[KwasiOwusu]

"So they Hypotheticaly put machines together and then without MS's biggest security risk and they call that a test"

Ummm..most tests are hypothetical.
And this test had both MS and Linux's biggest security risks.
That's what the tests were about: Security.
And the Linux guy was a university professor in computer science.
I think he probably knows a fair bit about this more than you do, don't you?

[dalight]

First, there is no way to really evaluate the claims made in this article. I have read the criteria used for declaring something "more" secure and it would seem to bias toward a system that reports vulnerabilities less frequently and only after the patch has been completed to deal with the vulnerability.

Duh.. thats the way Microsoft does business, letting the users run with the vulnerability for weeks or months without a clue they are being invaded.

In the Linux world they call this sort of piece a study in FUD.

As far as this thread is concerned, the pro and anti comments are just folks knee jerking to the headline.

[JustAnAmerican]

LOL, yes a Learned "Professor" has a much better understanding of OS's then someone who manages 87 server farms and has been in the business since the mid 70's. Care to take a guess as to what Federal and State Government agencies use as the predominant Server OS? And it "Ain't" Windows.

[CarryaBigStick]

A university professor knows more? That's funny.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Was this sponsored research?

[N3WBI3]

And the Linux guy was a university professor in computer science.

Who intentionally used an out of the box configuration, meaning it was the same as me handing a redhat disk to someone and saying, just click default..