Re: Analysis of Microsoft Critical Patches

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed Jan 11 2006 - 15:14:20 CST

You miss the point. You are arguing the point that open source is
better because it is open. That won't convince people who think that
big companies supplying expensive software is better that what you
can get for free---the "you get what you pay for" argument. To those
people, your argument is kind of like arguing religion.

I'm suggesting that someone use this data to refute Microsoft's
contention that Windows is more secure than Linux. See for
a discussion on this topic. Full report at
A report should be done that makes the comparable comparison to Linux.

An excellent debate strategy is to attack your opponent's strong
point, not their weak one. That's the strategy used very effectively
by the Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry. Arguing your strong point
when that point is not of interest to the audience is often not the
most effective strategy.

Best regards,

At 3:44 PM -0500 1/11/06, charlie strauss wrote:
>Maybe I'm not grocking the argument here but it seems to me that
>hanging your hat on the alleged imperviousness of a OS by counting
>it's public bugs is a weak argument. The real issue is can you
>inspect the source (and correlate it to the binary) to see if
>things that don't belong are removed.
>this blog has some time from big to to patch data, but to me this is
>all about the difference between knowing what the code is doing and

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Mon Jan 8 20:24:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 08 2007 - 20:24:39 CST