Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year - Linux

This is a discussion on Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year - Linux ; On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:27:17 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >Well, "snappier" remains a very personal opinion then. >Startup times of 8 seconds for OO compared to 6 seconds for MS Office >certainly don't indicate any sluggish behaviour. Especially as ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

  1. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:27:17 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
    wrote:


    >Well, "snappier" remains a very personal opinion then.
    >Startup times of 8 seconds for OO compared to 6 seconds for MS Office
    >certainly don't indicate any sluggish behaviour. Especially as in using OO
    >there seems to be no speed penalty at all.
    >And that "stability" thingy is where MS Office could learn a trick or two,
    >where OO opened Word-docs without a hickup and MS Word tended to crash


    True, and price has to be taken into account as well, but the last
    time I tried OO for my Windows box it slowed things down terribly.
    Maybe the preload stuff, i don't know, but removing it solved the
    problem.
    I've never had a problem with the Linux versions.

  2. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On 2007-12-01, Peter Köhlmann claimed:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Dec 1, 10:15 am, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>> "The past year has seen a massive increase in the number of flaws
    >>>> found in Microsoft software, according to vulnerability-scanning
    >>>> company Qualys. Between 2006 and 2007, there was an almost threefold
    >>>> rise in Microsoft flaws, Qualys said on Wednesday."
    >>>>
    >>>>

    > http://www.news.com/Study-Huge-jump-...url.com/2b6psd
    >>>>
    >>>> -RFH
    >>>
    >>> "Microsoft declined to comment for this story."

    >>
    >> What this doesn't say is that virtually all of those vulnerabilities are
    >> in
    >> older versions of the software. The most recent versions (Vista, Office
    >> 2007, etc..) are most times not susceptible to them.

    >
    > Do you actually think anybody is dumb enough to take *your* word for this,
    > Erik?
    > I'd rather believe DumbFull****.


    Of _course_ he thinks somebody will believe him. He also thinks nobody
    will look at the target period and compare that to release dates of the
    stuff he implies is impervious.

    --
    Free people have the option of being armed. Slaves have no
    option.

  3. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:48:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:


    >For all I can tell and gather, some vulnerabilities in Microsoft's software in
    >in general are there _by design_. The government need points of access (I kid
    >you not, but why ask me? Ask security Gurus).


    There you go again with your false accusations.
    Why ask you, Roy Schestowitz?
    I ask YOU because YOU just posted the accusation here.

    Now, why not be an honest person and post some definitive proof of
    your claims?

    And before you get your panties in a knot, I am not saying you are
    wrong, but I have never seen even a shred of credible evidence to
    prove that Windows has back doors for the govt.

    So now the balls are in your court.

  4. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    * flatfish fired off this tart reply:

    > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:28:29 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
    >
    >>Look at the article in question, it hyperlinks to a flaw in office that..
    >>guess what? doesn't affect Office 2007.

    >
    > Linux users don't know what hyper links are, especially when it comes
    > to help systems.


    You're crazy. Absolutely nuts.

    --
    Tux rox!

  5. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    * p5000011 fired off this tart reply:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:03:34 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > Give it time Erik. As more people are 'coerced' into upgrading their
    > HW to support the excessive requirements of 'Vista, Office 2007,
    > etc..' I'm sure Microsoft won't let us down and will show us how inept
    > they still are when it comes to SW security.


    Another Organization: A noiseless patient Spider poster, just like
    flatfish.

    Yet unsearchable by Google.

    Interesting.

    --
    Tux rox!

  6. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    >> On my mom's XP box (1 gb ram, P4 @ 3.2 ghz), Office takes over two
    >> minutes to start and crashes when you try to insert clipart. In OO, it
    >> is much faster and doesn't crash as much.

    >
    > Certainly quite unique. OO is very, very slow. I never bothered looking
    > into why but I suspect heavy reliance on Java.


    I find OO to be reasonably fast. The most recent version especially.

