Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
Thread beginning with comment 358702
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sorry to say this, but:
by Yamin on Wed 15th Apr 2009 17:38 UTC in reply to "Sorry to say this, but:"
Member since:

Sorry to say this, but if you're going to call the question dumb, I have no choice but to call you dumb ;)

The question specifically makes a point of using the term "Linux distributions" instead of "Linux". Probably trying to prevent some nut from saying 'linux is just a kernel...'

Yes, this is OS news. Most of us know when we talk generally about Linux... we know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. It's especially ridiculous when someone makes a point to use 'Linux distribution'.

Reply Parent Score: 3