Comment Laziness (Score 1) 313
Yes, it was VERY unfair to have Linux running without the latest and greatest patches. That's all I have to say about that. This guy makes that point very well: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=Coda
However, the question is:
"They claim that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes' and `most large companies would prefer the one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix'. Do they have a point?"
Clearly, ZD Net wants Billy in bed, if they aren't already. It's so see through, the ZD Net reply was making me laugh, " one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix " Why don't you just say NT, dumbasses!? Furthermore, if they didn't want to apply 21 fixes to Red Hat Linux, they didn't care about security. Linux is swiss cheese by default. Takes a lot of time and work.
NT is for those with little time and the lazy. For now, I love my NT box. Can't wait for Linux to get up to speed.
Ouch, probably didn't earn any Karma (or whatever it is) with that one.
However, the question is:
"They claim that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes' and `most large companies would prefer the one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix'. Do they have a point?"
Clearly, ZD Net wants Billy in bed, if they aren't already. It's so see through, the ZD Net reply was making me laugh, " one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix " Why don't you just say NT, dumbasses!? Furthermore, if they didn't want to apply 21 fixes to Red Hat Linux, they didn't care about security. Linux is swiss cheese by default. Takes a lot of time and work.
NT is for those with little time and the lazy. For now, I love my NT box. Can't wait for Linux to get up to speed.
Ouch, probably didn't earn any Karma (or whatever it is) with that one.
