[ahiknsr]

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/CSRB_Review...

> The Board concludes that Microsoft’s security culture was inadequate. The Board reaches this conclusion based on:

> Microsoft’s failure to detect the compromise of its cryptographic crown jewels on its own, relying instead on a customer to reach out to identify anomalies the customer had observed

> Microsoft’s failure to detect a compromise of an employee’s laptop from a recently acquired company prior to allowing it to connect to Microsoft’s corporate network in 2021

[nox101]

I'm not sure what your point is except when it's Windows their is a single company to blame vs when it's linux there are only random contributors from all over

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acisa.gov+linux+securi...

[throwaway290]

The difference is Microsoft charges money for it and its nearly a monopoly for government/healthcare/etc. Taxpayer and institution money. A lot of it.

Compare it to something out there for anyone to use for free with no obligations.

[ahiknsr]

Do you not understand the difference between Microsoft and Windows?

[nox101]

I'm comparing two OSes and pointing out when one OS has issues there's a single source to point a finger at. When the other OS has just as many or similar issues there is no one to point a finger at. So if you total up the finger pointing, MS will appear to be doing worse than they are. Where as if you total up the issues instead of the blame, they're doing probably no worse than average, maybe better.

If we're talking services, it's similar. 100 companies, 50 using MS, 50 using random non-MS software. 10 breakins in each category. MS gets the finger pointed at them 10 times. 50 random non-MS companies each get the finger pointed at them just 1 out of 5. But both MS and Non-MS have the same amount of issues in this hypothetical example, but one looks worse, even if they're not.

In fact there could be 5 breakins with MS and 15 with non. But MS would have a finger pointed at them 5 times and 15 of the 50 random companies would each have a finger pointed at them only once. Yet, if you added up the numbers you'd be safer with MS (5 failures out of 50) instead of random non-MS (15 failures out of 50).

I'm not saying that's how it is. I'm saying it's plausible.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

I'm not sure your point here. MS as a company is severely compromised culturally is the root of this discussion, which impacts its products, and you're splitting hairs specific product comparisons. This isn't specifically about "windows" its about a combination of security issues a single company has had and how that will impact all their products.

To compare "Microsoft" the company to individual competitors of its services doesn't serve anything here. Google, Amazon, Apple are its competitors in the relevant space (cloud/services/software) with similar size and scale would make for better comparisons if you must and OS is really one small part of the pie

[deletedie]

This is childish and / or ignorant line of reasoning that ignores Apple, Google, IBM/Red Hat, Oracle, AWS, etc to land at an odd false dichotomy between Microsoft and "random non-MS software"