Have your say at ComputerWeekly.com
Linux patch rate can be as prolific as Microsoft
In response to Simon Moores, who welcomed Microsoft's decision to send out software patch updates on a monthly basis
If you think Microsoft is bad, take at look at Linux. The number of patches for the Latest Red Hat 9 and SuSE 8.2 is incredible. Also Red Hat will only support versions for 12 months, according to its website. After that I suppose you have to upgrade - no longer an inexpensive option.
Red Hat 7 with a good firewall set-up was virtually bullet-proof. The new versions are worse than Windows XP.
The people making the money from the internet should be held more accountable for excessive spam and hack attacks. They are the telecom companies whose cabling systems the electronic signals that make up the internet travel on. They charge their customers for bandwidth - the more traffic or spam, the more money they make.
Phil Roberts, Opal IT Services
Why can't Microsoft do as major virus software supplier companies such as Norton do, and simply send the patch by automatic updates, with advice "in a bubble" on criticality of applying it immediately?
A crime by any other name is still a crime
In response to Colin Beveridge, who asked whether teenage hackers grow up to be serious cybercriminals
I have little or no sympathy for so-called "youthful indiscretion" in regards to something as potentially dangerous as cyber terrorism. It needs to be made very plain, from the start, that such behaviour not only will not be tolerated, but will accrue extreme consequences.
As the article said, this is not about a broken window, or some minor inconvenience, but can be considered a major threat to the life-blood of our economy. Most kids complain about being treated as kids. If they want the responsibility, they must accept the consequences of their actions.
I am tired of having to watch my cyber-back, trying to run a business, and keep all my sensitive data secure. If some one unleashes a major virus, you cannot tell me that they are unaware of the results of their actions. I guarantee that some of these kids would think twice about creating such mayhem if they realised they could be looking at a minimum of three years in prison, not just community service.
Attempt to claim code is bad for business
In response to Dominic Connor, who said that SCO is right to go after Linux users
I must take issue with Dominic Connor's assertion that SCO is right to go after Linux users.
SCO says that Linux 2.4 contains its misappropriated "intellectual property" but adamantly refuses to substantiate that claim.
Several open source advocates, including Linus Torvalds, have stated if SCO's code is in Linux, it is not wanted and will SCO please identify it so that it can be removed. The fact that SCO has been unable or unwilling to identify any misappropriated code suggests that none exists.
Dominic Connor's story is just like one I wrote. I know, I know, you didn't see it, but it is my trade secret so I can't show you. Could you please send me the cash to cover your misuse of my trade secret material: $650 is my going rate.
SCO has a duty to assert its claims over disputed open source code. I wish it would. The company seems to be stuck - either it had better get on with it or it will run out of money.
This was first published in October 2003