That was about the most short-sighted article I've seen yet on SF.

Microsoft has enough trouble convincing the world they can make anything secure. Imagine how bad the worms and viruses would be if MS charged for patches. They can't get half the world to apply patches when they free and completely automated to install. Charging for patches will only make the problems worse.

Linux on the other hand is made up of mostly GPL software. Charging for patches would be against the GPL. Charging to use proprietary update systems is not. But look where that got RedHat. They no longer sell a desktop OS or support.

What sense would it make if you?re trying to compete against Microsoft and charging for security patches?

The most disgusting thing about these SF articles is the get reprinted without the feedback or readers all over the place. So many readers will come to the conclusion that opinions expressed in the articles are representative of the security community.

It seems SF writers, especially those I've seen from Hal Flynn, are nothing more than spreading F.U.D. about Linux.


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/200/23912#23912