Microsoft BS

[WildTangent]

i dont really like to join in on the M$ bashers, but this here is total bulls***

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2139585/microsoft-windows-linux-secure

i dont know who posted it, but it was a chart comparing unpatched security holes in various M$ OSes and some linux OSes, including Ubuntu. XP Pro had the most unpatched holes, followed by XP Home, and Win 2k. the linux OSes had none

please discuss.

-Wild

[aragorn2909]

i dont really like to join in on the M$ bashers, but this here is total bulls***

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2139585/microsoft-windows-linux-secure

i dont know who posted it, but it was a chart comparing unpatched security holes in various M$ OSes and some linux OSes, including Ubuntu. XP Pro had the most unpatched holes, followed by XP Home, and Win 2k. the linux OSes had none

please discuss.

-Wild

And I'm supposed to be looking forward to Longhorn? ;-)

[dickohead]

i dont really like to join in on the M$ bashers, but this here is total bulls***

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2139585/microsoft-windows-linux-secure

i dont know who posted it, but it was a chart comparing unpatched security holes in various M$ OSes and some linux OSes, including Ubuntu. XP Pro had the most unpatched holes, followed by XP Home, and Win 2k. the linux OSes had none

please discuss.

-Wild
What I don't understand, is how Microsoft can think that the discovery of less vulnerabilities is a good thing.... surely finding and fixing more vulnerabilities in an O/S or DB package is reassuring? I much prefer seeing my machine update fortnightly than monthly, I also like reading how insignificant the majority of security threats are when discovered and fixed, makes you feel like you're using highly proven and tested aplications rather than highly marketed and poorly tested.

All that document states is that there were less discovered and fixed vulnerabilities, not how many vulnerabilities existed that were fixed. There may have been 7000 vulnerabilities for Linux, 6000 of which were fixed, whereas with Windows 7000 also may have existed but only 500 fixed, so that could easily be twisted in your favour.

Independant tests like this prove nothing, as it's a well known fact that Windows is not only the target of many more attacks than Linux, but Linux IS updated more regularly and tested more thoroughly. And in the real world a free update to a problem will always be taken over one with an assosciated cost.

[hqlinux]

How about this one???

Microsoft quietly changed how its for-free AntiSpyware program handles a pervasive form of adware, a move that has drawn criticism because of recent reports that Microsoft is interested in buying adware-maker Claria.

The whole article can be read here:

Information Week (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165701037)

Trust worthy computing.....WHAT A JOKE

Harvey

[Takis]

i dont really like to join in on the M$ bashers, but this here is total bulls***

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2139585/microsoft-windows-linux-secure

i dont know who posted it, but it was a chart comparing unpatched security holes in various M$ OSes and some linux OSes, including Ubuntu. XP Pro had the most unpatched holes, followed by XP Home, and Win 2k. the linux OSes had none

please discuss.

-Wild

You've misread the article - however, the author deliberately wrote it that way. Microsoft did have a study that said Server 2003 was more secure than Red Hat ES. Whatever - I'm not really familiar with RHES so I couldn't compare.

The only bit that talked about XP SP2 being "15 times more secure" was comparing it with XP without any service packs. The author's trolling by putting the two comments together and making it look like Microsoft say XP is 15 times safer than Linux - which they didn't.

[Gnobody]

You've misread the article - however, the author deliberately wrote it that way. Microsoft did have a study that said Server 2003 was more secure than Red Hat ES. Whatever - I'm not really familiar with RHES so I couldn't compare.

The only bit that talked about XP SP2 being "15 times more secure" was comparing it with XP without any service packs. The author's trolling by putting the two comments together and making it look like Microsoft say XP is 15 times safer than Linux - which they didn't.
Transparency is the only way to truely trust anything, and Microsoft hasn't opensourced the Windows source code the last time I checked.

[Takis]

Transparency is the only way to truely trust anything, and Microsoft hasn't opensourced the Windows source code the last time I checked.
I disagree - if I write a program myself, I won't guarantee it works 100%, and I can see the source code. Just because a program is OSS doesn't necessarily make it trustworthy.