Why Free?

<me.TakeThisOut@myhome.com> wrote in message
news:bm0m501114p8nft0tu9crooe94sqri45qc@4ax.com...
> Because we are not asking for these viruses. That's why.
> Personally, I think MS should provide AV software for FREE.

Why??

> After all, they write the software that has holes which allow these
> viruses to "work". Therefore, THEY should pay.

Rubbish. MS Software is not faultless, and it would be foolish to say any
different. But nor are they on their own.

However, the single biggest reason that viruses target Windows machines is
because the vastly more windows machines out there. Macs and *nix machines
are vulnerable. If they had the dominant market share they would be targeted
instead.

In addition, Joe Public tends to use Windows, and he's the guy most likely
to read the spam. He's likely not patching his machine. And he probably
clicks on every attachment he gets. Another reason to target windows.
Virtually all Linux users are high up the technical food chain. You need to
be to use Linux - although getting better by the day, it is still years
behind windows software in it's ease of use and sophistication.

I think you should pay... you clearly know enough about the vulnerablities
of windows software, yet you clearly own a windows machine... If you didnt
own a windows machine, your machine wouldnt be at risk... You chose windows,
you should pay...

It's like the current hot topic in the US: burgers made us fat, so it's the
fast-food chains fault. I'm sorry, but you chose to eat the windows burger
so you should pay.

> One other thing I question. Are any of these viruses created by the
> companies that make the most money off of AV software? I mean, if
> they send out more viruses, they sell more product, right?
>

Isn't this an episode of the X-Files??

AV cartels conspire to create viruses to perpetuate sales of their AV
products....??

Bold but risky, I would suggest.

> However, if they give away their AV software for free, then why would
> they be sending viruses.

Indeed. I think you have answered your own question.

> Something to think about !!!!

No. Not anymore.

CJM
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

<me DeleteThis @myhome.com> wrote in message
news:bm0m501114p8nft0tu9crooe94sqri45qc@4ax.com...
> Because we are not asking for these viruses. That's why.
> Personally, I think MS should provide AV software for FREE.

Why??

> After all, they write the software that has holes which allow these
> viruses to "work". Therefore, THEY should pay.

Rubbish. MS Software is not faultless, and it would be foolish to say any
different. But nor are they on their own.

However, the single biggest reason that viruses target Windows machines is
because the vastly more windows machines out there. Macs and *nix machines
are vulnerable. If they had the dominant market share they would be targeted
instead.

In addition, Joe Public tends to use Windows, and he's the guy most likely
to read the spam. He's likely not patching his machine. And he probably
clicks on every attachment he gets. Another reason to target windows.
Virtually all Linux users are high up the technical food chain. You need to
be to use Linux - although getting better by the day, it is still years
behind windows software in it's ease of use and sophistication.

I think you should pay... you clearly know enough about the vulnerablities
of windows software, yet you clearly own a windows machine... If you didnt
own a windows machine, your machine wouldnt be at risk... You chose windows,
you should pay...

It's like the current hot topic in the US: burgers made us fat, so it's the
fast-food chains fault. I'm sorry, but you chose to eat the windows burger
so you should pay.

> One other thing I question. Are any of these viruses created by the
> companies that make the most money off of AV software? I mean, if
> they send out more viruses, they sell more product, right?
>

Isn't this an episode of the X-Files??

AV cartels conspire to create viruses to perpetuate sales of their AV
products....??

Bold but risky, I would suggest.

> However, if they give away their AV software for free, then why would
> they be sending viruses.

Indeed. I think you have answered your own question.

> Something to think about !!!!

No. Not anymore.

CJM
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

"CJM" <cjmwork DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:c3f364$287k93$1@ID-209813.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Virtually all Linux users are high up the technical food chain. You need to
> be to use Linux - although getting better

....worse

> by the day, it is still years
> behind windows software in it's ease of use and sophistication.

When it gets so "bad" (user friendly) that idiots can use it - they will.
The userbase is the weakest link in the perceived security of an OS.
Some Linux distros are bundling apps and utilities in much the same
manner as MS did - and may result in almost the same outcome. Very
nearly all of the Linux platforms will be running the same "killer" apps
just because they were bundled with the OS.

