Why is Linux more secure than Windows?
Richard Stiennon has posted some pictures of the effects of an operation executing from Apache on Linux versus one executing from IIS on Windows. They're both complex, but the difference in the level of complexity is amazing. The operation executing? Serving a single web page with a single picture. Follow the article link and see for yourself. |
|
|
Comments (7)
If anything the younger NT based systems should have less 'cruft' and confusion than Linux. Linux started in 1991, the same year Windows 3.1 was released. I can't remember what the version of MS/DOS was at the time.
At most, based on the maturity of the code, they should be similar in complexity.
Microsoft has also claimed to have done a 'total re-write' of their code base several times. When I re-write my code, it is usually cleaner and simpler when I'm done. I've never written an OS, but I've worked on some pretty complex financial reporting systems with a few hundred thousand lines of code. I guess they don't mean what I thought they meant.
I really have to wonder about Microsoft's development methods when I see these two charts.
Amazing.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

*nix use a more or less safe filesystem/multi user setup. While there are limitations of this system it is the first step of many.
Auto execution of Macro's were deemed unsafe in vi in 1986. They have been considered bad since before MSFT started publishing any version of Word.
How many more things have the *nix dealt with 20 years ago and solved? As the saying goes MSFT has been reinventing Unix Poorly.
PS those images are going on my desktop. Those are friggin cool.