Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #33481 > unrolled thread

Gates year 2003

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Gates year 2003 Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-17 15:34 +0300
    Re: Gates year 2003 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 14:57 +0200
      Re: Gates year 2003 Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-17 21:29 +0300
      Re: Gates year 2003 voodoo <voodoo@tootycar.net> - 2011-06-18 07:11 +0000
        Re: Gates year 2003 William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-18 10:24 +0100
        Re: Gates year 2003 Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-18 07:05 -0400
          Re: Gates year 2003 Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-06-18 21:05 +0100
    Re: Gates year 2003 Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-06-17 18:49 +0100
      Re: Gates year 2003 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-17 11:02 -0700
        Re: Gates year 2003 flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-17 14:30 -0400
          Re: Gates year 2003 Goblin <bytes4free@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-17 19:33 +0100
    Re: Gates year 2003 JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> - 2011-06-17 12:32 -0700
    Re: Gates year 2003 voodoo <voodoo@tootycar.net> - 2011-06-18 17:16 +0000

#33481 — Gates year 2003

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
because Gates said so...

***********************
Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security
CmdrTaco Oct 31 2003

from the no-such-thing-as-perfect-code-anyway dept.
securitas writes "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft
Professional Developers Conference where Bill Gates says

'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he
suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make
sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.

Considering that Microsoft says it is focused on security, the comments
from the Chief Software Architect aren't inspiring, especially beacuse
the underlying attitude seems to contradict the idea of well-written,
secure code. What kind of message does that send to the developers who
work for Gates?"
.
http://snurl.com/2stg
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/03/10/31/1610250.shtml?tid=126&tid=172


Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security
exclusive The chief software architect's advice for safeguarding your apps
Lynn Greiner Oct 29 2003
.
.
For example, today you either end up with tons of different passwords,
or you have to do things in a very insecure way. So this (Web services)
is really the next level of Internet integration, and the thing that
didn't exist is the programming model to unify those things.
.
.
You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems. There are things
we're doing that are making code closer to perfect, in terms of tools
and security audits and things like that. But there are two other
techniques: one is called firewalling and the other is called keeping
the software up to date
.
.
Anybody who kept their software up to date didn't run into any of those
problems, because the fixes preceded the exploit .. in every case at
this stage we've had the fix out before the exploit ..

..  it's people not understanding the design of APIs where you get
vulnerabilities. Certainly there are whole classes of vulnerabilities
like buffer overruns that are very well understood at this point, and
the scanning tools are very good and the compiler switches are very good ..

..  actually all the forms of Unix as well as Linux have had more
vulnerabilities per line of code. They don?t propagate as much because
they're not as dense as our system is, so the things that prevent the
propagation are particularly important for our world ...
.
http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=53897


****************************

Kari

- -- 
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards  http://www.ztex.de

I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN+0nNAAoJEPjW/Kjfref2SZ4IAKPh3c/F54bTSKjTHcOT/bql
owgokaHYjmBDCp/Q66k+S3m9NR6zhda5pjbc8ekrK1itLrDmPlUmkazm9zBe5Uvf
yPVRExhKxBpxalyRkGtmr5K7R4ZCLO6CJPb4t7PZQBXBa4d9z92WuOvMIPc+JLcc
LAbGNCPcWAWXFFXn7OZ3tEthdw1jLG/0TbjxPlUhr7LZQ4cSAfl8Rzgua1I5AmHh
5HWp+YHUG7wVVaukp2flURq3CHR6AyfG+sKLrgDEzzCACblNeD8idua1h9dRzUce
2Su3MzvQ0gfBtVKepEW8a5PbntY104CBg2ozhOWHERgU6wEi20w3qCynd4hWyNU=
=cj/f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33488

Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
> exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
> working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
> to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
> because Gates said so...

No you're wrong because you're full of shit.

Fixes come when people fix them. In closed source that can be immediate
give or take too - depends on the SW and the severity. Closed
source/proprietary obviously QA it more and do official releases to save
support costs and hosing their paying customers so there is an advantage
in that way. The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -
that said wonderful development like Git (thank you Linus) make
reverting to previous versions/tags trivial.

re security, You are aware that Debian has daily security updates too
right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33617

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/17/2011 03:57 PM, Hadron wrote:
> Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
>> exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
>> working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
>> to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
>> because Gates said so...
> 
> No you're wrong because you're full of shit.
Ok Sir...

> 
> Fixes come when people fix them. In closed source that can be immediate
> give or take too - depends on the SW and the severity. Closed
> source/proprietary obviously QA it more and do official releases to save
> support costs and hosing their paying customers so there is an advantage
> in that way. The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -
> that said wonderful development like Git (thank you Linus) make
> reverting to previous versions/tags trivial.
I remember reading things that MS patch destroyed the Windows machines -
maybe I was hallucinating...

Also several reputable sources have reported that number of bugs/1000
lines of cone were lot less in Linux than ...ehm was it Windows.. but I
must have been hallucinating also...

> 
> re security, You are aware that Debian has daily security updates too
> right?
Of course they have - they take user's security seriously instead just
playing the lip service Microsoft does.
Was Microsoft deploying patches once a month? I am not sure - I don't
update them very often. One machine updated itself yesterday and took
two reboots to install them.

Kari

- -- 
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards  http://www.ztex.de

I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN+50DAAoJEPjW/Kjfref2LJ0H/iM1ff2ga+0P3vvReoTBTUW9
MLMhbFyDL43NnFs3Zx9L0hVoVUl6igeqKiCpo2/vrOpeA7aUDE+bCbRoQtGskSPA
DSN4OeVGa+ccl5OMJZp0ctnQL8PdnuFGyyd1EbFsKB6sZW2/Z1eKKz3fAfUTGO1M
9RoM36Hh/CWVjpPMonCujV593DcPS1pzck1WuKVCLjWx9UZZmAMIuZRQR6yTUfKZ
E3jWijKn0KdU/dkOOrQcD/u8+hm34bMfGxJXZBPxnGAdFYb1IBmXF05Qz15s4uom
J9HJpMSYm+7M+37LDCvRhuqUvDnWVTjuDKHgX0r1DulDoygNhKAYRX9rC3990xk=
=Zqlv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33790

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:57:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
>> exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
>> working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
>> to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
>> because Gates said so...
> 
> No you're wrong because you're full of shit.
> 
> Fixes come when people fix them.

yes.

> In closed source that can be immediate
> give or take too - 

yes.

> depends on the SW and the severity.

and also the interest of the owning company.

> Closed source/proprietary obviously QA it more

why is it obvious to you?

> and do official
> releases to save support costs and hosing their paying customers
> so there is an advantage in that way.

please explain the economic imperative for a monopoly to follow this 
theory. include examples of microsoft in particular displaying this 
behavior.

how does paid support eat away support costs?

> The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -

explain why you think this is different from the proprietary model. give 
examples of microsoft in particular displaying an aversion to releasing 
shoddy feature deficient products.

> that said wonderful development like Git (thank you Linus) make
> reverting to previous versions/tags trivial.

> re security, You are aware that Debian has daily security updates too
> right?

yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33802

In reply to voodoo who posted:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:57:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
>>> exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
>>> working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
>>> to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
>>> because Gates said so...
>> 
>> No you're wrong because you're full of shit.
>> 
>> Fixes come when people fix them.
>
> yes.
>
>> In closed source that can be immediate
>> give or take too - 
>
> yes.
>
>> depends on the SW and the severity.
>
> and also the interest of the owning company.
>
>> Closed source/proprietary obviously QA it more
>
> why is it obvious to you?
>
>> and do official
>> releases to save support costs and hosing their paying customers
>> so there is an advantage in that way.
>
> please explain the economic imperative for a monopoly to follow this 
> theory. include examples of microsoft in particular displaying this 
> behavior.
>
> how does paid support eat away support costs?
>
>> The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -
>
> explain why you think this is different from the proprietary model. give 
> examples of microsoft in particular displaying an aversion to releasing 
> shoddy feature deficient products.

Here are a couple of examples of M$ shoddy  "chuck it out there and see"
crapware:   WindowsME & Vista. :-)

>> that said wonderful development like Git (thank you Linus) make
>> reverting to previous versions/tags trivial.
>
>> re security, You are aware that Debian has daily security updates too
>> right?
>
> yes.

