Study finds Windows more secure than Linux

The Seattle Time ^ | 2/17/05 | Brier Dudley

[StJacques]

". . . Fine, but don't claim they support interoperability when they restrict access to their data formats. That's exactly the opposite. . . ."

Cross-platform interoperability and cross-application interoperability are not one and the same thing. Providing the data across platforms establishes cross-platform interoperability. Providing the ability to manipulate the data in the same manner between applications establishes cross-application interoperability.

I stand by my claim that Microsoft leads the field in cross-platform interoperability.

[antiRepublicrat]

My point was, you need capital for R/D into new features and innovations. Excel has comes a long way since Visicalc.

And Firefox has come a long way since Netscape, far surpassing Internet Explorer in features and innovations, and all as open source software. Copying is done all the time by everyone, as is innovation.

[antiRepublicrat]

To run an XML application using Firefox the additional costs of developing the software for installation on the server and the costs of server access, whether in money or performance, must be added.

The question is still openness. Could you modify Firefox to gain that capability? Definitely. Could you modify Windows or IE to gain capabilities they don't have? No.

[dalight]

Is this like posting that you are aiding and abetting a felony on a public forum? Duh.. All of those un-documented in sales numbers Linux installs are legal. All of those copies that you were talking about at that idiotic installation are a source of about $5M in potential copyright violation liability. Thats not alot to hang your hat on that Windows is more secure. These servers or workstations if they are not updated will become virus play houses to infect the rest of the world.

[antiRepublicrat]

It is the full capabilities for manipulation and use of that information that is restricted to Microsoft's proprietary technologies.

What good is that information if full use of it is proprietary?

[dalight]

You might like Jetty alot. It is just another flavor of tomcat but alot easier to set up. It has its place. You might try it. I like PostgreSQL for serious SQL work. MySQL is used alot because it is quick and widely available. PostgreSQL is much more standard SQL and has lots of high performance features now-a-days. Its has had pretty weak GUI until recently but now the tools are all in place for a good experience even on Windows based servers.

[antiRepublicrat]

I stand by my claim that Microsoft leads the field in cross-platform interoperability.

Again, how old is CORBA? And guess what, it's not proprietary.

Now Microsoft isn't all evil in everything. I love being able to write an XML filter so I can just push XML back and forth between SQL Server and other data sources. But Microsoft's commitment to open data and application interchange is only partial. Their greed always takes precedence.

[StJacques]

"The question is still openness. Could you modify Firefox to gain that capability? Definitely. Could you modify Windows or IE to gain capabilities they don't have? No."

Who cares if you can modify Firefox to add XML capabilities? Can you design an XML application for Firefox users across the globe, counting upon each of them to modify their browsers to run the app? No.

[Company Man]

Web? No

If you look at ecommerce sites employing SSL services, that graph looks a whole lot different, and guess who wins? That's right, ol' softee. Because the SECURITY is TIGHTER.

The web defacement numbers favor ms also.

[StJacques]

As to how old CORBA is, I'm not certain but I think it goes back to the 1990 or 1991.

But surely you're not claiming that CORBA's cross-platform interoperability capabilities compares with .NET's? You can claim that it came first however.

[antiRepublicrat]

Who cares if you can modify Firefox to add XML capabilities? Can you design an XML application for Firefox users across the globe, counting upon each of them to modify their browsers to run the app? No.

You're still talking about proprietary Microsoft technology, not open. You are talking about a cool feature though, but it is not open. However, I hope you're ready for all your IE users to lower their security settings so they can use that remote XML. If I were using IE, I wouldn't lower my security settings for anyone -- I'd rather not use the site.

BTW, as far as using XML in general, Firefox's user interface and many of its features, and all extensions to it, are open and XML-based. Only the executable and installer are platform-specific.

Anyway, speaking of IE's XML abilities, have you used IE's RSS feeds lately? Didn't think so.

[antiRepublicrat]

If you look at ecommerce sites employing SSL services, that graph looks a whole lot different,

Show me.

[rit]

. . . Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability.

My understanding is that Microsoft needed XML to extend their DCOM implementation, and created SOAP from the early XLM-RPC exactly for that purpose. Cross-platform interoperability manifested itself years later as .Net.

I find no technical basis to support your belief that Microsoft is the biggest supporter of cross platform portability. However, I do not have an issue with Microsoft's Office XML requiring licenses that are inconsistent with the GPL. I also believe that certain aspects of the GPL could preclude interoperability using XML anyhow.

[antiRepublicrat]

But surely you're not claiming that CORBA's cross-platform interoperability capabilities compares with .NET's? You can claim that it came first however.

CORBA is an architecture with APIs and protocols, built so that applications in any language on any system can interoperate as if they were homogenous. And it was all done at a time when Microsoft was trying to lock people in to only using Microsoft products, not playing well with others at all. .NET is simply a copy of Java, although its creator has only released a CLR for its own operating systems.

[rit]

CORBA is an architecture with APIs and protocols, built so that applications in any language on any system can interoperate as if they were homogenous.

That may have been the intent, but the reality is that a client application had to be compiled with the client stub corresponding to the particular object requested. The compilation part clearly indicates that only particular language bindings (most notably C at the time) were supported. Transport was not dns (socket) based. It was a horrible environment to work with (circa 1993-1995). As I recall, it was sometime in '96 (when their patent was filed) that Microsoft finally came out with DCOM. Although they claimed early on that COM could be done over the internet, there was no incentive to do same at the time. My understanding is that the DCOM folks did not take kindly to the SOAP folks suggesting RPC over the net but after a couple more patents issued, that was no longer an issue.

[Company Man]

>If you look at ecommerce sites employing SSL services, that graph looks a whole lot different,
>>Show me.

Here you are.

It's in tabular format.

[Company Man]

Sorry, try this:

http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/https/2004/Jan/CMatch/strongsv.html

[antiRepublicrat]

Here you are. It's in tabular format.

Interesting, but expected, since Microsoft owns the low-end business market.

[StJacques]

". . . .NET is simply a copy of Java, although its creator has only released a CLR for its own operating systems. . . ."

Oh no. .NET is the first widely-circulated multi-language development platform with runtime compilation that uses APIs built using XML Schemas. It is light years beyond Java.

[ShadowAce]

This is real science, and a real professor.

Ahh. OK. University professors are experts at everything, huh?
So I'm guessing that you'll believe these professors then.