Experts Challenge Mi2g Security Study

Happytux made a comment in the voting field that Enderle's comment in the article made sense, much to his surprise.

I agree Enderle is an idiot and I think even his comment here shows it. He mentions that the sample needs to be normalized over skills set and useage. How you do this aside, I think his point is that one should not blame the OS if the users are less than stellar. This would be in line with his Windows bias.

If you do this it would make the Linux result worse not better unless you assume that the Linux Admins are less trained and capable than MSCEs

If you use the canonical definition for MCSE (Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert), they probably are better at it.

Sorry, forgot to mention that Enderle's statement looks too sensible despite the above failings. Maybe it was ghostwritten by his answering service or cleaners who happened to be there when the 'phone rang?

About Enderle's comment: even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Even his idea of "normalizing" actually makes sense until you think about it for 30 seconds - how exactly do you "normalize" this kind of data except by arbitrarily discounting some percentage of incidents?

The mi2g quote in the final paragraph was even more laughable:

"We would urge caution when reading negative commentary against mi2g, which may have been clandestinely funded, aided or abetted by a vendor or a special interest group."

What does that mean? "IBM may fund PR campaigns against us?" or "We would have gotten away with it except for those pesky Linux kids!"