Comment Well, it's too early for April Fools'... (Score 1) 935
First of all, let's put this in perspective. Take a look at the top right corner of that site: "Windows Network & .NET Magazine".
This spin is almost as amusing as the Redmond claim that "we're not coding anything new for a month so we can concentrate on 'security'". One whole month? Wow.
SecurityFocus now warns that the data upon which these assumptions are based "should not be considered a metric by which an accurate comparison of the vulnerability of one operating system versus another can be made." Yet I don't see an update on the WinInformant site acknowledging this, disputing it, or ANYthing.
If one actually READS the data, Windows came in at #1 for the year 2000, and Microsoft products grab 14 of the top 15 vulnerabilities for 1999.
This spin is almost as amusing as the Redmond claim that "we're not coding anything new for a month so we can concentrate on 'security'". One whole month? Wow.
SecurityFocus now warns that the data upon which these assumptions are based "should not be considered a metric by which an accurate comparison of the vulnerability of one operating system versus another can be made." Yet I don't see an update on the WinInformant site acknowledging this, disputing it, or ANYthing.
If one actually READS the data, Windows came in at #1 for the year 2000, and Microsoft products grab 14 of the top 15 vulnerabilities for 1999.
