On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:23:47PM +0000, Joe wrote: ... > > It was to do with the original point, active client-side content of web > pages, really. This was the 'vast majority of downloaded software' I meant, sorry, I musunderstood that point... > and was contrasting it with the distribution of system executables, which > is done relatively safely. Microsoft may not be as ethical as we would > like, but so far the actual distribution system has remained fairly > tamper-proof. Whatever malicious software ends up in the machine is exactly > the malicious software that Microsoft meant to distribute. And if the use > of apt reached Windows-like proportions, how many people would manually > invoke it each day? How many would scour the Internet for half an hour > first, looking for evidence that the pending updates were safe or > not? I agree with you here. In fact, we basically agree across the board here, we just suffer from the medium's lack of nuance. ;) > But hey, I > deal with my government, whose ethics are lower still. shudder. I feel for you. at the moment, I am largely insulated from *that* horror. cheers. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature