Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On October 24, 2003 05:48 am, HaywireMac wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:17:30 -0400 Bryan Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: We know that journalists are bought by advertising dollars and we know which software model has the money to buy them. They are respected by the public slightly more than politicians and slightly less than used-car salesmen. This is not going to change, not now and not in the future. Linux and open-source are not going to win this battle in the media, they will have to win it among people smart enough to know better than to listen to someone bought and paid for acting as a shill for the buyer. Personally, I am fairly happy to see the mainstream press falling into line to bash open-source for the industry. Nothing convinces me that we are on the right side more than that. Or, in other words: The Revolution will not be televised! And no one better to buy off that ZD Net, that highly independant source of information about computing. (someone get me a b*rf bag, quick! :-) ) ttfn John Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On October 23, 2003 03:28 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. Red Hat 6 ?! *This* is his example for Linux security? 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... Well, we also have to ignore that Winblows Server 2003 was cracked within minutes of it's first appearance. And we have to ignore the fact that what Microsoft calls critical vulnerabilities these days is in such a narrow band as to be statistically invalid. Now..onto Linux. Whatever number of vulnerabilities are reported and patched the fact remains that these are often discovered by the development team and patched BEFORE any reported attempt to exploit the vulnerability. Further, the peer review that Linux goes through ensures that the millions of eyes looking at a package will find it double quick and again the patch is released BEFORE any reported exploits. Not so with Windows and I need not explain that one further. What M$ and it's apologists do is count up the number of patches irregardless of severity on competing OSs and then compare it to thier number of patches. As thier patches attempt to solve numerous vulnerabilities all at once Linux patches come through one package at a time. In short the numbers are meaningless. Let's also remember that it's a boringly regular occurence that a M$ patch will break more than it fixes. In Linux it's the other way around even though it does happen about once in a blue moon. There's an old saying about numbers...figures can't lie but liars can figure. Ballmer is in the latter category. Another nice one, courtesy of Mark Twain is there are lies, damned lies and statistics ttfn John Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:49:45 -0700 John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: Now..onto Linux. Whatever number of vulnerabilities are reported and patched the fact remains that these are often discovered by the development team and patched BEFORE any reported attempt to exploit the vulnerability. Further, the peer review that Linux goes through ensures that the millions of eyes looking at a package will find it double quick and again the patch is released BEFORE any reported exploits. Did you read what he said about that, though? It's so beyond credulity that it makes me wonder about his sanity: The vulnerabilities are there. The fact that someone in China in the middle of the night patched it--there is nothing that says integrity will come out of that process. We have a process that will lead to sustainable level of quality. Not saying we are the cat's meow here--I'm saying it is absolutely not good reasoning to think you will get better quality out of Linux. In the middle of the night in China?! LOL! I gotta get some of what this guy is smoking... -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help the rabbit. -- R.E. Shay Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Friday 24 October 2003 12:59 am, Michael Adams wrote: snip Trouble is Bryan, mainstream press quote these statements verbatim and do not quote anything to the contrary alongside it. They are not interested in doing any 'investigitive journalism' nowadays when they can cut and paste from press releases. Joe public get Microsofts version exactly as it gets peddled and dont even think to question it. We know that journalists are bought by advertising dollars and we know which software model has the money to buy them. They are respected by the public slightly more than politicians and slightly less than used-car salesmen. This is not going to change, not now and not in the future. Linux and open-source are not going to win this battle in the media, they will have to win it among people smart enough to know better than to listen to someone bought and paid for acting as a shill for the buyer. Personally, I am fairly happy to see the mainstream press falling into line to bash open-source for the industry. Nothing convinces me that we are on the right side more than that. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:17:30 -0400 Bryan Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: We know that journalists are bought by advertising dollars and we know which software model has the money to buy them. They are respected by the public slightly more than politicians and slightly less than used-car salesmen. This is not going to change, not now and not in the future. Linux and open-source are not going to win this battle in the media, they will have to win it among people smart enough to know better than to listen to someone bought and paid for acting as a shill for the buyer. Personally, I am fairly happy to see the mainstream press falling into line to bash open-source for the industry. Nothing convinces me that we are on the right side more than that. Or, in other words: The Revolution will not be televised! -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ A dream will always triumph over reality, once it is given the chance. -- Stanislaw Lem Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 01:46, HaywireMac wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:49:45 -0700 John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: Now..onto Linux. Whatever number of vulnerabilities are reported and patched the fact remains that these are often discovered by the development team and patched BEFORE any reported attempt to exploit the vulnerability. Further, the peer review that Linux goes through ensures that the millions of eyes looking at a package will find it double quick and again the patch is released