Windows 7 sends Microsoft to record revenue

Ask yourself if you've been using computers and designing software since the early 1980s. If the answer is "no" then it's somebody else...

If you use Windows, you've placed yourself at risk. You don't know what flaws Microsoft has left in Windows and you won't know until you're compromised.

No matter how good you think you are, no matter how good other people tell you that you are, no matter how many times you gotten away with it, if you continue to use a flawed design and think you're safe because you haven't been bitten yet, sooner or later you're going to be.

"We've always done it this way. It's never been a problem before so it's not a problem now."

-- NASA management, January 28th, 1986, about 11AM.
-- Admiral Husband Kimmel, COMNAVPACFLT, December 7th, 1941, about 7AM.
-- Captain Edward J. Smith, RMS Titanic, April 14th, 1912, about 11PM.
-- Maurice Gamelin, French Supreme Commander, Maginot Line, June 4th, 1940

“But the argument is popularity==risk of attack. If that was true, Apache would be more at risk than IIS, but that's not true.”

How many units of Apache do we have running out there, as compared to the over 1.2 billion Windows desktops out there?
And where is your evidence that Apache is safer than IIS at?
And aren't there VASTLY more Windows Server units in use than Linux servers?

“The reality is that Windows is a much easier target than Linux, OSX, xBSD or a proprietary Unix.”

The reality is that Linux, OSX, xBSD and propreitary Unix combined don't even amount to even one tenth of the install base of Windows. Hackers don't waste their time on operating systems with less than 1% market share(like unix), that is hardly used by ordinary consumers.

“If Linux was at the same popularity level as Windows then it would NOT have the same problems because the vast majority of Windows infections are due to design decisions that Microsoft made and have refused to correct. “

Chortle!
Linux has had huge security holes and design flaws. They are always issuing patches to cover some security hole or the other in Linux.
Do you want me to provide you with a list from CNET on past Linux security holes?

Linux’s design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows

Reality:

Corel hurries to fix Linux security hole
The company is working to patch a bug with its version of Linux that could let unauthorized users gain access to machines running Corel Linux.
http://news.cnet.com/Corel-hurries-to-fix-Linux-security-hole/2100-1001_3-236140.html

Security hole found in Linux
Programmers identify a vulnerability in the heart of Linux that could let people take control of their own systems—even if they don't have privileges to do so.
http://news.cnet.com/Security-hole-found-in-Linux/2100-1016_3-993278.html

Linux handheld suffers from security hole
University researchers discover a security problem with Sharp's Zaurus handheld, which uses the Linux operating system. Watch out while on wireless networks.
http://news.cnet.com/Linux-handheld-suffers-from-security-hole/2100-1040_3-943163.html

Study: Windows has fewest security holes
But it beats Red Hat and Mac OS X on number of critical flaws, according to latest threat report from Symantec.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Windows-has-fewest-security-holes/2100-1002_3-6169956.html

Rather than disturb the rest of your inanity, I'll point out that you're just flat wrong in this one area and let everyone else do their own research:

And where is your evidence that Apache is safer than IIS at?

Just about everywhere to the point that no one really reports on it all that much anymore. It's like asking if a Porche is a better sports car than a Mack truck. Of course it is but it's kinda tough finding an actual study that says so.

However if you dig enough you'll come up with some numbers:

Like how Microsoft IIS servers are twice as likely to be serving up malware.

Or articles in eWeek that state: In eWEEK Labs tests, Apache 2.0 keeps pace with Internet Information Server 5.0 running on Windows 2000 Advanced Server, without the security problems.

And aren't there VASTLY more Windows Server units in use than Linux servers?

No. Not by a long shot.

February 2010 Web Server Survey

In January of 2010, Apache was known to be running on 111,307,941 servers. Microsoft IIS was known to be running on 49,792,844.

That gives Apache a 53.84% market share compared to ISS with 24.08%.

The fact is that those of us that have worked in the IT industry (and some of us in the IT security industry) are well aware of this.

Microsoft, across all it's products, only publishes bugs for which it has a fix ready. In open source, all bugs regardless of their severity are openly published. For every bug that Microsoft admits to expect to find a dozen or more that they haven't admitted to.

And considering that the most pervasive of exploits, the bot nets, are pretty much a Windows-only game that pretty much tells everyone what the true state of the Microsoft code base is.

Just about everywhere to the point that no one really reports on it all that much anymore

Chortle!
You will need to get off the sauce.

“Like how Microsoft IIS servers are twice as likely to be serving up malware.”

Like how that particular study has been totally discredited.
Like how in reality, even back in 2007, IIS had only nine published vulnerabilities in the preceding four years, as compared to Apache’s 33 published vulnerabilities.
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1438/

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/73/

And that was even with the not so secure II6. Even IIS6 was beating Apcahe then.

No. Not by a long shot.”

Like most Linux fanatics, you simply can't read.
Read what I postd again will ya?
This is what I said, and I quote:

“And aren't there VASTLY more Windows Server units in use than Linux servers?”

Emphasis on ‘Windows Server units in USE”.
Get it?

IDC server sales Q4:
“Behind the IDC data: Windows still No. 1 in server operating systems

According to IDC’s data, Windows is still the dominant player. The fourth quarter 2009 was more robust than the third, in terms of total revenues and units.

That said, Windows is still far and away the No. 1 server operating system, in terms of units, and the definite leader in terms of dollars.

Here’s IDC’s OS share data break out.

Units (Q3 2009/Q4 2009)

Windows 1,248,200 (73.9%) 1,434,225 (73.9%)
Unix 72,001 ( 4.3%) 84,851 ( 4.4%)
Linux 357,491 (21.2%) 412,041 (21.2%)

Total 1,688,859 1,941,966”

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=5408

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.