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

[David Bandel]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:17:36 -0500, Bruce Marshall <bmarsh at bmarsh.com> wrote:
> 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?
> 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/
(the above is a derivative work with links back to the original)
Look for the link.

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
-- 
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
            - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto