__/ [ High Plains Thumper ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 06:51 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> 'Net of the Living Dead
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | It's not at all surprising that I would get an IP address of this kind.
>> | In June 2006, Microsoft found that some 5.7 million PCs were infected
>> | with malicious software which had turned the computers into "zombies";
>> | i.e., the PCs were under the control of the hacker who had infected
>> | them. The zombies were then used to initiate sending spam or denial of
>> | service attacks.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.linuxextremist.com/?p=77
>
> I liked this particular quote:
>
>> However, part of the blame lies at Linux?s doorstep; its strengths,
>> being Open Source, translates into a weakness, namely, there is no
>> marketing department with the same muscle as Microsoft to get the word
>> out. Linux advocacy has a role to play in this; it requires that users
>> who have benefitted from the Linux Revolution ensure that its message
>> spreads to those who are unaware of it. If you see someone ditching a
>> spare PC, show them how Linux can revive it. If someone has had a
>> computer that has become hopelessly infected with viruses, show them
>> the superior performance and security of the Linux way.
>
> I like the part about Linux reviving a spare PC that no longer has the
> hardware umph to handle the latest Microsoft O/S. It also would increase
> the upgrade cycles in real world from 3 to 4 years to 7 years. Continuous
> upgrading is detrimental to productivity and being cost effective.
I liked that part too. If it was related to the main message of this blog
post, I would have quoted it. This partly explains why Linux advocacy serves
a purpose. It is not a waste of time and relevant forums attract not just
the incapable or the bored (with all due respect, compare with some other
advocacy newsgroup that only assist a company, for free).
> It takes about a year for a person to get really comfortable with software
> to the extent they make really good, productive use of the features. I saw
> how detrimental the upgrade cycle was back in the days of Windows 3.1 and
> Windows 95. A user would get comfortable with the software, then be faced
> with another upgrade that changed menu structures. (An example is
> WordPerfect 6.0 to 6.1).
The example that you used is quite eye-opening. Think of all the
distributions that are based on XFCE, Enlightenment or Fluxbox (among
others) and use the very latest kernel. It's the equivalent of running
Windows 95 with the more familiar 3.1/11 UI.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Code built upon another's is less prone to bugs
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 127 total, 3 running, 122 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
