13,000,000 infected Windows Boxes

[Andrew]

"Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmpu1o$cat$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>Fact is, most
>> Windows computers are infected. --
>> Alias
>
> Care to attempt to prove this?
> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with hard
> evidence, right?
> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you can
> shut my mouth.
> This is your statement, prove it.
>
> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>
> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
> With **0.98% (~980,000)** Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
> --
> Andrew
>
>

**Change to .98% (~9,800,000)**

--
Andrew

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>
>> Fact is, most
>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>
> Care to attempt to prove this?
> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with hard
> evidence, right?
> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you can
> shut my mouth.
> This is your statement, prove it.

Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows boxes
are infected.

>
> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>
> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
> there are fewer bits of malware for it.

You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference
and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.

--
Alias

 

[milt]

On 3/4/2010 1:51 PM, DanS wrote:
>
> I don't hink that's it at all.
>
> I don't think it would stop if there were no replies.
>
> Of course, this most likely can *never* be proven, because there are at
> least two here that can't not reply.
>

I honestly think it is but as all net trolls know, there is always going
to be AT LEAST 1 or 2 people that always respond and if they spam long
enough, someone will take the bait.

 

[Frank]

On 3/5/2010 3:53 AM, Alias wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Fact is, most
>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>
>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with hard
>> evidence, right?
>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you
>> can shut my mouth.
>> This is your statement, prove it.
>
> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows boxes
> are infected.
>
hehehe...I just love watching your lying ass getting brutalized in here
each and every day.
You are a glutton for punishment aren't you.
>>
>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>
>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>
> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
> different from Windows.

Yawn.

Course you probably don't know the difference
> and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.

Projecting again, you lying POS linturd loser.
>

 

[Andrew]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Fact is, most
>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>
>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with hard
>> evidence, right?
>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you can
>> shut my mouth.
>> This is your statement, prove it.
>
> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows boxes
> are infected.
>

You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.

>>
>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>
>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>
> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is different
> from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference and prefer to
> believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>
> --

I know all about the architecture differences. That is the smallest reason
why there aren't more bits of malware for it.
Market is the major reason.

--
Andrew

 

[Frank]

there are about 3.8 million total infected computers...not 3 outof every 5

On 3/5/2010 3:53 AM, Alias wrote:

>
> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows boxes
> are infected.
--------------------------------------
Stop lying.
That is not even close to the real truth.
Try 3.8 million total.

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fact is, most
>>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>>
>>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with
>>> hard evidence, right?
>>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you
>>> can shut my mouth.
>>> This is your statement, prove it.
>>
>> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows
>> boxes are infected.
>>
>
> You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.

www.google.com. Do your own research.

>
>>>
>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>
>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>
>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>
>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference
>> and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>>
>> --
>
> I know all about the architecture differences.

Sure.

> That is the smallest
> reason why there aren't more bits of malware for it.
> Market is the major reason.
>

Nope you don't know.

--
Alias

 

[Frank]

On 3/5/2010 82 AM, Alias wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fact is, most
>>>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>>>
>>>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>>>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with
>>>> hard evidence, right?
>>>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you
>>>> can shut my mouth.
>>>> This is your statement, prove it.
>>>
>>> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows
>>> boxes are infected.
>>>
>>
>> You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.
>
> www.google.com. Do your own research.
>
Take your own advice liar.

Try 3.8 million total.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>>
>>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>
>>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>>>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>>
>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference
>>> and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>
> Sure.
>
>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for it.
>> Market is the major reason.
>>
>
> Nope you don't know.

You are the one who doesn't know.

 

[Andrew]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmrbnb$3bq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fact is, most
>>>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>>>
>>>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>>>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with hard
>>>> evidence, right?
>>>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you can
>>>> shut my mouth.
>>>> This is your statement, prove it.
>>>
>>> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows boxes
>>> are infected.
>>>
>>
>> You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.
>
> www.google.com. Do your own research.

Prove it. You are the one that brought it up.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>>
>>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>>>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>>
>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference
>>> and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>
> Sure.
>
>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>> it.
>> Market is the major reason.
>>
>
> Nope you don't know.

I sure do.

--
Andrew

 

[Andrew]

>>
>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>
> Sure.
>
>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>> it.
>> Market is the major reason.
>>

"The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity,
particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.

"The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by
the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he added."

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946

That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your proof.

