You got to wonder - with all this comparison of electronic diaries and printed works... is Mr. Gorman claiming all books are gems? The average Public Library is going to have its fair collection of dubious books. That doesn't mean it's time to give up on books.
Bitch about Microsoft everyday, meanwhile as you use a start menu, taskbar, integrated filesystem/internet browser, and now C# and.NET in your rip-off desktop environments.
For each item on your list, you'll find previous examples that don't originate from Microsoft. Granted - some of them may not be as directly related as others. But there's a lot less "innovation" than it sounds like you're expecting.
Remind me again what Linux has actually innovated first? I know this will get modded down, but I'm genuinely asking.
Remind me again where anyone associated with Linux has used "innovation" as marketing or moral justification? If you look at Linux and the Unix culture it more-or-less spawned from, you'll find that it comes closer to evolution than "innovation". This environment recognizes the process of building on previous work.
This doesn't mean Microsoft hasn't done particularly clever things - even "innovative" things. Nor does it mean that Linux (and similar environments) are all about copy-cat and incapable of having similarly cleaver things happening in their environment. But it does highlight the apparent importance given to "innovation" by each environment. And that is the crux of that particular Microsoft criticism.
Which has little to do with all the other criticism that targets other aspects of Microsoft's business.
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever? 'Cause that's what it will be.
The problem is that providing these services involves considerable barriers to entry. Deploying the required infrastructure involves consierable capital investment. And if money isn't the issue, then laying fiber or copper involves dealing with Rights of Way which has to be negotiated with the parties involved (usually the city). Granted - the Rights of Way issue isn't as much a problem for wireless technology but then you have to deal with the finite RF spectrum.
What we have is hurdles that don't allow for the normal run of private enterprise and open market competition. And dealing with these hurdles tends to create the Government-granted monopolies that exist today. So much for competition.
I guess I'd rather see government, whether local, state, or federal, offering various non-permanent subsidies to businesses that wanted to offer competing broadband capabilities.
That touches on something that might be interesting. Since the Right of Way tends to be a municiple-controlled entity, and the majority of the cost of fiber tends to be the installation rather than the fiber itself... why not have municple fibre? The Government installs the infrastructure - to include a considerable amount of "dark" fibre. Then rules and fees are layed out for access to that infrastructure. Open it to Municiple as well as Private service providers.
I'm not even sure how great it was. How many people did it convert?
I was probably the demographic this movie was directed at. I'm undecided. I have no feeling of identity to either major political party. I have issues with Bush. And there are aspects of the apparent Democratic political view that I find appealing. However, this movie didn't convert me. If anything, it helped alienate me from the Democratic party. This movie, combined with the National Draft "issue" helped point out that the Democratic party is just as much about deceit as the Republicans.
Now, before we get in to a big thread about how right or wrong I am on this perception - let me point out that's NOT the point. The issue is what this movie did for me and whether that's relevant. I'd suggest the success of the movie in converting the public isn't the issue. The fact that the election didn't go the direction Michael Moore would apparently have it doesn't matter. It was still an interesting bit of work.
I'm a professional paranoid. I'm also a bit of a cynic. So I like to think that I'm hard to fool. But this movie had me fooled. To a point. It was the nagging feeling that had me looking for Moore's critics. And when I found them and went back over the movie (one window with a play-by-play criticism and another with the movie), I discovered that Moore had me thinking he said things in the movie that he didn't. Moore did an excellent job at misdirection and implication. He was a magician pulling political rabbits out of soundbites and video clips.
In short, Moore's piece is an excellent work of propaganda; despite it's success or lack thereof. Political analysts have been predicting that this is the beginning of a new breed of political propaganda in the US electoral process. Time will tell.
This is a prime example of why Infosec shouldn't be left up to IT. You SHOULD be concerned about the current security releases. Of course, the fact that you're apparently not even paying attention to what updates might affect the services on your system puts some question as to whether you should even be involved in corporate IT anyway.
Incidently, the majority of current Linux distros include the capability of automated updates. Some have had this ability for years before Windows Update.
Claims that RIAA treats their "customers" as criminals when they sue people for trading music they didn't actually buy are kind of foolish. The people they're suing aren't customers.
You're making the assumption that those being sued by the RIAA have never purchased (and will never again purchase) from RIAA's member labels. Very unlikely.
