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

[Bruce Marshall]

On Monday 08 November 2004 06:08 am, David A. Bandel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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.

Dumb question #585

How does one find a pdf version?

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Bruce S. Marshall  bmarsh at bmarsh.com  Bellaire, MI         11/08/04 18:15  +
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Make yourself into a sheep, and you'll meet a wolf nearby. -- Russian 
proverb"