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.
The reality is that Windows is a much easier target than Linux, OSX, xBSD or a proprietary Unix.
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.
Cartoon suggestion:
(Image of 50,000 coders, all working in different cubicles, never talking to each other, and trying to make Windows secure, while Management and Sales are telling them to "enrich content" giving Users things they never wanted.)
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?