From: "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius" 

Now you're getting my point, and why I needled ol' Joe. All he wants to do,
it seems, is hurl invectives and four letter words. It seems he's more
interested in turning people off to Linux than on to it. That manner will
do nothing to sway minds.

RTM, BG


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:3debc7e7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius"  wrote
in message
> news:3deb85e6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > Rather strange. Either the numbers were right or wrong.
>
> It's all in how you count. For example I have people try to prove to me
that
> Linux is more secure than NT by quoting numbers for one distrib of Linux
> without Apache or any other addons and then quoting numbers for NT4 + W2K
+
> XP + W9x + IIS + Outlook Express + Internet Explorer and when I called
them
> on it they claimed "they all came from MS but Apache didn't come from the
> Linux distrib group".
>
> It's far too easy to fudge the number counts without an exact description
of
> what exploits they are counting.
>
> Also, do you count a trojan as an exploit? I mean if the user has to run
it
> I could probably code up about a million exploits and really screw up the
> counts.
>
> If you really want to discuss the Aberdeen Group's numbers, get a list of
> what exploits they counted for each side and I'll be happy to review it
and
> leave comments to try and give a fair count. My personal opinion is that
> when you compare apples to apples the numbers are probably very close to
> equal between one version of NT and one distrib of Linux. Likewise if you
> add some stuff, Linux/BIND/Apache probably comes close to NT/msDNS/IIS.
>
> Geo.
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4