Reply #22: I'm sorry, but you don't understand...

[Atlant]

> I think it's safe to assume that if any other OS had such a huge
> negative following, we would see just as many exploits and viruses
> on that platform. In fact, significant security holes are constantly
> found on other platforms, just never abused and exploited to the
> extent Windows' flaws are.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand the difference between a real
computer operating system (with full multi-tasking and protected
memory, disk file systems with controlled access, etc.) and a toy
operating system like pre-NT Windows or pre-OS/X Mac/OS.

While it's still possible for a virus, worm, or trojan to inflict
pain on a real operating system, the damage is contained by the
underlying design of the operating system. Virus writers, no matter
how clever, simply can't "exploit" these real operating systems in
the way that they can Windows.

Windows/NT-derived systems (Windows/NT, Win-2K, and Windows/XP) are
actually a funny special case: NT was designed by Dave Cutler as a
real operating system with full multi-user protection and all the
bells and whistles that go along with that. And then, to allow the
successful use of the same old shitty programs you've always been
running on your Windows PC, many of the security features were
deliberately compromised bythe "Windows" layer atop Win/NT.

Again, the fact that MacOS/X, Unix, Linux, VMS, MVS (etc.) don't
have the plethora of viruses infecting Windows IS NOT A RESULT
OF MARKET SHARE; it's a result of the fact that these operating
systems are fundamentally different from Windows in their approach
to the question of security.

Atlant