[snip]
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

"CJM" <cjmwork.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3f364$287k93$1@ID-209813.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> <me.RemoveThis@myhome.com> wrote in message
> news:bm0m501114p8nft0tu9crooe94sqri45qc@4ax.com...
<snip>
> I think you should pay... you clearly know enough about the vulnerablities
> of windows software, yet you clearly own a windows machine... If you didnt
> own a windows machine, your machine wouldnt be at risk... You chose
windows,
> you should pay...
>

Chose windows? I donno about me@myhome , but the last time I was given a
choice of OS on a computer I bought in a retail store was1995. Very few
people "choose" windows, thanks to the M$ monopoly machine, they have
already bought and paid for it when they take home their brand new computer.

Even most linux users I know double boot for a few of reasons 1) you've
already paid for win when you bought the puter 2) Mom/gf can't cope without
win 3) Civilation latest version not released for linux yet (ok that's my
personal reason-but you get the drift).

M$ should pay for AV, not me!

Stella
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

In article <2m0m50lvlhfpsod1bp5poq5a75f0s58u62.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, you say...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
> <janusNOSAP.RemoveThis@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:
....snip....
> >Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
> >which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
> >which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any
> >other commercial software on my machine(s).
>
> Are you saying that you now use F-Prot for windows? Some malware can
> destroy all windows based AV's. I hope you also retained F-Prot for DOS.

Mais oui, just in case.... And, of course, practise safe hex, use a
text only email reader, keep a Linux firewall between my W2K box and the
internet, use an alternate browser from IE, and all the good things
learned over the years from alt.comp.* and (fond remembrance)
comp.virus...
>
> I've provided my 2¢. Let's see what others have to say.
>
And it is certainly an interesting and educational discussion, for which
I thank all. (And if someone wants to tell me why John McAfee became a
pariah, I think I missed that event!)

merci
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP.RemoveThis@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
>work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
>It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
>software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
>free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
>money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
>open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
>recommend)?
>
>Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
>commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
>allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>
>So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

Most people realize that they should have an AV because of viruses,
but because they don't see the war on their front door, as it where.
They can't justify the cost to themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP.TakeThisOut@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
>work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
>It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
>software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
>free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
>money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
>open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
>recommend)?
>
>Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
>commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
>allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>
>So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

Most people realize that they should have an AV because of viruses,
but because they don't see the war on their front door, as it where.
They can't justify the cost to themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

In article <e%E6c.5981$Q16.266085@news20.bellglobal.com>,
fake DeleteThis @ihatespam.com says...
>
> "kurt wismer" <kurtw DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:_gE6c.20463$Eb6.498223@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Black Dog wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Also, like lots of people, I sometimes suspect the AV vendors and vxers
> are
> > > in cahoots.
> >
> > there's no way to keep something like that secret - if it were
> > happening you'd have heard about it...
> >
>
> The question was -- why don't people want to pay for AV. The fact that AV
> vendors, and only AV vendors, profit from viruses is one of the reasons why
> people don't want to pay for it. You can argue till you're blue in the
> face, Kurt, that it's a silly/paranoid belief/feeling but it doesn't change
> the way people feel, or the answer to the original question..

I don't like paying for AV software... because it's an entirely created,
artificial cost. The entire AV industry - all 2 billion a year of it -
is based directly on MS's inability to write good code. Since it's
their incompetence that caused the problem, if anyone should be paying
for AV tools, it's them. Not the users who are victims of MS's
failures.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kelseyb DeleteThis @xxnospamyy.lightspeed.ca> wrote in message news:MPG.1ac54ca3894a7e59989685@news.lightspeed.ca...

> I don't like paying for AV software... because it's an entirely created,
> artificial cost. The entire AV industry - all 2 billion a year of it -
> is based directly on MS's inability to write good code. Since it's
> their incompetence that caused the problem, if anyone should be paying
> for AV tools, it's them. Not the users who are victims of MS's
> failures.

Viruses don't depend on software flaws. Even if MS's code
were flawless - viruses could still exist and create a desire
for anti-virus measures.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

Black Dog wrote:

> "kurt wismer" <kurtw.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:_gE6c.20463$Eb6.498223@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>Black Dog wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Also, like lots of people, I sometimes suspect the AV vendors and vxers
>>> are
>>>in cahoots.
>>
>>there's no way to keep something like that secret - if it were
>>happening you'd have heard about it...
>
> The question was -- why don't people want to pay for AV. The fact that AV
> vendors, and only AV vendors, profit from viruses is one of the reasons why
> people don't want to pay for it.

yes, and if one of those reasons happens to be that the person has
become a victim of FUD then it's probably a good idea that someone
point it out...

