Linux fan concedes Microsoft is more secure

[vivid_vibe]

Really? So if I have all my patches and I get a virus that destroys my system are they going to come and recover all my data? Are they going to re-install windows for me and mop up the mess?

Does any OS developer make this type of guarantee? Just curious.

 

[Steevo]

Does any OS developer make this type of guarantee? Just curious.

None that I am aware of. But the way that the MS rep worded his comment it leads to that effect. How I read and percieved his comment was that Linux is behind the curve and any distributor of Linux can not-will not guarantee the system to be free from defects or security risks. Thereby Linux has no guarantee for data loss, being exploited, etc... However what and where is MS's guarantee that you will not experiance data loss, being exploited etc ....


Basicly it was a comment without foundations and just a shot in the dark from a small frightened man.

 

[j79zlr]

Actually it was a comment without foundations and just a shot in the dark from a large frightened corporation.

 

[NetRyder]

"Large frightened corporation." Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure they're quivering in their boots.

Honestly, what did you expect a guy from Microsoft to say? That Linux is better? You think everything Novell has on their site is the truth? You think everything Jobs says about Apple is true?

The original article was about a study conducted by a third-party that claimed something. It was their point-of-view, just like other studies claim that Linux is more secure - not the empirical truth.

 

[j79zlr]

If they weren't concerned, they wouldn't spew out all the misinformation they do.

 

[NetRyder]

Heh, and 95% of the crap about Windows on Slashdot isn't misinformation?
When I read some of the comments posted there, it makes me wonder if these people have actually even used Server 2003 and given it a fair chance.

Anyway, people can stick to their closed-minded beliefs. If biases prevent them from trying out different things, it's their loss. As I mentioned earlier, we're using both systems here for different purposes, and they both work well for what they do.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

The fact that two of the top five most reliable hosts in the second half of 2004 were running Windows Server 2003 (with two others running FreeBSD) is proof enough that people who claim it's buggy, insecure and unstable are 1) incompetent admins or 2) full of crap.

Facts don't lie.

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

Bravo NetRyder...

I completely agree.

 

[j79zlr]

No facts don't lie.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/

I suggest reading the full version as it is some good stuff. http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

I don't read slashdot simply because atleast 95% of everything on that site is wrong and misleading, independent of what OS is being discussed.