|
Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
|
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
thing wrote:
> Matthew Poole wrote: > >> In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote: >> >>> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >>> >>> ction=news >> >> >> >> I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security >> vulnerabilities than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does >> the man live in? Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot >> be separated from Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of >> the number of moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come >> out of Secunia this year. >> Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly >> critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in >> shared libraries that are optional. >> > > > I suspect it was a pre-emptive strike over this, > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3960025.stm > > ".....John Oughton, chief executive of the OGC, said that the pilot > schemes in the UK show that Linux "could support government bodies by > offering efficient and cost-effective IT solutions". > > "This report will assist public sector bodies in making informed, > value-for-money judgements when deciding upon which solutions best suits > their needs." > > The pilot schemes found that using Linux can extend the life of > equipment and limit the number of servers need to run programs. > > It also said that there were "potential green" benefits, as well as the > cost cutting....." > > When even Government "experts" are coming out and saying Linux is > viable, then the stupidity that Ballmer is spewing is getting way beyond > believable. > > It must be the rarified atmosphere up there is MS tower or something > because the only people I can believe would believe this are the MS > faithful and the clueless. In which case his email does little to win > over the people that count, which are the ones that do their research, > costings and make the decisions ie sit in positions that matter like CIO's. > > This does not mean Linux is always the answer, what it does mean is that > more and more MS is no longer the automatic solution for a "small/medium > solution". Its now a 2 horse race which is good for everybody (except > MS), even the MS faithful. > > regards > > Thing > > Went to a Novell sales push on suse the other week. And even they say that you should not, as a business, put all your faith in one system. Better a marraige of the two. |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote:
>http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >ction=news I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does the man live in? Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot be separated from Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of the number of moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come out of Secunia this year. Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in shared libraries that are optional. -- Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand "Veni, vidi, velcro... I came, I saw, I stuck around" My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
Troglodyte wrote:
> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...7§ion=news > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3960025.stm regards Thing |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
Matthew Poole wrote:
> In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote: > >>http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >>ction=news > > > I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security vulnerabilities > than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does the man live in? > Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot be separated from > Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of the number of > moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come out of Secunia > this year. > Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly > critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in shared > libraries that are optional. > I suspect it was a pre-emptive strike over this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3960025.stm ".....John Oughton, chief executive of the OGC, said that the pilot schemes in the UK show that Linux "could support government bodies by offering efficient and cost-effective IT solutions". "This report will assist public sector bodies in making informed, value-for-money judgements when deciding upon which solutions best suits their needs." The pilot schemes found that using Linux can extend the life of equipment and limit the number of servers need to run programs. It also said that there were "potential green" benefits, as well as the cost cutting....." When even Government "experts" are coming out and saying Linux is viable, then the stupidity that Ballmer is spewing is getting way beyond believable. It must be the rarified atmosphere up there is MS tower or something because the only people I can believe would believe this are the MS faithful and the clueless. In which case his email does little to win over the people that count, which are the ones that do their research, costings and make the decisions ie sit in positions that matter like CIO's. This does not mean Linux is always the answer, what it does mean is that more and more MS is no longer the automatic solution for a "small/medium solution". Its now a 2 horse race which is good for everybody (except MS), even the MS faithful. regards Thing |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
Matthew Poole wrote:
> In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote: > >>http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >>ction=news > > > I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security vulnerabilities > than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does the man live in? > Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot be separated from > Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of the number of > moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come out of Secunia > this year. > Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly > critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in shared > libraries that are optional. > This does a good bunk of what he is saying, http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/ My thought is, if this "get the facts" campaign is the best MS can come up with, it does not look good for MS. For those that blindly accept what MS says.....well carry on doing a dis-service to your employer....for those that want to think, research is very easy.... regards Thing |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
