[ARTICLE] M$ to block SP2 for Win XP pirate users + accountab ility

Taylor, Corey (SAPOL) corey.taylor at police.sa.gov.au
Wed Jun 9 05:58:53 CST 2004


Ah but we're talking about slightly different levels of 'unsafe' here. It's
unsafe to take a discman on an aircraft as well as being unsafe to drink
concentrated sulphuric acid. Which one is *more* unsafe to you in terms of
the probability of causing harm to anyone? :-)

I'd say that in mission-critical applications (military and non-military),
WinXP being insecure leads to being 'unsafe' so often that they end up being
synonymous and almost interchangeable.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Newall [mailto:davidn at rebel.net.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 3:31 PM
To: Taylor, Corey (SAPOL)
Cc: linuxsa at linuxsa.org.au
Subject: RE: [ARTICLE] M$ to block SP2 for Win XP pirate users + accountab
ility

On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:51, Taylor, Corey (SAPOL) wrote:
> >Further, you are saying that gun manufacturers, who
> >come up with an improved safety mechanism, have an obligation to provide
> >those upgrades for free, too.
> 
> Actually if the original 'safety mechanism' was deemed to be unsafe in
terms
> of its expected general use, then they actually would be obligated to
recall
> their product and issue a replacement with the upgrade. Unsafe (or
> 'dangerous' in an IT sense) seems like a pretty accurate description of a
> vanilla WinXP install to me. 

XP is not unsafe; it's insecure.  It's probably also not safe to use it
in certain applications, for example aircraft control, but that's not
the same as XP being unsafe, any more than my Sony Discman is unsafe
(which also, apparently, is not safe to use in an aircraft.)


More information about the linuxsa mailing list