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.

[dalight]

snicker.. bwa ha ha .. flop flop flop

[KwasiOwusu]

"They sure do. But big companies don't use them for that. Big companies buy in bulk and build what they need when they need it. That's what an IT department is for, after all."

I have worked for a pretty big firm a few years back, they did exactly that, even though they were Compaq machines instead of Dells.
And it worked out very well.
The IT departments concentrated on writing and maintaining software, help desks, and running and maintaining the servers etc etc.
They never had much to do with actually installing the new desktops or servers, even though they worked n the plans together everything with the guys actually that installed them.
I don't think any IT department has to necessarily install say 5000 desktops because "that's what an IT department is for".

[KwasiOwusu]

"snicker.. bwa ha ha .. flop flop flop"
Choking on your own bile huh?
Too bad.

[KwasiOwusu]

"snicker.. bwa ha ha .. flop flop flop"

Choking on your own bile huh?
Too bad for you.

[dalight]

Back to trying to prove that Windows is on 95% of the Intel PC's.. what is the point? Didn't you mom ever say.. if all of the kids jumped off of a cliff, would that make it smart?

Surely to goodness you have a better argument than this.

I don't think you have a clue who is using Linux and for what. Or what you might find runs on Linux today.

But I have to say, you can stir the pot. I liked that you brought up ... lol.. I got ahead of myself.. and didn't post something..

...

I'll just handle it here.. Yea.. Linus was just a student. Well, it was a Masters Thesis.. that was the problem, no doctorate.

Frankly, I am a fan of the Mach kernel and one of the operating systems based on it.. but Windows had to be a clone of that work because Dr. Rashid, who didn't write the Mach kernel by himself by any stretch of the imagination.. had to leave that technology at CMU.

Still, I am lost about what this has to do with System security. I am happy to concede that some brilliant people teach at Carnege Mellon and for that Matter, I will concede MIT, Berkeley (arrff) and the Colorado School of Mines. :)

[FastCoyote]

All the fuss is because it's something of a rite of passage for wackjobs to be into Windows, and even more of a rite of passage to be a shill for Windows/the mediocre software movement.

[dalight]

Then you would own a Dell! It wouldn't be so funny if you had a clue.. honest.

[farmfriend]

I didn't see you post on this. I'm not going to read the whole thread to see if you were pinged.

[usgator]

We settled that issue about 6 hours ago. =)

[KwasiOwusu]

"Back to trying to prove that Windows is on 95% of the Intel PC's.. what is the point? "

Previous post had nothing to do with 95% desktop Windows.
I don't have to prove that Microsoft controls the desktop.
Everyone knows that already.


"Didn't you mom ever say.. if all of the kids jumped off of a cliff, would that make it smart?"

I beginning to wonder if you actually had your mother at home at all, let alone teach you a manners.



You mean you don't have a clue, like all those small businesses you claimed were using Linux without even knowing they were huh?
LOL!

"Windows had to be a clone of that work because Dr. Rashid, who didn't write the Mach kernel by himself by any stretch of the imagination.. had to leave that technology at CMU."

So.. Dr Rashid didn't write the Mach Kernel?
And he also left the Mach Kernel at CMU did he?
Hey, are you sure are you are alright there?
Maybe you need some sleep?
You not making a whole lot of sense in this last post here.

"Still, I am lost about what this has to do with System security"

Ummm the post about Rick Rashid was in answer to this gem from you :

"dalight:
"The only University professor that I know who wrote a major operating system that enjoys any market share today is Linus Torvalds""

According o you, not only was Linus Torvalds a professor( he wasn't), but he was also the only professor you knew who had written an OS.
That is when I brought in Rick Rahsid to blow a hole in your argument.
Is that clear enough for you now?

[KwasiOwusu]

"It wouldn't be so funny if you had a clue.. honest"

You have a clue alright.
As in:

""dalight:
"The only University professor that I know who wrote a major operating system that enjoys any market share today is Linus Torvalds""

LMAO!!
Gotta just love that.
You don't even begin to know what you are talking about.
Come back when you grow up.

[dalight]

Frankly, I'm just impressed that we have managed to milk this lame thread out for 6 hours.. :) I really have to get something productive done today.. so I am going to call it a night. Tell me how the PHP project comes out.

[StJacques]

Having read the back-and-forth between you two on the costs of open source software may I suggest that everyone could benefit from looking at the opinion of Forrester Research of Cambridge, Mass. when they compared the costs of Linux with Windows last year. Their full article is not available unless you register, but here is an abstract posted on info-edge.com of the gist of the findings:

Abstract: Open source, including Linux, is being deployed by a majority of companies in 2004, yet we question whether customers are adequately prepared to deal with the costs and risks of managing these environments. The allure of free software is accelerating the deployment of open source platforms, but open source is not free and may actually increase financial and business risk.

Discussions with five companies that tracked their total costs indicated Linux was between 5% and 20% more expensive than Windows. There were two distinct situations where Linux was the clear cost winner: Unix migrations and Linux-only deployments. Linux, and other open source software can provide big benefits to the organization, however, companies need to know what to expect, and plan appropriately to mitigate these concerns.

Forrester Research is a non-affiliated research group that Forbes has rated as among the top 200 small companies in America.

[FastCoyote]

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

Which in turn was a clone of Wordperfect and Wordstar and Lotus 123. Oh and Access was bought out. Is that what you meant to say?

[usgator]

I know ... good debates everyone, I learned a lot.

Thanks for the tips earlier, daLight.