But I've always disagreed with the comments like how Apple revolutionized the market and so on. All their technology was based on existing technology. They really didn't bring anything "new" to the table. All they did was package it nicer.
I can see your point. But the examples you gave are the Mac and iPod. That's years later. I'm talking the Apple II here. It was a major step in the microcomputer market.
Before the Apple II, the microcomputer market was mostly kits. Early kits were actually only plans and parts lists. Then came the Altair 8800 - an actual kit with all the components included to build a computer (later also offered pre-assembled). But even at this point, the Altair used toggle switches for input and blinking LEDs for output - no keyboard, video display, printers, or storage.
This is where Apple comes in. But it's not the Apple II. It's the Apple I - a fully assembled motherboard with interfaces for a keyboard and video display (and later an add-on board for cassette tape storage). These were all unique features of the day.
A year later, the Apple I becomes the Apple II; all the features of the Apple I pre-assembled with a keyboard in a sleek, custom case. Furthermore, it had numerous additional Industry first features such as color display, sound, game controllers, cassette tape interface, etc. It was soon followed by similar consumer-oriented microcomputer systems (Commodore PET and TRS-80 Mod I) but they didn't have near the capability of the Apple II.
As I noted, the Apple II was also the platform on which Visicalc was developed. This was the first spreadsheet in existence. It was the killer app that launched the business microcomputer market and changed IBM's business. It might also be worth noting that the Apple II had a major effect on computer gaming, word processing, computer printing, and other aspects of home computing.
I'm willing to entertain an alternative viewpoint that shows all this was simple "repackaging" or how I'm ignoring what came before or after the Apple II.
On a side note - the Apple II was proprietary but considerably open for its time. Wozniak had designed a hacker's system that was easily extensible. Hardware hackers and after-market manufacturers took full advantage of this. However, the Mac didn't continue this tradition. And perhaps that's the beginning of the end of Mac's dominance of the industry as another more open architecture system became the commodity platform of choice.
What about calling WoW tech support first and asking them to unlock the "already used" key?
Brilliant suggestion. Except for the fact that he's apparently already tried that:
They keep telling me they will not transfer an account. I keep telling them I do not want an account transferred, but want to create my own account. What appears to be the final answer is that 'an authentication key can only be used once, regardless of the number of owners.'
That phrase sums up my problem with Apple evangelists.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your comment. Are you claiming that my statement is incorrect? I'd be glad to hear about where I've gotten things wrong.
I'm affraid that if you're looking for Apple evangalism, you've picked the wrong place. I'm no Apple fan. I've never liked the control they maintain over their platform; I prefer commodity components. But I can appreciate Apple's part in history.
Your unfair advantage is that you are willing to play constantly.
My unfair advantage is that I have a good job.
This is the same excuse used by purveyers of aimbots and other lame cheats. Essentially, the complaint is that the player's time is somehow more valuable than other players'. Therefore, they should be allowed to bypass any such inconvieniences such as invested time or skill.
Bollocks.
Play the game or don't play at all. If you're going to circumvent the game's rules - why bother playing to begin with?
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
You're ALMOST on to something. Except for the fact that Apple didn't take anything from IBM. And that, more than likely, Bill has his own past in mind when he looks at the GPL.
First - the early days of the Personal Computer. Apple pioneered the consumer personal computer market. Sure, there were microcomputers before Apple. But Apple was the first to put together a product that had such consumer-friendly features such as a keyboard and custom molded plastic casing. IBM dismissed the microcomputer as a niche market for hobbiests. That is, until the dawn of the spreadsheet. Visicalc revolutionized number crunching and made the Apple II a must-have device on the business desktop. IBM suddenly took notice of an exploding market. And since they were caught flat-footed, they had to rush to bring their own "Personal Computer" to market. This lead to several very important events. First, the OS was licensed from a third party rather than outright owned as was usually the case in computers until then. Secondly, in the rush to market, IBM's engineers selected mostly generic off-the-shelf components to create their product. The only gatekeeper in IBM's product was their BIOS. When a bunch of market-savvy former Texas Instruments engineers formed a company (Compaq) and managed to legally reverse-engineer that key... everything fell in place. The proprietary hardware market was soon dominated by the commodity PC. IBM lost control of their platform and was almost inundated by the wave that washed over the relatively young IT market. That wave almost swamped Apple too - Apple managed to maintain control of their platform. And in winning that battle, they lost. Apple went from being on the forefront of the microcomputer revolution to being a niche player; even further behind than IBM.
