Randy Holloway at Microsoft

I wouldn't consider it silencing, but the publishing of the report does take a shot at undermining @Stake itself.

What good is a security company that says one then when its chief technical officer says something else outside. Reading that article, Geer directly implies that @Stake itself is biased and useless. What company has use for an employee that undermines its credibility?

The question at the end of the day is, would the scene have been different if it had been a pro-unix security company that fired or reprimanded an employee for stating MS software was more secure than Unix?

Probably, but only because no one would care because it didn't fit the Microsoft conspiracy. Even if the employee was not fired, but I bet he would have been discriminated against by his peers, and he would probably be searching for a new job elsewhere rapidly.

Your point is interesting, but I think it fails to acknowledge the merit of Geer's paper. However, I do agree that one wouldn't want an employee of your company to imply that the company was biased or otherwise lacked competence in their field. That's not a good idea, and was certainly part of the problem here.

I have not yet read his paper, if I find time I will, but until I read it I can't really comment on its merit. It may simply be a bunch of rhetoric with a media grabbing title. The media jumps quickly at such things without any esscence of fact having to exist. It may also be a well written, well researched paper that draws logical points and provides significant proof. Sadly, I see far more of the former on both sides of the debate than I see of the latter.

If the paper was written in a biased manner, does it have any real merit? If the authors decided to find every fault with Microsoft products while being negligent in explaining or even mentioning Unix security problems, possibly strictly based on the basis of the belief that Unix is inherently more secure, then the paper is meaningless. It is nothing more than one more level of rhetorical ranting, marketing in esscence.

I am extremely hesistent to accept the fact the media reported it or that the CCIA distributed it as any statement of merit. Both bodies are controlled mostly by marketing and public image and are self serving, not always or even generally interested in the public good. Not that Microsoft nessecerily is, many of its decisions are for its own good as well. That is simply a factor of being an entity unto itself, be it a corporation or a single person. You have to make decisions for your own good or you simply will not survive.

I do think harsh, one sided criticism has its place, but I don't think its to be followed blindly, much of the time it provides obfustication instead of information.

I should also point out that I do my best to not choose sides. I am sticking with Microsoft for the moment because I personally believe the product is better. I just do not believe that one-sided, mindless criticism, from either side, is a good thing, nor do I like the Microsoft conspiracy theories that show up so often. The Linux crowd uses an equal amount of underhanded tactics to attempt to gain a foothold and are as ruthless. They are no better, they are no worse, they are just other people.

Media coverage like this is not conducive to fairness, it instead is attempting to dictate superiority of one side over the other, in essence to create a quiet monopoly via the back door.