Post by dgs
I use a PC. I also use Microsoft Windows. However, I run and keep up
to date my anti-virus software. Don't tar all PC/Windows users with
the same brush.
It's not that: someone out there is reading this on a PC and thinking
"it can't possibly be me", while not having any (useful) AV software
installed. If that's you (in a general sense, not David), update your
AV software and *check*. *Now*. Don't assume it can't possibly be you.
Well, you and Philip Marsden have repeatedly encouraged them to assume
that any criticisms of their operating system, setup or practices are
solely due to narrow-minded RISC OS users whining unnecessarily about
Windows virus vulnerability (or power consumption, or UI, or stability, or
security in general, or whatever).
So it's hardly surprising that Windows users who view their computer
rather like their oven ("it works three times a week, so why should I
clean it more than six times a year?")... the result of the "let's get
everyone in Britain online" campaign... are blissfully unaware that their
computers are bombarding you, me and most people here with huge amounts of
After all, criticisms of Windows users or (especially) Windows are
normally "an incessant barrage" of unnecessary criticism, right?
Not something the pair of you have only raised here - actually you've been
talking about this on various RISC OS mailing lists as well (rather an
incessant barrage, I thought).
It looks like the Windows users believed you! Hence the result we see,
an incessant barrage indeed.
[ followups set, doubtless to be ignored ]
First, may I thank you for re-directing this topic to advocacy. I have
recently taken the decision to read only the advocacy and announcement lists.
I have realised that (in common with other news groups/mailing lists) csa is
extremely bigoted to the extent that "if you are not with us, then you are
against us". Reasonable discussion about many topics is well-nigh impossible
(and we all thought that religion causes many problems), and so I have decided
to "get a life" and retire from these discussions. Therefore, if you (the
general you) wish to continue on your merry path of making remarks about
non-RISC OS systems without me making a reasoned counter-argument, then simply
don't put it on advocacy. I wish you well. :o)
I feel that you are distorting things somewhat about what I have commented
upon. You aren't by any chance trying to stir things are you? :o)
What I find disturbing is the attitude that many Windows users are morons who
are incapable of using their brains, never mind their computers, and it these
people who are responsible for the explosion of spam/virus problems. There have
been many comments made about how the average RISC OS user is much better
informed than the average (moronic) Windows user. Given the relative size of
the two markets, this would not be surprising. However, it is my experience
that the average RISC OS user is no more computerate than the average Windows
user, if you were to remove from the equation the vast numbers of people who
are using Windows as a tool for their employer. Most of these people have no
intention of learning the minutae of how their computer works, and who can
blame them? It is up to the same employer who insists that they use computers
to ensure that those computers cannot be misused.
Windows computers are sold as a commodity item, and it is unfortunate that
they are not designed as a commodity item, so that the average user cannot go
wrong. This is a flaw in the design. It does make me wonder how the average
RISC OS user would cope with all the problems that face a Windows user. One
only has to look at the questions that are asked about spam email, for
instance, to realise that RISC OS users are no more computer literate than
On the point of the famed RISC OS ability to resist virus problems because it
is not possible to execute a RISC OS program remotely(1), one has to ask
whether this was intentional or through inability. If the RISC OS designers
had incorporated this ability to execute programs from a remote computer, then
RISC OS would have been in the same position as Windows, and in need of a
security re-write. It has to be remembered that Unix/Linux has this ability
but, due to the design of the operating system, it is much more difficult to
compromise a Unix system than a Windows system.
I feel that I must re-iterate my long-held view that it is about time that the
RISC OS sector (in general) climbed down from its mountain-top of arrogance in
thinking that RISC OS is superior in every way to others, particularly
Windows. RISC OS is different, it has some advantages (such as a nice GUI),
but not overwhelmingly superior to other systems, as some would have us
(1) Please note that I have no knowledge of this one way or the other, other
than what I read on these newsgroups.
Regards, Phillip Marsden.