Still, I don't like any comparison between Linux and Microsoft or Macintosh. Why? Because the "Linux world" is so much different. You have Linux, the kernel. You can't compare that one with Windows XP or even Windows 3.11, it is not the same thing and therefore you can't get any good results from comparing the two.
On the other hand you have different distros. But there you cannot compare it either with Windows. The distros out there are so many and so different. Also, many of them come with very much pre-installed (SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora, etc). They pre-install alot more then Windows do (also, one article Jeremy brought up on LQ Radio had compared critical flaws in Windows with all the flaws in a distro, including some flaw in mpg123). You also have the GNU-part to consider. The conclusion is that these are different worlds, and it is to hard to make a fair comparison.

But, of course, Linux is better then Windows, as we all know. ;P

linux format magazine march 2005
pg 7
getting the facts straight on security:

the latest tests from the honeypot project show that an unpatched linux system can stay unmolested on the internet for months, while the equivalent windows box, in a seperate study, succumbed to the attention of crackers within 4 minutes of being fired up.

i have actually ran my box straight from install untill just a month ago (@5 months) with no problems. added some things now. dont wanna push my luck. with XP i had to scan every other day

When I think standards I think of things such as RPMs and DEBs and such. I ran into this when trying to get my radion vid card to work right under Linux, the drivers where RPM but I ran DEB I eventually got them working right but it took time. And it would have make my life easier if all Linux disto's used the same (I guess package would be the right word not sure though).

And I think the best way to look at it as al ready been stated a few times.
and in other places in this thread alone. While both systems need patchs and there will always be flaws, there are less exploits for Linux. Some say there will be more as Linux becomes a more main stream OS, which may b true. But to say that Microsoft is more secure would be well silly.


Anouther way to look at it would be how many critical updates does microsoft have on their site for Windows XP. I mean from the first release of Windows XP. That alone I feel is proof enough.

The post that started this thread interested me because of the statement made about making the protocol available for comment. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a link to anything that pertains to it. Hopefully, someone will post such a link because an opportunity to review the protocol is something new. The fact that Microsoft funded the research is not sufficient either to invalidate the study or to discredit the source. Also, speculating that Microsoft would not have funded it, if the results were favorable to LInux, suggests that the research was first done for free, then paid for. This is not a likely scenario. The bottom line applies equally to statements made by authors whose work is published by members of the media and to editorials written about what is published [by the media]. That is: An opinion can have no more value than the background information used to support it. In the absense of such support, an opinion isn't worth all that much. Thus far, none of the "research" that portrays Windows favorably has been presented with any such support. Unfortunately, the same can be said for much of the criticism about this so-called "research".

i have to fill up my posts. sorry.

shachris23 -- per the LQ Rules, "do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say". Please don't post meaningless comments. Thanks -- J.W.