|
|
|
|
|
|
by Piskvorrr
3057 days ago
|
|
|
From the other virology: a virus that outright kills its host doesn't get very far. A virus that keeps the host limping along, creating copies of the virus in the process, is far more likely to spread...which is, IIRC, precisely what happened in the early 2000s. (And indeed, what would be the incentive for disabling Windows hosts? "W1nd0z3 suxx0rz" would barely count as one, given the lack of general-public alternatives at the time - the afflicted would pay a tech grunt to repave with the same Windows again, been there, done the repaving.) |
|
|