So what's the lesson for Bill? Microsoft learned how to play the game from IBM. Almost every detested aspect of Microsoft's business strategy is simply a refinement of IBM's earlier days. But those roles would soon change. The revolution of the commodity hardware platform was a boon for Microsoft. Every "PC clone" was an additional sale to MS. And every PC clone was further lessening of IBM's direct influence over the marketplace. IBM would have to work with a growing chaotic collection of hardware players instead of deciding the industry's direction by fiat. IBM attempted to recapture their influence with the PS/2 and the proprietary Microchannel bus architecture. But that was rejected. IBM became just one of many players in the market.
Now we're seeing the possible next stage; the commodity OS. Windows is just as important to Microsoft's financial and strategic success as the PC was to IBM. Most likely, Microsoft has a strategy in case they can't hold back the tide. But they would be better off if they can simply disrupt it.
Ironically, IBM has been spending the last couple years paddling to get in position to ride that wave if it crests.
At least the NSA won't have to run out and figure out what sort of people to hire, or invent new tools to understand their mission in this case. It's more a matter of scale, and of getting, say, the IT guys at the Commerce Department to understand their nerdy new friends.
There's several related issues here. And they all point to the NSA as being the likely agency to manage them.
First - the one enforcing infosec practices can not be in the same chain of command as the entity implementing them. IT and Infosec have opposing goals. IT needs to make widgets functional. Infosec needs to make widgets "secure". Functionality and security tend to have an inverse relationship. So when pressed (and what IT department isn't), IT will cut corners on security to get a widget online. Furthermore, Government IT seems to have a habit of placing willful incompetence in to positions of authority. These individuals will undoubtedly undermine infosec by decree. Therefore, the Infosec policy enforcer must be motivated to enforce security policy and out of the immediate chain of command for the various agencies.
Secondly, the Infosec policy enforcer must understand security. Infosec is a discipline. Infosec requires an understanding of certain principles and methodologies. And while this doesn't mean Infosec is actually that complex... sadly, few IT organizations understand it. In short, this is a job for the professionals - an organization that understands and practices infosec.
Finally, the Infosec enforcement agency must be on equal footing with those it monitors. We already touched on the chain of command. But it's more subtle than that. The agency must understand the system in which they operate - US Government being its own environment. Furthermore, they'll need political clout - teeth to enforce their mandate.
An extension to this is that they should be US Government agents. That is, they can not be civilian contractor... unless they're acting as direct agents for another US Government agency. The temptation would be to hire out for the expertise. After all, Infosec is not a strong suit for the vast majority of the US Gov't (sorry kiddies - owning a.gov isn't that impressive). But the problem is that many contractors will bend over backwards to make the "customer" happy. The question is who they would view as the customer and what rules they'd be willing to bend to achieve approval.
I hate to sound like a sales guy for the company, but they have something called NAP that's just completely sick.
It's interesting that you note this... especially with the parent article's quote about Juniper. Juniper bought Netscreen last year. And for over a year, Netscreen has partnered with Infoexpress to support their CyberGatekeeper product - providing this kind of functionality. In fact, Cisco apparently had some interest in aquiring Netscreen but not the same dedication to the aquisition as Juniper. It would seem that they're now playing catch-up on tech they had not managed to aquire in that deal.
In the end the reason MS is less secure than Linux on average is because humans are the weakest link in the seurity chain, and the weakest links tend toward windows, and while having an OS designed with security in mind can help to mitigate some problems, in the end people will always find a way to get themselves pwned.
That's a very good point. But I would point out that there are other issues.
A big point is the modularity of Linux. I can rip out almost any Linux subsystem - what's not installed can't be exploited. Linux patches tend to be fairly benign with little impact to the overall function of the system. And, combining the two, the patches are very specific to the particular subsystem being patched - patching Widget X doesn't affect Widget Y or it's configuration.
Another major issue is the software involved. Common architectures available on Linux systems tend to be based on lessons learned from Unix's early Internet crucable years as well as Microsoft's faults. In short, there is an apparent effort to avoid fundimental architectural flaws previously found in other systems (not that this has to be limited to "Linux"). Linux also comes out-of-box with some very powerfull functionality - IP Tables for example. And while simular capabilities can be found on Windows, it often requires additional software purchases.