-- 
XPN :: http://xpn.altervista.org
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33820

voodoo wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:57:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Closed source/proprietary obviously QA it more
>
> why is it obvious to you?

Indeed.  Then how come much of the OSS software you get (in source code
form) comes with test suites so that you can verify the integrity of the
build?

I've yet to see a commercial package that comes with test vectors.

>> The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -

Oh. My. God.  

"chuck it out there and see" is *exactly* Microsoft's business model.

Look at their venture into IPTV for a good example.

>> re security, You are aware that Debian has daily security updates too
>> right?
>
> yes.


-- 
BOFH excuse #187:
 
Reformatting Page. Wait...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33935

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:57:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>> The OSS/Linux way is often "chuck it out there and see" -
>
> Oh. My. God.  
>
> "chuck it out there and see" is *exactly* Microsoft's business model.

   "The new version - it's not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason
    we come up with a new version." ~ Billy Buttcrust

http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

-- 
K.                           | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org            | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky   | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 26 days  | we shouldn't tax the rich.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33601

Verily I say unto thee, that Kari Laine spake thusly:

> ***********************
> Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security
> CmdrTaco Oct 31 2003
>
> from the no-such-thing-as-perfect-code-anyway dept.
> securitas writes "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft
> Professional Developers Conference where Bill Gates says
>
> 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he
> suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make
> sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.

It's the same backwards mentality as Windows "developers" who think they
shouldn't be concerned with compiler warnings. Sloppiness and a lack of
professionalism is a away of life for them. It's all about the money:
screw integrity and the customers.

[quote]
Gates:
    It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so
you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is
not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a
new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new
things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a
reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.

FOCUS:
    How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about
this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear
this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no
significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version?

Gates:
    No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not
enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using
Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version
because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new
version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that
basis. 
[/quote]

http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

-- 
K.                           | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org            | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky   | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 25 days  | we shouldn't tax the rich.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33604

Homer stated in post 0mgsc8-bvb.ln1@sky.matrix on 6/17/11 10:49 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Kari Laine spake thusly:
> 
>> ***********************
>> Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security
>> CmdrTaco Oct 31 2003
>> 
>> from the no-such-thing-as-perfect-code-anyway dept.
>> securitas writes "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft
>> Professional Developers Conference where Bill Gates says
>> 
>> 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he
>> suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make
>> sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.
> 
> It's the same backwards mentality as Windows "developers" who think they
> shouldn't be concerned with compiler warnings. Sloppiness and a lack of
> professionalism is a away of life for them. It's all about the money:
> screw integrity and the customers.
> 
> [quote]
> Gates:
>     It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so
> you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is
> not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a
> new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new
> things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a
> reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.
> 
> FOCUS:
>     How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about
> this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear
> this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no
> significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version?
> 
> Gates:
>     No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not
> enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using
> Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version
> because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new
> version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that
> basis. 
> [/quote]
> 
> http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

Ah, and new versions of FireFox always advertise the fact they just fixed
bugs. 

LOL!

Actually, one of the few times I have seen a company sell a big update based
on fixing the back end and *not* on features was Apple with OS X Snow
Leopard.  Sure, they refined some things, but the focus was *not* features.
It was refreshing to see.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33619

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:02:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Homer stated in post 0mgsc8-bvb.ln1@sky.matrix on 6/17/11 10:49 AM:
> 
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Kari Laine spake thusly:
>> 
>>> ***********************
>>> Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security
>>> CmdrTaco Oct 31 2003
>>> 
>>> from the no-such-thing-as-perfect-code-anyway dept.
>>> securitas writes "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft
>>> Professional Developers Conference where Bill Gates says
>>> 
>>> 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he
>>> suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make
>>> sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.
>> 
>> It's the same backwards mentality as Windows "developers" who think they
>> shouldn't be concerned with compiler warnings. Sloppiness and a lack of
>> professionalism is a away of life for them. It's all about the money:
>> screw integrity and the customers.
>> 
>> [quote]
>> Gates:
>>     It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so
>> you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is
>> not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a
>> new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new
>> things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a
>> reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.
>> 
>> FOCUS:
>>     How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about
>> this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear
>> this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no
>> significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version?
>> 
>> Gates:
>>     No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not
>> enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using
>> Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version
>> because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new
>> version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that
>> basis. 
>> [/quote]
>> 
>> http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
> 
> Ah, and new versions of FireFox always advertise the fact they just fixed
> bugs. 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Actually, one of the few times I have seen a company sell a big update based
> on fixing the back end and *not* on features was Apple with OS X Snow
> Leopard.  Sure, they refined some things, but the focus was *not* features.
> It was refreshing to see.

These Linux loons are even more twisted than I thought.

Ever notice how Linturds seem to like living in the past?
Funny how that is.

-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/

Linux's dismal desktop market share:

http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta 
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html 

Desktop Linux on Life Support:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33622

On 17/06/11 19:30, flatfish+++ wrote:
> These Linux loons are even more twisted than I thought.

Says the person who has been posting abuse, dishonesty and vulgarity 
here for 16 years (by his own admittion.)

I wonder who the vast majority of people would think twisted?

Best of British,


-- 
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: bytes4free@googlemail.com

Skype: tim.openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33686

Kari Laine wrote:
>:Considering that Microsoft says it is focused on security
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

...and quoting Homer in this thread (quoting Gates):
|The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs.
|
He convinced me.
I haven't given $$$ to M$ or its partners since 1991.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33913

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:34:21 +0300, Kari Laine wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> attached is a piece from Gates. I don't buy it that there were no
> exploits before MS patched it. I am also sure that Open Source way of
> working with code is more secure than closed source. Also patches seems
> to come faster in Open Source world than MS world. But I must be wrong
> because Gates said so...
> 
> ***********************
> Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for Security CmdrTaco Oct 31 2003
> 
> from the no-such-thing-as-perfect-code-anyway dept. securitas writes
> "ITBusiness has an interview from the Microsoft Professional Developers
> Conference where Bill Gates says
> 
> 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he
> suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make
> sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.
> 
> Considering that Microsoft says it is focused on security, the comments
> from the Chief Software Architect aren't inspiring, especially beacuse
> the underlying attitude seems to contradict the idea of well-written,
> secure code. What kind of message does that send to the developers who
> work for Gates?"
> .
> http://snurl.com/2stg
> http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/03/10/31/1610250.shtml?
tid=126&tid=172
> 
> 
> Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security exclusive The
> chief software architect's advice for safeguarding your apps Lynn
> Greiner Oct 29 2003
> .
> .
> For example, today you either end up with tons of different passwords,
> or you have to do things in a very insecure way. So this (Web services)
> is really the next level of Internet integration, and the thing that
> didn't exist is the programming model to unify those things. .
> .
> You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems. There are things
> we're doing that are making code closer to perfect, in terms of tools
> and security audits and things like that. But there are two other
> techniques: one is called firewalling and the other is called keeping
> the software up to date

firewalling: here is gates saying "security is not our job, not our 
responsibility, not our problem."

> .
> .
> Anybody who kept their software up to date didn't run into any of those
> problems, because the fixes preceded the exploit .. in every case at
> this stage we've had the fix out before the exploit ..

can gates prove this? looks like a marketing lie. lying for windows.

> ..  it's people not understanding the design of APIs where you get
> vulnerabilities. Certainly there are whole classes of vulnerabilities
> like buffer overruns that are very well understood at this point, and
> the scanning tools are very good and the compiler switches are very good
> ..

what blind stupidity. with active-x and mail preview ready to run any 
random code that floats your way, bad guys dont need to "understand the 
design of apis". they only need to find out how to abuse them.

another example of gates saying "security is not our job"

> ..  actually all the forms of Unix as well as Linux have had more
> vulnerabilities per line of code.

can gates prove this? looks like a marketing lie. lying for windows. he 
does this a lot doesnt he?

> They don?t propagate as much because
> they're not as dense as our system is,

what is that supposed to mean? meaningless marketing babble to hide 
"security is not our job".

> so the things that prevent the
> propagation are particularly important for our world ... .

yea, too bad gates and microsoft just dont care about security.

> http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=53897

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web