Why most run Microsoft, not RedHat

[Les Mikesell]

Claude Jones wrote:
> 
> You speak of "limited experience" - I deal with many Windows machines, all day 
> long, day in and day out, in a business environment. Maybe that's the 
> difference. We have an enterprise grade firewall behind the router. Each 
> Windows box runs its own personal firewall. Each machine also runs anti-virus 
> and anti-spyware. That's the price you have to pay - it costs money, and it 
> takes time - it stinks.

And it doesn't help if you get the virus before your anti-virus vendor 
has the cure.

> I prefer Linux but you can't tell me that Windows can't be run reliably - it's 
> just not my experience over many, many years. I don't think it has anything 
> to do with luck.

You can say that because you've been lucky.  We had 2 rounds of 0-day 
exploits.  One took 3 days for the anti-virus vendors to come up with a 
cure.

> The main problems I encounter again and again are with 
> clueless operators who've ignored repeated instructions about dangerous 
> surfing practices and clicking on attachments - those are the two most common 
> causes of problems - are they caused by the operating system? - one can argue 
> that it's the defective design of the system that allows clueless operators 
> to damage their system and I will agree. There are many things that can be 
> done cluelessly in life and will result in mayhem - 

Clueless like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_hi_te/hackers_state_department

The problem is that so much of the system is opaque with undocumented 
'features' that are just waiting to be exploited.  It's not that the 
users are clueless, it is that there is no way for them to have a clue. 
How many people know the minimal set of ports needed to be open  for 
Active Directory and Exchange server to work and what is supposed to 
happen on each, for example?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com