What does everyone think he's supposed to say? Windows security is inferior to linux?
There's plenty of other things he could say. He could talk about Microsoft's increased awareness for security issues. This includes MS' relatively recent history of providing security fixes at a faster rate. MS' championing of "responsible disclosure", giving them the ability to provide patch clusters at scheduled times to take some of the pressure off of sysadmins having to deal with them. He could go on about Microsoft's contuing effort of "trusted computing."
Granted - each of these also have their collection of side issues. But they would be easier to defend than the dubious argument generated by comparing themselves to Linux. Heck - the argument used to be that mentioning Linux at all was unwise.
Slashdot Mirror
You got to wonder - with all this comparison of electronic diaries and printed works... is Mr. Gorman claiming all books are gems? The average Public Library is going to have its fair collection of dubious books. That doesn't mean it's time to give up on books.
Which loses a lot when it's not in its origional Klingon.
How is this different with music players?
For each item on your list, you'll find previous examples that don't originate from Microsoft. Granted - some of them may not be as directly related as others. But there's a lot less "innovation" than it sounds like you're expecting.
Remind me again where anyone associated with Linux has used "innovation" as marketing or moral justification? If you look at Linux and the Unix culture it more-or-less spawned from, you'll find that it comes closer to evolution than "innovation". This environment recognizes the process of building on previous work.
This doesn't mean Microsoft hasn't done particularly clever things - even "innovative" things. Nor does it mean that Linux (and similar environments) are all about copy-cat and incapable of having similarly cleaver things happening in their environment. But it does highlight the apparent importance given to "innovation" by each environment. And that is the crux of that particular Microsoft criticism.
Which has little to do with all the other criticism that targets other aspects of Microsoft's business.
The problem is that providing these services involves considerable barriers to entry. Deploying the required infrastructure involves consierable capital investment. And if money isn't the issue, then laying fiber or copper involves dealing with Rights of Way which has to be negotiated with the parties involved (usually the city). Granted - the Rights of Way issue isn't as much a problem for wireless technology but then you have to deal with the finite RF spectrum.
What we have is hurdles that don't allow for the normal run of private enterprise and open market competition. And dealing with these hurdles tends to create the Government-granted monopolies that exist today. So much for competition.
That touches on something that might be interesting. Since the Right of Way tends to be a municiple-controlled entity, and the majority of the cost of fiber tends to be the installation rather than the fiber itself... why not have municple fibre? The Government installs the infrastructure - to include a considerable amount of "dark" fibre. Then rules and fees are layed out for access to that infrastructure. Open it to Municiple as well as Private service providers.
In a Linux architecture, you never have to concern yourself with CALs. :P
I was probably the demographic this movie was directed at. I'm undecided. I have no feeling of identity to either major political party. I have issues with Bush. And there are aspects of the apparent Democratic political view that I find appealing. However, this movie didn't convert me. If anything, it helped alienate me from the Democratic party. This movie, combined with the National Draft "issue" helped point out that the Democratic party is just as much about deceit as the Republicans.
Now, before we get in to a big thread about how right or wrong I am on this perception - let me point out that's NOT the point. The issue is what this movie did for me and whether that's relevant. I'd suggest the success of the movie in converting the public isn't the issue. The fact that the election didn't go the direction Michael Moore would apparently have it doesn't matter. It was still an interesting bit of work.
I'm a professional paranoid. I'm also a bit of a cynic. So I like to think that I'm hard to fool. But this movie had me fooled. To a point. It was the nagging feeling that had me looking for Moore's critics. And when I found them and went back over the movie (one window with a play-by-play criticism and another with the movie), I discovered that Moore had me thinking he said things in the movie that he didn't. Moore did an excellent job at misdirection and implication. He was a magician pulling political rabbits out of soundbites and video clips.
In short, Moore's piece is an excellent work of propaganda; despite it's success or lack thereof. Political analysts have been predicting that this is the beginning of a new breed of political propaganda in the US electoral process. Time will tell.
...and while you're at it, I'd also like a pony.
This is a prime example of why Infosec shouldn't be left up to IT. You SHOULD be concerned about the current security releases. Of course, the fact that you're apparently not even paying attention to what updates might affect the services on your system puts some question as to whether you should even be involved in corporate IT anyway.
