> On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:29 am, RedShift wrote:
> > Siju George wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
> > >
> > > Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
> > >
> > > --Siju
> >
> > IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most linux distributions ship with alot
> > more software than microsoft windows does, and most bugreports indicate
> > an issue with third-party software.
>
> If you read the article past the summary, they mention that. While Windows
> had far fewer bugs than say Red Hat, Red Hat only had 2 (out of 208)
> considered high/severe. Windows had a very high percentage of its bugs
> labelled as high or severe (12 out of 39). Similarly, I'm sure if you looked
> at the time-to-fix for just the high and severe bugs from each side, you'd
> see that the Microsoft ones were slower to get patched. I'm just betting
> that the 200+ less unimportant bugs included many that really just didn't
> warrant any priority to fix.
>
> Unfortunately, the article doesn't really show this in the light that suggests
> the findings of Windows being the most secure commercial OS might be false,
> but it's not too hard to read between the lines. 78% of statistics are made
> up and 103% of statistics can say the exact opposite of what you think they
> should mean.
