It's funny how Microsoft is mocked for its terrible patching, then it acts as if a miracle has occurred and starts telling everybody how Windows patches are available within weeks, but Linux patches are available in months.
What does evidence suggest? That Linux patches are out within days/weeks, but Microsoft patches are taking months/never.
It was the same with security, Microsoft was mocked for its terrible security, then it starts telling everybody how Windows security is so much better than Linux security.
I could be wrong, but I think that Microsoft is lying.
Makes you wonder which is worse, virii or Microsoft patches?
It seems to be a common occurance nowadays that Microsoft's patches screw something up.
At least with the latest batches of virii you get the choice to run them or not run them (unless you're one of those 'gotta click it' people), and you have anti-virus software to rely on.
There is no anti-patch software, and automatic updates really guarantee that your Windows machine will be screwed at some stage. I wonder if Microsoft has taken this into consideration in its TCO calculations?
Microsoft has already succeeded in exploiting the vast quantity of morons out there.
SCO has probably risked being so un-subtle because it's common knowledge that there are so many gullible simpletons in existance.
Most likely you won't even be able to buy cars soon, you'll have to 'hire' them out on three-year contracts.
Although you'll be able to get free upgrades (if any new versions are actually made), you'll probably find that you can never switch to a different car because it will lock you in.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I got a comb...
It's funny how Microsoft is mocked for its terrible patching, then it acts as if a miracle has occurred and starts telling everybody how Windows patches are available within weeks, but Linux patches are available in months.
What does evidence suggest? That Linux patches are out within days/weeks, but Microsoft patches are taking months/never.
It was the same with security, Microsoft was mocked for its terrible security, then it starts telling everybody how Windows security is so much better than Linux security.
I could be wrong, but I think that Microsoft is lying.
Makes you wonder which is worse, virii or Microsoft patches?
It seems to be a common occurance nowadays that Microsoft's patches screw something up.
At least with the latest batches of virii you get the choice to run them or not run them (unless you're one of those 'gotta click it' people), and you have anti-virus software to rely on.
There is no anti-patch software, and automatic updates really guarantee that your Windows machine will be screwed at some stage. I wonder if Microsoft has taken this into consideration in its TCO calculations?
Microsoft has already succeeded in exploiting the vast quantity of morons out there. SCO has probably risked being so un-subtle because it's common knowledge that there are so many gullible simpletons in existance.
"As with any OS, you just have to keep it patched."
Unless you're using Windows, then you're caught between a rock and a hard place:
Do you risk not patching, or do you patch and risk your machine being devastated by yet another malicious Microsoft patch?
Actually, as Microsoft is automating it's patching process then either way your machine gets screwed. Trustworthy Computing at its finest.
We all know that Microsoft really welcomes competition from Linux... Unless Microsoft is lying...
Most likely you won't even be able to buy cars soon, you'll have to 'hire' them out on three-year contracts. Although you'll be able to get free upgrades (if any new versions are actually made), you'll probably find that you can never switch to a different car because it will lock you in.