    I like using it, really.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    * flatfish fired off this tart reply:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:48:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
    > wrote:
    >
    >>For all I can tell and gather, some vulnerabilities in Microsoft's software in
    >>in general are there _by design_. The government need points of access (I kid
    >>you not, but why ask me? Ask security Gurus).

    >
    > There you go again with your false accusations.
    > Why ask you, Roy Schestowitz?
    > I ask YOU because YOU just posted the accusation here.
    >
    > Now, why not be an honest person and post some definitive proof of
    > your claims?
    >
    > And before you get your panties in a knot, I am not saying you are
    > wrong, but I have never seen even a shred of credible evidence to
    > prove that Windows has back doors for the govt.


    Microsoft is buckling to Hollywood, why wouldn't they buckle to the
    Feds? Who's got more power, Hollywood or the Feds ?

    "You realize, Bill and Steve, if word of this gets out we're going to
    have to KILL you!"

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:01:39 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2007-12-01, Peter Köhlmann claimed:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Dec 1, 10:15 am, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>>> "The past year has seen a massive increase in the number of flaws
    >>>>> found in Microsoft software, according to vulnerability-scanning
    >>>>> company Qualys. Between 2006 and 2007, there was an almost threefold
    >>>>> rise in Microsoft flaws, Qualys said on Wednesday."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>

    >> http://www.news.com/Study-Huge-jump-...url.com/2b6psd
    >>>>>
    >>>>> -RFH
    >>>>
    >>>> "Microsoft declined to comment for this story."
    >>>
    >>> What this doesn't say is that virtually all of those vulnerabilities are
    >>> in
    >>> older versions of the software. The most recent versions (Vista, Office
    >>> 2007, etc..) are most times not susceptible to them.

    >>
    >> Do you actually think anybody is dumb enough to take *your* word for this,
    >> Erik?
    >> I'd rather believe DumbFull****.

    >
    > Of _course_ he thinks somebody will believe him. He also thinks nobody
    > will look at the target period and compare that to release dates of the
    > stuff he implies is impervious.


    So, apparently you've actually done that then. So you can easily provide
    the evidence which contradicts me. Right?

  9. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:01:39 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-01, Peter Köhlmann claimed:
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Dec 1, 10:15 am, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>>>>> "The past year has seen a massive increase in the number of flaws
    >>>>>> found in Microsoft software, according to vulnerability-scanning
    >>>>>> company Qualys. Between 2006 and 2007, there was an almost threefold
    >>>>>> rise in Microsoft flaws, Qualys said on Wednesday."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>> http://www.news.com/Study-Huge-jump-...url.com/2b6psd
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> -RFH
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Microsoft declined to comment for this story."
    >>>>
    >>>> What this doesn't say is that virtually all of those vulnerabilities are
    >>>> in
    >>>> older versions of the software. The most recent versions (Vista, Office
    >>>> 2007, etc..) are most times not susceptible to them.
    >>>
    >>> Do you actually think anybody is dumb enough to take *your* word for this,
    >>> Erik?
    >>> I'd rather believe DumbFull****.

    >>
    >> Of _course_ he thinks somebody will believe him. He also thinks nobody
    >> will look at the target period and compare that to release dates of the
    >> stuff he implies is impervious.

    >
    > So, apparently you've actually done that then. So you can easily provide
    > the evidence which contradicts me. Right?


    of more concern than Roy's schizo ravings, did you read this?

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._rights_a.html

    This IS something to concern us all.

    --
    Best if used before date on carton.

  10. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:52:42 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:21:43 -0000, Rick wrote:
    >
    >
    >>From what I have heard, the version of Office that comes pre-loaded is
    >>many times merely a trial version that locks up your documents when it
    >>expires.

    >
    >
    > I've never heard that one, but the student version is not upgradeable.
    > That I know.
    >>>
    >>> Add to that the fact that students can buy Office for a song, and they
    >>> do, OO has a tough battle to wage.

