, 2002-05-15
Unix and Linux security owes much to openness and public disclosure, but Microsoft is too far gone for sunshine to do any good.
Expand all |
Post comment
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-16
Matthew Kauffman (2 replies)
Matthew Kauffman (2 replies)
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-16
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-20
manually adding html tags to be safe (1 replies)
manually adding html tags to be safe (1 replies)
Memo to Microsoft: Stay Secretive, Please
2002-05-16
Not Really Anonymous (1 replies)
Not Really Anonymous (1 replies)
Memo to Microsoft: Stay Secretive, Please
2002-05-17
blane (1 replies)
blane (1 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-16
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-17
Anonymous Unix Gal (1 replies)
Anonymous Unix Gal (1 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious - Rebuttal
2002-05-17
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Come back to earth SpaceMonkey - I rebutt your rebutt
2002-05-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

That aside, no one is arguing that there is a Single Bug-free OS, but there are valid arguments about the frequency of patches for MS products. For easy comparison, look at IIS and Apache. We all know that Apache and IIS are roughly equivalent in terms of distribution, but I can't off the top of my head think of a time where a patch was urgent.
As stated before, when you click the "I Agree" button (on most any software regardless of platform) you sign away your rights to accountability and recourse. Enter the open source arguments where you could theoretically take the reigns into your own hands...
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/82/12675#12675