Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ... - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ... - Linux ; Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses because no one bothers to write any for it with it's "Stephen Fairchild" wrote in message news:B5WdnWtF36E6gRrZRVny0A@pipex.net... > atbusbook@aol.com wrote: > >> RQS is Redmond Quality Software Home of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

  1. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses because
    no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.

    "Stephen Fairchild" wrote in message
    news:B5WdnWtF36E6gRrZRVny0A@pipex.net...
    > atbusbook@aol.com wrote:
    >
    >> RQS is Redmond Quality Software Home of the Black Screen of Death

    >
    > I just had a vision of someone pushing a cart, saying "Bring out your
    > dead".
    > The cart is loaded with virus infected windows PCs. This is not far from
    > the truth sadly.
    > --
    > Stephen Fairchild



  2. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:
    >Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses because
    >no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.


    How many linux viruses are in the wild? Zero. That's far less than
    even 1%.

    The reason is simple. Windows default user is an administrator with
    the insane practice of running complex buggy internet apps. Just
    opening an email, visiting a web site, or poping in a CD with an autorun
    is enough to infect a windows system.

    you're a ****ing idiot too.

  3. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    James R. Gentile wrote:
    > Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    > because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.
    >


    Hey, don't pay any attention to AZ Nomad he is just one of the drones.
    Hey, it's a nice bait you dropped there to get a buzz in the hive going.
    There is too much passion in them. They can't resist.

  4. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile
    > wrote:
    >>Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    >>because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.

    >
    > How many linux viruses are in the wild? Zero. That's far less than
    > even 1%.
    >
    > The reason is simple. Windows default user is an administrator with
    > the insane practice of running complex buggy internet apps. Just
    > opening an email, visiting a web site, or poping in a CD with an autorun


    Stop right here. This is the crucial bit. It's not so much the "running in
    admin mode by default" that made Windows the maggot-infested crapheap it is
    today -- it's all those "autorun" features that those incompetent morons at
    Microsoft sprinkled throughout their OS, their browser, their mail client,
    CD drivers, etcetera.
    Those dozens and dozens of ways to execute arbitrary code -- many of which
    beyond the users' control -- are a veritable invitation for malware. This
    is further aggravated by the absence of the humble x bit, one of the most
    powerful yet simplest security features in *nix and BSD. And as a result of
    this very foolish overall design strategy, software makers and users alike
    have grown accustomed to running executables to do things which could have
    been accomplished perfectly well by other means. Even a few months ago, one
    of the Winfools here crowed about some free Blender lookalike, offered by
    Microsoft -- and sure enough, the demo video, the manual and the tutorial
    were all served up as executables. Very stupid indeed. And even stupider,
    another Windummy defended this practice: "Hey, it's a self-extracting zip
    file, so it's OK."
    Ah well, I guess nothing ever changes in the Windows netherworld.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  5. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    James R. Gentile top-posted:

    >Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses because
    >no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.


    Wow, another idiotic top-poster displaying his ignorance.


  6. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    chrisv wrote:



    *plonk*

  7. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:06:29 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile
    >> wrote:
    >>>Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    >>>because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.

    >>
    >> How many linux viruses are in the wild? Zero. That's far less than
    >> even 1%.
    >>
    >> The reason is simple. Windows default user is an administrator with
    >> the insane practice of running complex buggy internet apps. Just
    >> opening an email, visiting a web site, or poping in a CD with an autorun


    >Stop right here. This is the crucial bit. It's not so much the "running in
    >admin mode by default" that made Windows the maggot-infested crapheap it is
    >today -- it's all those "autorun" features that those incompetent morons at
    >Microsoft sprinkled throughout their OS, their browser, their mail client,
    >CD drivers, etcetera.
    >Those dozens and dozens of ways to execute arbitrary code -- many of which
    >beyond the users' control -- are a veritable invitation for malware. This
    >is further aggravated by the absence of the humble x bit, one of the most
    >powerful yet simplest security features in *nix and BSD. And as a result of
    >this very foolish overall design strategy, software makers and users alike
    >have grown accustomed to running executables to do things which could have
    >been accomplished perfectly well by other means. Even a few months ago, one
    >of the Winfools here crowed about some free Blender lookalike, offered by
    >Microsoft -- and sure enough, the demo video, the manual and the tutorial
    >were all served up as executables. Very stupid indeed. And even stupider,
    >another Windummy defended this practice: "Hey, it's a self-extracting zip
    >file, so it's OK."
    >Ah well, I guess nothing ever changes in the Windows netherworld.


