Comments

• aeshna23

  2009-08-13 14:50:53

  I'm having trouble following this argument. Isn't our argument that Linux has far few vulnerabilities than Windows, and not that any operating system is going to have zero vulnerabilities for quite a while?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-08-13 15:59:01

  I was pointing out Microsoft's dishonesty. GNU/Linux does not play those PR games. It is upfront about deficiencies and there's rarely a question about what's good for shareholders; it's about what's good for users.

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-08-13 17:12:35

  Well, all this means is that 7600.16384 is affected by these security bugs, but the real RTM, 7600.16385, is not. So MS is right in claiming that the RTM is not affected. Normal, I think. "Watch what happens on Patch Tuesday in September and October and see how many of those bugs affect Windows 7 cause they can’t declare RTM again." Normal, I think, too. I remember the first patches released for XP RTM right on it's launch on October 25: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309521 And not just for XP itself. Windows Movie Maker 1.1 and Windows Messenger 4.0 was shipped with XP, but by the time of the launch on October 25, Windows Movie Maker 1.2 and Windows Messenger 4.5 was already available. Here is a list: http://forums.windrivers.com/archive/index.php/t-39574.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-274987.html

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-08-13 17:36:47

  "Then [they] released a press release patting Windows 7 on the back for being more secure, even though at least half those bugs affected it too." That is where the trick probably is.

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-08-13 17:38:52

  "They’re still patching Windows XP after 8 years. What does that tell you? I fired it up on my other laptop yesterday and had 9 security updates waiting. Well, after 8 years and ~4,000 patches you’d expect them to have tied up most of the loose ends. They said Windows XP was secure when it launched and they are *still* patching it routinely." That is I think normal too. Sometimes new features introduce new security holes, but this isn't always the case.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-08-13 17:54:01

  Sometimes new features introduce new security holes, but this isn’t always the case.

  
  
  GNU/Linux receives many patches, but:
  
  

  1. Patches are distributed to all software from the repositories, not just the core O/S and core applications.
  2. GNU/Linux distributions are often released once or twice a year. If you look at LTS releases (over time), then your comparison becomes more valid.

  
  
  Windows XP hardly changes and the number of holes found in it so far is amazing. It was touted as very secure when it was released.