From: Joe Touch (touch@ISI.EDU)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 11:02:44 PDT
John Klassa wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, "Joe" == Joe Touch wrote:
> Joe> Huh? Any one OS is usually 'impervious' to the viruses of any
> Joe> other sufficiently distinct OS.
> Joe> The choice of a 'different' OS was by design - defacto. Not by
> Joe> any useful property of Unix (not that I think there aren't any,
> Joe> but let's not toot the horn for no good reason).
> This is why I try not to open my mouth here too often. It doesn't
> matter what I say, somebody picks on some minor, semantic nit. Yeesh.
> Give a guy a break. :-)
> Yeah, Unix is impervious to Windows viruses because it's a different
> OS. My point was perhaps too subtle... The very thing that makes M$
> successful (binary compatibility everywhere, with little protection)
> makes it unsuitable for one of their most basic needs: duplicating
> I would be willing to bet that Sun doesn't duplicate CD's on Wintel
> boxes. :-)
My point is that they should, or at least that the message from MS
wasn't the same as this claim. The key is 'different OS' - there was
nothing in the message from MS that said that Unix was superior for this
sort of thing.
Granted, being the big bully on the block makes you the 'platform to
attack', as we've seen when we started running Linux on some lab hosts.
However, all MS said was "different OS acts as a barrier to MS viruses",
and since MS products don't run on Unix, that's a reasonable choice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 11:05:11 PDT