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 359124
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"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 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