Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Joe" <>
Sender: "Joe" <>
Subject: Linux in decline
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:05:26 -0800
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <146501c1b03c$b1a1c5a0$39ef2ecf@TKMSFTNGXA08>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Thread-Index: AcGwPLGhUrDLKyB6Tqyp+6+S6eOHbg==
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
Xref: microsoft.public.msn.discussion:45235

Windows more secure than Linux? Yep!

For at least the first 8 months of 2001, open-source 
poster child Linux was far less secure than Windows, 
according to the reputable NTBugTraq, which is hosted by 
SecurityFocus, the leading provider of security 
information about the Internet. (The company's 2001 
statistics are available only through August 2001 for the 
time being.) According to NTBugTraq, Windows 2000 Server 
had less than half as many security vulnerabilities as 
Linux during the reported period. When you break the 
numbers down by Linux distribution, Win2K had fewer 
vulnerabilities than RedHat Linux 7.0 or MandrakeSoft 
Mandrake Linux 7.2, and it tied with UNIX-leader Sun 
Microsystems Solaris 8.0 and 7.0. A look at the previous 
5 years--for which the data is more complete--also shows 
that each year, Win2K and Windows NT had far fewer 
security vulnerabilities than Linux, despite the fact 
that Windows is deployed on a far wider basis than any 
version of Linux. So once again, folks, you have to ask 
yourselves: Is Windows really less secure than Linux? Or 
is this one of those incredible perception issues? For 
more information and the complete stats, visit the 
SecurityFocus Web site.


RedHay says: Linux can't beat Windows

You could argue that's the idea behind Microsoft's .Net.
Exactly. So if you think about the desktop, if you think 
about it as a geographic location, how did Microsoft get 
to own the desktop? Microsoft did not convince people to 
unplug VMS from their Digital VAX systems in 1979. They 
took advantage of a major shift in technology toward the 
PC, and they became the de facto standard on the new 
technology model, being the PC. 

So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC. 
If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would 
go through the angst of replacing it? This is what's kept 
Apple alive. People like their Apple OS running on their 
computer. There may be a lot of pressure, there may be a 
lot of applications on the Windows PC that they don't 
have on theirs, but theirs works, so why bother? 


Linux more bark than bite

SAN DIEGO, Dec. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- WebSideStory, Inc. ( ), the world's leading provider of 
outsourced e-business intelligence services, today 
reported that despite much hype and expectation in recent 
years, Linux has failed to gain market share from 
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) 
operating systems. As of December 17, 2001, Linux held a 
global usage share of only 0.24 percent, according to 
WebSideStory's StatMarket ( ), a Web 
development optimization service and the leading source 
for data on global Internet user trends. This compares 
with Microsoft's Windows and Apple's Macintosh operating 
systems, which hold a combined global usage share of more 
than 98 percent. For almost three years, Linux usage 
share has fluctuated between .2 and .3 percent, with no 
substantial growth. Usage share is the percentage of 
Internet surfers that are using a particular operating 


Sun opts out as Microsoft and other top companies join 

Microsoft Corp., IBM and a host of rival technology 
competitors on Wednesday said they formed an organization 
to work on standards to make it easier for companies 
share information and do business over the Web. The 
anticipated news sees Microsoft and IBM coming together 
with a string of fierce rivals in the technology sector --
 including Intel Corp., Oracle Corp., SAP AG, Hewlett-
Packard Co. and Fujitsu Business Systems Ltd. The group 
brings together rival camps split between using 
Microsoft's .Net Internet technology and Java, a rival 
technology which was developed by Sun Microsystems Inc. 
Sun Microsystems, a bitter rival of Microsoft, was 
noticeably absent from the line-up. But a spokesperson 
said ``Sun has been and will be committed to supporting 
industry standards as they emerge and evolve,'' adding 
``WS-I is a good concept and bears looking into.'' 

From: "Brian" <>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion
References: <146501c1b03c$b1a1c5a0$39ef2ecf@TKMSFTNGXA08>
Subject: Re: Microsoft  is in decline
Lines: 83
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Message-ID: <YLG88.37294$>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:31:20 GMT
X-Trace: 1013135480 
(Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:31:20 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:31:20 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: microsoft.public.msn.discussion:45242

"Joe" wrote...
> Windows more secure than Linux? Yep!


Let us Review:

<clipped massively distorted and misrepresented fluff>

The fact is, when Microsoft's Windows 2000 operating system (no
applications) has a security bug, that is counted as ONE, when a Linux
distribution (operating system and up to 1500 utilities, daemons and
applications) finds a security flaw in one of it's seldom used third party
programs, it is counted as one for each distribution.

The artilce counted the same flaws in each Linux distro and then added them


The article was founded on such totally moronic principles I am amazed
anyone had the lack of simple logical understanding as to actually quote it.

Why don't we count all the security flaws and exploits of each version of
Microsoft Windows currently in circulation and add them all together?

Windows 98, Windows NT Workstation, Windows NT Server, Windows NT
Enterprise, Windows ME, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000
Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter, Windows XP Home and Windows XP

Shall we even talk about Microsoft SQL, IIS, Exchange/Outlook, OE, IE,
Frontpage extensions, Netmeeting... the list grows daily.

Nuff said?


> RedHat says: Linux can't beat Windows

<clipped for brevity>

So where did Redhat say Linux can't beat Windows?


> Linux more bark than bite

<clipped article long on conclusions but short on specifics>

That is so interesting because according to, Apache on
primarily Linux runs over twice as many web domains as Microsoft.

Further, neither and run on Microsoft
servers? How about that. 8^)

Ya gotta wonder how they counted...



> Sun opts out as Microsoft and other top companies join
> together:

<clipped article about future web standards>

What this has to do with any perceived decline of Linux is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain.


Best regards,

Linux Mystic