6 Months On, Vista Security Still Besting Linux

Martin writes "Great report on security vulnerabilities for MS/Linux/OS X. This is a revised version of the one Jeff Jones did back on March 21: Windows Vista — 90 Day Vulnerability Report. This time he did what the Linux community had asked. Everyone complained that he did the report based on a full Linux distro including optional components, not on just a base OS install. So this time he did both; Vista still came out on top. I was shocked that Apple was even on the list as I believed all those Mac commercials!"

Comments

Fine...

[Progman3K]

Point me at the problems in Linux and I'll fix them.

What? Can't do that with Vista?

I'll take Linux, thank you.

Re:Fine...

[stevey]

People do though, thats the thing.

I've spotted many security issues, and the fact that we see more reported every week is proof enough that people do look at the source. If nobody looked we'd have no new reports, right?

Re:Fine...

[Ravnen]

A good argument against this myth is made in a Guardian article from a couple of years ago about OpenOffice, which includes the following comment about external contributions, i.e. those not made by the 100 or so full-time developers paid by Sun to develop it:

But what about the innumerable volunteers who can download the code and fix what they like? They take one look at the effort involved and run. OpenOffice is an extremely complex mountain of source code. As far as I know, in the five years it has been available as open source, not one contribution to the program has come from amateurs. The outsiders who have provided input have been full-time professionals employed by Linux companies to help make the software credible.

Re:Fine...

[ciggieposeur]

How does Microsoft Speech API ActiveX control remote buffer overflow exploit for WinXP SP2 translate to a Linux exploit?

Re:easier to use as well (cue the fanboys)

[Aladrin]

I guess you know you're trolling, and that why you posted AC. I'm going to bite anyhow, even though I know better.

Yes, Linux is not entirely user friendly yet. No denying that. But maybe you mean 1%, as you said... It's not really a good troll your way.

And yes, apt-get is a -lot- easier. Why? Because you left the steps out on the Windows side where you search for some utility on the web and have to wade through search results that mean nothing and attempt to find what you want, or you could just apt-get install it. 1 step, not several.

As for your game installation example, maybe you should pick something actually made FOR Linux, instead of hacked onto it later. Darwinia, for example: http://www.darwinia.co.uk/downloads/demo_linux.htm l

Check out those complicated instr... err, no. You just download and run the file. Okay, you have to make it executable first. Just a bit of security there. At least it didn't ask you 'cancel or allow?' about 5 times.

Including the steps to set up video properly is a bit disingenuous unless you include the steps for Windows as well. Including finding and downloading the proper drivers for sound, video, motherboard chipset, etc. Is it easier on Windows? A bit, yes. But the steps still exist.

Re:easier to use as well (cue the fanboys)

[Broken scope]

....
I installed quake 3 On my first day of Linux. Copied the files from the disk, ran the linux stuff for Id. IN all I had to use 3 maybe 4 commands total, and the only web site I went to was Ids site. It was basically the first thing I installed after doing my redhat installation. I never really got into using linux, but its not the quagmire you for believe it to be.

Re:Useless studies

[sYkSh0n3]

Sorry bout the offtopic, but i've been noticing the problems you were talking about on EVERY new dell i've seen in the last few months. XP and Vista. So I dont know that you can attribute all your problems to the OS. I think a lot of it has to do with all the crap they install. (ug, defending vista...i feel dirty)

But i'd still rather run Ubuntu. Anybody who thinks installing windows is easier than linux, hasn't installed feisty fawn. My last 4 windows installs have come up in 640x480 4bit because the video card wasn't recognized, the sound didn't work, and the network card didn't work. Not to mention it took forever to install. I boot ubuntu on the same machine (in minutes) and everything works perfectly. In fact, the feisty fawn install disk has become part of my windows install. I boot the live cd, download the drivers i need to my thumbdrive, reboot into windows and install them. Point being: Not only is Linux EASIER to install, it's made Windows EASIER to install too. now THATS a good operating system.

Faulty Logic

[mpapet]

Yes, the OpenOffice code base is complex. Show me another application as functionally complex with a similar architecture that's easy to fix.

You also sweep away all of the *many* other ways to participate in a project to help it along.

Finally, nearly all OSS projects are driven by one or two people coding with other contributions (testing, bug reports, documentation, packaging, translations) kicking the projects into high-gear. There are a few that are so big the leaders code contribution is a small part, but that's the rare exception.

OT Rant: OO.org team: please move to GTK+.

obligatory humor

[Gary W. Longsine]

Good grief! It's been YEARS!!! since we first heard about the superior nature of Linux/UNIX security, and we still see a crapflood of articles about it every time there is a slow news day, like when all the information about the first generation iPhone finally emerges and there are no more iPhone stories in the queue, then BAMMO! Right on schedule, another story about LINUX vs. Windows security. This story is even a TROLL, all on with a headline about Vista besting Linux. What crap! ENOUGH with these LINUX/Windows security shootout stories, already!