From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Dec 29 13: 8:31 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from freebie.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-101-2-1-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.59.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0303A37B41A for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from contactdish ([10.0.0.10]) by freebie.atkielski.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBTL8IR75215; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:08:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from anthony@freebie.atkielski.com) Message-ID: <000401c190ac$f0ee7aa0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> From: "Anthony Atkielski" To: "Cliff Sarginson" , References: <02eb01c1902e$69629bd0$fe00a8c0@wskatinka> <20011229122459.GE3776@raggedclown.net> Subject: Re: Teaching parents UNIX Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:08:18 +0100 Organization: Anthony's Home Page (development site) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Cliff writes: > One since Microsoft software is almost > single-handedly responsible for the spread > of viruses across the globe ... Microsoft software is not responsible for the spread of viruses, any more than water is responsible for the spread of cholera. The more widely used a given software product is, the more likely it is that children will write viruses intended to infect that product; but that does not make the product responsible for spreading the viruses. That would be like saying that Microsoft Word is responsible for the spread of great literature. > ... then Microsoft should be responsible enough > to give all users of their OS'es a lifetime > subscription gratis to an anti-viral service. Microsoft doesn't do this for a number of reasons, one of which is the risk of liability should an anti-virus product fail to stop a virus. Anti-virus products only stop viruses that have already infected many thousands of machines, for the most part. > Solution 2. People should accept the expense > of buying an anti-viral agent as being necessary > to the safe-keeping of the Internet. Viruses aren't common enough or caught easily enough to justify such universal precautions. > Solution 3. ISP's should be held responsible > for any of their users who spread viruses through > non-use of anti-viral agents. That would deprive them of common-carrier status, as they would be exercising control over content. There are serious consequences to such a move, and I'd recommend that ISPs avoid such actions at all costs. > This is called social-responsibility. You're overlooking the most obvious solution by far: Don't open suspicious attachments to e-mail. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message