XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c
mp.sys.macintrash
XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash
From: mist@cumulus.com
Dawg Tail wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article
>>, Derek
>>Currie wrote:
>>
>>>Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My
>>>point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have
>>>to sling at mi2g.
>>
>>OK, let's try it this way. Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G
>>report, almost everyone switched to OS X. So, we end up with 98% of the
>>servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows. Question:
>>what would be the result?
>>
>>Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to
>>Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.
>>
>>*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless. Total number of breaches per OS,
>>which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.
>>What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of
>>the servers that were running each OS were breached.
>>
>>How many major hosting companies run OS X? How many run Linux? If the two
>>OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an
>>order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more
>>Linux servers out there.
>>
>>What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.
>
>
> Go easy on them.
Them who?
> They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical
> concepts yet.
Apparently this has flown over your head by miles. When are you
wintrolls going to figure it out yet?
> Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple
> concept will evade them for a while longer.
>
Them who?
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
