All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Microsoft's Security Chief Says Windows Safer Than Linux
Refalm:
--- Quote from: Brandon Paddock ---especially where security and reliability are concerned.
--- End quote ---
:D
I laughed so hard at this one :) that sentence is so stupid and wrong that it's not worth debating over.
MrX:
they should stop complaining because beos has no virus' or malware so it just beats up anyone else's OS.
Mr X
my OS can beat up your OS. :beos: :beos:
Calum:
mr x, your replies don't really contain any substance, do they? it's clear you think beos is great, but why don't you just take it for granted that everybody knows that instead of clogging up dozens of threads purely to repeat yourself.
it would be my advice to the mods to simply delete your posts if they don't contain anything more than "beos is the best", no offence meant, i just think it clogs up the threads.
Brandon Paddock:
--- Quote from: Refalm ---:D
I laughed so hard at this one :) that sentence is so stupid and wrong that it's not worth debating over.
--- End quote ---
In my line of work it's important to know how to build dependable systems. In my experience Windows (NT-based) and BSD provide the most reliable and secure foundation for my customers' networks.
The most rampant problems for home users today (malware, viruses, spam and scams, etc.) are not flaws in Windows. They're problems with computing and the internet in general; they're problems with uneducated users.
Giving those uneducated users (the ones who download e-mail attachments from [email protected] that claim to be "Windows Updates") a Linux system isn't going to solve the problem. If anything, it's going to frustrate users even more - and only lead to slower growth in the technology sector as consumer confidence and interest wanes.
I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have a future. But right now it's inferior to the competition from both a technological and a useability perspective. As for open-source vs. closed-source, that's another matter entirely. I think both have their merits, and their places... but it's naive to think that either is "better" than the other on any absolute level.
I stand by my statement. Windows has proven itself time and again to be a very reliable platform for my company's products. Linux has been proven to be quite the opposite, in fact.
Orethrius:
Interesting words, coming from someone who's relegated BSD (of all things) to router functions. For the love of God, if you're gonna do that, just put MINIX on it and be done with it. These are server OSes, not router OSes. Stop treating an industrial tool like a dog's chewtoy. For what it's worth, I'm going to persue an intelligent reparte of counterpoints to your points.
--- Quote from: Brandon Paddock ---In my line of work it's important to know how to build dependable systems. In my experience Windows (NT-based) and BSD provide the most reliable and secure foundation for my customers' networks.
--- End quote ---
In my experience, Linux and BSD kernels are bounds above Windows in terms of reliability and security. Let's not haggle over root-level exploits (and the fact that EVERY Windows exploit is root-level, not negligible) and software incompatibility. You can hardly blame the OS vendors for the faults of the software manufacturers.
--- Quote ---The most rampant problems for home users today (malware, viruses, spam and scams, etc.) are not flaws in Windows. They're problems with computing and the internet in general; they're problems with uneducated users.
--- End quote ---
On the contrary. Windows caters to inexperienced users. Windows makes itself out to BE the Internet. It even makes IE a prereq for installation. If somebody is getting virii or malware via the Default Settings presented by Microsoft, then those defaults obviously need to be fixed. If you're catering to inexperienced users, you can't just tell them to "change radio button Z on page 302," you HAVE to do it FOR them. Otherwise, you've now indicated that you have no TRUE interest in beginning users, though your corporate propaganda suggests otherwise. This is the point where a corporation must make up its mind. Microsoft, to this day, has never decided whether its interests lie in corporate or personal clientele. On second thought, Microsoft has never properly compartmentalised to do this. A good way to sink a ship? Have two captains and ask each to turn a different direction. Stand back and laugh. Microsoft has two captains - in the form of corporate and personal customers - but is not sufficiently organised to cater to both and come out on top.
--- Quote ---Giving those uneducated users (the ones who download e-mail attachments from [email protected] that claim to be "Windows Updates") a Linux system isn't going to solve the problem. If anything, it's going to frustrate users even more - and only lead to slower growth in the technology sector as consumer confidence and interest wanes.
--- End quote ---
So basically, the same users that had to use DOS just ten years prior wouldn't be able to hold their cocks straight in the John? People mature over time, and learn new things. So, too, would corporations where employees must learn the system to master it. In fact, that's been proven time and again, in the form of corporate takeovers. Last I checked, Oracle held PeopleSoft - instead of the other way around; and Ellison has a passionate distrust of anything Microsoft. Wonder how that happened? ;)
--- Quote ---I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have a future. But right now it's inferior to the competition from both a technological and a useability perspective. As for open-source vs. closed-source, that's another matter entirely. I think both have their merits, and their places... but it's naive to think that either is "better" than the other on any absolute level.
--- End quote ---
I think I've disproved the former argument against Linux countless times prior, but the latter is simple enough. Useability [sic] is a function of user understanding. If the latter never increases, neither will the former. As I've proven, we're not still living in caves banging rocks together, so some evolution of our understanding must have taken place over time. As for open-source and closed-source, those aren't up to the programmer to decide. We have standards organisations, and if they ever did their JOBS, that discussion would be a non-issue. QED. If you want to speak of naivete, try recommending an alternative OS to another user experiencing the living hell that is Downloader.Ject. On WinBBS. On the 31st of February. In a rain storm. During a stampede of wild elephants... and one baby zebra. (Okay, sorry, I just lost my sense of seriousness. It's 06:00, whaddaya expect?)
--- Quote ---I stand by my statement. Windows has proven itself time and again to be a very reliable platform for my company's products. Linux has been proven to be quite the opposite, in fact.
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately, this provides not a platform for the adoption of your company's products, but one against the concept. You're saying that you don't support a specific architecture for whatever reason - and, if you're like most pro-Windows companies, it's because Linux is open-source and you don't want to be even though you can get out of that provision quite easily - no matter how petty. That's like saying "we make Netscape for Windows, but no Mac version is forthcoming because we don't like Steve Jobs." Petty. God help me if I'm ever forced to use your products of my own free will, that's all I can say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version