WinInsider

Finally the mainstream press--which has historically over-inflated the value, usage, and potential of Linux--is owning up to some facts that should be fairly obvious: Linux is more vulnerable, less secure, and less capable than Windows. But honestly, how could it be otherwise? Windows has been in development for decades, scales from the smallest handheld devices up to the largest servers in the world, and has an unbelievably dedicated and complex development structure, as I documented in my Windows Server 2003 Road to Gold series on the SuperSite for Windows. What Linux has had going for it is a lot of anecdotal stories about uptime and stability, and not much else. While Linux is certainly a capable and worthy operating system for many situations, it's time to take stock of reality. In one indicative report, published by the Aberdeen Group, we discover that, "Contrary to popular misperception, Microsoft does not have the worst track record when it comes to security vulnerabilities. Also contrary to popular wisdom, Unix- and Linux-based systems are just as vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and worms." The report wasn't sponsored by Microsoft, either, so get your mouse pointer off the Reply button and listen up: It is backed, rather, by publicly available data from CERT, and the report actually concludes that Microsoft's lowered vulnerability rate last year is the direct result of the company's Trustworthy Computing initiative. There'll be more of this kind of information coming in the months ahead, I guarantee it. And let me restate for the record, there's nothing wrong with Linux per se. But blanket statements about the open source rival besting Windows in the categories that matter most to enterprises are simply ludicrous.