[KwasiOwusu]

"Uhhhh...no. There were no real computers harmed in the making of this FUD"

There were.
# 2,its FACTS not FUD.
# 3, Linux lost.
Get over it.

[JustAnAmerican]

I sure hope you are not doing the thing you got banned for last time. I.E. instead of debating the merits at hand you start doing the personal attack thing. Not necessarily in reference to my posts but to some of the others here. Also good to know that you think a "Professor" without real world experience would know more about something then someone with it.

[Rifleman]

Care to address the points I made?

There were no actual computers used in this "study". If I am wrong, quote from the article and prove it.

Please explain how "exploit days to patch release" is NOT a crummy metric for measuring security.

And, is "Get over it." an argument? Or just an attempt to bully or provoke an opponent?

[N3WBI3]

Just want to point a couple of things out to you guys:

1) This test had nothing to do with anyone compromising the system, it was merely counting posted advisories.

2) MS makes it a policy not to post holes until they are ready to fix them, Linux post them right away. This means your data is being gathered in different ways.

3) Without seeing the warnings they were counting we have no way of knowing how severe they were. Linux could have had a minor bug, and MS could have had an ownership bug.. (or vise-versa)...

4) The admins used out of the box configs, net securing either OS. Part of being an admin is securing an OS.

From the description of this 'study' its pretty useless to make any conclusions...