Red Hat
is a Linux distro! They said 'a comparable Linux distro' and then named Red Hat 4.
What could possible be wrong with that? Touchy, touchy, the fact that some Linux people are so defensive, suspicious, and paranoid does little to add credibility to the Linux community, and by association, Linux OSes.
Also, good point about the unpatched stuff, but they are all not critical, 2 out of 5 on that scale. Pretty minor. And having a patch, and having it installed are two different animals entirely.
A better indication would be how many systems in use are patched up.
The proof is in the pudding, there is no mass exodus to one OS or the other, and peoples careers depend on these choices. If one was so much better than the other, well, wouldn't the sys and net admins with their heads on the line use it??
One more (an article about getting rid of windows)
ExtremeTech:
Quote:
|
Recent articles have pointed to Linux distributions including Mandrake, Red Hat, and Gentoo, whose default settings leave them vulnerable to what's called a fork-bomb attack. This is a type of denial-of-service attack that can overwhelm a system by rapidly launching more processes than the OS can manage, effectively bringing the system to its knees. Default settings on Debian-based distributions like Xandros OCE do not leave them vulnerable. For the Mac, severe security issues are fairly rare, but there have been incidents such as the remote scripting vulnerability uncovered last year. So while the Mac has been a less juicy target for digital miscreants, history doesn't mean the Mac won't be vulnerable to future attacks
|