Slashdot Mirror
MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux
Kip Winger writes "Mike Nash, Microsoft's Chief Security Executive, has made claims that Windows is more secure than Linux. In a recent online chat, he staunchly defended Microsoft's record on security, basing part of his argument on how Windows Server 2003's 15 patches in the past year are far less than what RedHat or SuSE have had to endure." He also mentioned the recent purchase of Sybari and their Antivirus product.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!n icker
>coughchokegiggles
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
And I would also like to add that MS based MP3 players are going to earn Micro$oft a larger market share this quarter...(takes out iPod and starts listening)
Sounds like Mikey has been dipping into George Bush's cocaine stash. Interview him AFTER he gets out of detox...
At the chance of being modded "flamebait", I'm wondering, after looking through the initial posts, if everyone is just pot-shotting Microsoft.
There's no question about XP's vulnerabilities - on a fresh install, connecting to the internet without a firewall means pc-suicide. On that note I make sure I install the service packs (through a CD or something) before I connect a new PC online.
In this case, however, I believe the target was at the server version(s) of Windows. Is it that hard to believe that their server, which happens to be their product they sell directly to companies on the basis of being secure with an arguably lower TCO, might be more secure?
Remember, it's not MS Office. It's not Windows XP (Pro or Home, so my "biz" argument on this front fails - but again, not the right topic). It's not programs most people run -
Does the failure of several of their services automatically means that everything they do is wrong, completely flawed, full of only FUD without any merits?
How many people here run Windows Server 2003? Especially those who have based Microsoft products to no end before?
I remember a time when Windows 95 was slammed for being kinda "flunky", but those who used NT 4 then would swear by it.
Slamming is fine, don't get me wrong - I think Office without security to prevent VBA from taking over your computer, the fact that XP 1 came without a server - are oversights of products that need to be talked about.
But if the rush to reply about news for a company revolves around bashing their words senselessly without being on target, that diminishes our legitimacy in pointing out on the problems they have.
To the rest of the world and the IT community, we'd just seem drones - and will be taken to be just so.
In other news, Iraq had WMD's and Saddam and Osama played golf every weekend. In addition, Social Security will self-destruct this weekend in a massive explosion and kill the baby Jesus.
So why the hell does a fresh install of Windows XP take up over 1GB out of the box?!?
Talk about bloat.
I use VMware on my home machines (which run Linux). I have at least one version of every Windows release from WfWg 3.11 to ME, from NT 3.51 (anyone know were to get 3.1 these days?) to XP and 2003. These are for testing scenarios and playing around for nolstalgia's sake (sometimes it's fun to fire up DESQView on DOS 6.22, for example).
But the progression of bloat as you progress up the version path amazes me. DOS 6.22 w/ WfWG 3.11 takes up like 12MB. A full install of the original Win95 retail distribution takes about 30MB, which is what I use most of the time in VMWare because it's so lean and fast compared to newer versions, even after installing IE5.5, the last version you can get for Win95.
Yes, a full install of a modern Linux distro is approaching 6GB (a full Fedora Core 3 install), but you have everything and the kitchen sink, so you can't complain. Plus it's possible to trim the fat and take out what you don't need, as the GUIs, browsers, etc. are not intimately tied to the OS itself.
Method of processing duck feet
The plural of virus is viruses, not virii. Even if it were latinized it would be viri, so virii would still be incorrect... but viri is not correct either.
I know you have a shift key, you had to use it for " and ! . Why the hell won't you use it for the rest of your rambling?