On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 05:49:28PM +0530, Thaths wrote: > > 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. > Anybody beginning to see a pattern in these _research_ stories? Thaths, Homer's quote at the end of your mail seemed apt in this case ;-)
Regards,
--
Sridhar M.A. GPG KeyID : F6A35935
Fingerprint: D172 22C4 7CDC D9CD 62B5 55C1 2A69 D5D8 F6A3 5935
Littering is dumb.
-- Ronald Macdonald
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
