When an 'independant' report at a security convention proclaimed that their studies had found Windows to be more secure than a major Linux distribution, many people were understandably surprised. According to this acticle, Microsoft was in fact behind the entire debacle. No suprise there, I guess.
For reference, here's a few articles on the same topic, which were posted previously on this very forum.
I'd have to say before coming down hard on them someone should try duplicating their results. If it turns out it was a completely biased and false conclusion they reached then fine bash MS and the researchers all you want. They said they provided all the info for someone to replicate their tests so I'd like to see it verified as false before basically ruining a researchers reputation.
though I can see where you're coming from, I have no respect for researchers that can be funded in order to 'achieve' certain 'results' as it is. Doing that they can't really be called researchers though can they?
I have to agree with Fetus on this one. These guys knew exactly what they were doing from even before money changed hands. In doing so they ruined their own reputations. A truly independant review cannot come from nor be funded by a company in question! If Red Hat had funded it, I wouldn't trust it much more. But here's an interesting thing to ponder: ever seen a review which puts the funding company in a bad light?
