![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Actually, I've seen both get exploited when unprotected. Heck, I know how to get into both when they're unprotected myself. More heck, I can even get by some of the more mediocre "security" measures for both.
See what I mean about you trying to use anecdotes? Do my anecdotes cancel out yours?
Want to talk facts? How about Linux servers attacked more often?
Heck, Gnome had to delay its newest release due to server compromises. Fancy that. SuSe has experienced several compromises, and so have other CVS libraries and other repositories throughout the web (like Debian). In fact, nine times out of ten, server compromises that I hear reported, whether it's on CERT or other security advisories, have been Linux servers.
Why am I using servers as an example? Simple: because Linux doesn't have a notable desktop share from which to get any real factual security numbers from. Instead, it's all a bunch of anecdotal stories from geeks (caution: joke link) talking wonders about how easy it is and how much safer they are. However, not only citing the server exploits and security release numbers (which are higher than Windows XP, both in number and number of high risk patches), there are things like the alerts from this past February, warning of remote flaws on both workstations and servers, and this past April, warning of escalation of privileges for attacks.
The only real argument you can conceivably make is pointing out that Microsoftwho holds more than 95% of the market share of desktops and workstationsis a wider target for (mostly inexperienced and unskilled) "hackers" than, say, Linuxwith a whopping 1.5% total market share (link). It is much easier to shoot at an elephant than a cockroach (not to equate either software with either animal in any way but relative size). Hence, Windows' 95+% share makes it a much easier target for every skiddie and wannabe l33t-h4x0r out there writing crappy viruses (not "virii") for holes that have patches already released by MS. The exploits that take advantage of things not already officially patched? Very few and far between, just like any other software out there. So, in essence, your argument is technically flawed because you expect Microsoft to produce software that never needs to be patched or else it is crap, while extolling Linux, which both has more patches and needs updating just as much to remain as secure.
Oh, and:
As for the licensing, that was info given me at a TS2 seminar by a Microsoft employee himself. If you really want a source, I can always e-mail him for an explanation. Otherwise, you're starting to look like you're thread-stalking me for the sake of trying to discredit.
See what I mean about you trying to use anecdotes? Do my anecdotes cancel out yours?
Want to talk facts? How about Linux servers attacked more often?
Heck, Gnome had to delay its newest release due to server compromises. Fancy that. SuSe has experienced several compromises, and so have other CVS libraries and other repositories throughout the web (like Debian). In fact, nine times out of ten, server compromises that I hear reported, whether it's on CERT or other security advisories, have been Linux servers.
Why am I using servers as an example? Simple: because Linux doesn't have a notable desktop share from which to get any real factual security numbers from. Instead, it's all a bunch of anecdotal stories from geeks (caution: joke link) talking wonders about how easy it is and how much safer they are. However, not only citing the server exploits and security release numbers (which are higher than Windows XP, both in number and number of high risk patches), there are things like the alerts from this past February, warning of remote flaws on both workstations and servers, and this past April, warning of escalation of privileges for attacks.
The only real argument you can conceivably make is pointing out that Microsoftwho holds more than 95% of the market share of desktops and workstationsis a wider target for (mostly inexperienced and unskilled) "hackers" than, say, Linuxwith a whopping 1.5% total market share (link). It is much easier to shoot at an elephant than a cockroach (not to equate either software with either animal in any way but relative size). Hence, Windows' 95+% share makes it a much easier target for every skiddie and wannabe l33t-h4x0r out there writing crappy viruses (not "virii") for holes that have patches already released by MS. The exploits that take advantage of things not already officially patched? Very few and far between, just like any other software out there. So, in essence, your argument is technically flawed because you expect Microsoft to produce software that never needs to be patched or else it is crap, while extolling Linux, which both has more patches and needs updating just as much to remain as secure.
Oh, and:
A one line post of mine is "preaching?" You have a very interesting way of seeing the world around youif you don't agree with it, it must be wrong, evil, and dumb. How nice.
As for the licensing, that was info given me at a TS2 seminar by a Microsoft employee himself. If you really want a source, I can always e-mail him for an explanation. Otherwise, you're starting to look like you're thread-stalking me for the sake of trying to discredit.
