On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 06:28, 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." > > Red Hat 6 ?! *This* is his example for Linux security?
It doesn't matter, you're missing the point. The fact is that Red Hat IS more secure than Windows 2000 or Server 2003; where they figure they can make that statement is by flat out lying. You cannot detect all bugs in a proprietary binary distribution because the source is only auditable by the department responsible for development and the programmers, and in addition to that the programmers are never allowed to speak, only the scumbags in the marketing department are. The corporation allows a very few reported bugs by the programmers to get through, (enough to reinforce credibility) and in most cases they (the programmers) don't have any incentive to reveal the bugs that ARE there lest their department get raked across the coals, your supervisor and all. Another thing is that all departments in M$ are competing against each other for completion of software "black boxes". Therefore that reduces the incentive for each department to report it's actual known bugs even more; they can lose ground to competing departments. And that is alot of the reason why M$ product is the flat out biggest piece of shit that has ever been foisted on the ignorant American public. There is another reason why there are more security issues reported with Linux distros that I have not mentioned. Two, actually. The first is honesty; it is mainly the honest hard working middle class programmers that report on problems with the source, since it is auditable by the public. The second reason why the bug scorecard differs is that the number of programmers auditing Linux source code is on a WORLDWIDE level, NOT a corporate level. Therefore the number of eyeballs auditing Linux source greatly blows away any semblance of competition from M$ corporate. So the points are: 1) Red Hat is immeasurably more secure than either Winblows 2000 or Winblows Server 2003. 2) More security issues are reported with Linux at times both because of the honesty of the working team and because the working team is worldwide, with more eyeballs. Less bugs are reported on M$ by M$ because they are liars. 3) The open nature of the source code makes it immeasurably superior to proprietary binary closed source software, because open source is accessible to anyone in the world who wishes to audit it. This is comparable to Enron or Golden Crossing having had their accounting bookwork open to the world for auditing from the start. The problems would never have occurred. 4) The public propaganda mongers of Microsoft are a bunch of lowlife lying bastards and the executives are demonic lords from the deepest bowels of the Nine Hells. Do yourself a flavor and read the following book: Barbarians Led by Bill Gates ISBN 0-8050-5754-4 > > ROTFLMAO! > > Ok, now I'm really not sure whether he is just pure evil, stupid, combo > of both, what the hell is this guy popping? > > Where's his e-mail, I just gotta ask... LX -- 같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같� Linux Mandrake 9.1 Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk *Catch Star Trek Enterprise, Wednesdays on UPN* 같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
