07-28-2003, 10:11 AM
The very nature of open source allows anyone to inspect the security of the code. Microsoft
as made their claims that their products are secure, but they offer NO guarantee. Windows
is closed source with no way for users to fix or diagnose. I don't recall anyone I know ever
saying that the *nux systems were more secure. I will personally state that the *nux operating
systems are more reliable and more robust. There are numerous testimonials of active servers with
uptimes measured in years. Microsoft fixed most of the 'Blue Screen of Death' problems with the
release of Windows 2000, but 'code bloat' has introduced more reliability problems. I personally
stand by the FreeBSD operating system for it's reliability and security. BSD is NOT linux. A default
FreeBSD installation has yet to be affected by a single CERT security advisory since 2000. RedHat
is notorious for turning on VERY insecure services by default. FreeBSD uses the system of kernel
security levels which are more powerful than simple run-levels. They allow the admin to deny access
to certain OS functions such as reading /dev/mem, changing file system flags..etc.
Lastly, let's look at the cost equation. I priced 3 licenses for Windows 2003 Enterprise server for a new
client. It was going to be a little over $8000....gasp. I can run pretty much the same apps utilizing
SAMBA and WINE for the internal clients on a Mandrake Linux or FreeBSD 5.0 for the cost of buying
6 blank CD's.
as made their claims that their products are secure, but they offer NO guarantee. Windows
is closed source with no way for users to fix or diagnose. I don't recall anyone I know ever
saying that the *nux systems were more secure. I will personally state that the *nux operating
systems are more reliable and more robust. There are numerous testimonials of active servers with
uptimes measured in years. Microsoft fixed most of the 'Blue Screen of Death' problems with the
release of Windows 2000, but 'code bloat' has introduced more reliability problems. I personally
stand by the FreeBSD operating system for it's reliability and security. BSD is NOT linux. A default
FreeBSD installation has yet to be affected by a single CERT security advisory since 2000. RedHat
is notorious for turning on VERY insecure services by default. FreeBSD uses the system of kernel
security levels which are more powerful than simple run-levels. They allow the admin to deny access
to certain OS functions such as reading /dev/mem, changing file system flags..etc.
Lastly, let's look at the cost equation. I priced 3 licenses for Windows 2003 Enterprise server for a new
client. It was going to be a little over $8000....gasp. I can run pretty much the same apps utilizing
SAMBA and WINE for the internal clients on a Mandrake Linux or FreeBSD 5.0 for the cost of buying
6 blank CD's.