    >>
    >>Define "buy Office for a song".

    >
    > Cheap!
    > (song....=song and a dance=cheap)


    Define cheap.



    --
    Rick

  11. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On 2007-12-02, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:01:39 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-01, Peter Köhlmann claimed:


    >>> Do you actually think anybody is dumb enough to take *your* word for this,
    >>> Erik?
    >>> I'd rather believe DumbFull****.

    >>
    >> Of _course_ he thinks somebody will believe him. He also thinks nobody
    >> will look at the target period and compare that to release dates of the
    >> stuff he implies is impervious.

    >
    > So, apparently you've actually done that then. So you can easily provide
    > the evidence which contradicts me. Right?


    If I was interested I might try. I'm not interested.

    Nonetheless, that has nothing at all to do with the things mentioned.
    To wit:

    1. whether or not anyone should take your word for anything

    2. whether you believe anybody will take your word for anything

    3. whether "software" that has so few users would become a large enough
    target to lead bad folk into taking advantage of the certain flaws (as
    most of you Windolts like to claim is the case with linux, and the
    newer "software" was released by people who have a very poor track
    record of producing anything remotely resembling secure products)

    4. whether the later materials were even considered due to dating of
    the sampling and subsequent report

    --
    We now return you to... The Thread That Would Not Die.

  12. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    Rick writes:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:52:42 -0500, flatfish wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:21:43 -0000, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>From what I have heard, the version of Office that comes pre-loaded is
    >>>many times merely a trial version that locks up your documents when it
    >>>expires.

    >>
    >>
    >> I've never heard that one, but the student version is not upgradeable.
    >> That I know.
    >>>>
    >>>> Add to that the fact that students can buy Office for a song, and they
    >>>> do, OO has a tough battle to wage.
    >>>
    >>>Define "buy Office for a song".

    >>
    >> Cheap!
    >> (song....=song and a dance=cheap)

    >
    > Define cheap.


    You just did. All by yourself.

  13. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:43:05 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:
    >>>
    >>>> DFS wrote:
    >>>>> p5000011 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> As more people are 'coerced' into upgrading their
    >>>>>> HW to support the excessive requirements of 'Vista, Office 2007,
    >>>>>> etc..'
    >>>>> More idiocy and lies from the cola cabal. Vista (Aero) and Office
    >>>>> 2007 run
    >>>> the word you are looking for is "crawl", or possibly "crash" or
    >>>> "BSoD", not "run"
    >>>>
    >>>>> fine on old P4, 2.0ghz systems w/ 1gb RAM and a cheap video card.
    >>>> Linux (Compiz Fusion) and Open Office will fly (not merely run) on
    >>>> hardware considerably older.
    >>>
    >>> Garbage. Open Office is a complete dog where performance and stability
    >>> are concerned. MS Office is far snappier.

    >>
    >> On my mom's XP box (1 gb ram, P4 @ 3.2 ghz), Office takes over two
    >> minutes to start and crashes when you try to insert clipart. In OO, it
    >> is much faster and doesn't crash as much.

    >
    > Certainly quite unique. OO is very, very slow. I never bothered looking
    > into why but I suspect heavy reliance on Java.


    It's a lot faster now. They've been dealing with the issues that
    sometimes made it less fast than it should have been.

    --
    Kier

  14. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    flatfish wrote:

    > Linux users don't know what hyper links are,



    Where's the proof?

  15. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    flatfish wrote:

    > I installed OO on my Windows XP Thinkpad


    Where's the proof?


    > and the machine literally ground to a halt.


    Where's the proof?


    > I don't know why, but I removed it after a couple of days and the
    > machine returned to normal.


    Where's the proof?

  16. Re: Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year

    flatfish wrote:

    > I tried OO for my Windows box


    Where's the proof?


    > it slowed things down terribly.


    Where's the proof?


    > removing it solved the problem.


    Where's the proof?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2