Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
corr:metro-21-09-2005 [17/06/2013 21:44]
andrew
corr:metro-21-09-2005 [10/10/2013 15:21] (current)
Line 87: Line 87:
  
   Dear Sir,    Dear Sir, 
-  I'd like to thank Chris Proctor for taking the time to respond to my letter (pub 22nd September) and assure him that my letter was a genuine attempt to promote safer computing and in no way "anti Microsoft propaganda"​. I have wasted far too much of my life patching and cleaning up systems that shouldn'​t require it to want to spend more on a negative anti Microsort ​campaign.+  I'd like to thank Chris Proctor for taking the time to respond to my letter (pub 22nd September) and assure him that my letter was a genuine ​ 
 +  ​attempt to promote safer computing and in no way "anti Microsoft propaganda"​. ​ 
 +  ​I have wasted far too much of my life patching and cleaning up systems that shouldn'​t require it to want to spend more on a negative,  
 +  ​anti Microsoft ​campaign.
   ​   ​
-  I must refute the statement that Linux is incompatible with windows, in fact there is very good computability between Linux and windows, but not the other way round because of the way windows is written and licenced. Many of the applications which work under linux have versions which work exactly the same under windows with 100% file/data compatibility,​ and a large number have been programmed for Apple'​s OsX operating system as well. For example, try buying a word processing/​office suite from Microsoft which guarantees 100% data interchange between systems and will run equally well on windows 98/2000/xp, Apple OsX, Linux and less used operating systems such as Sun's Solaris, SGI's IRIX etc... The microsoft produce will only run on one of these and cost you £350+ per copy, the open source version will cost £zero, can be run on as many computers as you want and run on more different types of systems (www.openoffice.org)-- wider compatibility and a huge saving in cash.+  I must refute the statement that Linux is incompatible with windows, in fact there is very good computability between Linux and windows, ​ 
 +  ​but not the other way round because of the way windows is written and licenced. ​ 
 +  ​Many of the applications which work under linux have versions which work exactly the same under windows with 100% file/data compatibility, ​ 
 +  ​and a large number have been programmed for Apple'​s OsX operating system as well. For example, try buying a word processing/​office suite  
 +  ​from Microsoft which guarantees 100% data interchange between systems and will run equally well on windows 98/2000/xp, Apple OsX, Linux and  
 +  ​less used operating systems such as Sun's Solaris, SGI's IRIX etc... The microsoft produce will only run on one of these and cost  
 +  ​you £350+ per copy, the open source version will cost £zero, can be run on as many computers as you want and run on more different ​ 
 +  ​types of systems (www.openoffice.org)-- wider compatibility and a huge saving in cash.
   ​   ​
-  But we are getting off the point of the benefits of Firefox vs Internet Explorer. I cannot disagree more strongly that Firefox running on Linux would be as vulnerable as IE on Windows if they were in equal useage. To suggest this would be the case demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the Linux kernel rigorously enforces security and the way the file system enforces permissions & the privilege to run applications. +  But we are getting off the point of the benefits of Firefox vs Internet Explorer. I cannot disagree more strongly that Firefox running on  
-  Yes, there are bugs to be found in Firefox, but it is not just the number which is of interest, the severity of them is actually far more important. ​ As an analogy, if your car were to develop faults whilst you were driving it, which would be more serious, a few courtesy lamps failing or a wheel falling off? +  ​Linux would be as vulnerable as IE on Windows if they were in equal useage. ​ 
 +  ​To suggest this would be the case demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the Linux kernel rigorously enforces security and  
 +  ​the way the file system enforces permissions & the privilege to run applications. 
 +  Yes, there are bugs to be found in Firefox, but it is not just the number which is of interest, the severity of them is actually far  
 +  ​more important. ​ As an analogy, if your car were to develop faults whilst you were driving it, which would be more serious, a few  
 +  ​courtesy lamps failing or a wheel falling off? 
   ​   ​
   As a technical aside, these are software bugs, not viruses because they are not self replicating.   As a technical aside, these are software bugs, not viruses because they are not self replicating.

corr/metro-21-09-2005.txt · Last modified: 10/10/2013 15:21 (external edit)