Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds Windows More Secure Than Linux

cfelde writes "A Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers." In addition to the Seattle Times article, there is also coverage on VNUnet. From the article: "The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, 'Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux.' One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint."

12 of 796 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, Right. by pentalive · · Score: -1, Troll

    Sure.

    I guess I'll ask Santa for a windows server instead.

  2. Multiple orgasms for men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    If women can have multiple orgasms, why can't men? I mean what's the biological reason us men are one-shot wonders?

    I'm stoned out of my head now, but I really think this requires more research. Imagine the profits if you could develop a drug that would allow men to experience one orgasm after another!

  3. beat a live one... by millahtime · · Score: -1, Troll

    If you want security go with BSD. It is more secure and it isn't dead.

    My 2 cents. Now go ahead and mod me down.

  4. That's Why by ahmetaa · · Score: -1, Troll

    You should use Solaris 10 or FreeBSD..

  5. Credibility? by drgonzo59 · · Score: -1, Troll

    The "two Florida researchers" phrase is where I stopped reading the article. The only things they should be researching is beach parties, mixed drinks and slutty Spring break chicks.

    I can see them submitting a paper to a journal with the conclusion "Well, like, you see, Laynex is this new windowz thang, but not as cool cuz Microsoft gave us money to party and do like research and stuff"

  6. Re:Do Linux companies provide free service packs? by DrXym · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you're too fucking lazy to administer a box for yourself, or see what a patch fixes or consider any of the other implications of installing it, then yes you can make Linux patch itself automatically. A one line cron job will work in most places.

  7. Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? by g0hare · · Score: 0, Troll

    Works for Bush, why not here?

    --
    Vote Quimby!
  8. Re:More FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    lol soooooooooo true. sad little linux nerds cant take a loss at all. if they were really about improving things, and not just stroking their ego, they would look at iti as an opporutnity to improve BUT of course their only goal is out destroy MS and after that... well, they will find some other successful company to direct their anger at life towards.. HOLLA AT A PLAYA@

  9. Re:Integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I know you guys are desperate to dismiss anything anti-Linux and praise anything pro-Linux (like good little sheep), but at some point you need to accept that fact that your precious Lee-nux isn't perfect. You never see these desperate kinds of explanations when there's a study showing how great and holy Linux is. I wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because you are biased sheep.

  10. Re:Tantric sex fool by ricotest · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's about contracting the PC muscle, you dolt.

  11. Re:Tantric sex fool by F34nor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't belive in Tantric sex? Try Taoist sex. All the technical points without the usless religion attached.

  12. Re:Tantric sex fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Try Maoist sex - all the moves approved by the good Chairman