Quick, hide the cutlery.
I read the title to my husband 5 minutes ago
I still can't get him off the floor he's laughing so hard.
Linux server here, we don't do Winders!!!!
Red Hat != Linux
And, on "reported vulnerabilities," they are probably comparing all of Red Hat, including thousands of programs/applications, against Windows with nothing installed except IIS.
Apples and oranges.
No sense arguing over which OS is better, they each have their place.
If you want to listen to music while surfing, pop a CD in your Windows machine, if you want to edit a document that you know your neighbor can receive, you use Word ... if you want to do your taxes use Excel ... If you want to develop the 80,000 lines of code necessary to control the attitude of an F-18, Windows is the last OS that a programmer would use ...
That's where Unix comes in ... if I am doing large scale SW development, you will be in the Unix environment. Large scale engineering studies, Unix ... Image processing research, Unix. ... etc.
There are plenty of people that will try to shoehorn their favorite OS into trying to make it do something it is not efficient at just to say "My favorite OS can do that." I happen to think alot of SuSE 9.2, but I wouldn't even bother wasting the time trying to get my TV card running under SuSE when Win2000 configured it for me when I plugged it in! ... and in 2 minutes I was watching Sports Center on my PC.
These OS'es are tools to get the job done ... pick the right tool for the job and you cant loose.
But as long as these morons say M$ is safer. What a friggen joke.
Sure, as long as you don't forget to apply those 853 critical updates and 765 service packs every month.
I didn't see you post on this. I'm not going to read the whole thread to see if you were pinged.
"A Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server"
Well, since I have a clue what I'm doing, I don't set up my boxen like the ones in the study are set up. Therefore, to me this is irrelevant. My *nix machines have never been compromised, nor have my Windows machines, but I don't have to worry about the *nix machines or run anti-stuff (virii, spyware) on them. In contrast, I run anti-virus scanners on a *nix box to scan the a Windows machine and incoming mail, as it's easier to delete infected files that way, and the *nix machine doesn't get infected anyway. My firewall is pf running on OpenBSD, my servers are FreeBSD as is my workstation, though I run Linux sometimes as a workstation and server, and I keep Windows around for games and because my clients use it (otherwise, I could go without it). Changing to Windows servers, workstation and security tools would be a serious downgrade. Why would I want to do that?
This study shows that a certain Microsoft server gets fewer security patches, with shorter warning times, than a certain Linux server.
It is a flaming crock to say that makes the Microsoft server more or less secure. How secure a server is depends on how well it protects its contents from attacks, not the frequency and timing of the patches. Perhaps the Microsoft server has fewer patches because it is less buggy, perhaps because Microsoft combines multiple fixes into one patch, perhaps because Microsoft doesn't fix some of the bugs, perhaps perhaps. And perhaps the fixes come with less warning notice because Microsoft fixes things quicker, or perhaps because they hide things longer.
What's measured, the timing and frequence of fixes, simply does not tell you which is more secure.
It would be like a comparison of recall rates of cars, in the American and Chinese car markets, being headlined as a demonstration that American cars were more or less safe than Chinese cars. Recall rates don't determine safety, and the recall procedures in those two markets are likely quite different.
And the other thing wrong with this title -- the majority of readers will think Microsoft and Linux desktop software, as used on a typical home PC, or work desktop PC. They will think this because that's where the majority of people use Microsoft or Linux software.
It is misleading for the title not to state Microsoft server software and Linux server software.
It would be like a headline proclaiming that Toyotas are safer than Fords, only to read the article to find that they are talking about big rigs, not cars.
And a third thing - it's one particular example, this particular server versus that one, over a short period of time.
The bleeping headline gives no sense of how limited in scope the study is.
What we have here is yellow journalism, intended to sell papers (or in this case I guess web hits) by the headline. It has nothing useful to do with anything that I'm doing this month.
MS is letting Hollyweird destroy them with all the media player controls , if Gates is that dumb with all the money he has not to fight them Linux will take over in a matter of time. My prediction, custom Linux distros will rule the marketplace.
Bump