Slashdot Mirror
MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux
Kip Winger writes "Mike Nash, Microsoft's Chief Security Executive, has made claims that Windows is more secure than Linux. In a recent online chat, he staunchly defended Microsoft's record on security, basing part of his argument on how Windows Server 2003's 15 patches in the past year are far less than what RedHat or SuSE have had to endure." He also mentioned the recent purchase of Sybari and their Antivirus product.
In other news, Iraq had WMD's and Saddam and Osama played golf every weekend. In addition, Social Security will self-destruct this weekend in a massive explosion and kill the baby Jesus.
So why the hell does a fresh install of Windows XP take up over 1GB out of the box?!?
Talk about bloat.
I use VMware on my home machines (which run Linux). I have at least one version of every Windows release from WfWg 3.11 to ME, from NT 3.51 (anyone know were to get 3.1 these days?) to XP and 2003. These are for testing scenarios and playing around for nolstalgia's sake (sometimes it's fun to fire up DESQView on DOS 6.22, for example).
But the progression of bloat as you progress up the version path amazes me. DOS 6.22 w/ WfWG 3.11 takes up like 12MB. A full install of the original Win95 retail distribution takes about 30MB, which is what I use most of the time in VMWare because it's so lean and fast compared to newer versions, even after installing IE5.5, the last version you can get for Win95.
Yes, a full install of a modern Linux distro is approaching 6GB (a full Fedora Core 3 install), but you have everything and the kitchen sink, so you can't complain. Plus it's possible to trim the fat and take out what you don't need, as the GUIs, browsers, etc. are not intimately tied to the OS itself.
Method of processing duck feet