On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:58:36PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > [ Sorry for the late reply, but ideas don't always flow the way you'd want ] > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote: > >> Even if such malware wouldn't damage the system, it could still do > >> things like sending spam and infecting other computers. That would > >> probably work in wine. > > > > Now I really wonder, is that *our* problem? It doesn't reflect badly in > > *our* > > users, only in users of Windows. There are ethical reasons why seeking this > > would be a bad thing, but working to prevent it, to the point that we have > > to > > give up on legitimate features, is really what we want? > > Isn't it our problem if our users' systems get turned into spam proxies > and botnets?
Yes, but it is not *our* problem. "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities." spam proxies and botnets are a problem indeed, but it has nothing to do with us. By ingringing limitations unto our users to solve this problem, I think we're following different priorities here (e.g. that which places overall well-being of the internet before our users). In fact, the other part of the problem (malware that affects Windows) does really benefit us. Of course, I would never advocate to promote it because of that, since I find that completely unethical, but I don't think we should spend our effort and make compromises to paliate one of our rival's most notable problems. > > If that cost is too high for Microsoft to break compatibility for the sake > > of > > reducing the virus problem *in their own platform*, why would the cost (i.e > > letting our users run viruses than can only harm our rivals) be too high for > > us to provide this compatibility in our platform? > > Spam proxies and botnets harm all users. Even worms that only infect > Wine and Windows harm all users because of wasted bandwidth. Ok. Let's consider a naive user who: - Clicks just about anything (and gets all the malware) - Can't figure out that he needs wine to run his win32 programs. The only way malware can harm our user is by wasting bandwidth. Do you think this bandwidth cost (of the user himself, not 3rd parties) is worse than the inability to run his critical win32 applications? Note that in a migration from Windows this inability will most likely make the difference between accepting the new system or going back to Windows. On a sidenote, perhaps it wouldn't be that bad to integrate Clamav into wine after all ;) -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
