Windows Developers Agree: Linux More Secure

theblackdeer writes "eWeek has an article up about an Evans Data Corp survey that the majority of Windows developers agree that linux is a more secure OS. "Linux scored high for innate security among respondents, more than two- thirds of whom 'use or target Windows with their code.' Indeed, only 23 percent of the developers were primarily Linux developers.""

Comments

Yeah but...

[curtisk]

"Development experience talks, a higher percentage of Windows developers said Linux is more 'innately secure' than did Linux developers."

What do they base this perception or opinion on? Actual roll-up-your-sleeves analysis or the "features list" on their distro's box? Its kinda vague.

Re:Yeah but...

[PainKilleR-CE]

What do they base this perception or opinion on? Actual roll-up-your-sleeves analysis or the "features list" on their distro's box? Its kinda vague.

The survey was simply asking about perception, not why that perception existed. More than likely a great deal of that has to do with the number of security patches that have come out for Windows XP over the last year, and the more general press about Linux and security.

I think the idea that any OS is 'innately secure' is somewhat rediculous, though, as almost anything you put on a network is going to have to be locked down to make it secure. Linux may be more secure by default than Windows, but either one takes good administration to be really secure.

Security is not a product.

[DjReagan]

When will people realise that security is not about products and operating systems. Security is a process that is ongoing and evolving.

Re:More secure for what?

[Dan Ost]

I have often wondered why windows is less secure. Could it be that a larger installed base means more exposure to security issues?? (ie. popularity = more exploits?)

No, the problem with Windows is that just about any exploit allows for the running
of arbitrary code with full privileges (equivelent to rooting a Linux box).

With a real OS (Linux, BSD, etc), to get similar privileges, you need both
a exploit to gain access to a machine and some way of escalating your privilege.
There has historically been a fraction of exploits that granted root from the
start, but that fraction has become vanishingly small.

Re:But why would you listen to a Windows developer

[Monkelectric]

He posts anything that fits his agenda, without even paying lipservice to journalistic integrity.

shhhhh! He's trying to get noticed by fox news.

"Windows developers"

[skookum]

This summary, and the article it links to, both seem to paint the picture that there are two distinct sets of developers in the world, those that target Windows and those that target Linux (or other open source platforms). This is just simply misleading, as I don't think it's the case at all.

First of all, most people who write code for a living have little control over what target OS they are developing for. These things tend to be dictated by the business that the company is in, or their clients, or the decisions of upper management, or historical reasons, etc. Most developers write code for Windows at work because that's where most software development happens, not because that's really their choice.

And just because you code for Windows at work doesn't mean you don't use Linux or participate in open source development at home or in your free time.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm not surprised at all that Windows developers thought Linux was more secure, as a lot of them probably have used Linux or use it at home in some form (such as for a firewall.) In other words, you can't just break software people up into "Windows people" and "Linux people" and expect the members of each set to view their target OS as more secure, more stable, etc. People develop software for Windows for lots of reasons -- "it's a day job", "that's what the client demanded", "it's just corporate policy", etc. I guess what I'm saying is that this article doesn't really prove much, other than the fact that a lot of people think Linux is secure, but we knew that much already. Or simply: "Sure I write code for Windows for $DAYJOB, but that doesn't mean I think Windows is secure, and I use FreeBSD for my firewall at home."