oh get real. Just go to astalavista.box.sk and search for Linux and Unix exploits. You know as well as I do there are plenty. MS just gets bad publicity a) cos their pockets are so richly lined b) everyone likes to take a shot at them.
I'm no MS cheerleader but I no penguin-ass kisser either.
Yes MS products are bloated.
NO MS products have no more security issues than other software solutions. And lets not forget IIS in my view is an app, not a core part of the O/S. There are other webservers available for NT just as there are other Mailservers. MS could quite happily have put NT solutions in and used 3rd part server apps. Nice try curly, no cigar
.
And code red wasn't ignored by me either. I pointed out an exploit on Unix, you said it was fixed without user intervention (and then contradicted yourself in the next sentence). I think the point is while MS got hammered in the press the Unix community quietly swept Lion under the carpet
while making a song and dance about red code.
If anyone came onto the market with an O/S that was perfect, I'd call them a liar.
Finally, in a well designed network, edge product is secured by other means that the O/S, whether that O/S be MS, Linux, Unix, Mac etc. The use of a good firewall and IDS is critical on all these systems.
BTW, my $$$ come from the networks, not the edge gear. So I sit on the sidelines and watch the Unix vs MS crowd fight it out. I must say the Unix guys tend to be more zealots, and often become very one eyed. Whereas the MS people are just a) arrogant b) greedy c) in a state of constant denial.
Originally posted by AKcurly
Well, code red wasn't ignored by me. My point was that MS products are notorious security risks. They are so notorious that even Microsoft doesn't use them at HotMail. It's such an obvious publicity coup for Unix folks (that MS doesn't use NT or win2k server), I find it difficult to believe efficiency is the reason MS uses BSD Unix. Didn't I read the other day that NT performed at (or exceeded) Linux for many web type applications?
Vulcan, security is the reason MS uses BSD UNIX, not efficiency. Nice try though 
As you know, all OSs pose security risks, although the NSA version of Linux sounds very formidable. Security will always be a question of degree, and to some extent, the ability of the network guy to respond to new attacks. To a large extent, MS ties the hands of the guys who are in the position of defending (from remote attacks) MS server types while
the UNIX community takes the opposite approach.
Since every single OS produced by MS has had major security problems, why use any MS product as a 24/7 point of presence? You're asking for trouble if you do unless of course you make your living resolving issues for customers who are foolish enough to take your advice and install MS server products in the first place. But then, we're talking about ethics, not efficacy.
curly
