Microsoft's Security Chief Says Windows Safer Than Linux

[GeoTube]

Well, duh! What do you expect the chief of security for a rich corporation to say?

Well said, you don't see any system administrators telling you that do you? (well... any sober Sys Admins :p)

[jtpenrod]

Let me guess, the last time you used Windows was 1996?

The last time I used Win-d'ohs, of my own free will, was in 2001.
The last time I bought anti-virus soft and updates was in 2001.
The last time I needed to install anti-spyware was in 2001.
The last time I needed to install Adaware was in 2001.
The last time I had some system-destroying nasty from my in-box was in 2001.
The last time I had to fork over $100+ for programming aids was 2001.

Been using Linux almost exclusively for the past 3+ years, and I haven't had anything viral bother me, I haven't needed to go broke on third-party apps to make a useful system. I haven't looked back.

Giving those uneducated users (the ones who download e-mail attachments from [email protected] that claim to be "Windows Updates") a Linux system isn't going to solve the problem. If anything, it's going to frustrate users even more - and only lead to slower growth in the technology sector as consumer confidence and interest wanes.

Believe me, casual users don't come more "uneducated" than Mother. A year-and-a-half ago, I picked up a free Dell Dimension with a P-I (113MHz), 64MB RAM, 1.5GB HD + 1.0GB HD, a 2.0MB RAM Vid card that was made by some outfit long out of business. (Could you even run XP on that?) It came with Win-95 as an OEM install. I blew that away, and installed Slackware. With KDE, Mother has had no trouble using this system for sending/receiving E-Mails, Googling for information, or buying stuff from E-Bay. She is so "unknowledgeable" that I doubt she even knows what Linux is, let alone that Slackware is a Linux distro. Hell, she doesn't even know what a "distro" is, or that Linux comes in quite a few variations. Now, it doesn't matter whether or not she clicks on some peculiar E-Mail attachment, and I am not being called constantly to fix something that got broke due to a Win-Virus(tm). Mother had far more frustration working with the Win-Doesn't systems she had at work before retirement. So all that talk about how Linux isn't "ready" for the casual, atechnological user is pure BS.

Brandon, you sound like one of those Winderz "Sys Admins" running scared now that companies are, more and more, beginning to realize just what a "Bill Gates" of goods MS sold them. Perhaps it would be better for you to polish up on your UNIX admin skills, rather than posting the same old non-sense on an anti-MS forum?

[Orethrius]

...to say nothing of the fact that, with the proper knowledge of Fluxbox, the entire system can be a drop-in replacement for XP.  Just map Win+E to Konqueror, and Win+R to the xfce run prompt (can't recall the binary off the top of my head) and you're pretty well set.  Any argument that Windows can't be replaced for the casual user is pure bunkem.

[Kintaro]

I have no further arguement with Muzzy, he is right and, Seig Heil.

[muzzy]

Hey! I didn't even post to this thread... YET!

[Calum]

When Microsoft stop supporting Windows 2000, and stop supporting Windows XP a lot of people will start to have problems not running longhorn. Microsoft will do there usual to push this Operating System onto people. However the 15,000+ people who write under the GPL and other OSS licences will do there usual. I think when longhorn comes out it will be a hive of security holes.

Microsoft still have a lot to do on Longhorn, but who knows, they might run themselves bankrupt before blackcomb.

i would like to see this happen actually. for one thing it would close all the usability gaps that linux apps and windows apps have between them, from an average home user's perspective (if you see what i mean).

BUT

it won't. microsoft have not got where they are today (and stayed there for 2 decades) by being stupid. they will not do something that will drive people to use the ever more user (moron) friendly alternatives.

what do people think about microsoft's possible future strategy on the huge amount of piracy at home that they have been encouraging so far? i don't see how they can help but continue the model of pushing windows to businesses and overlooking home piracy if they want to continue making money.

[themacuser]

Eventually people will realise how bad Microsoft is and then... kerboom!
No way is Windows safer than Linux. I have seen Windows servers and they get screwed up very often. If they aren't effortlessly hacked by some script kiddie, then a virus takes them down. Linux is way more reliable. I'd trust my email and webhost to a Linux computer, no problems. I'd run it on Mac OS 7 if I had to, rather than Windows, it would be WAY more stable!

[sjor]

Although Ive never actually used it propaly, I think Linux is DEFINATLY more stable and secure than Windows. In fact, I think vitually ALL other OSs are more stable & secure than Windows. Windows XP is just Windows 95 with many add-ons piled on top to desguise it's crappiness. The only MS OS I can think of that could have the slightest chance of being secure is MS-DOS, but even that's hackable.

[WMD]

Windows XP is just Windows 95 with many add-ons piled on top to desguise it's crappiness.

...what?

[Calum]

has nobody ever told you? i'm surprised you hadn't already noticed! :-D :-D :-D

(yes i am joking before ANYBODY decides to have a go at me for talking about things i don't understand et cetera)

[skyman8081]

That line brings back so many BAD memories of this place.

(the troll that redefined trolling for himself)