- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft's Ballmer bombards Linux OS
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Where's the beef?
I can't seem to find a link to the memo... or was it not released for public ridicule? haha.
Logical fallacy
This is not stated explicit in the article but I think it needs pointing out.
One of MS' major arguments on the security front is that Windows is such a big target compared to Linux that naturally they get hit more often.
Even if true then your should switch to linux until they constitute equal size. Someone should ask Ballmer when he expect Linux on the desktop to overtake Windows. If the answer is never then you should permanently stay with the Penquin. QED
Even if true then your should switch to linux until they constitute equal size. Someone should ask Ballmer when he expect Linux on the desktop to overtake Windows. If the answer is never then you should permanently stay with the Penquin. QED
I like the quote that Linux lacks structured development. What was that little problem with Longhorn again?
Better a thousand amateurs getting something done than a hundred professionals that still can't get the file system that they promised in Cairo (a.k.a. Windows 2000) and recycled the press releases for Longhorn.
Better a thousand amateurs getting something done than a hundred professionals that still can't get the file system that they promised in Cairo (a.k.a. Windows 2000) and recycled the press releases for Longhorn.
I would not be too quick to blame the MS developers, who are a talented bunch. The core problem is that MS is pushing an ulterior agenda. In this case, they seem to be aiming at integrating SQL Server as part of the new OS and its file system. While based on good Sybase technology, MS has not been content with keeping it clean. (For example, see how MS encryption was easily broken early on as cited in the O'Reilly book: Transact-SQL Programming). MS has extended the language without always having the goal of a strengthened the syntax and worthwhile feature enhancements. Hence, I suspect the underlying, base motives are hindering the new file system.
Er, pben, wasn't that FS originally supposed to be in Chicago AKA Win95?
A.C.: I have no idea, until very recently I had no idea what was promised even for Longhorn, since I have no intention of using it.
Watch for the issues Stevie boy *doesn't* address
Watch also for issues which he finesses... for example:
Worms and viruses generally don't appear as separately reported vulnerabilities, and they don't always rely on exploiting other known vulnerabilities. MS-Windows has these by the bucketful (we're talking hundreds of thousands of different viruses) and Linux has essentially none (Mac OS X, as of the last few weeks, has one). Even Homer Simpson on a bad day could work out that it's greatly to any Microsoft employee's advantage to transmute a discussion of viruses into a discussion of vulnerabilties, and then by carefully choosing a timeslice or category for the vulnerabilities presented, make their product appear not so bad or at least muddy the waters enough that the emperor's absence of clothes isn't so blatantly obvious.
A recent example http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/25/1098667679077.h... of this came in response to this http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/18/1097951615940.html opinion piece.
Ben English either timesliced or blind-alleyed or didn't carefully check a volatile hacked-websites log which normally reports about 4 vandalised win32 sites for each linux site.
He also ignored the application density covered by the vulnerabilities (hundreds of win32 apps vs thousands to tens of thousands of linux apps)
He ignores what might be called the "quality" of the vulnerability. Is it remotely exploitable? Does it require administrator, root or other special rights? Is it difficult to implement an exploit for? Does it care very much about exact versions, names or locations of things? About processor architecture? The vulnerability lists don't care, but it does make a huge difference to the outcome.
Ben ignores Microsoft's habit of ignoring and downplaying security issues, new attitude or not. It is to Microsoft's commercial advantage to be seen as more secure, but Linus Torvalds doesn't much care about his reputation - like it or lump it, this does influence the admission and rating of vulnerabilities.
and so on.
Summary: if you look closely enough at what Steve's saying, he's full of it.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post