The actual context was the relative security of iOS and Android. The statement that you claimed was incorrect was a tangent that I added. I created the context.
Not exactly. As you have stated, the context was security. I will invite you to read this link again:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/trojans-viruses-worms-how-does-malware-get-on-pcs-and-macs/3491
I corrected your misquote of the actual term.
that's not quite the whole story. Here is the first use of the term on the thread by mcman77
the OS is not the problem here...it is just as safe.
The USER is the problem that makes the OS vulnerable. Its the user that has to provide the safetiness...same goes with iOS and OSX. the user can install a virus.
Seeing as how viruses (your definition) do not require user interaction to be 'installed', it is pretty clear that mcman77 is using the term 'viruses' to apply to various types of malware. Again, I refer you to this passage from the
ZDNet article:
....And categories dont matter. These days, actual viruses are almost unheard of. Melissa, back in the late 1990s was a real virus, the kind that copied itself to documents and spread via e-mail. Today, security professionals are more interested in what a particular family of malicious code does. The delivery mechanism is usually separate.
If this were simply a matter of semantics, I would let it slide. But its not. The obsession with these technical labels reflects a dangerously outdated view of computer security. If you cant see past those labels and get an accurate view of the current threat landscape, you wont be able to make smart, informed decisions for yourself or for others....
You either misunderstood mcman77, or (as you claim) used a different definition with your response
here without indicating that you were using the semantically distinct definition for viruses. That is your truthiness in action.... which is why I linked you to the ZDNet article which has this to say about those of your mindset:
...Or, put another way: We cant even have a discussion if one side thinks the world is flat and the other thinks its round....
That's an absurd invocation of the scientific method.
Why? Because it is correct and you can't twist it to support your flawed and ultimately incorrect opinion?
Pity!
----------
It's an opinion piece, it doesn't present facts. I happen to disagree with the guy.
That is your (and Baldimac's) prerogative. You can have whatever opinion you want... even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that an Apple enthusiast would act that way!
