EXCELLENT point. Frequency of patches, per se, proves nothing. Can be bad design: Windows was designed without a security system. (Well, certainly very little). So was Linux. So was MVS. Remember the first RACF and why CA had such an easy time selling CA-1? Can be sign of "Kaizen" constant incremental improvement.
> Being the cynic that I am, I wonder about the reason behind this. Perhaps it is to "prove" that z/OS is actually more likely to contain programming errors and so be open to "cracking" and thuse "less secure" than some other beloved OS? After all, Windows doesn't have the hundreds (if not thousands) of "patches" that z/OS gets regularly. Therefore, z/OS is more poorly designed and implemented - QED, "no brainer". Same applies, BTW, to Linux. Linux gets updated more regularly than Windows. Therefore Linux is more poorly designed because they are constantly __BEING FORCED__ (as many managers would see) to improve it. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" misapplied to imply "if it's being modified, it must be broke". -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
