d7afd7d6   
   XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c   
   mp.sys.macintrash   
   XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash   
   From: reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com   
      
   In article   
   , Derek   
   Currie wrote:   
   > Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My   
   > point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have   
   > to sling at mi2g.   
      
   OK, let's try it this way.  Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G   
   report, almost everyone switched to OS X.  So, we end up with 98% of the   
   servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows.  Question:   
   what would be the result?   
      
   Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to   
   Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.   
      
   *That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless.  Total number of breaches per OS,   
   which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.   
   What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of   
   the servers that were running each OS were breached.   
      
   How many major hosting companies run OS X?  How many run Linux?  If the two   
   OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an   
   order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more   
   Linux servers out there.   
      
   What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.  A report that claims   
   Linux is massively less secure than Windows should have set off alarms for   
   you that should have tipped you off that the study is flawed.  You should   
   have then Googled Mi2G, and found out that they are generally considered   
   to be somewhat of a joke among security professionals.   
      
   --   
   --Tim Smith   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)