In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Hayes
<notinuse2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:29:20 +0000
<1hrhi5d.b8h984qnwu24N%notinuse2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> wjbell <wjbell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > Discovered: January 3, 2007
>> > Updated: January 4, 2007 09:50:50 AM PST
>> > Type: Worm
>> > Infection Length: 168,960 bytes
>> > Systems Affected: Windows 2000, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows
>> > NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP
>> >
>>
>> Marked as off-topic spam, Roy Schestowitz.
>
> Why is it off topic? It's an additional comparison bullet point between
> Linux and Windows and as such is a perfectly valid topic for a
> discussion group dedicated to the comparison of Linux and other OSs.
>
Linux was not explicitly mentioned. Of course, one of
the more interesting issues with Linux is that it is not
affected by the vast majority of malware out there, and
even with the "pointy-clicky-oopsie" types sent through
email it would take a fair amount of work before a Linux
machine would be at risk (for starters, the user would
have to explicitly download it, then mark it as executable).
It is certainly clear that a security report of this
type would get very unwieldly if every other OS had to be
mentioned, especially the dead ones:
Systems Affected: Win2k, Win95, Win98, ...
Systems Not Affected: Amoeba, AmigaDOS, BeOS, CTSS, ITS,
Multics, THE, Master Programme, RC4000, BOS, ADOS, TRS-DOS,
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64,
MacOS,MacOSX, p-System, RSX-11, TOPS-20, Domain/OS, VMS, ...
And yet, the press tends not to mention all of these other
operating systems when bemoaning the "malware problem".
Maybe it's because only one operating system manufacturer
has operating systems which actually have major problems
therein?
Naaaaaaaaaaaah.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: Not a text file
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
