The fact is Linux is much more secure than Windows by any standard. The only excuse to run Windows is that your software vendor is your master, and you are forced to run their software on Windows because they make you.

BTW, I use FreeBSD :)

Much ado has been made about whether or not Linux is truly more
secure than Windows. We compared Windows vs. Linux by examining the
following metrics in the 40 most recent patches/vulnerabilities listed
for Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v.3:

1. The severity of security vulnerabilities, derived from the following metrics:
   1. damage potential (how much damage is possible?)
   2. exploitation potential (how easy is it to exploit?)
   3. exposure potential (what kind of access is necessary to exploit the vulnerability?)
2. The number of critically severe vulnerabilities

The results were not unexpected. Even by Microsoft's subjective and
flawed standards, fully 38% of the most recent patches address flaws
that Microsoft ranks as Critical. Only 10% of Red Hat's patches and
alerts address flaws of Critical severity. These results are easily
demonstrated to be generous to Microsoft and arguably harsh with Red
Hat, since the above results are based on Microsoft's ratings rather
than our more stringent application of the security metrics. If we were
to apply our own metrics, it would increase the number of Critical
flaws in Windows Server 2003 to 50%. - Security Report: Windows vs Linux, at The Register

Posted in business | computer security | linux and bsd | tech jasonn's blog