>
> Nope you don't know.
>
> --
> Alias

-- Andrew

 

[Frank]

On 3/5/2010 8:51 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmrbnb$3bq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, most
>>>>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>>>>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with
>>>>> hard evidence, right?
>>>>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you
>>>>> can shut my mouth.
>>>>> This is your statement, prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows
>>>> boxes are infected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.
>>
>> www.google.com. Do your own research.
>
> Prove it. You are the one that brought it up.

Fact is he can't prove it. He, alias, starts to foam at the mouth and
goes into a rage of jealousy and anger over the tremendous success of
Windows 7. Also his RC of 7 time bombed on him and he is broke and can't
afford to purchase a legal copy of 7.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>>
>>>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see
>>>>> why there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>>>
>>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the
>>>> difference and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just
>>>> regurgitated.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>>> it.
>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>
>>
>> Nope you don't know.
>
> I sure do.
>

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmrbnb$3bq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hmqrb0$onq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, most
>>>>>> Windows computers are infected. -- Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to attempt to prove this?
>>>>> When you say "Fact is" you'd certainly be able to back it up with
>>>>> hard evidence, right?
>>>>> I expect to see a few links to some whitepapers/case studies so you
>>>>> can shut my mouth.
>>>>> This is your statement, prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Do your own research. I am not your secretary. 3 out of 5 Windows
>>>> boxes are infected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't just make stuff up. Prove it.
>>
>> www.google.com. Do your own research.
>
> Prove it. You are the one that brought it up.

You're the one questioning it. Research it yourself.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>>
>>>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see
>>>>> why there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>>>
>>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the
>>>> difference and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just
>>>> regurgitated.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware
>>> for it.
>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>
>>
>> Nope you don't know.
>
> I sure do.
>

No, you don't.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware
>>> for it.
>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>
>
> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity,
> particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.

An opinion not backed up by facts.

>
> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest
> by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he added."
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946

More opinions.

>
> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your proof.

I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from
that is obvious.

While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet
proof compared to Windows.

>
>>
>> Nope you don't know.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> -- Andrew


--
Alias

 

[Andrew]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>>>> it.
>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>
>>
>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity,
>> particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>
> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>
>>
>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by
>> the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he added."
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>
> More opinions.
>
>>
>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your
>> proof.
>
> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from that
> is obvious.
>
> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet proof
> compared to Windows.
>

First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
Market is main contributor to malware.
If the roles were reversed, and Linux held 92% of the Market, and Windows
held 0.98% the majority of malware would be written for Linux.

So you are accusing me of creating a straw man argument based on this
dialogue? What FUD did I display in the below statements?

>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>
>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.

>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is different
>> from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference and prefer to
>> believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>>
>> --
>
> I know all about the architecture differences.

Sure.

> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for it.
> Market is the major reason.
>
http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=153279591
You think Kapersky is a trusted source?

--
Andrew

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware
>>>>> for it.
>>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing
>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>>
>> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>>
>>>
>>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the
>>> interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he
>>> added."
>>>
>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>>
>> More opinions.
>>
>>>
>>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your
>>> proof.
>>
>> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
>> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from
>> that is obvious.
>>
>> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet
>> proof compared to Windows.
>>
>
> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.

Yes, it is.

> Market is main contributor to malware.

No, it isn't.

> If the roles were reversed, and Linux held 92% of the Market, and
> Windows held 0.98% the majority of malware would be written for Linux.

False.

>
> So you are accusing me of creating a straw man argument based on this
> dialogue? What FUD did I display in the below statements?

LOL!

>
>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>
>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>
>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>
>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the difference
>>> and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just regurgitated.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>
> Sure.
>
>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>> it.
>> Market is the major reason.
>>
> http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=153279591
> You think Kapersky is a trusted source?
>


--
Alias

 

[Frank]

On 3/5/2010 10:12 AM, Alias wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing
>>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>>>
>>> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the
>>>> interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he
>>>> added."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>>>
>>> More opinions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your
>>>> proof.
>>>
>>> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
>>> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from
>>> that is obvious.
>>>
>>> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet
>>> proof compared to Windows.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
>
> Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.
>
>> Market is main contributor to malware.
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.
>
>> If the roles were reversed, and Linux held 92% of the Market, and
>> Windows held 0.98% the majority of malware would be written for Linux.
>
> False.
>
True.
>>
>> So you are accusing me of creating a straw man argument based on this
>> dialogue? What FUD did I display in the below statements?
>
> LOL!

