Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Claims Linux Security a Myth
black hole sun writes "Microsoft bigwig Nick McGrath claims that Linux security is highly exaggerated, and that the open source development model is 'fundamentally flawed.' The gist of his argument appears to be his claim of lack of accountability among distributors, coupled with generic statements short on facts. '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.' He goes on to say that 'Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing,' pointing out the lack of a development environment and no single 'sign-on system' giving reference to Microsoft's foundering .Net passport program." I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.
Just wait until they roll out WinX, or is it Winux...
This is the classic case of a kettle calling the refrigerator black.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?
.xpi files disguised as links to FREE BOOBIES.
The bit that lets Firefox adds new suid root system calls to Linux via
In other news, a representative from Yugo blasted BMW for not putting rear window heaters on their cars. "If you have to push it in the winter, your hands will get cold. What a crappy car."
Unknown host pong.
Should be:
Linux claims M$ security a Myth.
[JOKE]
Oh, there's already a Bootable CD-Distro that does that, it's called BOOBIX. It has a special build of Wine, just for these purposes..
[/JOKE]
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
Mike Tyson accused Michael Jordan of being "violent and out of control."
And Richard Simmons accused Charlton Heston of being "way too gay."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
The entire .NET Framework is missing from the Linux kernel!!! My Visual Basic kernel modules won't even compile under Linux.
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?
The bit that lets Firefox adds new suid root system calls to Linux via .xpi files disguised as links to FREE BOOBIES.
Your link to FREE BOOBIES doesn't work. could you post again using the HTML tags.
Are you new around here?
I only have to wrap myself up in the warm and protective arms of a Microsoft EULA to feel the shielding umbrella of accountability.
McGrath slays me.
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing? The part, which makes Joe Sixpack want to buy it pre-installed from his local Best Buy.
Anti-virus scanners and spyware removal tools... ;)
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
That's why water is not ready for mission-critical drinking, as it's development model is fundamentally flawed and it's lacking a single 'drink-on system'. Because of that Microsoft has been forcing it's employees to only drink Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey since 1984.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Just what part of the software stack is missing?
The part with the SCO code.
What?
Why is Microsoft complaining about security liablity of Linux when they're writing and selling a desktop for it?
This is a strawman argument: the supplier of your Linux distro takes responsibliity and you should use a distro from a supplier that you trust.
Yeah, but what about LFS? Think of all those businesses wanting to use LFS for their Linux desktops!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility?
I applaud Microsoft's recognition of the importance of accountability. I look forward to reading Microsoft's revised license agreement, in which Microsoft will presumably accept liability for consequential damages resulting from security flaws of Microsoft products.
That's why water is not ready for mission-critical drinking
Hence the need for Microsoft's new .WET architecture to solve these problems.
forcing it's employees to only drink Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey since 1984
Truly, this explains so much.
Bitter and proud of it.
If we coughed for every exploitable windows feature out there, we would give ourselves hemmorhoids in short of a couple minutes.