"Maybe microsoft should switch from that unreliable hack-friendly windows 2003 server, and go for something more robust and safe, like maybe ...linux, or FreeBSD."
msucks such uninformed statement as the one above is what gives bullets to those anti linux zealots like parkker and sodablue to use against the rest of us who can find use in either OS. If I can't stand them for being religiously on their side of the fence, i can't stand YOU for giving them valid reasons to attack "open source zealots".
quick stats for today thanks to zone-h:
38 single IP
20 mass defacements
Linux (58.6%)
FreeBSD (15.5%)
Win 2000 (13.8%)
Unknown (6.9%)
Win 2003 (1.7%)
Win NT9x (1.7%)
MacOSX (1.7%)
http://www.zone-h.org/en/index
Any OS is only as secure and reliable as the person administering it. Just because people say Linux is built from the ground up with security and reliability in mind doesn't mean its safer from being hacked.
Based on my own experience I would argue that it is easier for a competent admin to secure a Linux or BSD box than it is to secure a Windows box. I'd also say that Linux or BSD are probably built more secure from the ground up. But saying microsoft should switch to those OS's in order to avoid being defaced is just idiotic!
|