The same company lets it's code out before testing it, letting us test it for them. That's the point, you keep twisting it into Apple's favor because you can't see anything but that soft glow from Steve Jobs' eyes. And I never said they had poor software, that's your tactic. I said very clearly and I'll say it again, it's not about security, it's about how many code fixes these companies had to issue, if OS X has zero wild threats, why does it have so many security updates? Because of badly written code they didn't test well enough...the same argument you've been using against the Zune.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Tom Piwowar <[email protected]> wrote: > >How could Apple with supposed better research into it's code and it's > >vendors code, have so many more fixes for the same time period? And this > >isn't about security, just about Apple putting out OS X and then having to > >go back and fix some of it's code. As every vendor must. Under Tom's > >logic, these numbers clearly represent Apple as a slipshot organization > with > >nothing better then monkeys coding their software. > > This is nonesense. The company that does better testing and is much more > aggressive at keeping its software well patched -- so much so that there > have never been any viruses in the wild -- is accused of having poor > software. Meanwhile the company with the big flops and many viruses in > the wild is called superior. By this method of reckoning the company that > does no testing and never responds to problems would get the best score. > > Look at the WildList (wildlist.org) and you can see right away who does > the best job: 378 in the November '08 "Main" Windows list. Zero for OS X. > > > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
