ncarver wrote: >> Linux does require almost daily security patches, more frequently than >> windows I think. >> >> > > While I see no value in a Linux vs. Windows argument, I could not let > this sort of misconception pass. The only reason patches may be more > frequent for Linux distros is that the distros release them more > frequently than Microsoft, which generally releases patches only once a > month or so (for XP). If you want to deal with patches less frequently, > then don't run utilities that constantly check for patches--do it only > once a month! While this may sound like a major security trade-off, > you should consider that patches for Linux software that involve > vulnerabilities that are *remotely* exploitable are very, very rare. > The vast majority of patches are for local exploits--i.e., they apply > only if other people are using your machines and you don't trust these > people. I always examine patches before applying them, and can go > months without doing any updates for my single-user desktop machines. > >
We were talking about frequency since I was reacting to "almost daily security patches". I don't know if the rest of your story is correct, it might be, but OTOH I don't get that many security updates via Windows Update even with weeks between them. And often it's just 'Windows Malicious tool Remover', which is not really a 'security patch'. I just ran yum update on a CentOS host BTW (it' s been a while I guess) and counted 46 updates in one go. I've no idea how serious they are and how remotely exploitable, but I don't really keep track of that in Windows either. Both Windows and Linux PC's need frequent updates, can we agree on that? Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
