Replies

You are such a twit. You just got finished arguing that scale of deployment has nothing to do with vulnerability rates:

"Apache is much more popular, yet IIS is more attacked."

Now, you're arguing that it isn't fair to compare IIS 6.0 with Apache 2.0 because the deployment scales aren't equivalent:

"Uh, no. For an apples to apples comparison, you compare the Microsoft web server being most used to the Apache web server thats being most used."

You're like a dog chasing your tail -- and you can't have it both ways. Either the deployment scale matters, or it doesn't. Pick an argument and try to stick with it.

Just for giggles, let's choose your original argument -- that the scale of deployment is independent from vulnerability rates. Fine. Great. By that standard, you should use IIS 6.0. It has far fewer vulnerabilities -- and unlike Apache 2.0, it hasn't suffered any critical vulnerabilities.

Point out which of the above is a lie or shut up and crawl back under Steve's desk.

The lie is your blanket assertion that open source products are more secure than closed source. The statistics for IIS 6.0 prove my point. Despite the best efforts of your anti-Microsoft cracker friends, you guys just can't seem to get any mileage with IIS 6.0. And then you have the audacity to lump it in with previous versions of IIS, despite the fact that IIS 6.0 is a complete rewrite from the ground up. And people reading this thread now know that you're full of shite. Imagine: All of that effort from the OSS community and you can't even muster the same quality as Redmond. Pathetic.

You are such a twit. You just got finished arguing that scale of deployment has nothing to do with vulnerability rates:

"Apache is much more popular, yet IIS is more attacked."

Now, you're arguing that it isn't fair to compare IIS 6.0 with Apache 2.0 because the deployment scales aren't equivalent:

"Uh, no. For an apples to apples comparison, you compare the Microsoft web server being most used to the Apache web server thats being most used."

---Actually, his first point is about product-wide scale of deployment, his second point is about version-based scale of deployment.

Now, you're arguing that it isn't fair to compare IIS 6.0 with Apache 2.0 because the deployment scales aren't equivalent:

No, I'm saying that the deployment times aren't equivalent. Please read for comprehension. A product that has just been put on the market will have fewer attacks than a product that has been on the market for years. The actual number of copies on the market is still irrelevant.

The lie is your blanket assertion that open source products are more secure than closed source.

A "lie" that has been proven true again and again, no matter how much you might wish it to be untrue.

And then you have the audacity to lump it in with previous versions of IIS, despite the fact that IIS 6.0 is a complete rewrite from the ground up.

And here's where we get into the big difference.

Prove it.

Prove that IIS 6.x is a complete rewrite. Now, Apache 2.x is a complete rewrite and I can show you. I can produce the source code for both 2.x and 1.3.x and you can see the differences. With IIS, we have only Microsoft's word that it's not just another rehash of their same old dreck.

I noticed that you could not disprove any of my statements from my last post. I challenged you to prove any one of my four points as a lie, and since you can't you can only sling abuse.

Too bad for you. You're simply trying to help Bill and Steve from having to watch Microsoft slide down into the pit of failed software concepts. And it's far too late for that.

Proprietary, closed-source software is on it's way out. Oracle gets it. Sun gets it. IBM gets it. SGI, HP, Intel, Novell and the US Government all get it.

But then all of those organizations have alternative revenue streams. They can sell something other than overpriced, underperforming, broken software. And that's all Microsoft has ever had to offer.