There was a report in a PC Magazine of a scam whereby someone cold calls a PC User to tell them that Microsoft has detected a virus on their PC and offers to remove that via the use of some remote control software.

Its not the kind of thing a sophisticated user would fall for; how would you know that you aren't just paying money to the bad guys who infected your computer in the first place, for example? How do you know that you just haven't let them hook in to your veins, long term?

Anyway, putting that to one side and putting to one side the issue of what percentage of Microsoft users could be described as unsophisticated (or something), my question is this:

If, by whatever means not involving doing anything to initiate an infection, one were to contact owners of infected PCs and offer to cure the problem for them, and sent them a Linux install disk, would that be fair? It would be in their long term interest, after all...

I think that if you didn't tell them pretty clearly that that they were getting Linux, it would be unfair, but telling them that they weren't getting Windows would prevent a substantial number from doing it. And it is in their long-term interest...

Oh, and of course, this bunch of scammers didn't do this for free. £185 not for free, in this case. I feel that a £185 for a real cure would be way overpriced -immoral, maybe, if you can measure morality in money terms- but £10 for a cure, would that be moral????

(Note: this is just a discussion thread, and I don't expect a clear and well-defined answer to come out of it. I'm just ineterested in the dilemmas that it presents. But then, it is not my current intention to send PC Users an install CD either. But, if I were to be, Mark Shuttleworth, say, maybe I would send out a bunch of CDs with a 'this'll cure your security problems' (with appropriate care) message...but then, I'm sure that MS shills would argue that if they had taken appropriate care they wouldn't be in the current situation. Arguably.)

It would be a cure, but:

1) I don't think this will ever be implemented by anyone, because Window$ makes money for the stores and hardware manufacturers and even for the repair shops.

2) The people would not want this solution in many cases.

Does not sound like a good way to promote Linux....I, for one, will not deal with ANYONE that cold-calls on the phone.

More to the point, they typical user does not even know what an OS is---much less have the capacity to understand how Linux might be an alternative.

My sig used to read:
"Windows: The OS for people who don't know what an OS is."

I installed several slackware boxes for users who don't know what an OS is.
Once configured, they have no problem using the GUI.
Isn't that the same?

[sarcasm]"Thats not true. I don't have Windows, I am running something else. It is called Internet Explorer 7, that is the OS I have."[/sarcasm]