Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Raises Security Game, Notes Shortcomings Elsewhere
LMCBoy writes "Steve Ballmer recently told an industry conference that Microsoft software is more secure than Linux. PJ at Groklaw has a nice, thorough analysis of this dubious claim. She points out that not only are there vastly more Microsoft exploits reported, but that the exploits tend to be much more severe, involving remote administrator access." In related news, mhesseltine writes "According to an article from the Washington Post, in an unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products, instead of those of their competitors. Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'"
Do you think it could POSSIBLE be due to the fact that Office 2003 just came out and the need to find a reason to get people to buy it?
"Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'""
When the version of Linux is Lindows and it's adminstered by a monkey who leave it lying around a student lab logged in as root.
On a more serious note, securit depends more on the person administering it than the software itself up to a point. Sure you _can_ leave yourself wide open on Linux as well as on Windows, it's just that on Windows it's much easier (eg using OE or IE or not turning off messaging services or RPC) compared to Linux (installing something compromised or bad physical security).
Beep beep.
Ballmer states that there's "nobody who has his rear end on the line" with Linux.
...
I posit that Linux developers have something rather important on the line; their reputations, professional and personal. When you ship open-source code, you are showing the world how good, or how bad, you are. Your reputation can be made or broken by the code you release.
Contrast that with all too many developers in commercial shops, whose code is read by nobody but their immediate co-workers and nobody takes responsibility for bugs.
If Microsoft employees' asses are on the line, show me a firing or two every time a security hole shows up. And not just the line programmers; bring me the heads of the designers who designed things badly, the project managers who made hitting deadline more important than getting it right, and the managers who let it all happen.
I would say that in the vast majority of cases, commercial programmers' asses are NOT on the line, in terms of security problems. As long as you crank out code fast enough to keep up with your co-workers
Ballsack^H^H^H^Hmer said: "The data doesn't jibe with that. In the first 150 days after the release of Windows 2000, there were 17 critical vulnerabilities. For Windows Server 2003 there were four. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher"
Why don't we compare Windows Server 2003 to RedHat Enterprise v3? Or Windows 2000 to RedHat 9? RedHat 6? That's what, 3-4 years old now!
And don't make me bring up WinME, Steverino.
No, no and no.
"It's too hard to find things in e-mail." translation: "We're going to start the murmurings now for a proprietary database-backed email system, from back end to user interface."
By making comments like this now, Bill will have leverage against the DoJ when they bring up the spectre of the anti-trust settlement. "It's a necessary feature--we recognised that back in 2003."
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
That's the most ignorant thing I've read on here in a long time. Call your parents right now and ask them what their computer runs. They'll say Windows. Then ask them what Linux is. They'll say "A character in Charlie Brown?" Then call your kids junior high teacher and ask her, then call your priest and ask him, then call your gay uncle and ask him. The masses have no idea what Linux is, let alone anything about it's security vs. that of Windows.
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line."
Quick, alert Linus and the rest of the kernel maintainers and planners. Also, better not spread around the road map for Linux so Ballmer won't look like a fool.
" We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers."
ROFL! Indemnify?! Ever read a Microsoft EULA? You're on your own, buddy. How stupid does he think people are? Never mind, don't answer that...
" They know where to send e-mail. "
Oh, puleeeze! Ever try to complain to Microsoft about a bug in their software? Now, take that to the next level. Ever try to complain to one of their software developers about a bug in the particular software they wrote? What's that? You have no idea who wrote that piece of software? And you have no way of finding out? So tell me again where the accountability is.
"None of that is true in the other world. "
Uh, precisely the opposite of what you said, but thanks for playing anyway. Tell Steve what he's won. Seriously, it really is just the opposite. Linux code comes with people's name on it. You want accountability? Put your name on software used by millions and put it out into the world to be dissected.
"So far, I think our model works pretty well,"
(Wiping the tears from my face while I shake with laughter) If the current mess of the state of Windows is his idea of things working "pretty well," oh never mind...This speech sure wasn't directed at the cluefull.
That means, of course, that most reporters will report it verbatim and at face value. *sigh*
You are a regular laugh riot. RTFM. There is a preferences setting if you don't want to read about MS. Use it or shut up about the number of MS stories. It's really that simple. The quantity of different types of stories on Slashdot is probably directly related to the number of submissions on those topics made by readers.
.sig) of MS and Linux security issues.
I'm not even going to get into the logical fallacies going on with your comparison (via
I do not have a signature
No, you're right. We should leave poor MS alone. They're obviously confused. After all, this is the same company who during the antitrust trial, said they couldn't share their source code with anyone due to national security concerns if the code got into the wrong hands.
Then later (2002) they told a federal court that sharing information with competitors could damage national security. And even said the code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed.
Then in early 2003, they agreed to share the source code with China.
So it seems clear to me that they are confused and just need our sympathy. After all I'm sure they wouldn't intentionally risk our national security nor lie about the risks of sharing their source on the stand in federal court.