[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:33:03 +0000 Paul Sutton wrote:
Just found this, its worth reading just for the laugh at MS attempting to say Linux is LESS secure than Windows. http://www.linux.org/news/2005/01/29/0004.html Paul
Oh, I just love things like this:
"Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux."
Accountable? Since he's talking about mission critical applications here - which Microsoft don't write, they only write the OS - I think we can discount accountability. I would like to see the day that Microsoft accept liability/accountability for something going wrong when their OS is running a mission critical application that they didn't write. Is that not what it states in their EULA?
"In Microsoft's world customers are confidant that we take responsibility. They know that they will get their upgrades and patches."
I seem to recall an article a while ago about Microsoft's patching history. Grantedly the article was written by an ex-employee, but that doesn't necessarily discount his experiences. He said something along the lines of Win2k had ~200 or more known holes and exploits in the system. SP1 for Win2k patched over 150 holes and exploits - of which only a handful were of the original ~200 that Microsoft had been informed of, so there were still over 100 *known* exploits that hadn't been patched, and (as he claims) weren't going to be any time soon!
"Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing. For example, there is no single development environment for Linux as there is for Microsoft, neither is there a single sign-on system."
So, what is this "single" development environment for Microsoft? Would that be Visual Basic? Visual C++? C#? Any of the languages under the .NET umbrella? What about Delphi? God forbid - evan Java?! I see a whole lot of single DEs in there! And a "single sign-on" system, eh? So, a Windows NT based machine (NT ... Win2k3) presumably doesn't have at least 2? Local sign-on procedures with account information held locally in the "Security Accounts Manager" in the Registry vs. network sign-on procedures with account information held remotely in some ActiveDirectory/LDAP+Kerberos directory server, eh? That sounds like 2 "single sign-on" systems already! You've just got to love this bunkum. Grant. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for nuratal stidutipy. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.