To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: hahah windows server. the nerve of some people
Yeah, I guess after your product has been owned millions and millions of times costing companies in the billions... you start to pay attention.
If you compare published vulnerabilities, closed source software does great. It's like a list of bugs: open source will have 10x as many because: A) the code is published and B) anyone can analyze it.
Bugs get noticed quicker and fixed quicker.
If only IIS and SQL server had the reputation for keeping data secure and keeping corporate information safe, like open source products do.
If only open source had the kind of security record IIS6 and SQL 2005 have.
And if only MS Office had the kind of security record IIS6 and SQL 2005 have, then your point might even be more than theoretically relevant to average Windows users. You know, the ones not running Server 2003 for their daily desktop work. As in, pretty much all of them.






Member since:
2006-04-11
"Agree, but I wouldn't be overly pessimistic, given the move to LUAs, which restrict the damage that a malicious app can do. Malware won't have admin privileges anymore; therefore, it can't install itself permanently, can't start communicating (as a zombie), can't infect binaries, etc. All in all, it should be a better experience all around for users."
This is true. As Windows adopts more Unix/Linux like security policies, its makes people feel more comfortable using Desktop Linux in general.
Practically all the Windows people I've introduced Linux to bitch and bitch about how you have to use the admin account to, well, admin their system.