On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:59:18AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more secure and
> possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent .
Others have commented (correctly, I think) that making security claims
like that is not factually correct.
My take on this is that verbally attacking ("flaming") other systems
is bad form and we should avoid that. Gloating over problems in
Windows counts as verbally attacking them. It makes us look like
poopheads and doesn't have any benefits for us. Let's not.
Tearing down others doesn't make Debian better. Let's stick to being
positive and constructive and to making Debian better together.
We, the Debian project, don't need to make a statement on Wcry at all.
If we were to do so, it should be something that helps victims, or
those in danger of becoming victims, of this non-verbal attack. Maybe
something along the lines of keeping one's systems up to date with
security updates, and having good, secure backups that an attacker
can't destroy. But that advice is already being given by numerous
others so I'm sure it's worth Debian doing it too, if for no other
reason that very few Windows users pay any attention to Debian.
(I wrote an article on Linux advocacy 20 years ago. Things haven't
changed radically since. http://liw.fi/advocating-linux/)
--
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature