Re: Wagner: "Actions speak louder than words:They're saying 'Linux Sucks'"
On Friday 11 April 2003 17:58, Sam Varghese wrote:
> Here's a piece I did which explains what this evaluation is all about:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/18/1037490106637.html
>From the article:
In conclusion, Dr Shapiro said the certification showed that Microsoft had
spent millions producing documents to show that Windows 2000 met an
inadequate series of requirements, "and that you can have reasonably strong
confidence that this is the case."
:end exerpt
I participated in the ISO900x certification of a company I once worked for.
The description above describes that experience. The certification project
managers told us that we didn't have to fix any problems, we just had to
document our process. So we ended up with an ISO 900x certification. Not a
good process, but a certified process. Same with this security certification
it appears. Linux people should not waste time with this nonsense excercise.
Commercial distros can go down this path using the money they charge for
their product. They are performing their duty to separate fools from their
money.
--
Mike M.
Reply to: