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.

[usgator]

Microsoft also rules in servers with the highest market share.

Damn you, KwasiOwusu ... ya beat me to it!!!!!

[Ex-Dem]

The anti-capitalist people also don't take into account the cost that goes into R/D for new, innovative software. Much of the software produced by the open source movement is based on software that companies like Microsoft and AOL have already introduced, and even so they're still not as full featured as the commericial versions. Just compare OpenOffice Equations and Microsoft Equations 3.0, which came out more than 5 years ago. They still haven't caught up.

[dalight]

Someone simply published a paper and Windows won because the headline is nice for them. Follow the money and be prepared to not be surprised..

Still, in the grand scheme of things, Microsoft is embarking on the stiffest push to force folks in to actually paying for their Windows licenses, and when folks understand what this means.. It will be interesting to see all of these folks cheering for Mr Gates as they cannot get their copy of windows that they bought to be updated because they don't have all of the pieces to construct proof of purchase.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yea, Yea. And if you read the latest Gartner report, Linux won - hands down. I believe that the XP servers were cracked in a matter of minutes, whereas it took several weeks for Solaris and three months for Linux. Doesn't sound as if Windows won there.

[Ex-Dem]

(anybody remember OS/360?)

What a coincidence, I was just rereading Brook's "Mythical Man Month". It was before my time, but it's still interesting reading about his experience with OS/360.

[StJacques]

"I think it is fair to say that Microsoft has never been the bearer of gifts when it comes to interoperability with anything other than Microsoft products. They do what their customers request, but ensure a tie-in to the MS product line, which is fair since they are a business concern. . . ."

I contest this point outright. 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. Microsoft does not have a hand in the thousands of software development shops that will reap the benefits. And those types of applications can be run without ever using a Microsoft product.

You can make a case that Universal Data Access benefits Microsoft since it enhances the commercial viability of their operating systems, whether for servers or PCs, since it makes them a more viable development platform choice for software developers when designing applications. That must be admitted. But the range of choices is not limited to Microsoft alone. What IBM and others want to do is to restrict data consumer options to software that must be run on individual machines, which is what really raises the costs for business. That is why Microsoft is more economically democratic. The machine won't matter if Universal Data Access becomes the standard and businesses won't have to pay the costs of "machine access capability" as IBM and others want them to do.

[KwasiOwusu]

" instead of debating the merits at hand you start doing the personal attack thing"

Try again.
You are getting clobbered right now on merits.
If you think you have any more points, be good enough to bring them up.

[CarryaBigStick]

I find your faith in science profs to be a little disturbing. They have their own incurable biases also.

[usgator]

I don't know why the Linux people are complaining so much. There is still a place in the market for them ... admittedly a very smallplace, but still a place.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Yea, Yea. And if you read the latest Gartner report, Linux won - hands down."

Latest Gartner reports has Windows totally destroying Linux on the desktop,and far ahead of Linux on servers.

If you have any Gartner figures that show Linux with a higher market share on desktops or servers than Windows, please be good enough to bring 'em up.

[usgator]

Stop it! There little heads explode if you present facts to them ... I seen it happen and it ain't pretty!

[dalight]

I agree that this might be an interesting meteric if we lived in a perfect world, but even this would be alot of luck of the draw. If you posted a bounty on a net site and dared hackers to compromise one or both of the boxes and time that.. and you got a similarly experienced MCSE and RHCE to do the set ups.. then.. perhaps this would be meaningful.

Grade by time to compromise and severity of compromise accomplished.

[KwasiOwusu]

"I find your faith in science profs to be a little disturbing. They have their own incurable biases also"

They are far more exact, measurable and tangible than Ward Churchill's "Ethnic Studies".
I can tell you that.

[Frank L]

I'm sorry to confuse. Reading back over my post, I see the ambiguity I caused. Within the _one comparison_ that choose VB over Delphi, the programmers were all VB gurus and that study was funded by MS. The other _studies_ voted Delphi.

To note, I also took Borland's comparison with a grain of salt when it came out. The good comparison were the ones done by software companies who used both languages.

My apologies.

[StJacques]

". . . Much of the software produced by the open source movement is based on software that companies like Microsoft and AOL have already introduced, and even so they're still not as full featured as the commericial versions. . . ."

Yes Ex-Dem, you are right. 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. That is why Hewlett-Packard raised such a hue and cry about being unable to remove Windows Explorer from the Windows operating system for desktop PCs. They didn't want PC users being able to manipulate files to the extent that they might not be forced to use HP software already installed.

[CarryaBigStick]

Granted, but not infallable by any stretch of the imagination.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Stop it! There little heads explode if you present facts to them ... I seen it happen and it ain't pretty!"

LOL!
Its just too much fun though.

[Redleg Duke]

Study conducted by the MS Labs Foundation for the Preservation of the Status Quo, no doubt.

[usgator]

no problem. thanks for clearing it up ... makes more sense now

[usgator]

I know ... it's a guilty pleasure!