[zeugma]

Despite the widely-held belief that the open-source operating system Linux is hands-down more secure than Microsoft, statistics gathered by leading security company SecurityFocus on their NTBugTraq site say differently. According to the most recent statistics, available up to August 2001, Windows 2000 Server had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Red Hat or Mandrake Linux - less than half as many, in fact. Sun's Solaris OS was tied with Win2000. This information is not a fluke. Looking back over the last five years, Microsoft NT and Win2000 servers had fewer security violations than Linux, despite being used more widely.

I'd like to point out the rest the folks on the thread who might not be familiar with this particular FUD point. It is major apples to oranges comparison that b2k and other microsoft supporters trot out.

He's attempting to compare just the windows operating system itself, with an entire distribution that includes the OS, various editors, html production software, multiple browsers, firewall software, multiple firewall software, cd/dvd writers, 2 full office suites, web server, and scripting software, games, image editing/creation software and much other stuff that dosn't immediately come to mind. Microsoft doesn't even make software that is comparable with all the software that is included in a standard Red Hat distribution, but if you included everything that they do sell that has a RedHat equivalent, you'll find that the numbers to not compare favorably.

[rit]

... but if you included everything that they do sell that has a RedHat equivalent, you'll find that the numbers to not compare favorably.

Are you implying that the server security vulnerabilities from the report mistakingly included security vulnerabilities in RedHat's various editors, html production software, multiple browsers, firewall software, multiple firewall software, cd/dvd writers, 2 full office suites, web server, and scripting software, games, image editing/creation software and much other stuff that dosn't immediately come to mind. ...

[Bush2000]

He's attempting to compare just the windows operating system itself, with an entire distribution that includes the OS, various editors, html production software, multiple browsers, firewall software, multiple firewall software, cd/dvd writers, 2 full office suites, web server, and scripting software, games, image editing/creation software and much other stuff that dosn't immediately come to mind.

You OSS blowhards continually decry "Windows security" for flaws in IE, Outlook, IIS, etc which have nothing to do with the operating system. And then you turn around and have the gall to say, with every discovered flaw in a component distributed with Linux, that "it isn't Linux." In other words, you want your cake and you want to eat it, too. You want the freedom to slam Windows without being subject to the same treatment with regard to Linux. I'm one of the few here who have the balls to call you on it. It's pathetic sophistry and weaselry at its worst.