M$ FUD against Linux security.

Linux security is a 'myth', claims Microsoft :
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1160853

"Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux.
"In Microsoft's world customers are confidant that we take responsibility. They know that they will get their upgrades and patches."

Me: Wanna talk abt the time taken by both the communities to patch critical bugs. (LoadImage API)

"If you look at the number of people who contribute to the kernel tree, you see that a significant amount of the work is just done by a handful.
"There are very few of the improvements that come through the wider community. There are more skilled developers writing for the Microsoft platform than for open source.

Me: yes, No doubt people in M$ are very skilled. But do you let them work with full independence. Forgot abt the post where one of the API writers exposed your underlying BAD tactic. Give bogus Error massage but code written on other DOS platform should not able to run on mS-DOS. Huh???

"Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing. For example, there is no single development environment for Linux as there is for Microsoft, neither is there a single sign-on system.
Me: Huh!!!!!, Please someone enlighten him on the recent developments in linux world. I think he needs an RSS aggrigator. :D

BTW, perfect timeline, this FUD by Microsoft comes at the time when we have Memo To Microsoft ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/microsoft.html ) and when we know SP2 protection can be overcome.

Guyz, if windows wud have been Open Source you wudnt have been seeing this bug, hopefully. Even when you are closed source people are able to locate some much workarounds to your patches tooo. weired isnt it??

Just my $0.02

I am not going to sit here and poke all the holes in your argument, but you need to realise that bashing Microsoft because they bashed Linux is not going to solve a single thing.

Do you assist in improving the Linux kernel, by sending bug reports, adding code, and the likes?

No? Then you can't complain about Linux security through the kernel.

Do you assist in improving the Windows OS by sending error reports, offering workaround suggestions to their development boards, or beta-test products before they are publically released as to offer insight?

No? Then you can't complain about Windows security.


Linux's security model does have insecurities and flaws, just like the windows security model. But don't start pointing fingers and throwing mud if you aren't willing to step in and start making things right.

Fair comment....

I'll be interested in the OP's response....

I think the guy is just angry because for years, 1,000s of programmers, sys admins, and linux enthusiasts have been bashing windows. I guess McGrath is just pissed off at the community of people who (usually) know more than the typical windows end-user telling everyone that windows is crap. What he says about viruses is especially interesting;

Quote:

---

Another [myth] is that there are no viruses for Linux,

---

...Oh really?, I'm sure some (if not most) of the members at AO have linux as well as Windows machines. When was the last time someone can remember having a linux virus ? What about a Windows virus ? Im not saying there are none, I'm saying they are way less of a threat than windows virii.

The reason there are so many linux vulnerabilites is because it is open source. I'm sure if microsoft decided tomarrow that it would publish its source(HA HA HA), there would be a HUGE increase in vulnerabilites. That is what is so great about the (responsable) linux commmunity. They find a problem, patch it, repeat. Windows can take months to put out a simple patch. Sometimes it can take public pressure before they decide to do so... These are just the raving of one man, though. :)

Yawn...

Another "My OS is better than yours" thread perpetrated by idiots and maintained by the uninformed.......

Someone close this before it wastes too much bandwidth please......

Yeah, I know.... I posted twice.... :rolleyes:

The famous "debate" between "Windows & Linux" I perfer open source myself

Quote:

---

if windows wud have been Open Source you wudnt have been seeing this bug, hopefully.

---

Please keep in mind No computer is completely secure. If Windows was ever to become "open source" A lot of computer geeks would study the "open source code" and find ways to subvert it. If Windows was to ever become open source it would be a national security issue.

I'm not trying to start an argument about which OS is better, I like both. I'm just pointing out inaccuracies and exagerations in McGrath's little tirade or whatever. I was just trying to highlight why I like the open source community, while also showing why I disagree with some of microsoft's patch release policies. I realize that there are pros and cons to both sides, and I know I am no guru on either side, and I will never claim to be. I was just stating what I see as pros and cons to either side.

Quote:

---

Do you assist in improving the Linux kernel, by sending bug reports, adding code, and the likes?

No? Then you can't complain about Linux security through the kernel.

---

Then why is microsoft so gung ho in their writings about linux security?

Quote:

---

Do you assist in improving the Windows OS by sending error reports, offering workaround suggestions to their development boards, or beta-test products before they are publically released as to offer insight?

No? Then you can't complain about Windows security.

---

Why complain about it? I just try my best to lessen the impact on my systems.

Quote:

---

But don't start pointing fingers and throwing mud if you aren't willing to step in and start making things right.

---

Tell that to the millions of users who just want to use the computer and not worry about any insecurity in their computers. Is that the right attitude for them to have? Maybe not, but that is the cold hard truth.
I could care less on what OS you use, and could care less on what microsoft has to say. They have shown their true colors in dealing with competitors, and it is not a pretty thing.
Enough of my rant.

Linux has its advantages

windows has its advantages

linux has its downfalls

windows has its downfalls


people....its 6 of one, half dozen of another....

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by devpon
Then why is microsoft so gung ho in their writings about linux security?

---

For the same reason linux zealots are gung-ho about Windows being insecure. Fanboi-ism combined with "OMFG WE'RE BETTA". This guy's (in the parent article, not poster) argument and attack is no different than how Linus bashes OpenBSD's model, or how he also bashes Window's security model. It's just another "fanboi" bashing an operating system method that he doesn't fully understand (this applies to both windows and linux bashers)

Quote:

---

Why complain about it? I just try my best to lessen the impact on my systems.

---

And that's fine. Complaining won't get anyone anywhere, and I can understand from an admin point of view that getting things fixed as much as you can is much more important than ranting.

Quote:

---

Tell that to the millions of users who just want to use the computer and not worry about any insecurity in their computers. Is that the right attitude for them to have? Maybe not, but that is the cold hard truth.

---

Tell that same thing to the millions of users that want to switch to Linux, but when attempting to convert they are met with README and COMPILE_INSTR files that require them to learn far more than they should. Why should an accountant lawyer want to spend a few months worrying about the proper methods for .configure so that it won't conflict with kernel modules? He shouldn't, but that's how it would work for the crossover.

People might not like Window's security that it has by default (NOTE: I said by default, not capability), but they shouldn't have to spend months learning to secure it. I completely agree with you.

People might not like the learning curve of Linux/BSD's, but they shouldn't have to spend months learning to operate it, especially when chances are their company isn't using it.


Both OSes have their ups and downs, different capabilities and possibilities. But the OSes are not the point here. The capability of either is not the point. The point is that the person who wrote this anti-linux article is nothing more than a fanboi of Windows. I wouldn't take his word as official nor as something the rest of Microsoft feels to be true and accurate. I would take his relevance with the same level of humor that I would with a linux-fanboi who is screaming "OMFG LINUX 4EVA H8 WINDOERZ CUZ ITS INSECURE!!111three".

:)