[thelist] [OT] MS vs *nix WAS:( New Critical Security Patch for Windows)

[Hershel Robinson]

> This has gone quite off-topic at this point, but I want to
> add my two cents.

I am uncertain if this topic is off-topic. Many of us need to make decisions
as to what OS to use for our personal business machines, what to advise for
our clients and also what to use for our servers. A bit of education as to
the options and their advantages I do think is in order.

> This whole MS is not secure thing really comes down to 1
> thing:  popularity.
> Think about it.
>
> If 90% of the world used a *nix kernel, as a virus maker or
> hacker, what
> would you go after?

I am not an expert on this subject, but I do believe that this assertion is
inaccurate. Statistically speaking, your statement would be valid only if
relationship between the number of security issues for MS versus that of
*nix was the same (or at least on the same order) as the relationship of the
number of users of each. This, however, does not appear to be the case. In
fact, your statement was evaluated and negated in this news article last
year:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html

entitled "Linux vs. Windows Viruses."

To note, there is a rebuttal to this article available here:
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml

which attempts to clarify certain statements which the author considers to
be false in the first article. It appears, by the way, that the first
article actually appeared elsewhere, but I can not find the original URI at
the moment.

Anyhow, it would appear to me, again a NON-expert, that *nix indeed does
present a significant security advantage over Windows. What appears to be
the subject of debate is how great that advantage is.

Hershel