Re: [chat] Re: [SLUG] Take 1.5 hrs to learn why linux sucks. ;)

[Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 07:42:08PM +1000, Rob B wrote:
> At 06:05 PM 11/07/03, James Gregory sent this up the stick:
> >On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 17:56, Michael Lake wrote:
> >> I read...
> >> - "Linux has had more vulnerabilities during 2002 than all versions of
> >> Microsoft OSs combined"
> >> - "Linux and Solaris have significantly more CERT advisories in 2002
> >> than all Microsoft software combined"
> >>
> >> There are no specific references to backup these statements - just
> >> general refs at the end of the section. Whats the real situation?
> >> Certainly I saw that SP$ for Win 2000 that I have at work has hundreds
> >> of security pathches listed for that so how are they juggling figures to
> >> come out with statements like that?
> 
> I didn't realise that there were that many holes (number?) in Linux, being 
> just the kernel.  Maybe they were counting distro issues as well?

To be fair, Windows service packs have fixes for more than just the kernel. 
Sure as hell, though, the only way that Linux had more security
vulnerabilities than Win2k is if Microsoft are counting the vulnerability in
each distro's release of a program as a separate vulnerability (which, off
the top of my head, would be the easiest way to get the count up).

- Matt