____/ earlyblueberry@xxxxxxxxx on Monday 02 July 2007 03:49 : \____
> Thank you guys. The discussion here is very helpful to me.
> Actually I am a professional translator and belong to a group who
> occasionarily use this kind of articles for brainstorming.
>
> These types of news are being distributed here as in translated
> versions almost in real time, and we can see the translation of Mr.
> Thurrott article below.
> http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20070626/275939/ (sorry it is
> only in Japanese)
>
> As you may know, translating from one language to another is really
> hard and we can read a well-translated article on the above page, but
> it is not at a truly satisfactory level. (I do not want to say that
> the translator was not good. Since this is a news, he/she must have
> been assigned to do a really quick, speedy translation, which is very
> difficult.)
>
> However, if the translation is not correct, lots of Japanese readers
> cannot understand or misunderstand what it says, and that may lead to
> their misunderstanding of some realities; for example, some may think
> "Oh Vista is safer!".
>
> We, a group of professional translators occasionally gather and
> exchange opinions how we can improve our translation by using this
> type of article as a sample.
>
> We know it is indispensable to understand the authors' mindsets,
> different pros/cons arguments, recent trend of the technology and how
> people think of it. But one of the most important steps is to
> understand the meaning of the artielc (in this case, what Mr. Thurrott
> says) correctly.
>
> So I asked some questions here and Roy has been very nice. Thank
> you.
>
> Then please let me chek a few points.
>
> When Mr. Thurrott says "Although XP compared favorably to Vista",
> I think that he means that the XP was treated with some favor when it
> was evaluated.
> Am I correct?
> Or does he want to say that the XP was better than Vista?
It's the latter. He wishes to say that XP, when compared to Vista, was better.
He is referring to the speed of patching, I am assuming. An article from Yahoo
(I think I mentioned it earlier) confirms this as well.
>> Jones contends that Vista is more secure (see counter argument above though)
>> and the phrase says that the comparison /could/ indicate other things, but
>> not necessarily so (not in a scientific sense).
>
> So what the author want to say here is "Linux has been less hacked,
> but it does not mean that it is more secure. Jones data tells us that
> Vista has fewer bugs, and it could mean other related things (eg,
> fewer bugs do not always mean more security), but it is not an
> identical to them in a scientific sence, so let's ignore it and think
> that Vista is more secure that others" ? I may be coufusing, sorry.
There is this myth that Windows is a victim only because it is ubiquitous (used
widely). However, there are two things to be aware of here:
* The numbers, which in this case are meaningless (think about comparing 10
watermelons to 10 grapes), say nothing about the severity (risk).
* Speed of delivery depends on severity. If a patch is delivered quickly, this
might be because the risk is critically high. Speed is therefore not related
to actual risk, although it might be (if one truly *WANTS* to believe this, in
order to embellish a report).
To use an analogy again, Mr. Jones wants us to believe that 20 grapes
are 'more' than 10 watermelons, but this comparison is flawed and
unscientific.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Disk quota exceeded; sig discontinued"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
08:20:05 up 15 days, 13:48, 5 users, load average: 3.95, 2.26, 1.48
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