Incidently, the majority of current Linux distros include the capability of automated updates. Some have had this ability for years before Windows Update.
Whew. For a second there, I was worried I'd have to get out the mat.
You're making the assumption that those being sued by the RIAA have never purchased (and will never again purchase) from RIAA's member labels. Very unlikely.
PC-DOS was the predecessor to MSDOS. It was the software licensed by IBM from Microsoft. MSDOS was the fork available to everyone else.
I can see your point. But the examples you gave are the Mac and iPod. That's years later. I'm talking the Apple II here. It was a major step in the microcomputer market.
Before the Apple II, the microcomputer market was mostly kits. Early kits were actually only plans and parts lists. Then came the Altair 8800 - an actual kit with all the components included to build a computer (later also offered pre-assembled). But even at this point, the Altair used toggle switches for input and blinking LEDs for output - no keyboard, video display, printers, or storage.
This is where Apple comes in. But it's not the Apple II. It's the Apple I - a fully assembled motherboard with interfaces for a keyboard and video display (and later an add-on board for cassette tape storage). These were all unique features of the day.
A year later, the Apple I becomes the Apple II; all the features of the Apple I pre-assembled with a keyboard in a sleek, custom case. Furthermore, it had numerous additional Industry first features such as color display, sound, game controllers, cassette tape interface, etc. It was soon followed by similar consumer-oriented microcomputer systems (Commodore PET and TRS-80 Mod I) but they didn't have near the capability of the Apple II.
As I noted, the Apple II was also the platform on which Visicalc was developed. This was the first spreadsheet in existence. It was the killer app that launched the business microcomputer market and changed IBM's business. It might also be worth noting that the Apple II had a major effect on computer gaming, word processing, computer printing, and other aspects of home computing.
I'm willing to entertain an alternative viewpoint that shows all this was simple "repackaging" or how I'm ignoring what came before or after the Apple II.
On a side note - the Apple II was proprietary but considerably open for its time. Wozniak had designed a hacker's system that was easily extensible. Hardware hackers and after-market manufacturers took full advantage of this. However, the Mac didn't continue this tradition. And perhaps that's the beginning of the end of Mac's dominance of the industry as another more open architecture system became the commodity platform of choice.
Brilliant suggestion. Except for the fact that he's apparently already tried that:
I'm not entirely sure I understand your comment. Are you claiming that my statement is incorrect? I'd be glad to hear about where I've gotten things wrong.
I'm affraid that if you're looking for Apple evangalism, you've picked the wrong place. I'm no Apple fan. I've never liked the control they maintain over their platform; I prefer commodity components. But I can appreciate Apple's part in history.
This is the same excuse used by purveyers of aimbots and other lame cheats. Essentially, the complaint is that the player's time is somehow more valuable than other players'. Therefore, they should be allowed to bypass any such inconvieniences such as invested time or skill.
Bollocks.
Play the game or don't play at all. If you're going to circumvent the game's rules - why bother playing to begin with?
You're ALMOST on to something. Except for the fact that Apple didn't take anything from IBM. And that, more than likely, Bill has his own past in mind when he looks at the GPL.
First - the early days of the Personal Computer. Apple pioneered the consumer personal computer market. Sure, there were microcomputers before Apple. But Apple was the first to put together a product that had such consumer-friendly features such as a keyboard and custom molded plastic casing. IBM dismissed the microcomputer as a niche market for hobbiests. That is, until the dawn of the spreadsheet. Visicalc revolutionized number crunching and made the Apple II a must-have device on the business desktop. IBM suddenly took notice of an exploding market. And since they were caught flat-footed, they had to rush to bring their own "Personal Computer" to market. This lead to several very important events. First, the OS was licensed from a third party rather than outright owned as was usually the case in computers until then. Secondly, in the rush to market, IBM's engineers selected mostly generic off-the-shelf components to create their product. The only gatekeeper in IBM's product was their BIOS. When a bunch of market-savvy former Texas Instruments engineers formed a company (Compaq) and managed to legally reverse-engineer that key... everything fell in place. The proprietary hardware market was soon dominated by the commodity PC. IBM lost control of their platform and was almost inundated by the wave that washed over the relatively young IT market. That wave almost swamped Apple too - Apple managed to maintain control of their platform. And in winning that battle, they lost. Apple went from being on the forefront of the microcomputer revolution to being a niche player; even further behind than IBM.
