Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Bob Frost writes:
> 
> > You don't have to 'goof' around with them (whatever that might
mean); it
> > updates itself automatically without any operator hassle and the
updater
> > itself is better in SP2.
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> > Which world do you inhabit?
> 
> The part of the world that has seen the source code.
> 
> > Microsoft has issued hundreds of updates for XP
> > mainly to block security loopholes that have been discovered.
> 
> Every system has security holes. In systems that are not widely used,
> most holes are never discovered--but they are there.  In systems that
> are used by hundreds of millions of people, new holes are discovered
> every day.  This is all a function of how widespread the operating
> system is, not how secure it is.

I've also seen the source code, or at least enough of it to know how
sloppy they are.  And I write Win32 code for a living.   And Windows
internals are very sloppy.   I've also seen Linux source, and I do
believe that Linux is better-written.  This is probably due to having
a better peer-review process - Linux coders know their work will be
seen by a wider audience.

Furthermore it's NOT true that Windows has more exposure because
they're a bigger target.   In the server industry Windows does not
have the kind of monopoly they have on the desktop.   In fact by many
statistics Linux has more server numbers than Microsoft.  But I read
the IT press - Infoworld, Computerworld, EWeek, etc, and it's very
clear that more patches are issued for MSFT *server-based* products
than their competitors'.