I don't have too much experience as a network administrator, but I find it strange to use the number of vendor-released patches as a metric to reliability. Yes, in a perfect world this would be normal, but I think it's obvious that Microsoft doesn't release patches immediately the after the problem is reported but, in the best case, a few weeks later. Also, AFAIK there are still unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows that have been waiting for an awful amount of time. And consider badly written patches that don't fix the root of the problem. Technical support? Consider that old story of a Microsoft employee that encountered crashes after installing a hotfix. (I can't find the address anymore). He reported on his blog how he barely managed to explain the one at the end of the line that he'd encountered "a STOP error" and that he couldn't see his mouse.
When coming to security, this interval (weeks or months) is huge. Think of Tom Vogt's study about worm propagation. [http://web.lemuria.org/security/WormPropagation.p df]. Three weeks ain't enough. Even three days could be too much.
About "implementing the business requirements".. I admit I only skimmed through the report, but I didn't see any direct referenced to the technology used for that.
And when it comes to problems after upgrading.. RPM is not the only package management system. I don't want to start a RPM vs. Portage vs. APT flame. I only want to show that Linux is not RPM (no pun intended). And the same for distributions. I don't have anything personally with SUSE. Again, Linux does not mean SUSE.
Disclaimer: Yes, I do use Windows on my desktop system. Yes, I use Linux too, but Windows is my primary OS. No, I am not "pro-Microsoft". I only want to see better software. And I hope I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
Slashdot Mirror
It uses WinPcap to send raw ethernet frames (assuming ethernet network)
I don't have too much experience as a network administrator, but I find it strange to use the number of vendor-released patches as a metric to reliability. Yes, in a perfect world this would be normal, but I think it's obvious that Microsoft doesn't release patches immediately the after the problem is reported but, in the best case, a few weeks later. Also, AFAIK there are still unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows that have been waiting for an awful amount of time. And consider badly written patches that don't fix the root of the problem. Technical support? Consider that old story of a Microsoft employee that encountered crashes after installing a hotfix. (I can't find the address anymore). He reported on his blog how he barely managed to explain the one at the end of the line that he'd encountered "a STOP error" and that he couldn't see his mouse.
p df]. Three weeks ain't enough. Even three days could be too much.
When coming to security, this interval (weeks or months) is huge. Think of Tom Vogt's study about worm propagation. [http://web.lemuria.org/security/WormPropagation.
About "implementing the business requirements".. I admit I only skimmed through the report, but I didn't see any direct referenced to the technology used for that.
And when it comes to problems after upgrading.. RPM is not the only package management system. I don't want to start a RPM vs. Portage vs. APT flame. I only want to show that Linux is not RPM (no pun intended). And the same for distributions. I don't have anything personally with SUSE. Again, Linux does not mean SUSE.
Disclaimer:
Yes, I do use Windows on my desktop system. Yes, I use Linux too, but Windows is my primary OS. No, I am not "pro-Microsoft". I only want to see better software. And I hope I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
Maybe they're not that bad.. or not all of them? Check this link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /archive/en-us/dnarstone/html/stone110899.asp