Study finds Windows more secure than Linux

The Seattle Time ^ | 2/17/05 | Brier Dudley

[rit]

SAN FRANCISCO — Believe it or not, a Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers.

The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, "Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux." One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint.

"I actually was wrong. The results are very surprising, and there are going to be some people who are skeptical," said Richard Ford, a computer-science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who favors Linux.

[rit]

The graph is just showing apache, not Linux. Apache runs on numerous operating systems including AIX, BSD, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows (even old windows 98), OpenServer, UnixWare, and all the variants of Linux.

[antiRepublicrat]

And I would add that the real motivation of much of the open source software that has been developed has been to limit user choice when handling applications on their own machines

How much more user choice can you get than being able to modify the operating system and applications yourself? Without buying any sort of license, I've already modified the Firefox code to fit my needs. Could I do that with IE? Not a chance.

[KwasiOwusu]

Refer you to my post 89.
Those are just for already installed web servers, using IP addresses, NOT total severs sold, where Microsoft actually rules.
You mainly get total servers sold figures from IDC or Gartner.

[MississippiMan]

What I DON"T like is the fact that EVERY SINGLE TOPIC blames GW/USA for whatever issue within in the first 15 posts.

No bigger socialists on Earth than rabid open-sourcers. They think all "information" should be free, and they deem all software to be information, no matter if someone spent millions of dollars creating it. To the open source extremist, it's perfectly logical that Microsoft should spend the money to create software, then give it away. Yeah yeah, I know there's no logic in that, but consider the source. (bad pun intended)

There are of course plenty of intelligent, rational open source proponents, as well, toward whom none of the above is intended.

MM

[StJacques]

"Except that in Office the XML format is proprietary. It is not totally open."

The interaction between MS Office XML documents and the Windows operating systems, whether PC or server, is proprietary in that Microsoft has enabled its operating systems to handle MS Office XML documents to a degree which other operating systems cannot. But there are two points that follow from this. The first is that MS Office XML Documents are interoperable across platforms since all that is required to get at the information or data they contain is access to the XML DOM. Microsoft does nothing to prevent that. Other platforms are only restricted in their ability to make full use of MS Office XML documents to the degree in which their systems capabilities allow them to do so, with Microsoft's use of Vector Markup Language (VML) for providing graphics capabilities being one good example since not many other platforms use VML, opting instead for SVG. But VML is also an open W3C standard which is available to the designers of any platform. A second point which follows is that XML itself is "self-describing" and many developers who create their own XML Schemas to describe their documents, and I fall into this category, create their own standards for using those documents within their own systems, which is what Microsoft has done in their MS Office XML document format, they have designed a unique schema to provide enhanced interaction with their operating systems. So Microsoft's use of the format for their MS Office XML documents is not in fact proprietary, that distinction attaches to the full capabilities of their operating system to use MS Office XML documents based upon their ability to use the schemas those XML documents contain.

"Are you kidding? One reason for the European anti-trust action was Microsoft making communication easy only between its own desktops and servers. That's why even here they're being forced to reveal their APIs and protocols."

That action was not related to XML capabilities, but focused instead on desktop and, to a lesser extent, software components installed on servers that used Microsft's proprietary ActiveX technology. Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability. In this respect, they followed IBM's lead, since it was IBM who first asked the W3C to adopt XML standards in 1996 to provide a cross-platform capability that would form an alternative to ActiveX. Microsoft then read the tea leaves correctly and outdid IBM and everyone else in supporting XML by developing an XML-based server development platform, which is what .NET is today.

I stand by my statement that Microsoft is light years ahead of the field in promoting cross-platform interoperability. .NET is the proof.

[KwasiOwusu]

"To the open source extremist, it's perfectly logical that Microsoft should spend the money to create software, then give it away. "

Doesn't make any sense does it?
But that's exactly what the open source fanatics keep demanding.

[Ex-Dem]

I just gave one example. There are others, like Microsoft Office/OpenOffice in general, AIM/Gaim, 3dsmax, Bryce, etc/Povray.

By anti-capitalist, I was referring to those elements who condemn Bill Gates for the millions he's made, not open source companies that do profit.

I specifically did not say "The open source people also don't take into account the cost that goes into R/D for new, innovative software." I used "anti-capitalist" for a reason.

[StJacques]

Supporting Document-Style Web Services before the W3C, which Microsoft has consistently done, will enhance the software development industry more than the operating system suppliers.

"What qualifications support such a broad claim like that?"

