Report: Vista more secure than OS X and Linux

[ScottKin]

^^^ I don't know where this information came from. All I know is that it isn't very complete.

EDIT: By that, I mean the "affiliation" of the original blog writer.

EDIT 2: In the same vein, I didn't post a BPN news article about Linux/Apache servers performing better than Windows/IIS, because it also lacked a completeness, being just a survey. It isn't about which "camp" you are in. It is about doing a complete analysis, and coming to a proper conclusion. Looking at one single stat, and delcaring an overall winner is faulty.

Thanks for clarifying that, Mark - I was going to start feeling flattened when I saw the up-arrows ;)

I agreee with what you're saying, but let's be honest; if someone came up with hard, solid facts that had already been vet'ed and checked that showed that Windows was better than Linux, what would the response of "The Community" be? Would they (the collective "they") accept the facts, or try to spin it? What would the response of the Windows community be if the data showed that Linux was superior in every aspect? Would they try to spin the facts or claim that the facts presented were somehow skewed?

--ScottKin

P.S. I just looked at my post count - I just passed 1Kbytes!!!

[Cryingcure]

^^^ I don't know where this information came from. All I know is that it isn't very complete.

EDIT: By that, I mean the "affiliation" of the original blog writer.

EDIT 2: In the same vein, I didn't post a BPN news article about Linux/Apache servers performing better than Windows/IIS, because it also lacked a completeness, being just a survey. It isn't about which "camp" you are in. It is about doing a complete analysis, and coming to a proper conclusion. Looking at one single stat, and delcaring an overall winner is faulty.

Then go do your own report since you're obviously the biggest expert on Linux here at Neowin :rolleyes:

I like how you say you're not biased towards a single OS and everytime there's an article that says anything remotely bad about Linux you pop up to talk about how wrong it is and defend the OS like it's your god. Sersiously, since you know soo much more than anyone else, let's see you do your own security report on it.

[DoubleThink]

:blink: From that graph, Vista is the most unsecure. Since all other products listed have more fixed security issues than unfixed security issues.

[CaKeY]

Then go do your own report since you're obviously the biggest expert on Linux here at Neowin :rolleyes:

I like how you say you're not biased towards a single OS and everytime there's an article that says anything remotely bad about Linux you pop up to talk about how wrong it is and defend the OS like it's your god. Sersiously, since you know soo much more than anyone else, let's see you do your own security report on it.

lol says someone whos been here less than 3 weeks.

[ichi]

So does this mean that a Windows OS might eventually match RedHat's government security rating?

[Ironman273]

^^^ I don't know where this information came from. All I know is that it isn't very complete.

EDIT: By that, I mean the "affiliation" of the original blog writer.

EDIT 2: In the same vein, I didn't post a BPN news article about Linux/Apache servers performing better than Windows/IIS, because it also lacked a completeness, being just a survey. It isn't about which "camp" you are in. It is about doing a complete analysis, and coming to a proper conclusion. Looking at one single stat, and delcaring an overall winner is faulty.

Did you read the full article? I thought it was pretty comprehensive although I'm no expert. Here's the direct link to it. It explains all the methods that were used.

[CaKeY]

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9733241-16.html

[markwolfe Veteran]

Thanks for clarifying that, Mark - I was going to start feeling flattened when I saw the up-arrows ;)

I agreee with what you're saying, but let's be honest; if someone came up with hard, solid facts that had already been vet'ed and checked that showed that Windows was better than Linux, what would the response of "The Community" be? Would they (the collective "they") accept the facts, or try to spin it? What would the response of the Windows community be if the data showed that Linux was superior in every aspect? Would they try to spin the facts or claim that the facts presented were somehow skewed?

--ScottKin

P.S. I just looked at my post count - I just passed 1Kbytes!!!

I doubt than any evaluation would ever come and say that one OS was better than the others for everything. There is no absolute best. OpenBSD might be best for one particular application. Windows might be the best solution for another. And so on. I certainly don't speak for the "Linux community", but I can speak for myself in that Linux provides the best solution for me on my PC. I actually enjoy using my PC now, more than I ever did using Windows. Do I push it on other people? Never. I think my nearly 4 year post history here speaks for itself. Not one case of me saying "Windoze is for teh l00zrz. Linux pwns 4eva!" or any such crap. It works for me. I am happy with it. That's all.

Then go do your own report since you're obviously the biggest expert on Linux here at Neowin :rolleyes:

I like how you say you're not biased towards a single OS and everytime there's an article that says anything remotely bad about Linux you pop up to talk about how wrong it is and defend the OS like it's your god. Sersiously, since you know soo much more than anyone else, let's see you do your own security report on it.

Kid, if you are trying to troll me, you need to get better skills than that. I never claimed to be a Linux expert. I never claimed to publish a security analysis, nor have the answers in a tidy single-sentence sound bite. I never said I am not biased, in fact, I have posted that I prefer Linux for myself.

You claim that I stated things that I have clearly not. Search through my posts and see if you can find any single post of mine to back your ludicrous statement.

Didn't think so. Feel free to come back and post comments to me when you mature enough to have a reasonable conversation, instead of posting lies and vitriol.

EDIT: Oh, I remember you know. You made similar claims in the news before! And you said you put me on ignore. I guess you lied. Perhaps you ought to go ahead and do it now, please.

[kheldorin]

:blink: From that graph, Vista is the most unsecure. Since all other products listed have more fixed security issues than unfixed security issues.

No...absolute values here matter more than proportion. There are alot more unfixed security security issues in other OSes compared to Vista.

And if you look at HIGH severity only, Vista is comparable proportion wise to the other OSes.

A bit biased to use MSs latest OS, but not Ubuntus...

From the full report, "Long-term support is a key requirement for a distribution to be considered for use within most businesses. So far, Ubuntu has

only committed to long term support for 6.06 and not later releases. "

In the full report, there are tests conducted on both a full normal desktop ubuntu installation and a reduced component set which from what I gathered, he only removed GIMP an Open Office.

Edited June 23, 2007 by kheldorin

[ranasrule]

LOL, at all the people trying to downplay this.

lol...my thoughts exactly....stupid fanboys

[Miuku.]

lol...my thoughts exactly....stupid fanboys

Ironic, looking at your signature.

[franzon]

In the first 6 months, Vista had a lower total and lower High severity vulnerabilities than Windows XP, Mac OS X and Linux