D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] More MS fud against Linux -

 

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:33:03 +0000
Paul Sutton wrote:


Just found this, its worth reading just for the laugh at MS attempting 
to say Linux is LESS secure than Windows.

http://www.linux.org/news/2005/01/29/0004.html


Paul

Oh, I just love things like this:
"Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for 
example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. 
It produces one distribution of Linux."

Accountable?  Since he's talking about mission critical applications here - which 
Microsoft don't write, they only write the OS - I think we can discount 
accountability.  I would like to see the day that Microsoft accept 
liability/accountability for something going wrong when their OS is running a 
mission critical application that they didn't write.  Is that not what it states in 
their EULA?

"In Microsoft's world customers are confidant that we take responsibility. They 
know that they will get their upgrades and patches."

I seem to recall an article a while ago about Microsoft's patching history.  
Grantedly the article was written by an ex-employee, but that doesn't necessarily 
discount his experiences.  He said something along the lines of Win2k had ~200 or 
more known holes and exploits in the system.  SP1 for Win2k patched over 150 holes 
and exploits - of which only a handful were of the original ~200 that Microsoft had 
been informed of, so there were still over 100 *known* exploits that hadn't been 
patched, and (as he claims) weren't going to be any time soon!

"Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things 
missing. For example, there is no single development environment for Linux as 
there is for Microsoft, neither is there a single sign-on system."

So, what is this "single" development environment for Microsoft?  Would that be 
Visual Basic?  Visual C++?  C#?  Any of the languages under the .NET umbrella?  What 
about Delphi?  God forbid - evan Java?!  I see a whole lot of single DEs in there!

And a "single sign-on" system, eh?  So, a Windows NT based machine (NT ... Win2k3) 
presumably doesn't have at least 2?  Local sign-on procedures with account 
information held locally in the "Security Accounts Manager" in the Registry vs. 
network sign-on procedures with account information held remotely in some 
ActiveDirectory/LDAP+Kerberos directory server, eh?  That sounds like 2 "single 
sign-on" systems already!

You've just got to love this bunkum.

Grant.
-- 
Artificial intelligence is no match for nuratal stidutipy.

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.