The vulnerabilities in every OS are a threat when you connect a server to the Internet...even the MAC, Linux, and Unix systems. They are all full of security holes that can be easily exploited (and will be instantly exploited if your site receives any amount of traffic) if you don't apply patches the second they are released.
In the past week alone we have applied 24 patches (6 security related, 18 bug fixes) to our servers running Fedora (Red Hat Linux). We've applied a dozen patches to our SuSE Linux servers since the start of this year (averages out to 1 per day).
This is the list of Fedora patches (and Linux is a "safe", "secure" OS)
http://fedoranews.org/mediawiki/index.ph..._4_Updates
There is no such thing as a safe OS, and "safer" doesn't matter as long as there is even one hole that can be exploited
Fact is unix-based systems have a much better record. The Microsoft fiends who saved a few pennies at point of purchase and built the monopoly are dying to see others suffer the same unending headaches. It won't happen. I'm sure some vulnerabilities will eventually be exploited, but NEVER to the extent Windows has experienced.
[quote author=mandy link=topic=1510.msg7828#msg7828 date=1137488181]
Quote:...Mac OS is certainly a lot better than Windows...
full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4609968.stm
[/quote]
It's an excellent article and I agree with prettty much everything, BUT...
Bill Gates lovers are a thick-headed bunch. I don't know how to get through to them that there are other alternatives. Mac's could get hit with a virus someday, but over-emphasizing OS X/Unix/Linux vulnerabilities does not help the mindless Gates goose-stepping masses to be "unplugged" from their mindlessness.
I especially agree with this quote in regard to web servers:
Quote:but being better isn't nearly enough...
Quote:but over-emphasizing OS X/Unix/Linux vulnerabilities does not help the mindless Gates goose-stepping masses to be "unplugged" from their mindlessness
I don't think it really matters what anyone says as long as the majority of offices continue to use Windows and the majority of consumer programs continue to be written for Windows. The mass market will buy what it is most familiar with or what is the most popular even if it is crap (eBay and most music put out by major labels in the past decade come to mind here).
If people bought based on quality the main OS in use in offices today would be OS/2 and not Windows XP Pro. When IBM and Microsoft ended their OS partnership on OS/2 and the split occured that resulted in the technically superior/safer OS/2 and the bug ridden Windows NT offices went with the branch that had the familiar Windows name rather than the better OS/2 product.
I'm babbling