Why Windows is less secure than Linux
ran accross this today
Now, this does not nessicarily mean that windows is less secure (the argument posted on that blog really isnt being objective.) What it does mean is that internally, windows is exponentially more complex then linux. that can be a good or bad thing, for example, adobe photoshop is far more complex then ms paint, but it also does so much more. however, the goal when designing massive apps (such as ps) is to cut down on complexity whenever possible. The example shown on the blog gives us a good indication on why apache is the most used webserver, and IIS has such a horrendous name.
Now, this does not nessicarily mean that windows is less secure (the argument posted on that blog really isnt being objective.) What it does mean is that internally, windows is exponentially more complex then linux. that can be a good or bad thing, for example, adobe photoshop is far more complex then ms paint, but it also does so much more. however, the goal when designing massive apps (such as ps) is to cut down on complexity whenever possible. The example shown on the blog gives us a good indication on why apache is the most used webserver, and IIS has such a horrendous name.
posted by Google Ninja at 3:21 PM
2 Comments:
Actually I posted those images of the system calls required for two different systems to serve up a single page as an explanation for why Windows is less secure than open source. The argument that Windows is less secure depends on a lot of factors. This only answers the question "why"?
I assumed everyone already aknowledged that Windows was less secure.
As far as your sylogism with Adobe vs MSPaint. If one application required more system calls to perform exactly the same task I would call that application more comples and more prone to bugs. That is not to say that Adobe couldn't spend more on QA and patching. But they are bearing the burdone of a system that is more expensive to perfect. ( And something tells me that MSPaint would probably be less efficient anyway.)
All I was trying to point out is that this is a good explination for why, not a smoking gun.
I said that you weren't presenting things objectively for a few reasons. First of all, a fair comparison would be Apache/Linux vs Apache/Windows. Apache vs IIS isnt "Windows vs OSS", it is "IIS vs OSS". However, you are implying that it is a comparison between the windows kernel and linux, using a webserver as a benchmark.
We all know about the MS integration crusade. I'm sure a comparison between IE and Firefox would yield similar results.
Now, keep in mind that Windows irritates me more then any other piece of software I am forced to use on a daily basis. But hurling inflammatory accusations does nothing but preach to the converted, and destroy your credibility with those who disagree with your assumption, that "Windows is less secure."
One last point, MS hires from the top 1% of software engineers out of college. While their business practices are deplorable, bad code comming out of redmond can only really be layed at the feet of horrible internal management. There are extremely skilled individuals working there, and the assumption that everything comming out of ms is crap is flat out wrong.
just a bit of advice and clarification. and thanks for those great pics, I have already shown them to all the winzealots I know ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home