Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Privacy, Security, Encryption A Computerworld editorial takes note of some interesting changes Dell made to the Linux page we linked to last week. They watered down some of their pro-Linux claims, but not as far as you might think.
Thread beginning with comment 431283
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: From the article ...
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: From the article ..."
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

In their day-to-day use of the Internet, ordinary Windows users face at least 10^7 (ten million) times the risk of getting malware than the same users would face if they were running Linux.

This fact is self-evident, it is an absolute no-brainer.

Actual malware infection rates back this up to the hilt.


Why did this get modded down? It is a plain, straightforward, demonstrable fact.

Here is a security firm's estimate of infection rates (it is unstated, but this is basically for Windows PCs):
http://gorumors.com/crunchies/malware-infection-rate-worldwide/

If accurate, that represents literally billions of malware-infected Windows PCs. Billions of times as many infections as any other kind of machine. (Microsoft would put the infection rate much lower, but that just changes it from 'billions' to 'hundreds of millions'). By induction, it is relatively easy to conclude that essentially all of the effort of malware perpetrators is directed at the Windows userbase target.

Regardless of the reasons why this is so, it still is so. It is the fact.

An ordinary user of Windows, demonstrably, clearly, undeniably, faces many orders of magnitude greater risk of getting a malware infection than does the same user running Linux.

Apprently, there are some Windows supporters out there having a very hard time facing this fact.

Apparently also, as perhaps evidenced by the Dell website re-wording, it is a straightforward fact that some parties do not want people to be aware of.

Edited 2010-06-23 23:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: From the article ...
by testman on Thu 24th Jun 2010 03:55 in reply to "RE[6]: From the article ..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Apprently, there are some Windows supporters out there having a very hard time facing this fact.

Showing the metrics behind your figures and substantiating them with hard evidence makes your post informative.

Stacking multiples of a million based on cherry-picked facts and arguments makes your post look like trolling.

Why did this get modded down? It is a plain, straightforward, demonstrable fact.

Toughen up, princess.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: From the article ...
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Jun 2010 04:21 in reply to "RE[7]: From the article ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Why did this get modded down? It is a plain, straightforward, demonstrable fact.
Toughen up, princess. "

What makes you think that I would in any way be upset by the inability of Windows fans to face facts? I merely point out the modding down of my post to demonstrate that inability to face facts. If I were a little more cynical, I might even posit that modding that post down, and indeed your ad hominem above, were merely weak attempts to censor voices pointing out the real risks that using Windows entails.

Like this person has done:
http://techrights.org/2010/06/16/dell-censors-secure-claims/

Stacking multiples of a million based on cherry-picked facts and arguments makes your post look like trolling.


Risk factors do indeed compound, BTW. Example: if you are driving while tired, you increase your risk of having an accident. If you are driving too fast for the prevailing road conditions, you also increase your risk. If you are driving too fast when you are also tired ... one might even consider that your risk has increased by more than the product of the two factors considered alone.

I'm pretty sure that that is the way insurance companies would assess it.

Edited 2010-06-24 04:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2