Two things fascinate me about this. One is that you thought the poster was talking not about you, but to you, and that you didn't move on as you said you would.
But since you brought it up, acceptable risk is a daily exercise. Driving for example - especially in Vancouver, eh, is frought with risk, yet we do it. We moderate the risk by ensuring our brakes are sound, our tyres are fit, our seat belts are snug, our mirrors are adjusted, we plan our route ahead of time, and we monitor traffic around us. And we insure our vehicle.
In computing we need to take acceptable risks but again we moderate them by using viral protection, firewalls, don't download from unknown sites, don't open email attachments willy nilly, etc. And we don't let our VM's create a tunnel through two firewalls without considering the consequences of that tunnel - we reduce our exposure. We take other steps, too, certainly, but the point is, we know we have done all we can in practical terms to protect our investments and networks from attack but still know there are risks. And our computers are useful to us even after all that care is taken.
These remaining risks are unavoidable, and there are no practices available beyond what we do that proactively protect us. When we have reached that point in computing we have left acceptable risk if we are to use our computers for our benefit. We are not risk free, of course, but we have done what we can to minimize damage should there be a successful exploit. In other words any remaining risk is unavoidable risk. It is for this category we have system backups for recovery in the worst case situation. That is our insurance.
This is all calm, collected, calculated computing. No fear, no hand wringing, no retreating into darkened rooms to quake with fear of computer exploits. It's just good intelligent system management. That which we can manage, we do. That which is out of our control we insure against loss.
In the market place security risk and exposure translates to sales. If Parallels requires increased exposure for some essential feature that is not found in the competitor's product, the competitor has an edge and that translates to rubles lost. That, finally, is where the matter is resolved. For me I want that matter to be resolved in Parallels' favor. I want to see these guys get stinking rich and enjoy the product of their vision and effort.
Click to expand...