Linux not accountable for security, Ballmer says

[Zombie9920]

This is the second time I've posted this. Why did my 1st post on this get deleted? Does it have something to do with fixing that little error that occured to the forum last night?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e=1&u=/techtarget/20031021/tc_techtarget/932906&sid=96120755

[mushrooomprince]

OOo wow ! Says ballmer ?

My question to you is why are you even posting this ?  What does it matter what steve ballmer says.  Obviously your image of steve ballmer is very different than mine.

[xyle_one]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
This is the second time I've posted this. Why did my 1st post on this get deleted? Does it have something to do with fixing that little error that occured to the forum last night?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e=1&u=/techtarget/20031021/tc_techtarget/932906&sid=96120755

When the forum was fucked, one of the mods "fixed" it. It basically wiped out alot of threads. Sucks, but we learned our lesson for the 2nd time. DO NOT PRUNE POSTS.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
OOo wow ! Says ballmer ?

My question to you is why are you even posting this ?  What does it matter what steve ballmer says.  Obviously your image of steve ballmer is very different than mine.

My question to you is why did you even post a worthless reply? I posted this article because this is the "Microsoft in the news" section. You do realize that, right? .   :rolleyes:

 

quote:Originally posted by Ecsyle:

When the forum was fucked, one of the mods "fixed" it. It basically wiped out alot of threads. Sucks, but we learned our lesson for the 2nd time. DO NOT PRUNE POSTS.

I figured that was the reason why it got deleted. No big deal.

[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[xyle_one]

That was uncalled for mushroomprince. The topic is the article. Not the why & whynots of posting said article. This is an anti-MS site, so maybe you should actually fins some reason to hate them. This article is a good place to start. I couldnt even read passed the part where ballmer said that OSS software isnt "professional" like MS, therefor, it is inferior. I cannot see why being "professional", regardless of how you define it, automatically makes something better. MS has a limited number of people working on the code. It has a limited number of people testing the code. OSS & freeSoftware, because it is open, and available to EVERYONE, can be developed by many times more people, who are just as skilled, if not more so than MS people. Everyone can see the code, and bugs can be found quicker. Patches can be created faster because the source code is there. I can, however, see good things having a central authority governing the direction of the code, having a controlled environment. And OSS has that. It is just on a larger scale than ballmers "dreamteam" at ms. It isnt confined to one organization, one set of eyes. Bleh. I will finish reading the article later. maybe i will even reorganize my thoughts here as well.

[solarismka]

quote:  What sets Windows apart from Linux in terms of development, security and patching, Ballmer said, is that Microsoft has an infrastructure that takes responsibility for Windows. "There's no roadmap for Linux. Nobody is held accountable for security problems with Linux."

Of course its, "Steavo Baller" saying this so what ever he says hes gonna make a troll against anything  but windows, no suprize there.

What sets windows appart from Linux is what people already know.  Linux takes responsiblity for security!  Alot of the programmers out there, comb through the code looking for errors. Also becaue the code is original, meaning the authour who wrote it is actualy part of the overall project.  So the aoouther works with the programmers, they know more on what they are doing compared with M$ which basicaly tries to steal other peoples ideas and market it as their own.  Because, M$ usualy don't write the code they put out there!  Thus they have no idea what the hell they are doing.  If you don't write the code originaly its harder to fix the errors in it.  So this brings forth buggy insecure code which cannot be patched, so instead they keep realeasing new OS'es  starting from scratch.  They can't just fix what is already there unless they knew what they were doing in the first place, since they do not its easier to put out another product ripped off from other people and market it as the latest and greatest thing.

That is the M$ way!

[emh]

Yeah, considering this article:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/2003/10-21Gartner.asp

I have a hard time taking Steve Ballmer seriously.

 

quote:
The first 150 days of Windows 2003 we had four critical vulnerabilities.  The first 150 days of Red Hat 6, go check the number, just go check the number.  It's five to ten times higher than what we are showing.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, compare a system that just came out to a system that is four or five years old.   :rolleyes:

[MadShad]

"There's no reason to believe it would be of higher quality. I'm not necessarily claiming it should be of worse quality, but why should code submitted randomly by some hacker in China and distributed by some open source project, why is that, by definition, better?".....

Because we paid programmers that use that 'open source project' can simply (guess that's why I get paid a lot) read through the code and SEE that it is better, rather than have to 'hope' that it is better!! ....has he even seen some of the newbie student crap code in .NET???