> You can argue till you're blue in the
> face, Kurt, that it's a silly/paranoid belief/feeling but it doesn't change
> the way people feel, or the answer to the original question..

ok well, believe this - the av market is very competitive and if one
company could use info like this against another company it would...
any company that tried to get cozy with the virus writers would get
roasted, it would be commercial suicide...

and nowadays you don't really have to speculate about virus writers
getting support from anti-virus companies - it's become readily
apparent that virus writers are in league with the spammers instead...

--
"we're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
the first ones in line for that pie in the sky
and we're always the last when the cream is shared out
for the worker is working when the fat cat's about"
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:58:29 -0500, "FromTheRafters" <!0000@nomad.fake>
wrote:

>
>"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kelseyb RemoveThis @xxnospamyy.lightspeed.ca> wrote in message news:MPG.1ac54ca3894a7e59989685@news.lightspeed.ca...
>
>> I don't like paying for AV software... because it's an entirely created,
>> artificial cost. The entire AV industry - all 2 billion a year of it -
>> is based directly on MS's inability to write good code. Since it's
>> their incompetence that caused the problem, if anyone should be paying
>> for AV tools, it's them. Not the users who are victims of MS's
>> failures.
>
>Viruses don't depend on software flaws. Even if MS's code
>were flawless - viruses could still exist and create a desire
>for anti-virus measures.
>

The reality is that most virus DO exist because of flaws in MS code or MS
lack of security in the OS model. Without the ActiveX flaws, 99% of all
virus would not exist. Add security flaws, such as the RPC exploit that
allowed Blaster, and you have most of the rest. Without ActiveX, you reduce
the need for AV greatly. Close the ports and unneeded services that MS
leaves lying around by default and you eliminate most of the rest. Those 2
steps would reduce the AV industry from a 2 Billion dollar a year industry
to one of probably 2 Million dollars.

There will always be attempts at exploits. Phishing and other "human
engineered" exploits attack the weakest part of any security system, the
human part. Why make it easier for the bad guys than it has to be.

JT
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP RemoveThis @PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>In article <2m0m50lvlhfpsod1bp5poq5a75f0s58u62 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, you say...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
>> <janusNOSAP RemoveThis @PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:
>...snip....
>> >Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>> >which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>> >which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any
>> >other commercial software on my machine(s).
>>
>> Are you saying that you now use F-Prot for windows? Some malware can
>> destroy all windows based AV's. I hope you also retained F-Prot for DOS.
>
>Mais oui, just in case.... And, of course, practise safe hex, use a
>text only email reader, keep a Linux firewall between my W2K box and the
>internet, use an alternate browser from IE, and all the good things
>learned over the years from alt.comp.* and (fond remembrance)
>comp.virus...

From that additional info it is obvious you should experience no
real problems in the virus arena. Same here, I'm enjoying Firebird
and looking forward to Firefox when it becomes relatively bug free.
I scan after each update of Adaware but never find a thing. There
is no excuse for anyone to become infected with virus' or spyware.

>> I've provided my 2® Let's see what others have to say.
>>
>And it is certainly an interesting and educational discussion, for which
>I thank all. (And if someone wants to tell me why John McAfee became a
>pariah, I think I missed that event!)
>
>merci

BoB
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free? 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP.DeleteThis@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>In article <2m0m50lvlhfpsod1bp5poq5a75f0s58u62.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, you say...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
>> <janusNOSAP.DeleteThis@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:
>...snip....
>> >Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>> >which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>> >which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any
>> >other commercial software on my machine(s).
>>
>> Are you saying that you now use F-Prot for windows? Some malware can
>> destroy all windows based AV's. I hope you also retained F-Prot for DOS.
>
>Mais oui, just in case.... And, of course, practise safe hex, use a
>text only email reader, keep a Linux firewall between my W2K box and the
>internet, use an alternate browser from IE, and all the good things
>learned over the years from alt.comp.* and (fond remembrance)
>comp.virus...

From that additional info it is obvious you should experience no
real problems in the virus arena. Same here, I'm enjoying Firebird
and looking forward to Firefox when it becomes relatively bug free.
I scan after each update of Adaware but never find a thing. There
is no excuse for anyone to become infected with virus' or spyware.

>> I've provided my 2® Let's see what others have to say.
>>
>And it is certainly an interesting and educational discussion, for which
>I thank all. (And if someone wants to tell me why John McAfee became a
>pariah, I think I missed that event!)
>
>merci

BoB
 >> Stay informed about: Why Free?