The Security Paradox
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Limulus Jan 08, 2006 8:48 PM EDT |
In the 'Winning the Linux Wars' article is a (broken) link to another article: Neudesic counters perceptions that Linux is more secure than Windows with similar vigor, drawing on independent analyst white papers and other third-party sources. "If you start reading all the news on Linux versus Microsoft, the trend seems to be that Microsoft is doing better than most flavors of Linux"on security, says Marshall, but he adds that he regularly hears customers claim that the contrary is true. (See related feature, "The Security Paradox.") And while I couldn't find the article in the website's index, a little fiddling with the URL turned it up: http://www.mcpmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=543 "Though many experts credit Microsoft with making great strides on security, many customers still aren't satisfied. But how much of the problem is really Microsoft's fault?" |
| helios Jan 09, 2006 4:09 AM EDT |
But how much of the problem is really Microsoft's fault?"..... Until they find a way to operate their system minus ActiveX, the answer is simple. All of it. I run a pure Linux Box, am as functional or moreso than I was with Windows and haven't run an antivirus program in two years. While Windows users can be sited for not using the "proper protection", there is no reason operating a Windows Computer should be akin to walking thru a mine field. |
| Herschel_Cohen Jan 09, 2006 4:34 AM EDT |
Limulus - a "broken" link means either a non-functional or misdirected; this would require editorial action to insert the proper link. Here, however, the link goes the the item I had viewed and it works, hence, there is no broken link. Your view you expressed implicitly was that there exists a better rendering of similar ideas. Moreover, the blatant faults of the linked content aroused you to action ... Well, mission accomplished: thank you. |
| Limulus Jan 11, 2006 12:51 AM EDT |
BTW, Bill Gates wants you to know that "We're not having security problems because Microsoft is lazy or sloppy or anything like that." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1537410,00.asp Also, replying to the comment that 'There's a perception that Windows is somehow more vulnerable than Mac or Linux.' he said: "It's just not; it's just not. But there's a weird sense that it may feel like it's true, which is [why] we get attacked more. Our technology at this point is way better in terms of how few defects we have. Just go through and compare, say, with Linux, how many defects we have, how quickly we fix those defects, how our system is for getting the updates out for those defects. Take those objective criteria, and we are better." Wow! Linux must just be crawling with viruses and worms if Windows is better than it in terms of security... oh wait. ;) |
| salparadise Jan 11, 2006 2:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:There's a perception that Windows is somehow more vulnerable than Mac or Linux.' he said: "It's just not; it's just not. But there's a weird sense that it may feel like it's true, which is [why] we get attacked more. Our technology at this point is way better in terms of how few defects we have. Just go through and compare, say, with Linux, how many defects we have, how quickly we fix those defects, how our system is for getting the updates out for those defects. Take those objective criteria, and we are better. There's a career for this man in stand up comedy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!