BEFORE any reported exploits. Did you read what he said about that, though? It's so beyond credulity that it makes me wonder about his sanity: The vulnerabilities are there. The fact that someone in China in the middle of the night patched it--there is nothing that says integrity will come out of that process. We have a process that will lead to sustainable level of quality. Not saying we are the cat's meow here--I'm saying it is absolutely not good reasoning to think you will get better quality out of Linux. In the middle of the night in China?! LOL! I gotta get some of what this guy is smoking... You and me couldn't afford it Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 06:28:03 -0400 HaywireMac [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: 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. Bob Cringely's response: This is nonsense. It is nonsense because Steve Ballmer, like Bill Gates before him, confuses market success with technical merit. Microsoft's product roadmap is a manifestation of a business plan, and what matters in Redmond is the plan, not the map, which is in constant flux. How many technical initiatives has Microsoft announced with fanfare and industry partners, yet never delivered? Dozens. That is no roadmap. If Microsoft developers rampantly fail to produce good software, but the company exceeds earnings estimates anyway, how many of those rears will be actually on the line? Very few, and maybe none at all. What Ballmer ought to have said was, It's true we have shipped some really bad software in the past and we are ashamed of that, but we are totally committed to improving. But he didn't say that. He said, Our model works pretty well. Link: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20031023.html -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ Work Hard. Rock Hard. Eat Hard. Sleep Hard. Grow Big. Wear Glasses If You Need 'Em. -- The Webb Wilder Credo Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
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 -- °°° Linux Mandrake 9.1 Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk *Catch Star Trek Enterprise, Wednesdays on UPN* Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thursday 23 October 2003 07:16 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: snip 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. /snip Lyvim, I agree totally with your comments. Just a few addons : 1. We Europeans suffer too. 2. A few days ago I came across an article somewhere that had the thesis : all those M$ bugs are not really bugs, but backdoors. The reason why there are so many bugs is simple : every now and then some bugs are discovered, which forces M$ to fix them, so they have to maintain a large repository of bugs in order to keep their backdoor capability intact. Makes sense ? Kaj Haurich. -- *This mail was sent from a 100 % Microsoft free computer* Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 17:41, Kaj Haulrich wrote: On Thursday 23 October 2003 07:16 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: snip 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. /snip Lyvim, I agree totally with your comments. Just a few addons : 1. We Europeans suffer too. 2. A few days ago I came across an article somewhere that had the thesis : all those M$ bugs are not really bugs, but backdoors. The reason why there are so many bugs is simple : every now and then some bugs are discovered, which forces M$ to fix them, so they have to maintain a large repository of bugs in order to keep their backdoor capability intact. Makes sense ? Kaj Haurich. Absolutely, and you are correct, of course. The problem is that there are so many things wrong and so many crimes that have been committed by MicroSoft that it ends up drowning you and it becomes impossible for one to cover them all. We always need help, and btw thanks for yours. ;) LX -- °°° Linux Mandrake 9.1 Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk *Catch Star Trek Enterprise, Wednesdays on UPN* Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
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
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thursday 23 October 2003 04:33 pm, Paul M. Bucalo wrote: 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. Actually, no one should be surprised by the remarks and I would be highly surprised to find anyone that takes anything said at these types of press conferences seriously. What did anyone here expect Ballmer to say? That Windows 2003, after hundreds of millions spent on development and at a price of several hundred per pop, is worse than a free product, by the way, please buy our stuff? I mean, they guy is doing his job, nothing to get crazy about, he is basically paid to convince people that Windows is better and if he can do that by saying misleading things that are technically true, who here can say that they are surprised that he does so? The mere fact that he is constantly forced to acknowledge open-source at these things is testament to the fact that Linux and other open source competition is a serious threat. Hey, back in the day, IBM and other mainframe companies said the same type of things about PC's, they were only good for games, they weren't powerful enough for serious business, they were being built by a bunch of hippies out of a garage, etc. ad nauseum. The biggest kick that I get from all this is the cosmic irony. There just has to be some old fossil IBM guys sitting around a table somewhere watching Ballmer and saying, Stevie boy, it just ain't gonna fly, we tried the same lines way back in the day, while you and Bill were laughing all the way to the bank. You gotta notice that we ain't pushing the big steel anymore. You're next, how's it feel to be on the other side? -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Ballmer: Win more secure that Lin
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:45:56 -0400 Bryan Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 23 October 2003 04:33 pm, Paul M. Bucalo wrote: 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. Actually, no one should be surprised by the remarks and I would be highly surprised to find anyone that takes anything said at these types of press conferences seriously. snip Trouble is Bryan, mainstream press quote these statements verbatim and do not quote anything to the contrary alongside it. They are not interested in doing any 'investigitive journalism' nowadays when they can cut and paste from press releases. Joe public get Microsofts version exactly as it gets peddled and dont even think to question it. -- Michael Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
