Sermo Malifer <sermomalifer@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>
> 7 wrote:
>> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Sermo Malifer
>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> ____/ High Plains Thumper on Thursday 05 February 2009 13:55 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Not to mention the fact that Windows does not have a centralised patching
>>>> mechanism. <snip>
>>> That's not a fact, it's an outright lie. Windows has automatic
>>> downloading and patching from a central store.
>>>
>>> Your hatred of Windows, Microsoft, and Bill Gates is not a license to
>>> lie about them.
>>
>> Your interpretation of the post
>
> Is correct.
Hardly...
>
>> and
>> asstroturfing for micoshaft corporation leaves much to be desired.
>
> Point out where I've done that.
>
It's true to say that Microsoft have been desperately trying to catch up
with the centralised patching of Linux for over a decade now.
Unfortunately, the DLL hell issues are not really resolved, and the
central patching is known to cause regular issues with respect to
compatibility of 3rd-party apps on Windows, and even Windows' own
functionality on occasion.
The fundamental difference, however, is that FOSS is open and free in
this respect, whereas in the case of Windows, not only do you have to
pay for this, but the EOL (end of life) remains in the hands of the
vendor.
In the case of free software, even if your distribution of choice
decides to stop supporting something, you can still do your own support,
engage and/or commission 3rd-party support.
However, what's also not mentioned is the enormous number of
vulnerabilities Windows has; at the last count, there were well over
1,000,000 different instances of malware out and about for Windows.
Linux, fortunately, is not suffering in this regard for a wide range of
reasons, including it's long history of rapid centralised patching of
problems, plus the vast choice of distributions and even kernels
preventing binary compatibility for exploits, as Windows has, and
further, that Linux has been built from the start to be multi-user, and
has a well understood permissions mechanism for the execution of
binaries as well as properly corraled user-space.
I know that very recent versions of Windows have had some attempts to
replicate the kind of capabilities which Linux has had since its
inception, well over 10 years, but in all honesty, one should make
allowances for the amount of time it will take Microsoft to catch up
with these.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
