Last Years Vulnerabilies

Hey Hey,

You had me confused there for a minute nihil... had to go looking again... When I originally read CN22's post.. it didn't have te zdnet link on there....

As far as what the author of the article did... it makes perfect sense... You said it yourself

Quote:

---

What she seemed to be implying(?????????????) is that as there were only 800 MS vulnerabilities and 2,300 *nix ones, if *nix were as popular as Windows it would get swamped to a much greater extent.

---

However, I don't think she implied... she basically came out and said it when you read through the article...

It's as TS said.... a simple matter of somebody not reading and doing the research... seeing numbers and them making assumptions as to how they are related...

Peace,
HT

yea had a talk with gore and ZDnet has no clue wtf they are talking about apparently. Thats half the problem and the other half is me for not doing and looking for the right info. To sum it up to make it short ill do my part and learn from my mistakes this wont happen again. I understand why things are said and i accept them and ill learn more from my mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by mandraketux
yea had a talk with gore and ZDnet has no clue wtf they are talking about apparently. Thats half the problem and the other half is me for not doing and looking for the right info. To sum it up to make it short ill do my part and learn from my mistakes this wont happen again. I understand why things are said and i accept them and ill learn more from my mistakes.

---

Hey Hey,

I'm usually a fairly easy going guy... but seriously... the ZDnet article made sense if you read it... in keeping tradition with everything else they do... they made it business/upper management related... Showing market share percentages to try and relate...

The article made sense...Just own up to the fact that you didn't properly read the article before posting parts of it... simply because you wanted to make FreeBSD look good... you screwed up and misinterpreted something... don't be blaming it on them...

On a side note... I'd like to question the Market Share... especially if it's as recent as it claims on to be... I'd question FreeBSD being below WebTV, PSP (Can this really go in the OS Market Share field) and Win CE... even Win95 for that matter.....

Think about this.. How long since Win CE was actually sold on a product... It's now Pocket PC....

I'd blame ZDNet for unreliable sources (as far as market share goes) but the article itself made sense.

Peace,
HT

I just love the market share data collection technique:

Quote:

---

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers. The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis.

---

:rolleyes:

I knew that there had to be a reason for Windows 95 and NT 4.0 collectively having three times the market share of Linux? :D

Even Microsoft know better than those figures, which is why they extended the support on Win98/ME

I would guess that Win2000 probably still has around 50% of World USAGE share............and that is what those stats are based on, a microscopically small usage survey.

:)