Nervous laugh.
>
>>
>>>> There are more than 1 Billion PC's in the world, currently.
>>>> http://www.science-portal.org/in/71.
>>>> For easy clarity let's just say 1 Billion.
>>>>
>>>> Windows has 92% market share (~920,000,000) and people write
>>>> viruses/trojans, etc for the biggest markets.
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>
>>>> With 0.98% (~980,000) Market Share for ALL of Linux- you can see why
>>>> there are fewer bits of malware for it.
>>
>>>> You're omitting the part about how the architecture of Linux is
>>>> different from Windows. Course you probably don't know the
>>>> difference and prefer to believe the erroneous FUD you just
>>>> regurgitated.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware for
>>> it.
>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>
>> http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=153279591
>> You think Kapersky is a trusted source?
>>
>
>

 

[Andrew]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmrhho$oqc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of malware
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing
>>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>>>
>>> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest
>>>> by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he added."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>>>
>>> More opinions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with your
>>>> proof.
>>>
>>> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
>>> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from
>>> that is obvious.
>>>
>>> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet
>>> proof compared to Windows.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
>
> Yes, it is.
>

No it isn't, you were responding to my post about market share.
You say I don't know anything about the differences between the Kernels.
(BTW, there are more similarities than differences.)

I continue to say malware is correlated to market share.
You call it a straw man argument.

I'd say that my 1st post provides the context, and you brought in a straw
man argument to discuss architecture, which has nothing to do with market
share.

--
Andrew

 

[Alias]

Andrew wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmrhho$oqc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of
>>>>>>> malware for it.
>>>>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing
>>>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>>>>
>>>> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the
>>>>> interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS," he
>>>>> added."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>>>>
>>>> More opinions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with
>>>>> your proof.
>>>>
>>>> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
>>>> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract from
>>>> that is obvious.
>>>>
>>>> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it bullet
>>>> proof compared to Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>
> No it isn't, you were responding to my post about market share.
> You say I don't know anything about the differences between the Kernels.

You don't.

> (BTW, there are more similarities than differences.)

So fucking what. The differences are what's important.

>
> I continue to say malware is correlated to market share.
> You call it a straw man argument.

I call it being ill informed.

>
> I'd say that my 1st post provides the context, and you brought in a
> straw man argument to discuss architecture, which has nothing to do with
> market share.
>

Because market share has nothing whatsoever to do with it. By its very
nature, Windows is more vulnerable and easier to hack, be it one Windows
machine or billions.

--
Alias

 

[Frank]

On 3/5/2010 10:57 AM, Alias wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmrhho$oqc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>> news:hmrf4p$euu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know all about the architecture differences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the smallest reason why there aren't more bits of
>>>>>>>> malware for it.
>>>>>>>> Market is the major reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing
>>>>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system, said Coursen.
>>>>>
>>>>> An opinion not backed up by facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the
>>>>>> interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS,"
>>>>>> he added."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
>>>>>
>>>>> More opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's from 2006, a few years old. Go ahead and refute it with
>>>>>> your proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need to. It's common knowledge that most Windows boxes are
>>>>> infected. Why you had to trot out a straw man to try to detract
>>>>> from that is obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> While no OS is infallible, the architecture of Linux makes it
>>>>> bullet proof compared to Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>
>> No it isn't, you were responding to my post about market share.
>> You say I don't know anything about the differences between the Kernels.
>
> You don't.

And you think you do?...Hahahah!!!
>
>> (BTW, there are more similarities than differences.)
>
> So fucking what. The differences are what's important.

He nailed your ass...again!!!
>
>>
>> I continue to say malware is correlated to market share.
>> You call it a straw man argument.
>
> I call it being ill informed.
>
Yes, you are very stupid and ill informed.
Nice combo huh?
>>
>> I'd say that my 1st post provides the context, and you brought in a
>> straw man argument to discuss architecture, which has nothing to do
>> with market share.
>>
>
> Because market share has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Market share has everything to do with it.
Oops!

By its very
nature, Windows is more vulnerable and easier to hack, be it one Windows
machine or billions.

That is your straw man argument.
Grow the fuck up asshole.

 

[Gordon]

"Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmrg2p$uqj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> First of all, it is not a straw man argument.
> Market is main contributor to malware.
> If the roles were reversed, and Linux held 92% of the Market, and Windows
> held 0.98% the majority of malware would be written for Linux.
>

So by your argument all the Linux web servers would be attacked by virus
writers because they have a majority of the server market.
So please explain why they aren't?