Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Cheaper to Patch Than Open Source?

Posted by Zonk on from the fud-for-breakfast dept.

daria42 writes "Is Windows cheaper to patch than open source software? Of course this Microsoft-commissioned report thinks so - but a number of people disagree, including a key Novell Asia-Pac exec, Paul Kangro. Kangro highlights problems with the report including the fact that it refers to problems faced by administrators before 2003: before significant improvements were made to Linux patching tools. 'We didn't have tools like Xen for Linux then,' says Kangro. 'When I patch my Linux box I don't need to bring it up and down any number of times.' Kangro also points out the report doesn't mention costs associated with rebooting systems after a patch is applied."

3 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft and Crack by canuck57 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Patching open source is easy and does not need to be done as often. And the patches for Linux are often more stable. We all know that...

    So is this more foder for CIOs to reject open source because they have Microsoft stock in their portfolios?

    Good to see the Microsoft FUD machine is still working.

  2. Re:apt vs windows update by Kihaji · · Score: 1, Troll

    And if Microsoft started adding in patches for software that isn't theirs you would be screaming "MONOPOLY" at the top of your lungs.

  3. Re:apt vs windows update by kayak334 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problems is, most users "decision" is simply clicking "no" and forgetting about it forever. Then Shashdot posts a story about how Microsoft doesn't enforce security patches by simply letting users say "no I don't want to update my computer!!1"

    You could have just saved your work and taken all of the 1-3min it takes to reboot a windows box.