[Off Topic] Re: Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

Adriano Varoli Piazza wrote:
> Believe me, there have been times when I thought I'd met all kinds of
> stupid, and it's like idiot scientists went on to create a dumber kind
> just to prove me wrong.

Yes, but that doesn't affect the argument. Like I said, no system is 
fool proof, no system is perfect. This is a matter of proportion. How 
difficult is it to do something dangerous as opposed to something safe? 
Ultimately, the goal is to estimate what proportion of users will be hit 
by a security hole (viruses was the original topic of this thread). If a 
system makes it easy to do things wrong and hard to do them right, the 
answer will be "many". If a system makes it easy to do things right and 
hard to do things wrong, the answer will be "few". The latter is a key 
property of a secure system.

> Sometimes I wonder how people who, by their own admission, know
> nothing about computers, manage to actively go and install all sorts
> of spyware,

Because the system they are on makes it easy to install spyware by 
mistake. For example, just by visiting a website. And not just a 
malicious website. What you've described in your example is an insecure 
system. One that makes it easy to do the wrong thing and hard to do the 
right thing.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   ...and starting today, all passwords must
    \/_/    contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign
    /       language and squirrel noises.