Given the "LINUX performance analysis" from Microsoft in the past, I tend believe these "independent reports" are more or less propaganda. Bias aside, I think the point is made, that the problem isn't whether Microsoft attempted to influence the reports or not, but rather the fact that Microsoft sponsored the study puts (conscious or unconscious) pressure on the analysts performing the study to be bias one way or another.
It is the same reason why drug companies need to perform double blind testing on new medicine to see whether the effects are merely due to influence from the people performing the study and the patients being told that they would get better.
similarly, though Microsoft may demand that the reports be objective, the analysts employed may just by association, subconsciously put Microsoft products in a slightly better light.
Eh... I would also make the finding, that I can find no one that I know of that uses Windows because it's better. It's always--it has more software, or it's the most popular, or it's the only platform that some piece of software someone needed would run on.
As far as the comment regarding more viruses. Yes, there would be more viruses, but I doubt any of them would be so devastating as the ones we've seen for Windows. The fundamental problem is with Windows, the user is powerless to safeguard themselves--because everything is hidden. On open source software, users have access to source code, they have abilities to disable certain parts of the system without breaking everything else in the system. In essence, users are enpowered to protect themselves.
In any case, viruses for open source software would probably be written by Microsoft just to prove their point.
Difference in ways of responding to security holes
on
Security FUD On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There is a difference in the ways of responding to security holes.
On discovery of a security hole, Linux's and other Open Source way is to announce publicly that there is security hole that need people's attention, ways to safeguard oneself against the security holes is first discussed. A patch is then quickly produced and distributed.
On the other hand, on discovery of a security hole, Microsoft do *NOT* announce the security hole, fearing wide-spread exploitation would lead to catastrophie. A patch is produced in the mean time (when the general public have no awareness that a security hole even exists). At about the same time of annoucement of a security hole, a patch is release to the general public.
Microsoft might take advantage of this difference in the patching process to tip the scale in their favor. The public perception of "speed" of patching would be faster, because the patch is provided at around the same time as the annoucement, when the actual time between discovery and completion of patch may (or may not) be longer.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the same reason why drug companies need to perform double blind testing on new medicine to see whether the effects are merely due to influence from the people performing the study and the patients being told that they would get better.
similarly, though Microsoft may demand that the reports be objective, the analysts employed may just by association, subconsciously put Microsoft products in a slightly better light.
As far as the comment regarding more viruses. Yes, there would be more viruses, but I doubt any of them would be so devastating as the ones we've seen for Windows. The fundamental problem is with Windows, the user is powerless to safeguard themselves--because everything is hidden. On open source software, users have access to source code, they have abilities to disable certain parts of the system without breaking everything else in the system. In essence, users are enpowered to protect themselves.
In any case, viruses for open source software would probably be written by Microsoft just to prove their point.
There is a difference in the ways of responding to security holes.
On discovery of a security hole, Linux's and other Open Source way is to announce publicly that there is security hole that need people's attention, ways to safeguard oneself against the security holes is first discussed. A patch is then quickly produced and distributed.
On the other hand, on discovery of a security hole, Microsoft do *NOT* announce the security hole, fearing wide-spread exploitation would lead to catastrophie. A patch is produced in the mean time (when the general public have no awareness that a security hole even exists). At about the same time of annoucement of a security hole, a patch is release to the general public.
Microsoft might take advantage of this difference in the patching process to tip the scale in their favor. The public perception of "speed" of patching would be faster, because the patch is provided at around the same time as the annoucement, when the actual time between discovery and completion of patch may (or may not) be longer.