Originally Posted by BDA116
The vast majority of Windows patches are overblown by Linux/Apple users. Very laughable indeed. Again, Unix is more secure because of its limited use and limited number of attackers. The security patches for Red Hat were no less severe than the few for Windows. It cracks me up how the Jobs sheeple refer to Windows boxes as virus boxes when their own system is every bit as open to virus attack. Again, there is no point in making a virus for the fruit when nobody uses them so your propogation numbers go nowhere - which is all the makers are worried about.
There were 55 actual security patches for Windows in '05
There were 268 actual security patches for Red Hat in '05
Actually, the real issue is that Microsoft tends to roll patches into one chunk for the whole system, whereas Unix systems release one patch per app per patch.
The numbers really are rather meaningless. I am sure there are statistics that point in each direction. In the end, if I place a Windows machine unprotected on the internet, within 15 minutes it will have more **** on it than a porta-potty seat. Unix boxes tend to not have this problem. In fact, they don't.
Hopefully MS gets their act together and ships Vista with most of the crap remote services turned off rather than on, with a respectable firewall, and with enhanced filesystem permissions, which don't allow a regular user to be an Admin 100% of the time on every thread that gets forked.
My Linux boxen have one or two ports open on them, usually SSH and possibly FTP if it's inside the firewall. Macs also only have SSH and AFP open. All the SSH stuff ONLY accepts SSH2 RSA keys for authentication, no passwords.
The windows boxes seem to have many things open, such as RPC, that tend to break things if you close them off.
OK, I am ranting now, but I would MUCH rather have to deal with a herd of Unix boxen anyday than a Windows infrastructure.