[opensource] Linux vs. Windows
brown.1986 at osu.edu
Wed Oct 25 18:25:43 EDT 2006
As fun as flame wars are, they tend not to be productive at all. In the
end, two or more people are just pissed off at each other and neither of
them are going to entertain what the other has to say. We could have a
reasonable discussion about the security in Windows and Linux, but when
people start the smartass comments, the discussion looses value. The only
way to have a productive argument like this is to respond to each other
without trying to make the other person look like an idiot. It just isn't
necessary. I don't mean to pick on this message, but it happened to be the
one that made me decide to respond. I'm also not trying to imply that Brian
D. is the only person here guilty of any of this. That said, comments like
"*gasp*" just piss people off. It's rare that someone is going to respond
to a smartass comment and think "You know what, that guy just called me an
idiot, but he has such a good point that my entire perspective has been
changed." Furthermore, spelling and grammar corrections with a smartass
tone aren't helpful or productive either (it's considered polite in argument
to give a person the benefit of the doubt, ie if you know what they meant,
you don't need to call them on it, or at least, you don't need to act like
his/her point was invalid). Also, if a discussion is carried forward mainly
by smartass comments, people are going to loose interest eventually and stop
paying attention (although apparently I haven't).
The long and the short of it is, if you (generally, not talking to anyone
specifically) want to help the discussion, respond rationally /without
attacking the other person personally/. If you want to piss people off,
then go ahead with the flame war. Maybe I'm being naive, but I would expect
readers of this list to understand this. That said, this isn't the first
(and probably won't be the last) flame war on this list, but if we want to
help the community, we should try and avoid them.
OK, that's all I've got. Feel free to send me your death threats and
On 10/25/06, Brian Dittmer <dittmer.6 at osu.edu> wrote:
> I wasn't "sighting" anything, maybe citing...but anyway, you should READ
> THE WHOLE ARTICLE before you disregard it immediately. They actually
> use, *gasp*, a process and *double gasp* INFORMED RESEARCH to come to
> their conclusions.
> Besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that your claims are
> baseless and you've yet to back them up with any evidence. Com'on, you
> ridicule Brian (the other one) for not being able to use Google...find
> some evidence from a reputable source with a documented process that
> says Windows is as secure or more secure than Linux. If you're going to
> start a flame war (and if you thought your original email wouldn't
> you're more clueless than I thought) at least back it up.
> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> > No, I'm claiming that now (two years after that document was made)
> > Windows security is on par with Linux. Plus the register isn't a
> > "source" worth sighting.
> > -Charlie
> > On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:
> >> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> >>> That document is over two years old. Note my phrasing: "At this
> >> So you're claiming Linux is in fact worse off than it was two years
> >> ago? Again, cite some sources.
> >>> -Charlie Hayes
> >>> On Oct 25, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:
> >>>> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> >>>>> At this point the general security of Windows is about the same as
> >>>>> GNU/Linux system.
> >>>> Wrong.
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Opensource