conceivably be held accountable is that they withhold security updates by "illegal" copies of Microsoft Windows. There is no such restriction in Linux. There is no such thing as an "illegal" copy of Linux. All Linux distributions allow for security updates from their respective upline repositories to all and sundry.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Reply Parent Score: 1