Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Nov 2009 09:31 UTC
Windows Last week, security vendor Sophos published a blog post in which it said that Windows 7 was vulnerable to 8 our of 10 of the most common viruses. Microsoft has responded to these test results, which are a classic case of "scare 'm and they'll fall in line".
Thread beginning with comment 393794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: They deserve it
by Devi1903 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
Devi1903
Member since:
2009-11-05

I apologies for not elaborating. Microsoft has come a long way from XP in securing itself. And windows 7 is far more advanced in its security features, but none the less it is still not secure when comparing to linux for instance.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: They deserve it
by flanque on Tue 10th Nov 2009 22:26 in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Until both OS's are tested in the wild with the same level (and stupidity) of users, along with the same level of focus from the bad guys, this really cannot be stated as fact.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: They deserve it
by sbergman27 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 22:38 in reply to "RE[3]: They deserve it"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Until both OS's are tested in the wild with the same level (and stupidity) of users, along with the same level of focus from the bad guys, this really cannot be stated as fact.

Why? All else aside, the fact of the matter is that the bad guys *don't* attack non-MS OSes with anywhere near the intensity that they attack Windows. This makes Windows a far more dangerous operating system to run. Period.

Look at it this way. If you had a choice of being put into a battle zone without a bullet proof vest, being put into a battle zone with a bullet proof vest, or staying at home watching Nova (with or without a vest), which would you choose? Which would be safest?

I've never understood folks who whine that if Operating System Q were attacked as much as Windows, they would have problems, too. Because there is only one family of OSes which *is* attacked so violently and consistently. And that is the Windows family of operating systems.

It reminds me a bit of that scene in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?".

To paraphrase:

---
Blanche: If *only* I weren't always getting attacked by all this malware!

Jane: Butcha *are*, Blanche! Ya *are* getting attacked by all that malware!
---

People need to learn to face reality. And the reality is that regardless of the relative security features of the OSes themselves, Windows is a far more dangerous OS to be running than just about anything else, because it's the one with the target painted on its back.

Edited 2009-11-10 22:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: They deserve it
by lemur2 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 22:39 in reply to "RE[3]: They deserve it"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Until both OS's are tested in the wild with the same level (and stupidity) of users, along with the same level of focus from the bad guys, this really cannot be stated as fact.


This argument is getting very tired indeed.

Firstly, Linux has significant market share in areas where it is an attractive target ... servers for example.

Secondly, in Linux the "paradigm" for installing new software is not to download & run stuff from some random website, but rather to use a package manager.

I believe package managers have an impeccable record.

Over many years, for thousands of packages, for many Linux distributions, for millions of users, I have never heard of a single case, ever, of an end-user's system being compromised with malware through installing software using a package manager.

Amongst many millions of Linux users, there has got to be the odd stupid one here and there you would think.

Reply Parent Score: 0