On Feb 4, 8:22 pm, "Martha Adams" <mh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.st...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Windows not secure ... why is this news?
It's not news. But Microsoft loves to try to have their spin doctors
try to make a case that Windows is more secure than Linux, by pointing
out every bug reported and corrected in Bugzilla, for any Linux
application, to the official security patches rolled out by Microsoft
as security fixes exclusively for the Vista operating system.
It's not a new story. Microsoft tried to "prove" that Windows XP was
more secure than Linux, and we know how well that went.
Windows NT 4.0 was more secure than Windows 95 or Windows 98,
and Windows 2000 was more secure than Windows NT 4.0
and Windows XP was more secure than Windows 2000 (debatable but I'll
concede it),
and Vista is supposedly more secure than Windows XP.
Yet none of them are near as secure as Linux.
The only thing more secure than Linux is military versions of UNIX.
Depending on how Linux is configured.
Linux has been audited by the FBI, the NSA, and the DOD, as well as
government agencies all over the world. They report perceived risks,
and often even include the patches to add the security. The big
question is how to balance security with convenience.
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Feb 4]
|
|
