On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:51:41AM +1200, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Start preaching to the converted how Microsoft products
> are better because you find out about the security holes
> more often, so obviously they are more dedicated to finding
> and fixing them and that linux is lacking severely in this
> department and must have heaps of unknown security holes
> waiting to be exploited.
funny you should say that,
here is my real and honest opinion onthat matter:
the count of security holes found in a system does not necesarily
show the (un)security of the code but rather indicates the popularity
of a given system.
i am willing to believe that to an extend the same is true for windows.
the difference is that with free software i can fix the holes once found
with windows i can't.
many years ago,security problems with linux were litterally unheared of.
this changed gradually as linux beacme more popular. and i am guessing
that by the time linux has replaced windows in marketshare
windows will appear free from security holes and virii,
because then simply noone bothers to break it.
the difference between your (in jest) statement and my (totally serious one)
is your assumption that microsoft bugs get actually fixed.
greetings, martin.
--
interrested in doing pike programming, sTeam/caudium/pike/roxen training,
sTeam/caudium/roxen and/or unix system administration anywhere in the world.
--
pike programmer travelling in europe open-steam.org
csl-gmbh.net (www.archlab|(www|db).hb2).tuwien.ac.at
unix bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at
systemadministrator (stuts|black.linux-m68k).org is.(schon.org|root.at)
Martin B"ahr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
