[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3FB32A47.6090604@abox.co.il>
From: netcat at abox.co.il (netcat)
Subject: Re: Funny article
dphull@...edu wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>
>
>>i guess the main argument against this joke is that an operating
>>system with 10 different web servers, 10 different mail servers, 10
>>different ftp servers, 20 different window managers, 10 different
>>browsers, 20 different mail clients, and so on, and so on, will have
>>how many more bugs than a monolithic approach with 1 web server,
>>1 mail server, 1 ftp server, etc...
>>
>>
>
>I don't consider the web/mail/ftp servers, windows managers, browsers, mail
>clients etc. to be part of the operating system, per se.
>
>Certainly a vulnerability in Apache should not be a strike against Linux,
>should it?
>
>I like how the article quoted Steve Ballmer comparing Windows 2000 Server and
>W2K3 Server with Red Hat 6. Why doesn't Ballmer compare the state of the art
>Windows OS' available at the time RH6 came out? Did Windows NT 4 not stack up
>as well against RH6 as W2K/3?
>
>--
>Dave Hull
>Senior IT Analyst, Information Services
>The University of Kansas
>voice: (785) 864-0403 || fax: (785) 864-0485
>
>
>
>
>
I wonder that it's not mentioned that nobody wants to apply M$ patches
as they usually break something else. The real comparson should be
between the vuln. discovery and the real fact of patching a system.
Well, you can blame the admins and not the OS but this whole comparison
is ... hmm ... strange ?
--
NetCat
--------------------------------------------------------
FREE 10MB email + Antivirus + AntiSpam + POP3 + more....
Get it at http://www.doal.co.il:81/free/?c=both
Powered by blists - more mailing lists