Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Scott, Oct 3rd, 2001 @ 1:34pm

   
   

   Hmm so you think it was hype

   This is a perfect example that not too many system IT folk do NOT realize the impact of these viruses.
   
   If you have a problem with the reporters for adding drama to their reports then bitch at them directly but don't complain about the reporting of the viruses. If the reports stop one person from opening a virus and infecting others than it is a GOOD thing!
   
   We ARE seeing the performance of the web slowing and we will see it slowly eat away at the bandwidth. It may not happen at a particular time the reporters say but it is happening.
   

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   mhh5, Oct 3rd, 2001 @ 3:43pm

   
   

   Re: Hmm so you think it was hype

   Um, what the hell are you talking about?
   
   Obviously viruses are not good for the performance of any computer. And education of users and sys-admins is crucial for the prevention of spreading viruses... I don't think anyone disagrees with that here.
   
   However, I think you are missing the point completely about Techdirt's skeptical viewpoint on things. Techdirt posts are not trying to say that viruses shouldn't be reported. Techdirt understands that people need to be vigilant about preventing the spread of viruses.
   
   Techdirt *is* saying that virus reports sometimes scare people unnecessarily. Should you stop _using_ your computer b/c of viruses? Should you stop using certain software products?
   
   It's analogous to reports saying that no one should have sex b/c of HIV. It goes too far. Sure, viruses are a danger. But they are a danger that can be managed responsibly.
   
   Perhaps you think that a report that scares people into not using their computers at all --or not fully-- is a good one? Living is fear is not a good way to live....

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   alternatives(), Oct 3rd, 2001 @ 3:55pm

   
   

   Who to sue then?

   I have not signed or agreed to a Microsoft licence. Yet, the bad software from M$ is causing my expenses to go up.
   
   Why can't I sue M$ for damages? If the information superhighway was a REAL highway, any form of transport on the highway that dropped parts on the road, blew up, or caused traffic to slow due to its poor construction would be regulated/sued off the road.
   
   Why accpet crappy software, when such preformace of a physical item would not be accepted.?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Scott, Oct 3rd, 2001 @ 4:32pm

   
   

   Re: Hmm so you think it was hype

   On one hand I agree with you that the media should be responsible in their reporting methods and report the news not make it. Unfortunately the media thrives on drama/hype to get rating. We wont win that.
   
   On the other hand I see many ISP's pinging our servers. We report hundreds of them to AT&T. AT7T considers pinging spam and shuts the sites down within a day. These ISP's are in the IT business and they are NOT responsibly managing their systems. They are not keeping up on the lastest virus techniques and are affecting my business.
   
   I am skeptical of the abilities of the majority of IT professionals who are not installing patches. You yourself have not addressed the eventual slowdown of the backbone. It is happening before our eyes. If it is the ordinary user that is the one spreading the virus's like melisa then they SHOULD NOT use the internet until they are sufficiently educated on protection. Gee haven't we done that with HIV? either don't have sex or use protection.
   
   There is our answer. More education for both the individal user and the IT industry!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   xdroop, Oct 4th, 2001 @ 4:21am

   
   

   missing the obvious

   What everyone is ignoring is the fact that many major ISPs started denying inbound port 80 activity during the height of the Code Red emergency. Therefore, these "web servers" (which were probably mostly serving nothing more than the default IIS page) are merely unreachable, so who is to say what they are really running? This seems the most likely explanation, as only 2000 of the 80000 disappeared servers have resurfaced running something else.
   
   Most likely, these "web servers" were installed by default and never actually used -- thus artificially inflating Microsoft's numbers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment