Re: Sequoia told "NO," again!

From: Cameron L. Spitzer <cls_at_truffula_dot_sj_dot_ca_dot_us>
Date: Thu Feb 22 2007 - 16:51:50 CST

>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:02:48 -0500
>From: JoE <>
>To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Sequoia told "NO," again!

>On 2/22/07, Richard C. Johnson <> wrote:
>> Sequoia has dug in around the notion that Open Source leads directly to
>> malware through instruction of those inclined to evildoing.

>Is anyone buying this argument? I mean, you'd have to have never used a
>windows machine in your whole life to think that open source software was
>the target of malware.

You underestimate the propaganda machine. MSFT has been very
successful at selling security through obscurity *and through
sheer complexity*. Ask any five Windoze "power users." You'll
be amazed at the mythology they can recite.

The other really popular canard is that the unixes are inherently
no more secure than windoze, it's just that windoze is a more
valuable target so they hit it harder. MSFT shills (both
pro and volunteer) repeat this stuff in every public forum
whenever the question is raised.

Now consider that the legislator or staff seeking advice from
convenient nearby "techies" is far more likely to consult a Windoze
power user than to find anyone who understands computer security


OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:23 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST