Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Nov 2009 09:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 393808
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: They deserve it
by BluenoseJake on Tue 10th Nov 2009 15:49
in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
Anti-linux fud has nothing to do with the misrepresentations that Apple employs in it's adds, and most of the problems listed on the Windows 7 Sins page is just FUD, or problems that were solved ages ago.
I'm pretty sure that the FSF predates Linux, so they have been spreading the word long before MS started to get worried about Linux
MS is not the only one that lies, and as a user of both Windows and Linux, i can tell you that the FUD from both sides is kinda sickening.
RE[3]: They deserve it
by larwilliams on Wed 11th Nov 2009 21:28
in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
remarkable is Microsoft's claim that in the case of a security leak, Linux offers no guarantee of a patch- ignoring the fact that in the past, critical breaches in Linux have never been left for any notable length of time without a security patch being released. Unlike Windows, where a known security issue can stay un-patched for two years. Which shows that it's Microsoft that should be reticent of offering guarantees for patches.
There is no lie in saying that Linux isn't guaranteed a patch for a flaw. There is no one company behind it, to ensure that flaws will eventually be patched.
As for 2 years, I guess you forget the OpenSSL weak key flaw that was a bug from mid-2006 until mid-2008 huh?
Edited 2009-11-11 21:30 UTC
"remarkable is Microsoft's claim that in the case of a security leak, Linux offers no guarantee of a patch- ignoring the fact that in the past, critical breaches in Linux have never been left for any notable length of time without a security patch being released. Unlike Windows, where a known security issue can stay un-patched for two years. Which shows that it's Microsoft that should be reticent of offering guarantees for patches.
There is no lie in saying that Linux isn't guaranteed a patch for a flaw. There is no one company behind it, to ensure that flaws will eventually be patched. " This is true. I suppose then there are only the estimated 1.5 million full-time-equivalent developers involved with open source, who can all see the code and submit patches against identified problems, and whose best interest is undoubtedly served by promptly fixing any identified security problem.
As for 2 years, I guess you forget the OpenSSL weak key flaw that was a bug from mid-2006 until mid-2008 huh?
An as-yet-unidentified bug is not an unpatched security flaw. It is a bug.
An unpatched security flaw happens when a secruity bug is know to the general public, but no fix yet exists.
There was only a very short time span for the OpenSSL weak key flaw ... it wasn't hard at all to fix, as the flaw was caused by initialising some variables that shouldn't have been. As soon as it was identified, it was fixed.




Member since:
2007-02-17
and the FSF doesn't knock other OS's? Or Apple? Grow up. "
Chicken and egg.
If Microsoft trains representatives to lie with anti-Linux FUD, it has to surely expect criticism in return.
http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/New-Anti-Linux-Propagan...
I mean, really:
http://quaoar.ww7.be/ms_fud_of_the_year/569458-microsoft-attack-lin...
outright lies, pure and simple. Caught red-handed just plain lying.
As usual, Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign spreads totally unsubstantiated lies about Linux which it calls fact.
...
remarkable is Microsoft's claim that in the case of a security leak, Linux offers no guarantee of a patch- ignoring the fact that in the past, critical breaches in Linux have never been left for any notable length of time without a security patch being released. Unlike Windows, where a known security issue can stay un-patched for two years. Which shows that it's Microsoft that should be reticent of offering guarantees for patches.
Microsoft's biggest porkies are about the security of its OS in comparison to others, as usual.
Edited 2009-11-10 12:52 UTC