lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <400FDDC5.50701@onryou.com> From: lists at onryou.com (Cael Abal) Subject: Anti-MS drivel >>Why is it possible that a user is able to make this mistake? > > Oh COME now! Are you so INSULAR that you dont realise the real world? My > wife works for a MENSA member, a recognised genius who would likely have > more brain capacity than most people in the world. He doesnt have a CLUE how > to secure his computer. WHY? He isnt in the least INTERESTED in computers > outside of using them to do his work on. Oh and BTW, his work, nothing to do > with computers other than using them as a tool, made him a > multi-millionaire. Why the HELL should this guy, according to you, *HAVE* to > know what he is doing with a computer. He, likely, has more money than you > and I put together EVER will have unless one of us wins over 300 million US > dollars. In my book, this guy is devoting his time the best way possible. > Learning what to do with computers to the extent where he can lock it down > is actually financially irresponsible to him. He can PAY someone US$200 an > hour to do that and per hour STILL come out in front by a LONG shot. > > What IS it with computer/I.T. professionals (or those who know as much even > if not so employed) that they think just because THEY know how to do it, > everyone SHOULD know? Not everyone is INTERESTED and not everyone thinks it Greg, I just wanted to break in here and suggest you reread Tobias' last few posts -- he's not arguing the position you seem to think he is. Actually, he's arguing almost completely polar to what you're attributing to him. Are you trolling? If I understand him correctly, Tobias is simply suggesting that users ought not be held accountable for using faulty software. Using a debatable but reasonable definition of faulty software, as he does, it's really a fairly robust and straightforward argument. take care, Cael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists