Indeed! Does anyone have a link to some resources that may show a timeline of Microsoft's past PR claims that "security is now our #1 focus"?? I seem to recall them responding that way, *each* and every time that we've, uh, er, enjoyed a major virus strike. This sort of timeline would seem well-backed-up by some numbers showing the costs of recovery with the investment made in MS technology. I don't want to get into MS-bashing, but am seeking the figures... It seems obvious and entirely common-sense to me that no single "gorilla" will provide the saftey required to survive and evolve in today's IT climate -- gorillas in puberty can be wiley and dangerous as you might have heard, surprising even prepared professionals = ) Finally, I agree completely that a well-attended mixed environment is the solution that any IT staff with a clue should be working toward, if not already implementing; thanks for the good words fellows. regards, Ben Barrett Ben's Computer Services On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:13:13 -0700, Alan wrote: | On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 12:36, Andrew Plato wrote: | | > I know it sounds like it, but I am not defending Microsoft. I'm the | > first to admit that Microsoft is a big part of the security problems | > out there. But security is a bigger issue than just Microsoft. | > Microsoft might be a 900 lb gorilla, but that doesn't mean there | > isn't a plenty of 800lb and 725lb gorillas out there that are | > equally as bug-riddled as Microsoft. | | Yes, but Microsoft's traditional response to any security issue has | been to treat it as a PR problem as opposed to a technical problem. | | Microsoft has claimed to have changed their ways. Events like this | make me doubt that a great deal. | --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 13:48:34 PDT