Windows vs. Linux Security, Once More

TAGmclaren writes "The Register is running a very interesting article about Microsoft and Linux security. From the article: 'until now there has been no systematic and detailed effort to address Microsoft's major security bullet points in report form. In a new analysis published here, however, Nicholas Petreley sets out to correct this deficit, considering the claims one at a time in detail, and providing assessments backed by hard data. Petreley concludes that Microsoft's efforts to dispel Linux "myths" are based largely on faulty reasoning and overly narrow statistical analysis.' The full report is available here in HTML form, and here in PDF. Although the article does make mention of OS X, it would have been nice if the 'other' OS had been included in the detailed analysis for comparison."

HTML and PDF?

[WIAKywbfatw]

What, no macro virus-infected Word file?

Re:Just buy a Mac :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "The caress of another man".

Re:Make Sure That You Only Present...

[Wudbaer]

Good grief ! Hereby I donate to you a couple of line breaks:

<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

You are welcome.

Re:So...

[savagedome]

Amazing that it took a report to tell us what we already know

We already knew this. This report is for them.

PHB Mode - (*)On ( )Off

[NardofDoom]

There are lots of long words and numbers in that article. And it's really long. It makes my brain hurt. Linux must be complicated if it takes that long to explain its security benefits. And if they have to hide them in a long article like that

And besides, last night while I was watching $stupid_cable_news_show I saw an ad for Microsoft. It said they were secure. Then I saw that same ad in $idiot_management_magazine. They can't advertise it if it's not true, so we should go with Windows Server 2003 for our new application.

And, besides, I just got Microsoft to sell Windows Server 2003 for $50 per copy by saying we'd switch to Linux. Here's the box, now go install it.

Trite Political Joke

[Mad Martigan]

Petreley concludes that Microsoft's efforts to dispel Linux "myths" are based largely on faulty reasoning and overly narrow statistical analysis.

Microsoft, official platform of the 2004 presidential campaign.

Re:Misleading article

[savagedome]

They funded this too. But this time they forgot to check the "Study in favor of Windows" checkbox.

*evil grin*

Re:Message to the moderators...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tut, tut, Mr. Mytzlplk:
In /.land, it is bad form to accept the null hypothesis that moderators have RTFA, and clue #1 about irony.

Re:If I had a nickel...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what if you had a nickel taken away for everytime the conclusion was wrong?

Windows Uses Spheres

[Ironsides]

I don't know what this guy is talking about. Windows uses spheres for permisions to run stuff. On the inside, you have all Microsoft Programs and on the outside you have all Non-Microsoft programs. See? They use spheres just like Linux.

Re:I'd rather see

[Greyfox]

Really? I can go through my log files and find automated probes from LOTS of peole who were "brave" enough to put a Windows server DIRECTLY on the Internet.

Re:biased?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have a point?

Mars Aspects
Mars is reddish
Mars is smallish
Mars may or may not have had water on it

Earth Aspects
Earth is blue-greenish
Earth is Earth-sized
Earth has lots of water

BIAS! What the fuck, dude?

But Bill Gates says it's safe

[Foofoobar]

I Bill Gates can prove that Windows is more secure than Linux. Watch as I write it down on this piece of paper. SEE? See what it says? It says 'Windows is more safe'. Don't believe me? Watch me pay someone else to say it. Believe it yet? Well how about if I buy an expensive report and tell them to say Windows is safer. Now do you believe it? NO!!

Damn, who do I have to buy off to make you people believe that Windows is safer?

Firewalls

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you have to ask yourself is this: Is anybody using a Windows machine as a Firewall for a bunch of Linux boxes?

Check back here for the answer at 3am...

Re:Make Sure That You Only Present...

[swillden]

Slashdot doesn't serve XHTML.

Technically, Slashdot doesn't serve HTML, either. Slashdot serves some markup language that is sufficiently similar to HTML that most browsers can find a reasonable way to render it if they squint at it hard enough.

Of course, the same is true of 99% of the web. Still, you'd think this bastion of geekdom would dare to be different.

Re:biased?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, d_jedi!

Thanks a pantload for your point-by-point. What I've learned is that

1) If anyone disagrees with you, it's because they don't know anything about OS design and you don't have to give any info about that because, I don't know, I guess you're too important.

2) If anyone disagrees with you, it's complete nonsense and ... yep, you don't have to back that up either. (By the way, I think you're full of incomplete nonsense.)

3) Okay, you've got me there. You're not really being bombastic on this one. But points 1, 2, 4, and your coda kind of make up for it.

4) Speaking of point 4, how about if I just quote you and say you make no sense whatsoever? Is that persuasive?

Your coda (That is a complete load of bull $hit) is best of all, because it can easily be read as summarizing your post!

Re:HTML and PDF?

[niittyniemi]

> What, no macro virus-infected Word file?

Yeah, I don't know why the Register is using that dangerous HTML stuff!!

From the article (MS description of Windows Server 2003):

"Security level for the Internet zone is set to High. This setting
disables scripts, ActiveX controls, Microsoft Java Virtual Machine
(MSJVM), HTML content, and file downloads."

There are a lot of cynics and sneerers on Slashdot who say that
Microsoft and their "Trustworthy Computing Initiative"®
is a lot of hot air and BS. But how many of you with your Linux boxes are
running a browser that renders that dangerous HTML stuff, eh?!

Hats off to MS for shipping a system that can't render HTML is what I say!

If they carry on in the same vein, we can extrapolate that Longhorn
will in fact ship without a TCP/IP stack. Watch the script
kiddies try and break into that!

Microsoft is showing the world how to innovate and move forward as
ever...by....going backwards......errr, wait a minute....

Anyway, I just hope that the "Microsoft Crippled Software and
Environment"® (MCSE) initiative makes more headway and shows you
filthy hippies/commies how things are done in the Real World!