Search engines 'point to malicious sites'

>"Search engines deliver links to dangerous websites that download spyware and adware to visitors' PCs, exploit security vulnerabilities and attempt to scam users and include them in spam lists, a study has found."

Dictionaries include words some people find offensive. Encyclopedias include articles that provide information on harmful things. Stores sell products that might hurt someone. So how is it that search engines somehow have a duty to dumb down their service to suit the incompetence exhibited by the world's worst operating system?

Here's a tip: Don't get on the Autobahn while driving a broken tricycle with the wheels duct-taped on.

> ... the incompetence exhibited by the world's worst operating system?

I assume from tone that you're referring to Windows. I'm not sure it qualifies. The most insecure operating system of modern times, sure; but I'm not sure that translates to worst. OK, I think we've got some real old timers on here, what was the worst operating system ever? Does Windows rank up there or not?

jdixon:

Can you name one that has caused more aggravation, more expense, more distress, or more of any other kind of harm than MS Windows?

> Can you name one that has caused more aggravation, more expense, more distress, or more of any other kind of harm than MS Windows?

No, but that's because of the spread of computers and operating systems to the average person. With the number of Windows computers out there, it would still hold that title even if it were a comparatively good OS.

Can we honestly say that Windows is worse than TRS-DOS or the Commodore 64's OS, for example? I'm not sure. Take the Tandy Color Computer, for example. Yes, it's worse than OS-9, but I'm not sure it's worse than the Color Basic which came built in on the CoCo, which doubled as it's DOS.

jdixon --

Yup, yup, yup.

Don't think I want to be on 24X7 internet time with TRS-DOS.

CoCo was very cute and amazingly capable for its time and price, but still...I wonder.

Those early systems went to relative gearheads who weren't hooked up to the world -- welll, ok, there were bbses and Compuserve and the like...but you know what I mean.

Frankly, I didn't mind using Windows 10-15 years ago. It did what I wanted it to do. E-mail and the internet changed everything.

"Worst" is a relative term. Windows has the resources of the richest software company on Earth behind it, with supposedly the deepest and broadest pool of talent. And yet it sucks rocks on so many levels I lost count. I have no problem giving the "Worst" title to Windows.

jdixon: >"No, but that's because of the spread of computers and operating systems to the average person. With the number of Windows computers out there, it would still hold that title even if it were a comparatively good OS."

I sincerely doubt that. The abysmal quality of MS code is not due to the number of people running it. The idiotic design of the system is not due to the number of people running it. MS can't even document their protocols and design decisions for either the U.S. DoJ or the EU because it's such a pile of cruft.

MS bulled their way into the reach of the average person with promises they couldn't keep. They killed off the market for competitors with illegal tactics, so the lack of operating systems with which to compare is their own doing. It's also part of why their's is so bad; few incentives to improve, but lots of incentives to block.

Is OSX on a campaign to lock in customers to non-standard protocols and file formats? to usurp standards by deliberate incompatibilies?

How's FreeBSD doing? NetBSD? OpenBSD? GNU+Linux?

> The abysmal quality of MS code is not due to the number of people running it. The idiotic design of the system is not due to the number of people running it.

I never said it was. I merely said that even a relatively good OS with the market penetration Windows has would hold the title to causing the most "aggravation, ...expense, ...distress, or ...any other kind of harm". A good OS would have caused less of the above, but it would still surpass that of any other OS.

> ...OSX...FreeBSD...NetBSD...OpenBSD...GNU+Linux?

All modern operating systems which have various advantages over Windows. But the statement was "the world's worst operating system". This statement covers a lot of ground, and I don't think it should be accepted without due consideration. Yes, Windows is the worst modern operating system in wide usage, especially where security is concerned. But is it in fact the worst in the world, with the implicit addition "of all time"? I'm not sure. I'm open to the possibility, and if we include the earlier Windows versions in the mix I might even be willing to conditionally grant the premise; but sticking strictly to Windows XP, I'm not sure it's true.

Obviously, Tuxchick disagrees with me. :)

jdixon...

We'd all be so much better off running CPM.

jdixon: >"I never said it was. I merely said that even a relatively good OS with the market penetration Windows has would hold the title to causing the most "aggravation, ...expense, ...distress, or ...any other kind of harm". A good OS would have caused less of the above, but it would still surpass that of any other OS."

Ok. I was sloppy. Let me clarify:

Microsoft Windows is the world's worst operating system in threats to privacy, damages to personal data, destruction of business data, cost of use for business, cost of repairs that should not be needed, cost of interoperability due to deliberate incompatibility with standards, cost for downtime, cost for restoration of exposed sensitive data, all on a per capita basis. Add up the costs imposed on users of each operating system due to design decisions made by those responsible for the operating system, divide by the number of users of that operating system. Define costs as time or money or both, as you wish. Define users as purchasers of licenses, only individual persons, or both businesses and individuals.

I'd love to see those numbers, but I see ample anecdotal evidence that "world's worst operating system" fits MS Windows.

> Ok. I was sloppy. Let me clarify:

Clarification accepted as largely accurate. :)

Worst I ever got stuck with: Windows 2.0