Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 11th Jan 2006 18:04 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Tests at Microsoft's Linux lab show that counting the raw number of security updates required by the various operating system flavors is not as meaningful as examining the efficiency of the update process.
Permalink for comment 84794
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kensai
Member since:
2005-12-27

HAHA is pretty clear that this guy, "Linux is Poo" is the funniest ever in every post he demonstrate the lack of knowledge about Linux and OSS in general. I understand you, you can't even configure X in Linux but man there are irc channels to help you.

About the article:
Is a great laugh, FUD all spread in the article. Example: You install SuSE Linux, it comes with mp3, java, flash, dvd, anything you can throw at it out of the box. And 1.8 GB of apps if you choose the KDE default install. There are apps for everything you would ever need and more on the CD. So is sure you would need more patches and all have great quality because I only have to patch one app one time only or 2 if it is very critical.

About Windows:
We don't know how many security flaws are in Windows XP with SP2 and all security updates to date because we can't see the source so there most be 1,000 security flaws and yet they are fixing 3 on patch tusday. Windows has more security flaws in a system which only contains base than in a Linux system that contains all apps you need.

I personally use Freebsd now and is way secure not to say Linux is not secure but I wanted to test something different since I have been a Linux user for years, still I love Linux and now love *BSD too.

Reply Parent Score: 0