[jodrellblank]

> "a solution which the business side tends to finds unreasonable"

Isn't it odd that "unreasonable" solutions keep being suggested in threads started by people who first push Linux, and second ask what the thing even does anyway.

> "Thus the tender balance between business needs and business risk emerges as the deciding principle."

There is no tender balance and this is nothing like the deciding principle, and again it's illustrative that in a world where big organizations turn to poor quality software with poor UX for reasons like "nobody got fired for buying IBM" and "I look good on the Gartner report" and "the vendor will bend over backwards to make our auditors and legal team approve it" that Linux people go for the only thing they have going and try to suggest it's the most important thing, even though it's demonstrably an afterthought or a never-thought.

> "you are statistically likely to see the same rate of incidents, at whatever cost that comes to the business, indefinitely."

And you see this happening for literally 30 years and the "whatever cost" being written off as a business expense that has never changed anything, but you still call it "the deciding principle" when the evidence shows that the decision makers barel consider this at all?

[notakio]

Whoops. I used hyperbole, and it went undetected. Here: s/the deciding factor/a deciding factor/g. We're good now.

[jodrellblank]

So now you've changed your position, what happens to your original claim "If every car in your neighborhood that gets broken into is manufactured by a single manufacturer, it is in your interest in asking why that is, and perhaps considering that fact when shopping for a new car."

Why would that need to be said at all, if businesses are using security as A [prominent] deciding factor already?

My reply "businesses are visibly not using it as a deciding factor" still seems correct.

[notakio]

We're still good now.