NT v.s. LINUX (again)

[cutecode]

I already posted this question resintly.
http://sitepointforums.com/showthrea...threadid=25376

But after reading this article
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nt...LinuxMyths.asp
I'm totally confused.

Here are some exerpts:

"For Web servers, the same PC Week tests showed Windows NT 4.0 with
Internet Information Server 4.0 delivers 41 percent better performance
on a single processor system and 125 percent better performance on a
4-way system than Linux and Apache."

"Linux only provides access controls for files and directories.
In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating
system data structures, has an access control list and its use
can be regulated as appropriate."

"Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate
administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative
capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises
best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an
administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level."

And the list goes on...

What do u think about it?
My boss does not interested in costs of these OS,
He wants the securest OS.

Could someone, PLEASE, give me a link to some article which states
which OSs were more sucsessfully hacked ?

[qslack]

Of course MS is going to say that their OS is better. I believe it was the Halloween Documents that spurred this Linux Myths page.

There is no "best OS"--it all depends on your experience, budget, and what you want to do. To just run simple PHP pages on a WWW server, just about any OS would be fine. If you don't want to pay anything, then Linux, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD would all be optimal. OpenBSD gets "hacked" the least--although, that doesn't really mean anything. Any OS can be secure (at least to a point).

BTW: http://attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html

[tubedogg]

Holy cow...a couple months ago NT hacking skyrocketed...as in jumped like 500 hacks from the previous month. It does appear that Linux is more secure from those charts.

[freakysid]

There are those who would argue that FreeBSD is more secure than the two OSs mentioned. I don't know enough about any of them to judge. But I do at the Microsoft propaganda.

[aspen]

Don't believe what you see from microsoft.

Or from anywhere where the company has a stake in the product.

Only trust independent reviews.

[freddydoesphp]

I thought the pro-linux people would like this article:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...092874,00.html

[Hartmann]

I don't see why anyone would be opposed to Linux and BSD (except M$ ).

Linux servers are going to be faster than WinNT or 2k because the file system is faster. Windows uses the DOS file system which has been proven slower than Linux.

[Michel V]

Isn't DOS going to die when WinXP is out ? Or is the filesystem STILL surviving ?

[James]

The preferred filesystem with Win2000 and XP is NTFS. So FAT and FAT 32 are not recommended any more, however people will probably keep using them anyway