[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Certainly a vulnerability in Apache should not be a strike > against Linux, should it?
Of course it should. You don't just "run an OS". Obviously, you want your machine to actually do something useful. Granted, you shouldn't count bugs in every single piece of linux/bsd software, the same way you shouldn't count bugs in every piece of windows software out there, but counting bugs in the most commonly used ones is most certainly reasonable. Well, that is, unless you restrict the bug count to only bugs in core OS functionality in _both_ cases, but, as I said, that's not a very meaningful study. (Note this is does _not_ mean that I think that Linux + popular software has more bugs than Windows + popular software.) > I like how the article quoted Steve Ballmer comparing Windows 2000 Server and > W2K3 Server with Red Hat 6. Why doesn't Ballmer compare the state of the art > Windows OS' available at the time RH6 came out? Did Windows NT 4 not stack up > as well against RH6 as W2K/3? Agree fully. -- Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 �RNSK�LDSVIK, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00 Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05 Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50 WWW: http://www.clavister.com _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
