@James Comer

> You seem to have failed to grasp the point that Graham Lockley had made.

Not at all: I understood his use of 'obscurity' with respect to lack of malware but decided to reply using the more realistic usage with respect to the problems closed ('security by obscurity') software is responsible for causing.

But this "it's safe only because no-one bothers to attack such a small target" is such a bogus argument, considering how many variations on the 'MACs and Linux are more secure than Windows' theme there are floating about - granted, some rabid and others more reasoned - so surely this is a much better target considering the claims made. And sorry; I have the same difficulty with considering malware creators as a business as I do with considering a bout of 'flu as 'great fun'. They're simply leeches feeding on the same open sores on Windows which have never been healed properly. Windows is an easy malware target not because of the user base, just because it's so EASY.

It's also bogus because the fallacious argument of 'any OS is vulnerable' is childishly simplistic and assumes that any other OS or application is as badly written as Microsoft's output. Actually, they're not.

> they are still amongst the best commercially available operating systems in the world.

<hollow laugh> Better to add the rider "and if Microsoft had its way, the ONLY system in the world". An interesting use of the word "available", too. Most manufacturers refuse point-blank to sell a machine with no OS so perhaps "chosen for you" might fit better.

> The main catalyst behind the anti-microsoft movement is (...) geeks (...) derive their power from their knowledge, the same as conspiracy theorists

Hardly. Unlike conspiracy nut-jobs' ravings, Microsoft's OS vulnerability problems are documented fact and Microsoft is rightly attacked for consistently producing sub-standard software. It doesn't matter how much better a MAC or Linux box may/may not be: huge, HUGE problems are being caused *now* yet nothing has really been done to change that. It's no good blaming users for clicking on a URL when that's what is supposed to be done with them yet somehow, they're *still* likely to have their system infested simply because the OS allows it without comment at a single click.

> If MS packed up and stopped producing software tomorrow and all we were left with was the products of open source collaboration

...then the hordes of malware bots and the legion of crap *directly* enabled by Windows' shoddy quality would vanish overnight and nothing of any significance would be capable of replacing them.

> Coupled with the fact that Microsoft is the biggest charity in the world

I'm sorry; this matters how, exactly? That Gates gives away some of his obscene wealth means I should somehow regard Windows differently?

@Colin @Graham Lockley

> Absolutely wrong. I am sorry if I annoy you by saying that,

No no, not annoyed at all. Just saddened that someone thinks all OS's are subject to the same basic flaws irrespective of their entirely differing design, security model and CPU.

> its the obscurity of the OS that protects them most

That hasn't done Microsoft much good, has it? Oh wait; you're not talking about the obscurity of closed software which allows no form of peer approval, examination, discussion or realistic testing of the security implemented (which OSS does, BTW) - you're basically saying the same thing as Colin. I can't really see how this odd 'logic' of the more targets, the easier they are to break applies to something as ubiquitous as Unix/BSD (which is what REALLY holds the net together) and Linux generally (which implements the same basic security model).

You're both SO far wrong it's just sad. Very sad.