Re: [Evolution] to many virus

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 12:34 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 06:29 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 11:30 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 05:35, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 15:00 -0500, boricua pepino is-a-geek org wrote:
Right on. (Or at least till LInux gets so mainstream
that virus writers targets linux, but then again, 
linux users are more-or-less better disciplined to 
"not" click at everything :-)

Ugh.  Do you *really* believe that Linux apps are as insecurely
*designed* as Windows apps?

Contemporarily, linux apps are most often better designed, from a
security vantage point, than windows apps.

However, after linux gains broader acceptance (which is only a matter of
time), many of the same braindead developers that write for windows now,
will move to developing for linux or linux and windows.

At that point, a greater percentage of linux apps will suck too.  :-S

You can say "Well, linux distributors are smart enough not to bundle
those badly written apps", but there will be a larger percentage of
braindead linux distributors then too.

The difference between the Linux ecosystem and the Windows ecosystem,
though, is that there isn't a coerced monopoly of not only the OS
but the core apps.

Thus, if the GNOME or Evo or OOo or Mozilla teams start to make 
insecure design decisions, people will move to different s/w:
KDE, KMail, KOffice, AbiWord, Gnumeric, Konqueror, etc, or even 
fork the projects.  Thus, the "free marketplace of ideas" will
keep us secure.

(Note that I am not saying that Linux apps have no buffer-overruns,

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

Don't think of it as a flame, think of it as an argument that
does 3d6 fire damage!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]