Harrr!!! :D
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Kicked your ass Red Hat! :D
Windows 12 high severity flaws to Red Hats 2
TBh Id rather have the flaws not there in the first place than fixed ultra quick.
Windows 39 vulnerabilities.
Red Hat 208 vulnerabilities.
QuoteTBh Id rather have the flaws not there in the first place than fixed ultra quick.
Too true ;)
thing is, 2 critical v 12 critical?
These If my memory serves are OS kernel patches, the type of thing that needs to be addressed instantly. I would sooner have 208 minor flaws with easy workarounds than 12 Zero Day flaws.
a "medium" threat is just as deadly as a "critical" one in some cases.
1 provides a stepping stone to elevate yourself further.
Id rather have only 32 chances of someone gaining unauthorised access to my system, rather than 208 chances anyday. Critical or non-critical. Every information leak is still a leak, every DoS is still a DoS.
The issue isnt how many threats they have found and fixed but how many they havent found or fixed.
Linux tends to find problems very quickly and they are patched as required. M$ have been slow to patch problems in the past and have tended to ignore issues or not patch them for months.
Lets agree to disagree, all new os are flawed and full of holes, id rather have an abacus tbh
Quote from: SeriousThe issue isnt how many threats they have found and fixed but how many they havent found or fixed.
Linux tends to find problems very quickly and they are patched as required. M$ have been slow to patch problems in the past and have tended to ignore issues or not patch them for months.
Except the latest study shows that the trends have reversed.
QuoteOne swallow does not a summer make.
Really they could just be finding less problems with Windows because it hasnt been improved in years. If you keep the same old code and patch it often enough you will eventually get to the state that it requires less fixes than something that has been continually evolving.
you mean to say that it is in fact a more secure operating system then?
If it doesnt require frequent patching, then surely its more secure than something that does.
No, Im saying that an old colander that you have been poking clay into the holes of for a very long time is going to be less leaky than a new one.
Of course the old one, XP, is out of date and getting replaced with Vista so we will have to see how that does.
Linux has been continually improved over the years while Windaz hasnt. to make up for this Linux has a few more holes to fill in.
The question is how many unpatched holes are there left in each, not how many have been filled in. Linux has been very good at finding and patching holes, M$ hasnt until now. Almost all of the Linux ones are minor, which M$ might have ignored or not declared as holes.
There is just far too much going on behind the scenes to say either way.
Either way, wear a condom. :lol: TBH, the openness of *nix is the big selling point, as pretty much any OS can be secured tight enough if you set it up right. Why pay a Redmond tax?
Anyway, the tests dont reflect real life use where Linux roxx and M$ suxors. :lol:
One point of note with this article is that it considers only Redhat.
As soon as a hole is found in a Linux app then you be fairly confident a patch will come out straight away. There is nothing to stop you apply the patch yourself or getting an updated version of the offending software from the original site (rather than waiting for it to appear in a Redhat update).
Lets also note they are probably talking about the "default" install of Redhat which includes X and other stuff. If you are installing Redhat for use on a server then you dont need X and 90% of the other stuff installed.
I always pick the "minimal install" option then install what I need. Once I have a working install Ill create an image from that ready to deploy on other servers.
Itll generally take me a day or so to set up a server with a new distro. Then around an hour per server after that, that includes any custom software/tweaks.
Cornet
Quote from: maximusotterEither way, wear a condom. :lol: TBH, the openness of *nix is the big selling point, as pretty much any OS can be secured tight enough if you set it up right. Why pay a Redmond tax?
Anyway, the tests dont reflect real life use where Linux roxx and M$ suxors. :lol:
Which is of course why everyone in the real world uses Linux and no one uses Microsoft.....
.....sh*t no its the other way round isnt it! :?:
Quote from: RivkidQuote from: maximusotterEither way, wear a condom. :lol: TBH, the openness of *nix is the big selling point, as pretty much any OS can be secured tight enough if you set it up right. Why pay a Redmond tax?
Anyway, the tests dont reflect real life use where Linux roxx and M$ suxors. :lol:
Which is of course why everyone in the real world uses Linux and no one uses Microsoft.....
.....sh*t no its the other way round isnt it! :?:
Youve used up your quota of ellipses, and have yet to make a point. Thats sad. :lol:
if you cant figure out the point I QUITE CLEARLY MADE then Im not really bothered what you think.
Quote from: RivkidWhich is of course why everyone in the real world uses Linux and no one uses Microsoft.....
.....sh*t no its the other way round isnt it! :?:
it basically comes down to the fact you get windows "Free" when you buy a PC. it means everyone knows it, and it means that they get the great majority of the market share as a result. Just because something is popular doesnt mean its the best. I use windows, Linux and OSX depending on what im doing. It depends on what im doing usually. I wouldnt deploy Linux out to end users unless they had a good reason for it, but i wouldnt use windows for a webserver or SQL Server.
Also depends on your definition of better. Better means different things for different people and whilst Linux maybe be preferable for the few Windows is the better choice for the masses - not only because its familiar but because its much more user friendly. People can go on about windows having more problems and Linux is easier to troubleshoot etc.. which is debatable - but the fact is 99% of end users never have to deal with this anyway so its totally irrelevant.
The truth is I like Linux servers - they have less downtime and its easier to manage updates and Id love to move our file servers on to it (never happen at BT). I wouldnt however consider it on a desktop for any reason.