    However, nobody in their right mind runs multimegabyte internet apps as
    root. Many linux distro won't even let the user log into a desktop as root
    and if they do, they're welcomed to a bright red background and a big warning
    dialog. The amount of damage that can be performed while logged in root
    is far more than what a plain user can do. As root, any process can write
    to any part of the system at any time. Usually that is what a virus needs.

  8. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:

    > Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses because
    > no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.
    >


    Wow, another top posting windoze (l)user parroting the M$ Big Lie.



  9. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:

    > Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    > because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.


    Hey, another retard who thinks "market share" is a sensible metric for a
    product almost universally had for free.

    Let us know when you graduate third grade, so we can explain the math to
    you.

    Meantime, plonk.

  10. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:16:49 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:


    >> Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    >> because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market share.


    >Hey, another retard who thinks "market share" is a sensible metric for a
    >product almost universally had for free.


    >Let us know when you graduate third grade, so we can explain the math to
    >you.


    >Meantime, plonk.


    Let's do the math.

    Windows viruses in the wild: about 250,000.
    Linux viruses in the wild. zero. zip. nada. zilch.

    Even if linux had only a 1% market share, it is still infinitely more
    secure.

  11. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:46:56 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:16:49 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:

    >
    >>> Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    >>> because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market
    >>> share.

    >
    >>Hey, another retard who thinks "market share" is a sensible metric for a
    >>product almost universally had for free.

    >
    >>Let us know when you graduate third grade, so we can explain the math to
    >>you.

    >
    >>Meantime, plonk.

    >
    > Let's do the math.
    >
    > Windows viruses in the wild: about 250,000. Linux viruses in the wild.
    > zero. zip. nada. zilch.
    >
    > Even if linux had only a 1% market share, it is still infinitely more
    > secure.


    Indeed. You read about the recent attack on Vista which renders its
    entire new security model irrelevant? Or the shootout between Vista, OSX
    and Ubuntu?

    Windows just keeps losing, time and time again - and the best these
    morons can come up with to criticize Linux is something completely
    irrelevant, such as "market share". One has to wonder.


  12. Re: Microsoft _can_ do better than Linux ...

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:34:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:46:56 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:16:49 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
    >> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:56:06 -0500, James R. Gentile wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Wow, another retard that thinks linux is not susceptible to viruses
    >>>> because no one bothers to write any for it with it's < 1% market
    >>>> share.

    >>
    >>>Hey, another retard who thinks "market share" is a sensible metric for a
    >>>product almost universally had for free.

    >>
    >>>Let us know when you graduate third grade, so we can explain the math to
    >>>you.

    >>
    >>>Meantime, plonk.

    >>
    >> Let's do the math.
    >>
    >> Windows viruses in the wild: about 250,000. Linux viruses in the wild.
    >> zero. zip. nada. zilch.
    >>
    >> Even if linux had only a 1% market share, it is still infinitely more
    >> secure.


    >Indeed. You read about the recent attack on Vista which renders its
    >entire new security model irrelevant? Or the shootout between Vista, OSX
    >and Ubuntu?


    >Windows just keeps losing, time and time again - and the best these
    >morons can come up with to criticize Linux is something completely
    >irrelevant, such as "market share". One has to wonder.


    It all stems from microsoft's failure to understand the difference
    between a LAN and WAN. They think the world is one big ****ing happy
    family to be trusted for everything and anything. Linux is more like
    a University computer system designed against genius bastard crackers
    who will take advantage of any vulnerability imaginable. Windows is
    more like a mountain of bandaids on a completely unprotected core.

+ Reply to Thread