XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c
mp.sys.macintrash
XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash
From: dawgtail13@comcast.net

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:00:08 -0700, GreyCloud 
wrote:

>
>
>Dawg Tail wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article
>>>, Derek
>>>Currie wrote:
>>>
>>>>Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
>>>>point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
>>>>to sling at mi2g.
>>>
>>>OK, let's try it this way.  Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
>>>report, almost everyone switched to OS X.  So, we end up with 98% of the
>>>servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows.  Question:
>>>what would be the result?
>>>
>>>Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
>>>Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
>>>
>>>*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless.  Total number of breaches per OS,
>>>which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
>>>What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
>>>the servers that were running each OS were breached.
>>>
>>>How many major hosting companies run OS X?  How many run Linux?  If the two
>>>OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
>>>order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
>>>Linux servers out there.
>>>
>>>What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
>>
>>
>> Go easy on them.
>
>Them who?

Those who ignore that Windows' huge market share makes it a more
attractive target to malware writers. And those who ignore that the
Macs paltry < 2% market share makes it a less desirable target.
Like....you.

>> They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
>> concepts yet.
>
>Apparently this has flown over your head by miles.  When are you
>wintrolls going to figure it out yet?

Maybe when you provide a factual argument that supports your position
instead of labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "wintroll". But
since you've been unable to make a factual rebuttle (labelling someone
a Microsoft "sock puppet" and "Guawffs" don't qualify as a factual
rebuttle) I guess I'll just remain outside of the Mac apologist "in
the know" club.

>
>> Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
>> concept will evade them for a while longer.
>>
>
>Them who?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)