I can clone a SuSE guest in about 5 minutes and be left with a
functional server. According to the published calculation I should be
able to bring up a win2k (and up) "server" in about 3.5 minutes? 

Ok, so that's not really fair, but even in an x86 world I can `dd` the
system disks, tote them to another standard server platform, and
personalize in less than an hour. This calculation still puts win2k up
and running in 30~40 minutes - not realistic. In fact, I don't even
think any reasonable Windows guru would believe that, even with the most
efficient scripted auto-install load that one could build. (I've worked
with some pretty efficient win2k auto-install scripts in the past and
it's 2 hours, bare server to communicating on the wire, at best.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Post, Mark K
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Windows Server thrashes Novell's Linux


How many of those patches were against packages that would not be in a
base Windows install?  I didn't see any URL to the actual report, so I
can't answer that myself.

How many of the patches against Linux required rebooting, versus
restarting a service?

How many problems does Microsoft know about that they haven't admitted
to having, and won't be issuing patches for?

How many of the Open Source patches were the result of pro-active bug
fixes, versus:
- denying a problem exists
- slipping a fix in quietly that hadn't been previously acknowledged
- refusing to fix at all, unless you're running the latest and greatest
XP?

I have to give Microsoft credit for greatly improving their security
over the last couple of years.  That simply doesn't fix a security model
that's outright broken to start with.


Mark Post

-----Original Message-----
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Summerfied
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Windows Server thrashes Novell's Linux


This came as a surprise to me:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/16/microsoft_takes_stick_to_novell/

"... found the Linux system required an eye-watering 187 patches while
Windows needed just 37."

"... Novell system suffered 14 "critical breakages" while the Windows
system suffered none."

Comments?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

Reply via email to