Re: A cheapo Acer laptop matches Macbook Pro in benchmarks!

In article <C08935DB.4E020%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-FB8BE1.19171411052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/11/06 6:17 PM:

Just like Microsoft may very well end their testing at the same time: The
second Tuesday of every month.

And they plan for when they will need to start testing how? Do they know
when the need for security patches will hit them? No, of course not!

Neither does Apple. But you're asking me to believe that they finish
testing of 15 security patches all at the same time.

If they learned about the holes at about the same time then why not?

We do know, however, that MS holds theirs back.

No we don't. Perhaps, like Apple, their completing testing all on the
same
day
too. We just happen to know what that day is. Unlike Apple.

They just might hold off starting their testing so that they have a set
schedule - but by having that set schedule *somewhere* in their testing
they
are holding things back to some artificial schedule.

Before you were talking about how IT folks would not be able to prevent
themselves from installing patches that came out at times other than when
scheduled.

I don't recall having ever made such an argument.

"Yes. One thing that is time consuming is constantly checking to see if
any patches have been released. If you don't know when a vendor is
going to release them you have to constantly be checking for them.
That's roughly 30 times a month on average compared to once using
Microsoft's schedule." - Josh

"No. It's [releasing patches one day a month] to ensure that IT managers
aren't doing it multiple days per month because they're creeping out one
by one." - Josh

"If Apple were to have released them as they came out then the IT folks
would have to be checking for them every day, testing an average of one
per week, and then deploying them. " - Josh

You make IT folks sound like obsessive compulsive whackos who *must* know
exactly when a patch comes out and stop all work to test those patches and
deploy them as soon as possible instead of having their own set schedule.

The argument is that Microsoft's arbitrarily holding back patches leaves
systems exposed for no reason. If we're to accept that argument then IT
*MUST* be checking for patches every day to ensure that systems are
patched as quickly as possible. It's the logical following of those who
are faulting Microsoft's release schedule.

Now you are insisting that Apple is doing what MS does even though there
is
no evidence of this. You are grasping at straws.

The evidence: Security Updates from Apple contain a number of patches in
one bundle. The odds are against Apple having completed (including
testing) so many patches at one time. Expecting me to accept that Apple
does this is grasping at straws.

You keep repeating this as though it strengthens your argument.

Repeating something doesn't alter it's validity. I keep repeating it in
the hopes that maybe it'll sink in with you.

It does not. Do you have anything else? Keep in mind your has been shot down
repeatedly:

Where?

* We do not know when Apple started working on those patches. It is quite
possible they learned of them within days of each other or even all at the
same time from the same source!

A reasonable person (AKA a non-Mac zealot) would conclude that the
probability of Apple becoming aware of 15 security vulnerabilities all
on the same day are very low. If this is indeed true then Apple is
completely oblivious to what's going on.

* Even if they held a patch for day or two in order to have them bundled,
this is not the same thing as systemically holding patches back for up
to a month

You assume that they're holding onto a patch for no more than a day or
two. However since there was over a three month timeframe between the
2005-009 and 2006-001 Security Update I think it's reasonable to
conclude that Apple held onto at least one of them for more than a
couple of days. To think other wise is foolish.

And, of course, remember I see this as essentially a non-issue. The idea of
holding them back is actually a lot less interesting to me than your
insinuation of the "obsessive compulsive" (my wording) IT folks. I would
like to hear more about that.

Josh
.

Relevant Pages
Loading