Why are people putting so much thought into these numbers?
I know my opinion has probably already been made above, but I just had to add to the millions that logically understand the meaning of these numbers.
I know someone already said, who the hell knows how many M$ security threats exist that aren't made public. This is true. They only release the information when an exploit or worm is making use of them, or they release the information once a month to say they are "working hard on patches".
Two hundred minor security flaws is less of a threat to me than one M$ flaw that is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to my system or network. M$ may have less, but am I wrong in saying that majority of their flaws are WAY MORE dangerous??? And these are just what we find out publically.
Isn't fast, publically made reporting of flaws, bugs and vulnerabilies the best part about Linux security? In that those flaws can be quickly dissected by the community and patched quickly?
This isn't a competition to see who can make a product with the perfect security record. Only OpenBSD is capable of that! (snicker) This is a competition to see who has the best response and is open to the public. As well as the capability for the IT world to do their own investigations into the source code of their systems that run their mission critical services and applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Alil of both!
:)
The OpenBSD guys are striving for a perfect system, and with one exception, have been pretty damn good at acheiving that goal!
lk-
Why are people putting so much thought into these numbers? I know my opinion has probably already been made above, but I just had to add to the millions that logically understand the meaning of these numbers. I know someone already said, who the hell knows how many M$ security threats exist that aren't made public. This is true. They only release the information when an exploit or worm is making use of them, or they release the information once a month to say they are "working hard on patches". Two hundred minor security flaws is less of a threat to me than one M$ flaw that is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to my system or network. M$ may have less, but am I wrong in saying that majority of their flaws are WAY MORE dangerous??? And these are just what we find out publically. Isn't fast, publically made reporting of flaws, bugs and vulnerabilies the best part about Linux security? In that those flaws can be quickly dissected by the community and patched quickly? This isn't a competition to see who can make a product with the perfect security record. Only OpenBSD is capable of that! (snicker) This is a competition to see who has the best response and is open to the public. As well as the capability for the IT world to do their own investigations into the source code of their systems that run their mission critical services and applications.