So what's the lesson for Bill? Microsoft learned how to play the game from IBM. Almost every detested aspect of Microsoft's business strategy is simply a refinement of IBM's earlier days. But those roles would soon change. The revolution of the commodity hardware platform was a boon for Microsoft. Every "PC clone" was an additional sale to MS. And every PC clone was further lessening of IBM's direct influence over the marketplace. IBM would have to work with a growing chaotic collection of hardware players instead of deciding the industry's direction by fiat. IBM attempted to recapture their influence with the PS/2 and the proprietary Microchannel bus architecture. But that was rejected. IBM became just one of many players in the market.
Now we're seeing the possible next stage; the commodity OS. Windows is just as important to Microsoft's financial and strategic success as the PC was to IBM. Most likely, Microsoft has a strategy in case they can't hold back the tide. But they would be better off if they can simply disrupt it.
Ironically, IBM has been spending the last couple years paddling to get in position to ride that wave if it crests.
There's several related issues here. And they all point to the NSA as being the likely agency to manage them.
First - the one enforcing infosec practices can not be in the same chain of command as the entity implementing them. IT and Infosec have opposing goals. IT needs to make widgets functional. Infosec needs to make widgets "secure". Functionality and security tend to have an inverse relationship. So when pressed (and what IT department isn't), IT will cut corners on security to get a widget online. Furthermore, Government IT seems to have a habit of placing willful incompetence in to positions of authority. These individuals will undoubtedly undermine infosec by decree. Therefore, the Infosec policy enforcer must be motivated to enforce security policy and out of the immediate chain of command for the various agencies.
Secondly, the Infosec policy enforcer must understand security. Infosec is a discipline. Infosec requires an understanding of certain principles and methodologies. And while this doesn't mean Infosec is actually that complex... sadly, few IT organizations understand it. In short, this is a job for the professionals - an organization that understands and practices infosec.
Finally, the Infosec enforcement agency must be on equal footing with those it monitors. We already touched on the chain of command. But it's more subtle than that. The agency must understand the system in which they operate - US Government being its own environment. Furthermore, they'll need political clout - teeth to enforce their mandate.
An extension to this is that they should be US Government agents. That is, they can not be civilian contractor... unless they're acting as direct agents for another US Government agency. The temptation would be to hire out for the expertise. After all, Infosec is not a strong suit for the vast majority of the US Gov't (sorry kiddies - owning a
It's interesting that you note this... especially with the parent article's quote about Juniper. Juniper bought Netscreen last year. And for over a year, Netscreen has partnered with Infoexpress to support their CyberGatekeeper product - providing this kind of functionality. In fact, Cisco apparently had some interest in aquiring Netscreen but not the same dedication to the aquisition as Juniper. It would seem that they're now playing catch-up on tech they had not managed to aquire in that deal.
It's not about making secure products. It's about making products for security - firewalls, remote access, intrusion detection / prevention, etc.
It might have something to do with Cisco's logo.
You might want to do a simple search before you feel so confident in what "netstat" is showing you.
You don't need source to modify a system's behavior.
That's a very good point. But I would point out that there are other issues.
A big point is the modularity of Linux. I can rip out almost any Linux subsystem - what's not installed can't be exploited. Linux patches tend to be fairly benign with little impact to the overall function of the system. And, combining the two, the patches are very specific to the particular subsystem being patched - patching Widget X doesn't affect Widget Y or it's configuration.
Another major issue is the software involved. Common architectures available on Linux systems tend to be based on lessons learned from Unix's early Internet crucable years as well as Microsoft's faults. In short, there is an apparent effort to avoid fundimental architectural flaws previously found in other systems (not that this has to be limited to "Linux"). Linux also comes out-of-box with some very powerfull functionality - IP Tables for example. And while simular capabilities can be found on Windows, it often requires additional software purchases.
There's plenty of other things he could say. He could talk about Microsoft's increased awareness for security issues. This includes MS' relatively recent history of providing security fixes at a faster rate. MS' championing of "responsible disclosure", giving them the ability to provide patch clusters at scheduled times to take some of the pressure off of sysadmins having to deal with them. He could go on about Microsoft's contuing effort of "trusted computing."
Granted - each of these also have their collection of side issues. But they would be easier to defend than the dubious argument generated by comparing themselves to Linux. Heck - the argument used to be that mentioning Linux at all was unwise.