NeoSmart has published their Windows Vista RC1 Monster Review, which tries a kind of "thorough overview" of everything Vista will ship with this close to RTM. Especially interesting is the brief security run-down. And of course, there are screenshots as always.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-11-11
//I'd argue that the net impact of the flaws is more important than the raw numbers. What do they mean to business continuity? THAT'S what's important. //
The net impact of flaws and malware attacks on Windows? Billions of dollars lost, billions of manhours spent trying to combat the malware, thousands of different malware items out there in the wild.
The net impact of flaws and malware attacks on Linux? What malware on Linux? Please show some.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-11-14
Um, yes it does. Check out the plethora of security patches released and their severity level. You may have an opinion it's more stable, but please try to compare things on level playing fields
Which I do. You're just not qualified to discuss this matter, especially when you can't make the difference between a "security problem" and a "security patch".
The zero-day flaw on Windows is a security problem (VERY BAD thing), a security patch is a good thing.
Once you'll notice that the security flaws patched on Linux are not exploited before the patches, you'll start to understand the difference.
Stack equal market shares of Windows against Linux and I'd suspect Linux would loose significant ground on the security arguement
Your suspecting is already debunked by reality, sorry. Loads of Linux appliances and Linux servers protect all those Windows as we speak.
A great deal of "Linux security" has to do with its lack of market numbers
Don't confuse your cluelessness with "lack of market numbers". The numbers are there, the number of Linux appliances alone is enough to counter your argument.
Security problems in Windows get slammed every month, yet every month Linux components have their share of vulnerabilities patched as well
Again, you have problem making the difference between security "problems" and "patches". Funny that you still associate the problems with Windows and the patches with Linux, in your sentence.
It just doesn't get splashed all over the news websites. Why? Because like it or not Linux just doesn't have the relevence on the Desktop
Your straw man has been debunked several time already. Are you new or what ? I think you would love these mi2g reports.
Security is not just about the number or severity of flaws as well - it's about the impact. In fact, I'd argue that the net impact of the flaws is more important than the raw numbers. What do they mean to business continuity? THAT'S what's important
So you understand after all. How to contradict oneself in one post : why do you talk about "the plethora of security patches released and their severity level" in your post then ? Because the impact has been, errr, zero for Linux ! While the Windows zero-day flaw is devastating as we speak, and viruses are still mostly a Windows thing.
Member since:2005-11-11
//While the Windows zero-day flaw is devastating as we speak, and viruses are still mostly a Windows thing.//
Which brings us back to ...
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6131985793.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2017620,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2017407,00.asp
Member since:2005-12-15
To me you're toying with words here. But yes, I'll agree that it's just my opinion that on level playing fields things would start to even themselves out.
I don't think my straw has been debunked at all, just disected sentence by sentence and then taken completely out of the context in which they were intended. But sure, you can do that.
I'm NOT a Microsoft fanboi or something like that - do some quick research on what I've said about them in the past here. It's purely untrue.
New? Hardly. Many years of experience in both SME and global corporates, working in some extremely controlled environments.
I do not see Linux as any more secure that Windows, or vice versa. Sure, that's my opinon and you're free to take swipes at me, without knowing me. You can do that, feel free. Tell you what, disect this entire post sentence by sentence... just for old times sake. It'll make you feel superior.
Member since:
2005-12-15
/ What do you mean "get their act together" ? Reading what you say, we'd believe Linux have security problems. It doesn't ! /
Um, yes it does. Check out the plethora of security patches released and their severity level. You may have an opinion it's more stable, but please try to compare things on level playing fields.
Stack equal market shares of Windows against Linux and I'd suspect Linux would loose significant ground on the security arguement.
A great deal of "Linux security" has to do with its lack of market numbers. Security problems in Windows get slammed every month, yet every month Linux components have their share of vulnerabilities patched as well. It just doesn't get splashed all over the news websites. Why? Because like it or not Linux just doesn't have the relevence on the Desktop.
Security is not just about the number or severity of flaws as well - it's about the impact. In fact, I'd argue that the net impact of the flaws is more important than the raw numbers. What do they mean to business continuity? THAT'S what's important.
Edited 2006-09-22 12:38