[OT] Microsoft is only less secure because more people attack it

[james@jamesmcdonald.id.au]

> Regurgitating the prose of James McDonald James McDonald
> <james at jamesmcdonald.id.au> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:18:04 +1100:
>
> |I had an interesting conversation with a microsoft business solutions
> |provider today. He raised the above point. I managed not to laugh in
> |his face. But what I want to know is how they can even think that? I
> |mean why does Gartner and others basically say get something else to
> |cruize the internet and then the M$ providers come up with these
> |platitudes.
>
> Please shove a copy of this in that idiots face:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
>
> Myths busted by Nicholas Petreley.
> 1.  There are more Apache servers (including running on M$ servers) than
> IIS (60% vs 20%).  So why is IIS attacked more often?  Because M$
> security is non-existent!
> 2.  Linux could be attacked as well.  But unless the person is so stupid
> as to run as root all the time, the virus is automatically contained,
> its damage minimized.
> 3.  Read the document.  It handles all the arguments.  I suggest d/l the
> PDF and print copies and hand out.

Thanks for this. There is nothing worse than knowing something to be true
but not having the information to back it up.

Blind faith shouldn't exist!