____/ Rex Ballard on Friday 25 January 2008 06:23 : \____
> On Jan 24, 7:04 pm, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> >>http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2008/01/23/download-windows-
>> >> vista-one-year-vulnerability-report.aspx
>
>> > By Jeffrey R. Jones Security Guy (and Microsoft Director).
>> > Clearly this is an unbiased, glowing report on Vista
>> > security, and we should accept his output without question.
>
>> Hmmmmm. Usually, Microsoft pays Forrester Research to say good thing about
>> Microsoft.
>
> According to exhibits presented in the Ohio vs Microsoft case,
> Microsoft has been having problems getting people to say the nice
> things they want said. Perhaps if Microsoft publishes their own
> reports, with lots of disclaimers, others will repeat and summarize
> the findings, without the disclaimers.
>
> Some figures I would like to see are things like:
> - the number of successful infestations for each platform.
> - the percentage of machines successfully attacked for each platform
> - the number of known malware for each platform
> - number of successful convictions and plea bargains for each
> platform.
>
> Include predecessors, for example, Windows 3.1 to Windows XP to Vista,
> and UNIX to Linux, as well as UNIX and OS/7 to OS/9 to OS/X. Also,
> compare server products where possible and appropriate.
>
> My guess is that Microsoft really does NOT want the public to see
> these figures.
>
> On the other hand, corporate IT managers are intimately familiar with
> the reliability of UNIX and Linux, as well as the issues related to
> Windows servers and Windows workstations. Microsoft can put out all
> the carefully filtered reports, loaded with disclaimers they want, but
> it's nowhere near as convincing as real experience with Unix, Linux,
> and Windows servers as well as Unix, Linux, and Windows workstations.
>
> Many corporate IT managers have installed Linux workstations in
> specialized functions, often replacing Windows systems in the
> process. Some examples include cash registers, point of service
> terminals such as teller stations, and customer service stations, and
> telemarketing workstations, as well as network administrator
> workstations. In each of these environments, Linux has shown itself
> to be more than adaquate, and often superior to Windows in terms of
> actual TCO.
>
> Rex Ballard
> http://www.open4success.org
Case of point (found by Rex actually, with his annotation):
,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
| "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I don't like the
| fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server."
|
| [...]
|
| "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
| don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't like
| competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't mention
| that we sponsored it."
`----
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
I have other citations in store which show:
1. How Microsoft cheats in TCO studies
2. Microsoft gets told off for bogus TCO studies
3. Microsoft benchmarks getting banned
4. Proof that disclosure of funding for 'studies' isn't necessary
All in all, Microsoft thrives in a culture of lies and deception. Need it even
be mentioned that Microsoft EULAs explicitly forbid benchmarking and
publication of benchmarks? What is Microsoft trying to hide? Is Microsoft
censoring? Sounds like totality to me...
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Data lacking semantics is currency in an island
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:00:01 up 19:54, 3 users, load average: 1.15, 1.40, 1.78
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
