[CS-FSLUG] NI: Study Shows Windows Beats Linux on Security

[Dommy E. Hamid]

JD Runyan wrote:
> Stephen J. McCracken wrote:
> 
>> To be fair, for the overworked or lazy, MS is now pushing out updates
>> (for XP, at least).  It is no longer required to pull them in.
>> GNU/Linux still requires that the person pulls in and applies the
>> updates (automated or not).
> 
> they both use agents. Suse  and Red Hat both have these  agents that are 
> easy to turn on.
> 
>> While GNU/Linux might have patches quicker for the found exploits it
>> does no good unless those are applied to the machines.  This is how I
>> could see that MS *could* look more secure as those patches are pushed
>> out and applied automatically to the systems rather than waiting for the
>> user to do the work.
> 
> 
> Automatic updates often prove  as problematic as no  updates. Patches 
> are a pain  whenever they are applied  without technical expertise.  for 
> general purpose machines  there is no good solution.
> 

Automatic updates is a pain if you are not connected to broadband. Even 
if you have broadband, the speed of automatic update is not something 
you can tell your friends about. Better just update manually via the 
Windows Update Site.

Another thing I find very easy about updating Linux is that I can just 
mirror the update repository, burn them to a CD then update all the 
computers using that same distro from that CD. If I want to do the same 
for Windows, I have to hunt Microsoft's web site for the stand-alone 
version of the patch since the ones given from Windows update are 
usually not complete. I notice additional download when installing those 
patches.

Dommy

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]