__/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Thursday 22 March 2007 17:43 \__
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:28:31 +0000, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>> 'Symantec .. said in its latest research report that when it comes to
>> widely-used operating systems, Microsoft is doing better overall than
>> its leading commercial competitors'
>>
>> 'The report found that Microsoft (Quote) Windows had the fewest number
>> of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five
>> operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006'
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
>
> Good goat. Yet another article comparing numbers of vulnerabilities
> without bothering to tell you what the comparison encompasses.
>
> Hint to the bright boy that wrote this drivel: your typical Linux distro
> includes several thousand application packages, Windows doesn't.
> Comparing "Windows" and "Distro X" in terms of nothing more than "numbers
> of defects" is a fool's errand, and the results are suited only for fools.
>
> Meanwhile, on another front, they say Windows is the most secure...
> despite having 12 high priority or severe issues, compared to OSX's one
> and RedHat's two.
>
> Just exactly how clueless *is* the writer, anyhow?
It's that classic old piece of FUD that counts the wrong thing, the wrong
way, comparing a 5-CD distro to some simple O/S that patches things quietly.
These figures (counts) came from that Jeff guy from Microsoft. He likes to
be hated when he shows that marketing gimmick.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Holey (sic) Cow! Longhorn is full of holes...
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/2 Thu Mar 22 15:26 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