That's an easy one to answer. Many software development shops -- would you be surprised to know that I work for one myself? -- have to focus on approaching customers who use a particular development platform. IBM AS/400 shops usually specialize in RPG and Java Programming with WebSphere, Solaris shops do almost nothing but Java, and Windows shops specialize in Microsoft .NET, VB, C++, and more. If Document-Style Web Services become the standard for web service development, by which I mean "if they are supported across development platforms," then XML software applications will be able to ship out not only data but also the information which describes the data (XML Schemas). When that happens software development shops will no longer be restricted to marketing themselves as experts in one particular development platform but will instead be able to approach potential customers or clients on an open basis, regardless of which development platform they may have. And the demand for such software will clearly increase when there is no longer a premium expense to be added for access to any individual machine beyond the usual rights of user access permissions. That can only increase the development of internet software applications in general, which will be a big boost to the software development industry.

[Rifleman]

Give that straw man another whack for me.

[usgator]

Microsoft should spend the money to create software, then give it away.

Personally, I want the formula to Coke, but those anti open-source capitalist pigs won't give it to me for free so I can reproduce it and compete with them.

Maybe the folks at KFC will give me their recipe?

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't know any System Admins who have invented or written operating systems or network protocols etc etc.

Vint Cerf was an admin, then a programmer when he started working on the ARPANET host protocols, although he did finish up with TCP/IP while he was an assistant professor at Stanford.

But personally I know a sysadmin who wrote an OS.

[antiRepublicrat]

After all we have just Gartner and IDC for the most part that issue quarterly server and PC sales figures.

Ah, sales figures. You mean the millions of copies of Windows sold to upgrade from older versions, not increasing marketshare? You mean all the copies of Linux running that aren't part of any sales figures?

[antiRepublicrat]

It wasn't

Okay, prove me wrong.

[usgator]

You mean all the copies of Linux running that aren't part of any sales figures?

Uh ... couldn't Mirosoft say the same thing? I personally worked at companies that buy one copy of Windows server and distribute it to as many servers as they have. And the desktop versions? I've seen 20 or 30 people share one licensed copy.

I'd bet unlicensed MS copies FAR outweigh unbought Linux versions.

[antiRepublicrat]

I meant that OpenOffice was created as a clone of Microsoft Office.

While Excel was a copy of Visicalc and Word was a copy of Bravo.

[StJacques]

"Then why is Microsoft pushing a mail protocol that requires a restrictive license (and therefore rejected by the IETF), and refusing to open up their Office XML format so that everyone can read Office documents? Meanwhile, OpenOffice has a completely open XML file format that can be read by anyone or anything."

Mail protocols are a different matter than Universal Data Access. I don't know all of the details surrounding this particular issue you raise so I cannot answer in full, except to say that I know that Microsoft is very concerned about the spread of viruses and worms and they are making proposals to restrict their spread, which is what I am guessing -- and it's just a guess -- is involved with the mail protocol issue you raise. You may enlighten me further if you have more details.

On Office XML documents, I will repeat in different language what I wrote above in my post #105. The format for MS Office XML documents is not proprietary because XML is an open standard in and of itself. It is the use of the document which involves proprietary technology. And as for OpenOffice's open XML file format-- good for them. I have no problem with that. But you cannot use an OpenOffice document to the same degree you can one created in Microsoft Office, and I'm talking about the capabilities of the Windows operating systems here, which means that you have to write software to do so. Microsoft gives you the software when you purchase a license to their operating systems. Why shouldn't Microsoft keep that software marketable and not release the APIs for its use? They're the ones who put in the money for its R&D after all.

[Ex-Dem]

I'm sure they are. My point was, you need capital for R/D into new features and innovations. Excel has comes a long way since Visicalc.

[StJacques]

"How much more user choice can you get than being able to modify the operating system and applications yourself? Without buying any sort of license, I've already modified the Firefox code to fit my needs. Could I do that with IE? Not a chance."

I'd like to see you run a full-fledged XML application downloaded from the internet in Firefox. Can you do that without going back to the server for data validation and full-fledged DOM access? No, you cannot validate the data and you only have partial DOM access. So guess what? To run an XML application using Firefox the additional costs of developing the software for installation on the server and the costs of server access, whether in money or performance, must be added.

Open source is still no benefit if it brings increased costs limited capabilities along with it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I don't know about servers, I just care about my desktop, and I have moved to Xandros for Web Broswing.

Using Firefox, itreuns great!

[antiRepublicrat]

t Microsoft has enabled its operating systems to handle MS Office XML documents to a degree which other operating systems cannot. ... all that is required to get at the information or data they contain is access to the XML DOM.

You're hurting your own case. They have enabled their operating systems to handle Office XML better because they are the only ones with full access to the DTD. This scheme is protected by patents so that nobody can create the same interoperability without Microsoft's permission. Besides, I can do this and call my format XML:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<worddoc>
  <contents>
    [bunch of binary here]
  </contents>
</worddoc> 

Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability.

Which they immediately made proprietary so that others couldn't operate with Windows machines as well as Windows machines could. Face it, Microsoft has a history of format lock-in. Meanwhile, by their very nature, open source products have fully open and accessible formats and protocols.