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.'"
Linux is a character in Charlie Brown? I don't know why you'd say that. Lihnux doesn't sound like Lienus at all. It could only be confusing if you say it wrong.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Not only will the gay uncle know what linux is, he'll be running it on his new Macintosh. The priest too.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Compare the number of Microsoft articles posted this week in comparison to the number of Linux articles.
Do we really need another bash-Microsoft article obsessively dissecting one sentence Bill Gates made at some promotional speech or interview or whatever?
And, as a matter of fact, Linux is the operating system that is most breached on the net--as reported on Slashdot--and you can check my sig and see that dozens upon dozens of patches are released for Linux distro after Linux distro weekly.
Meanwhile, one or two security patches come out on Windows Update and Slashdot reports on it with at least three articles.
Come on. I'm sick of reading about Microsoft on Slashdot. Can we please have more LINUX stories? Isn't this a site that is News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters? I don't come here to watch all the little kiddies jerk off and see who can play "security expert" the best by bashing and bashing and bashing Microsoft.
"Sufferin' succotash."
balmer: For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher
parent: It makes you wonder where he got his numbers from
its obvious that "higher" is an int defined as 2. (5 to 10) * 2 = 10 to 20. that sounds about right.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
That's because you're clueless.
Linux is no more secure, it's just that a few factors make it seem like it is:
1. The number of Linux machines is low compared to Windows, so people don't target it.
2. The various flavors of Linux make it hard to target because you never know which version you're on.
In real life, you can secure your Windows machines fairly well, and it's far easier to write code in Windows.
What if I program it to scream in agony when I crucify it?
yes, i'm sure /etc/passwd says it's uid 0... but that doesn't mean it really is, what's in the /...security directory, maybe the real file system is in there? ever think of that jackass?
What is slashdot?
I thought the gay uncle and the priest were one and the same.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The fact that you are willing to post your root password is so nice...it means that you can't do any real admin remotely. You have a secure...and unflexible system. Whoopty-do! The most secure system in the world is an un-networked box siiting in a locked room...but what use is it to the guy who sits, or in this case can't sit, at the keyboard? There is always a trade-off between security and utility--but what is forgotten by so many arrogant fools who smugly post here about how locked down they have their *nix networks is that productivity of the guy PAID to sit at the keyboard is dependant on utility. And a Windows network has far more utiltiy than *nix. Everytime your network inconveniences and hamstrings the end-user you are costing the company money. I have seen Novell Zenworks managed networks that added 4 minutes to log in times so that the admins could manage everything remotely. But add up 4 minutes per logon per user per day per year and you've got a damned expensive solution!
I'll take Windows--with its holes and the 25000 paid people at Microsoft patching them as fast as the rabble can find them--for its flexibilty, configure it correctly and not lose any sleep whatsoever. It was called Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, by the way, that allowed for automatic patch installation at night while I sleep very well indeed. For all those who are so proud of their little *nix boxes that haven't rebooted in 6+ years...aren't you afraid of what will happen when you DO have to reboot them. I've seen some very ugly things with an AIX box that never really had its disaster recovery plan tested until there was a disaster
Smugness kills
Despite proclamations that Windows is less secure than Linux. We have to remember the target markets.
Linux users, by far are more sophistacted computer users. They usually don't log in as root and know when they recieve an email from somebody they don't know not to run the 'runme' attachment that came with it.
People want their windows machines to be easy to user..that means no log ins, no security etc...imagine if the cries of typical window's users if they had to login as administrator everytime they wanted to install software/hardware or change some configuration.
Also, considering the complexity and feature of MS software, its surprising there are not more exploits
I think it's OK to blow up Nazis, particularly women and children. In the case of children, they grow up. In the case of women, they give birth to more.