Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 11th Jan 2006 18:04 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Tests at Microsoft's Linux lab show that counting the raw number of security updates required by the various operating system flavors is not as meaningful as examining the efficiency of the update process.
Thread beginning with comment 84907
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Balanced article
by on Thu 12th Jan 2006 02:15 UTC
Member since:

The posts so far seem to have read the first page, if that (in the classic Slashdot styleee).

If you read the whole article, it is surprisingly balanced. Alan Cox (for RedHat) and Chris Ratcliffe (for Sun) give very strong counter-arguments which shoot down the MS FUD very clearly.

Microsoft seem to be going for the "Default Install" argument quite a bit at the moment (because default is pretty much all that Windows has, whereas Linux distro's, and even quite a few UNIX variants, tend towards include-everything-as-default so that they can win last year's battle about how little they offer by default). The *nix crowd always have the more secure card up their sleeve, because the "chuck everything in" default was only added for the novice user MS claim to aim for (not that a genuinely novice user could install a secure Windows, Linux, or UNIX system)

Reply Score: 1