Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Nov 2009 09:31 UTC
Windows Last week, security vendor Sophos published a blog post in which it said that Windows 7 was vulnerable to 8 our of 10 of the most common viruses. Microsoft has responded to these test results, which are a classic case of "scare 'm and they'll fall in line".
Thread beginning with comment 393808
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: They deserve it
by lemur2 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"I think microsoft deserver all they get. They constantly knock other os and do things like anti-linux training, so they deserve to have their os knocked about (even if the way it is done is a bit of a waste of time.) The fact is that windows has never and will never be a secure os. Unless they really do right back to the drawing board and start again.


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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: They deserve it
by Devi1903 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 12:56 in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
Devi1903 Member since:
2009-11-05

[q][q]Microsoft's biggest porkies are about the security of its OS in comparison to others, as usual.


Agreed!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: They deserve it
by BluenoseJake on Tue 10th Nov 2009 15:49 in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: They deserve it
by larwilliams on Wed 11th Nov 2009 21:28 in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
larwilliams Member since:
2007-04-03

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: They deserve it
by lemur2 on Wed 11th Nov 2009 22:37 in reply to "RE[3]: They deserve it"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.

Reply Parent Score: 2