On Thursday 23 October 2003 04:26 pm, Anne Wilson graced me with: > On Thursday 23 Oct 2003 11:28 am, HaywireMac wrote: > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5094279.html > > > > "Ballmer also disputed the notion that open-source code is more > > secure than Windows. "The data doesn't jibe with that. In the > > first 150 days after the release of Windows 2000, there were 17 > > critical vulnerabilities. For Windows Server 2003 there were > > four. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher," > > he said." > > I presume that he means numbers of critical vulnerabilities > announced and fixed. It's the fact that linux does have so many > more announced and fixed that *makes* it more secure. > > Anne
Balmer may be conveniently throwing in *all* of Red Hat's critical vulnerabilities in its *distribution release*, which amounts to many, many applications, not just the O/S. If he compares O/S to O/S, instead of O/S to total distribution, Red Hat (or any other Linux distro) doesn't look as bad as he suggests. Windows is Windows. I've never seen anything freely given in the O/S that ever could have been called an app. Applet, but not app. As usual, mind games are being played that affect the multitude that don't look with clear eyes. Paul
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