In article <4180D366.2040003@orcon.net.nz>,
Troglodyte <nth@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >Went to a Novell sales push on suse the other week. And even they say >that you should not, as a business, put all your faith in one system. >Better a marr[ia]ge of the two. That's the biodiversity argument. It's a fact that it's more "efficient" to run your entire business on a single platform. However, that leaves you vulnerable to a single security hole affecting all your machines enough to knock out your whole business. So you diversify, which increases your costs and reduces your efficiencies somewhat but buys you greater robustness. Kind of like how evolution works in the natural world: it's a highly inefficient process, but the diversity of organisms it produces makes it a little bit less likely that everything will be wiped out by the next asteroid strike. |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
Troglodyte wrote:
> thing wrote: > >> Matthew Poole wrote: >> >>> In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >>>> >>>> ction=news >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security >>> vulnerabilities than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does >>> the man live in? Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot >>> be separated from Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of >>> the number of moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come >>> out of Secunia this year. >>> Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly >>> critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in >>> shared libraries that are optional. >>> >> >> >> I suspect it was a pre-emptive strike over this, >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3960025.stm >> >> ".....John Oughton, chief executive of the OGC, said that the pilot >> schemes in the UK show that Linux "could support government bodies by >> offering efficient and cost-effective IT solutions". >> >> "This report will assist public sector bodies in making informed, >> value-for-money judgements when deciding upon which solutions best >> suits their needs." >> >> The pilot schemes found that using Linux can extend the life of >> equipment and limit the number of servers need to run programs. >> >> It also said that there were "potential green" benefits, as well as >> the cost cutting....." >> >> When even Government "experts" are coming out and saying Linux is >> viable, then the stupidity that Ballmer is spewing is getting way >> beyond believable. >> >> It must be the rarified atmosphere up there is MS tower or something >> because the only people I can believe would believe this are the MS >> faithful and the clueless. In which case his email does little to win >> over the people that count, which are the ones that do their research, >> costings and make the decisions ie sit in positions that matter like >> CIO's. >> >> This does not mean Linux is always the answer, what it does mean is >> that more and more MS is no longer the automatic solution for a >> "small/medium solution". Its now a 2 horse race which is good for >> everybody (except MS), even the MS faithful. >> >> regards >> >> Thing >> >> > > Went to a Novell sales push on suse the other week. And even they say > that you should not, as a business, put all your faith in one system. > Better a marraige of the two. Some sense in that, sorta. 1) With all your eggs in one basket you have to be 100% sure the system you rely on is so well designed and built you get that 100% out of it. 2) Trouble is of course so many systems within a business are in terms of job function interrelated at the person's job level even if they are not in actual IT terms. By this I mean having say seperate servers for email and files is just great....unless your so reliant on both to do your job that if one goes down you cannot work effectively anyway. So the design, build and maintenance challenge is to keep the business at a functional level even if one major component fails. ie if email is 30% of the business, and fails we still need to have 70% capability, not 10%. Which begs a huge question on the reality of MS appearing to want thick client and being so anti-thin client, if you have lost your fileserver effectively you can do so little with your desk top that its all but useless. So a thick client means you can maybe play solitaire if your allowed to and if your already logged in. If you are not using ISA and say have a squid proxy without AD authentication then you can web browse, a real business gain.....not. regards Thing |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
thing wrote:
> Matthew Poole wrote: > >> In article <4180ce05@news.iconz.co.nz>, nth@orcon.net.nz wrote: >> >>> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=6632437&se >>> >>> ction=news >> >> >> >> I loved the comment about Windows having fewer security >> vulnerabilities than Linux. Which planet's rarified atmosphere does >> the man live in? Flaws with IE, given MS's insistence that IE cannot >> be separated from Windows, are Windows flaws. And I've lost count of >> the number of moderately or highly critical flaws in IE that've come >> out of Secunia this year. >> Linux has had its share, to be sure, but they're not usually highly >> critical remote code execution flaws. Or if they are, they're in >> shared libraries that are optional. >> > > This does a good bunk of what he is saying, > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/ Drivel! Of course its written by Nicholas Petreley and published by The Register, it must be true... > My thought is, if this "get the facts" campaign is the best MS can come > up with, it does not look good for MS. For those that blindly accept > what MS says.....well carry on doing a dis-service to your > employer....for those that want to think, research is very easy.... likewise for someone that blindly accepts the Nicholas Petreley rant. There are a bunch of flat out inaccuracies in the "report" along with some subversion of the CERT data to support the inaccurate claims |
Re: Ol' gatesy is gettin worried huh ?
Troglodyte wrote:
> http://www.reuters.co.uk newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=663243 7§ion=news Rely on Reuters to publish Microsoft ads as news. They used to be a credible news agency.......but over the past 4 years they have been shown to pervert the news to support their political and economic agenda. One need only read their coverage of events in Venezuela over the past 3 years to discern the clear pattern at play. US uber alles. -- Distributed Computing Projects: SETI at Home http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1248 ClimatePrediction.net http://boinc.mundayweb.com/cpdn/stats.php?userID=334 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.