There's an excellent column that attempts to shatter some of the misconceptions many Linux zealots have about Linux. Mainly about how it's more secure and less buggy than Windows. I mean, it's not really a big secret, it's just something so many people willingly blind themselves to in their ardent opposition to Microsoft.
We know that Linux and open source attacks are soaring while Windows attacks decline, but people love to ignore those facts and figures with the wave of their hand, and make up some weird excuse about why they shouldn't be trusted. I mean, organizations like SERN and CERT are not to be trusted, right?
Well, anyway, this guy's article is very well writtten, and I urge all of you to read it before using the trite Linux endorsement stuff you throw at me all the time: http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030124S0013/1
We know that Linux and open source attacks are soaring while Windows attacks decline, but people love to ignore those facts and figures with the wave of their hand, and make up some weird excuse about why they shouldn't be trusted. I mean, organizations like SERN and CERT are not to be trusted, right?
Well, anyway, this guy's article is very well writtten, and I urge all of you to read it before using the trite Linux endorsement stuff you throw at me all the time: http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030124S0013/1
. It reads "Red Hat released more patches, so it must be more buggy." Hmmm, let's look again at this statement. A Red Hat distribution is not only an operating system, but a full fledged software suite. It has, among others, office software, databases, lots of networking stuff, games etc. in a tenfold greater amount than Windows has with its shabby Write and Minesweeper stuff. All these software packets can have bugs. For example, email programs. With WinXP pro comes only Outlook Express. This has numerous bugs and security flaws. With RH come numerous (lazy to count them, must be 20 or more) email clients. Even if only half of them have one bug, this makes 10 bugs in Mr Langa's book, while Outlook Expresses 5 bugs makes only 5 in total. Hence, Windows must be twice as secure as Linux. Is it just me, or sees anyone else flaws in his logic?


Comment