On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:00:04 +0530, Bharat Shetty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this really true ....CHIP published a story that windows with all
> patches and licensed from the M$ was 100% safer than pirated windows
> and Linux varities . Now another article on this Linux VS windows
> issue . What do you feel about this ?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> They compared Windows Server 2003 and Red Hat Enterprise Server 3
> running databases, scripting engines and Web servers (Microsoft's on
> one, the open source Apache on the other).
1. RH vulnerability != Linux vulnerability
2. Frequently, there are patches available in src form for
vulnerabilities within days. In Linux at least it is possible to plug
the hole by compiling from upstream src. With WinDOS you pretty much
are left at the vendor's mercy.
Thaths
--
"You don't quit your job because you don't like it, you just go in and do it
really half-assed." -- Homer J. Simpson
