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: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU 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
