Sorry but that's totally unquantifiable and ignores the different levels of user/admin and user/OS separation.

 

There is actually a VERY good reason to run anti-virus on Linux that I can think of though...on a file server that is accessed by M$ systems. But that doesn't mean they would be able to infect the Linux system nearly as easily.

 

Sweet lord I can't wait until either Linux dies or get 50% share of home OS's so this banner that linux lovers wave dies. If the average joe had linux on there home computer there would be just as many new viruses written for it as MS. Just like Firefox users running around chanting it's better, I'm starting to here their chatter come down now as they start getting infected regardless. Heres the reality, some programs are better than others. When it comes to typical applications MS produces the standard, some are better in certain areaswhile lacking in others and visa versa. In the end nothing on average out performs in the typical users world. What competes with excel? Open office is missing more than 1/4 of the functions needed. Try to format with its word Corel suite sucks. Linux doesn't support enough software. Maybe one day it'll grow to be the best but right now its just the extremes that keep it alive, maybe one day they will make it better but for now it's way behind. IMO.

 

Sorry but these are more unquantifiable assertions.

The fact is the 4th largest software company in the world exists to clean up the messes created by M$.

 

the whole "*nix is more secure than windows" thing is so stupid. There are patches released for *nix products almost daily. MS releases patches on a monthly basis for the most part, but the people making the thrid party software are, for the most part, not having to constantly patch their software (unlike on *nix systems). A properly patched system of any kind is more secure than an unpatched system running any OS and software package. I love how people who wouldn't know a pointer from a reference say things like "if you look at the OS design..." The "OS design" is not all that relevant.

Some exploits are based on things like buffer overruns. This is when you feed a string to a function that is far longer than the function expects, and has nothing to do with "OS design."

Other exploits, for IE, as an example, take advantage of features built into the browser to benefit users. Malicious jackasses have taken advantage of such features, turning them into security holes rather than the features they once were. The people taking advantage of these features are the problem, not the people who put them there. To say that a feature allowing the installation of software components on demand is a result of "incompentent programmers" is to shout your own ignorance loud and clear.

Permission-based exploits are not confined to Windows systems. Rooting boxes is older than Windows. Some of the same types of exploits that plagued *nix systems 20 years ago are still being done. Market share, and the types of data being stored on the machines being compromised, drive the exploit "business."

If you keep up on patches, say by enabling XP's auto-update feature, use some common sense when browsing by setting IE security to High when surfing hacking and pron sites, and use your head about running email attachments, Windows is as secure for the typical user as any of the other options. Giving up the freedom of chosing from hundreds and thousands of software choices by going to a *nix-based system is a trade-off most people have decided time and again is unacceptable. Sure, BSD is more secure out of the box than an old version of Windows, but who cares when your software choices are so limited? If you are building a server to do one thing, and one thing only, BSD is a fine choice, assuming there is a software package that provides the functionality you require, and is compatible with your other systems. This is a very narrow definition of "better," and I think you all know it. If I want a box that can play games, edit photos, surf the net, play music and video, and will use any of-the-shelf hardware and software I might want, I have maybe one choice out there, and it isn't a *nix system. The usage pattern I just described encompasses a much greater share of the market, and is the reason Windows, which supports all those disparate requirements, rules the marketplace.

Honda has consistently made their cars the most insecure on the road - just check any list of the top ten most stolen. Yet for some reason, none of you are screaming that Honda is irresponsible. There are companies today making far more secure cars, cars that are far harder to steal, but have a larger market share. Where's the constant thread derailments telling people that Ford's are more secure than Honda's? What's with the double standard?

 

Good one.

 

The "power supply design" on the xbox 360 is not all that relevant.

 

No it's not, its the cooling system that might be relevant. As it is Microsoft is taking a loss on the system, they should've anticipated people putting them in spaces that aren't well ventilated, either way they will take it back under warranty and fix the problem.

 

I'm sorry, but the power supply should have been engineered into the box, not strung out on the power cord - its ugly and its bad design, since from reports I've read it can overheat when it lies on carpet. It should be in the box and effectively cooled like the rest of the system. Has MS announced that it will replace systems that fail in this manner?

Also, OS design is very relevant. Any system can be broken into, but it takes a lot more effort to pick three locks than to open three doors. An out of the box Mac OS can survive on the net with a basic connection without getting hacked whereas an out of the box Win XP sstem has a lifespan of about 8 minutes before it gets infected. BBC had a piece where a PC got infected in 8 seconds - its not a matter of concerted attacks, just a matter of getting hit by a random zombie attack.

http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonlin...665&co_pageid=3

 

They are supposedly overnighting replacement systems to customers.

I think they were probably having a hard enough time keeping the system cool with an external power supply(And supposedly this is even an issue). Having it built in was probably not an option given the launch target....sigh... I guess it would have worked if they just made the whole system bigger but you know, form before function!