[pchelpers] Re: Preview pane and the dangerous world of Microsoftand dishonest business people
- From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:35:52 +0300
> Let's see, if we follow this same reasoning we would definitely have to
> include cars wouldn't we. Very dangerous. Most have very little concept of
> how they work, or do the proper upkeep, and we have to share the same road
> with them. So the obvious answer is to never use a car. I am not going to
> take the illustration any further, each can do that.
>
> To my knowledge no one has lost their life because of a loss of a computer
> due to a virus, though I am sure there is someone, and I have seen some that
> looked like they would like to die. Where as a car crash can maim us
> physically and permanently a computer crash for any reason only maims our
> outlook on life for a short period of time, if at all.
>
> Sorry Ekhart, I restore so many computers that I can't get excited over
> seeing one crash or equating it to a Blunderbuss. For the most part, on
> this 'PCHelpers' format we are talking about personal computers. Now if we
> were talking servers for a large corporation or a web business that might be
> a different story.
Hi Bob
Yes, people may so far not have died because of computer viruses, but
neither i nor the guru quoted said that. He only pointed out that people
kept using blunderbusses even though they were known to be very
dangerous. He was on the contrary trying to point out that the millions
(of normal users) who use Microsoft products are not insane or
complacent (the government officials *are*) despite knowing that MS
products are insecure and that other products are better and often free,
specifically because MS products are not as dangerous as "real"
blunderbusses.
But that doesn't mean that the horror of finding out your computer has
been hijacked and is distributing millions of spam messages or is being
used as a repository for child pornography should be belittled.
And being a computer expert, you apparently are so used to computer
crashes that you can't imagine how much horror even this "minor" and
easily avoidable problem instills in most people. If people *really*
knew how susceptible Microsoft products are to "general" (MS-created,
built-in) problems and virus attacks and how much easier off and safer
they would be with other products *and* how much money they would save
*and* how much safer the computer world and the world in general would
be if everybody didn't use the same company's products, especially when
they're much less safe than anything else available, people would not
buy MS products.
I didn't say "the world in general" lightly. You don't seem to
understand that there are government computers using Windows and other
MS products although any real i.e. objective expert, e.g. almost any
computer professor at any university would definitely advise against
this. These government computers *and* the private information about
citizens they contain can be unnecessarily easily compromised.
You also don't understand that the US administration claims to be doing
everything it can for security but in fact uses and recommends Microsoft
products.
You also underestimate the dangers of identity theft due to a
compromised home computer. And if a few dozen greedy nerds can turn
thousands of home computers into zombies and mob 60% of the world's
email, imagine what a coordinated and intelligent terrorist attack could do.
You also seem to underestimate the horror of having files disappear on
one's computer or even just having one's computer down for most normal
users. You don't seem to even take the annoyance of a non-destructive
virus or trojan very serious. Just because defective cars kill and maim
more than defective toasters doesn't mean we wouldn't warn others about
and stop buying toasters that "only" burn themselves. And we'd
definitely expect the authorities to prevent them from being sold.
In any case, the word blunderbuss is nowadays usually used in a
metaphorical sense, and the OED's definition is a very polite and
diplomatic way of describing the hard facts surrounding Microsoft and
its products:
an action or way of doing something regarded as lacking in subtlety and
precision.
It's just in the nature of us human beings to take the easiest way out,
even if it means much more work and money in the long run. In the
computer world this means buying one of the many computers with Windows
preinstalled instead of looking for the more expensive Mac on the back
shelf (which is much cheaper in the long run) or also buying a CD-ROM
with an easy to install version of Linux, especially and specifically
because Windows and Word aren't lethal, only a royal pain in the neck,
and are considered "normal".
That is why consumer protection laws exist and why they should be made
much more stringent and why at least 1/10 of the necessary funds to
enforce them should be appropriated. Right now they're a joke.
Especially in the US, most people are so insanely and irrationally
distrustful of government that they would rather trust any old quack
with a smile and a big advertising campaign than trusting government
authorities to protect us from our own gullibility.
Getting back to cars; how many recalls has Microsoft engaged in
voluntarily or due to intervention of the authorities? How many times
have you seen a MS advertisement advising all Windows users to go to
Windows Update?
Got to stop, bye
Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Latest news live feeds at http://modecideas.com/indexhomenews.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
Other related posts:
