Commentary by columnist Paul Thurrott in a newsletter today:
“The mainstream press–which has historically over-inflated Linux’s value, usage, and potential–is finally starting to own up to some facts that should be fairly obvious: Linux is more vulnerable, less secure, and less capable than Windows–a fact I’ve been stating for years. But 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. . . .
“What Linux has had going for it is a lot of anecdotal stories about uptime and stability and not much else. Although Linux is certainly a capable and worthy OS 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.'”
