____/ earlyblueberry@xxxxxxxxx on Sunday 01 July 2007 09:55 : \____
> Roy, Thank you for your kind advice.
>
> Now I have much better understanding of the author's mindset and the
> article itself.
> But still I have some questions...
>
> When Mr. Thurrott says "Although XP compared favorably to Vista, the
> other OSs did not: ", I guess he might mean that the XP was treated
> with some favor when it was evaluated, which may not be fair.
> Because some sources including below (one of the links you kindly
> listed) tell us that Vista has proved to be more secure that XP.
> http://www.itjungle.com/two/two062707-story02.html#858200243642724476
>
> The tests were conducted by using reduced component set of Linux,
> according to the Jones report. Doesn't it mean the way of testing was
> unfair?
>From what I could gather, based on several independent articles, Jones compared
a huge codebase of Linux (probably including large programs such as the GIMP)
against something very minimal (Windows is /still/ relatively bare-bones).
Moreover, flaw count means very little. Microsoft could, for example, decide
not to patch a minor bug whereas Red Hat will decide to fix a little function
in the GIMP, which improves the performance of blurring. Severity and scale
play a major role, but Jones ignores this because this way his results will
suit his desired conclusion and Bill Gates' hypothesis. It's a case of
designing a study to produce very particular (and unsurprising) results.
> Another question is on the following text.
> -----------------
> To be fair, both OS X and Linux are successfully hacked far less
> frequently than Windows. One of the reasons, of course, is that
> Windows is simply installed on more PCs and is a much more obvious
> choice for hackers to attack. But the data that Jones presents
> suggests that Vista, in particular, is subjected to fewer dangerous
> security bugs than the competition, which is a related (but not
> identical) conversation. In other words, OS X and Linux might have
> more severe security flaws. But Windows, obviously, is attacked more
> frequently in the real world. So which system is really "more secure"?
> -----------------
>
> I don't get the meaning of "which is a related (but not identical)
> conversation".
> Does it mean the story A (Windows is hacked more frequently) is
> related to the story B (Windows has fewer bugs)?
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). Are you putting together a report
or paper on this?
> Thank you,
>
> Jenny
No problem,
Roy
--
~~ Best of wishes
Welcome to standards-compliant Web browsing. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
