__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 04 September 2006 08:17 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:12:23 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> (1) That must be well over a million pounds, which could help lecturers
>>> get a decent wage. There is equally-capable free open source software,
>>> which encourages collaboration -- a key area in research and learning.
>>> (2) 9 in 10 Windows PC's is infected with spyware. (3) 80% of all SPAM is
>>> sent from hijacked Windows PC's.
>>
>> That last item is what really toasts my bagel.... It is unconscionable
>> that Microsoft has been allowed to get away with producing such garbage to
>> the detriment of the rest of the world. They cost me on average 10-20
>> hours a week fine tuning my filtering rules just so I - and the companies
>> I do work for - can receive email.
I thought /I/ I was doing badly. Reassessing my filters is a time-consuing
process, but nothing compared with the time spent wading through SPAM. And
I'm still missing genuine mail. Luckily, none of the mail is from customer$
/per se/, so bitterness among businesses must be even greater. I can't
recall the figures which said how much money (and time, and mood) is lost
due to SPAM. I heard of a study back around 2002 when SPAM was said to
account for half the traffic. At present, it _by far_ exceeds these
proportions.
A guess: when Linux passes a usage barrier of, let us say, 30 per cent, then
businesses will loathe anyone who still uses Windows. It's hard to criticise
Windows for its impact on the Web unless you are 100% Microsoft-free.
Otherwise, it is a case of hypocrisy.
> This is all about societies and their attitudes to a) making money and
> b) polluting and damaging the environment. We are no more concerned
> with the pollution on the net than we are with the pollution of our
> planet. Somehow, the oil companies are able to make enormous profits
> whilst keeping a good distance from global warming.
>
> It doesn't always work that way, though - in the EU, car companies are
> being made responsible for unwanted cars, and computer companies might
> be responsible for unwanted PCs (might be already, or might be soon),
> but if you get oil out of the ground, or write software, then you seem
> to be untouchable.
>
> I'm sure that there is basic economics behind this - it's usually the
> reason.
Pollution is a good analogy. Make money now. Worry about unwanted residues
later.
|
|
