<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Double Standards</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/kaiaxford/archive/2007/03/21/double-standards.aspx</link><description>It's always funny to me how Microsoft gets treated differently than other software vendors. Sure, we own a large marketshare, and of course, it's always fun to "pile on" the market leader (everyone loves the underdog). But I'm not seeing alot of info</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>  Microsoft vs MacOS vs Linux at  Security Samizdat</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/kaiaxford/archive/2007/03/21/double-standards.aspx#703896</link><pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:01:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:703896</guid><dc:creator>  Microsoft vs MacOS vs Linux at  Security Samizdat</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://security-samizdat.com/microsoft-vs-macos-vs-linux/"&gt;http://security-samizdat.com/microsoft-vs-macos-vs-linux/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>