____/ earlyblueberry@xxxxxxxxx on Friday 29 June 2007 03:58 : \____
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry that my question is not directly related to the subject, but I
> will appreciate if some people help me understand an article about the
> Jones report.
>
> The article is:
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/96387/96387.html?Ad=1
>
> I am not a native English speaker (Japanese), and find difficulties in
> understanding some of the phrases in this article.
>
> Those pharses are:
> -----------------
> Big mistake (the second paragraph)
> -----------------
> Why Mr. Thurrott said "Big mistake" here? Does he think that Jones
> made a big mistake by providing the data that Vista is more secure
> than competitors such as OS X and Linux? If so, why he said it a big
> mistake here? Overall, when I read the entire article, it seems to me
> that he supports the Jones report in some ways (not 100%).
>
> -----------------
> But the data that Jones presents suggests that Vista, in particular,
> is subjected to fewer dangerous security bugs than the competition,
> which is a related (but not identical) conversation. (4th paragraph)
> -----------------
> I don't get the meaning of "which is a related (but not identical)
> conversation", and actually am at a loss here. What is "related but
> not identical" to what? Some irony here?
>
> -----------------
> Although XP compared favorably to Vista, the other OSs did not: The
> Linux-based OSs and Mac OS X suffered from more fixed vulnerabilities,
> more unfixed vulnerabilities, and more high severity vulnerabilities
> in their first six months of release than either Windows version.(7th
> paragraph)
> -----------------
> I am not sure of the meaning of "Although XP compared favorably to
> Vista". Does the writer say the XP has been compared with VIsta and
> found to be better than it? The report says that Vista is more
> secure than any others including XP, right or worng?
>
>
> Thank you for your kindness in advance.
Hi,
No takers to your message yet, so I'll have a go. Bear in mind that I have not
read the report, but I saw many articles that refer to it (both critical and
supportive, but the latter tends to comes from Microsoft's self-praising
press).
I think that Paul Thurrott realised that by putting the report 'out there' it
would get slammed and shattered to pieces by researchers that actually
understand what is going on. The same argument was made when Microsoft claimed
that Linux violates patents. It did Microsoft more harm than good. It upset
many people and led people to breaking arguments that have always been a
taboo, a mystery. I think Thurrott was not referring to the validity of the
report, but rather to the decision to release it as a presentation (also to
the press).
Paul Thurrott is a Windows expert who is very close to Microsoft and you might
as well just treat him as though he is a Microsoft employee. He makes money
from his relationship with Microsoft, so he is /very/ biased.
I suggest you look at the links I appended to the message which started this
thread. The numbers are meaningless for a plethora of reason. Numbers can be
surely added, but what do they convey. One patch can contain 10 fixed whereas
another might contain just one. The size of the system varies too. Some
patches are secret. And the list of issues goes on and on... I recommend that
you read these links which explain why these statistics are essentially
massaged to support a convenient-to-embrace-lie.
The report revealed that XP is in fact more secure than Vista in the sense that
patching of XP is better. There is a link in my previous message that says
more about this.
All in all, I suggest that you read outside the mindset of the report's author.
Bear in mind that the man gets his paycheck from Microsoft, so he simply must
come up with conclusions -- no matter the methods -- that glorify Windows. In
the past, Microsoft simply buried and hid reports that were not favourable to
them.
Example:
,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
| "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I don't like the
| fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server."
|
| [...]
|
| "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
| don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't like
| competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't mention
| that we sponsored it."
`----
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
I hope this helps. I wrote this in a hurry, but it probably addresses most of
your questions.
Roy
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL - Global Programmer's Law
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.38 1.56 1.84 4/133 1168
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
