Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharacterCounts
I don't give a hoot about operating systems. But, I fail to see how drawing a conclusion with no information can be reasonable. In fact, it would seem to be arbitrary - the opposite of reasonable.

Well, let's see... there are over 1,000,000 known malware out in the wild for a specific publisher's OS which is used ubiquitously in many such buysiness applications... and only 17 for a competitor's operating system which is not used ubiquitously in such applications. Is it therefore unreasonable to make a conclusion as to WHICH operating system just MIGHT be running that wound up infected with a Trojan? Especially since the 17 that run on the competition will not crash or affect other running applications on that OS. I really don't think so. I think the preponderance of the evidence makes the conclusion reasonable... and obvious.

61 posted on 08/23/2010 4:33:12 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker; CharacterCounts

Per the article, it was a TROJAN that infected the non-real-time, non-airborne computer. Can you name for me a computer OS that does not have trojans?


62 posted on 08/23/2010 6:33:39 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson